p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

25) ll-A-9 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:52 AM Sheet 25 of 276 
P.2 

^ fp)^ 

n a w 

tzj, 

II-A-9 

Stationary Source Compliance Division's Summary of PSD and NSPS 

applicability determinations, from 1972 to 1983 
7 . 1 

ca* KUtHliNCb; Olb^TION WHJLTtD 

WOIIATKN 

nermM1NATION 

DISCUSSION 

Al Uhited .Illuminating OD.. Mew 

I la ven. Conn. (Hay 9, 1972 

Hojonnell) 

Did the Lhited .11 lianinating Co. 

aawietice aunstructlon prior t o 

August 17, 1971? 

60.2(1 ) Yes Based upon Contxisticn Engineering's August 13, 

1971, purchase order for ai r preheater equipment for Uilted .Illuminating's toiler - a sufficien t otmnltjnent of resource s t o Indicat e -

that Ct considered Itsel f t o be in a "binding 

agreement or contractual obligation" was nade 

prior t o August 17 , 1971. 

A2 Internal memorandum (Mike 

Janies t o Jack Fanner - Feb. 

14, 1973) 

Would a source be subjec t to NSI>S 

i f i t becane inoperative prior t o 

Auguut 17, 1971, ar»l Uven resinned 

operation afte r August 17, 19717 

60.2(g ) Ito Hie source would not be "new" sinc e the source 

merely take s thos e steps necessary t o return th e 

plant t o it s former operating condition . This 

could not be characterized a s ctmctruction. 

60.2(h) Hie source would not b e "nodi tied" sinc e neithe r 

physical changes nor a changa ln the matted c f 

operation takes place . 

A3 lette r t o .Ind. Stat e Bd. 

Health (.July 3 . 1973 -

Suzuki) 

o f Would tlie replacement of nechanlcal 

dust collector s with more efficien t 

electrostati c precipitator s bring 

a sourc e within the applicabilit y 

Of NSJ-S? 

60.2(h) (to This oauld not ba considered a nodi flea tion since 

there is no increaaa in emissions. 

A4 Slauffer Chem. a>., (July 

31. 1973 - Wilson) 

Would an increase in production' rate 

of a facility be considered a change 

in the iiteUiod of operation? 

60.14(e)(2) Oondl- An increase in production rate If the design capational city of the facility is not exceeded would not ba 

consider ol a change ln the method of operation. 

However, an increase ln traduction rate above the 

design capacity would be a change in the method 

of operation. 

I 

___m_i_m_\ 
ca*. 

RtitRUJCt; QUESTION AFFECTED 

WJGUIATION 

tJKTUtMINAT1CN 

DISCUSSION 

A5 City o f ai d id. Olio 

(5-16-74, Pratt. R-V) 

Did cons true tion of the municipal 

sewage sludge incinerator eminence 

prior t o .Tune 11, 1973? 

60.2(1 ) (to Based cn information submitted to the EPA, i t 

appears a s i f a legall y binding oontractual obligation was entered int o on Jul y 12, 1973. 

A6 Internal Memorandum 

(Stevens t o Wright, 

Buyion Vll , 1-30-75) 

Does 60.14(e ) apply t o just Subpart Part 60 or 

D o r al l source categorie s Bart 60 Subcover od unie r NSPS? par t D 

the exception applie s t o al l source categorie s 

covered under NSrSyiiot Just fossil fuel-fire d 

steam generators. 

A7 Combustion Engineering 

(beals. Region IV, 

4-18-75). 

May a boile r continue t o operat e 

should any major unavoidable malfunction occur in an FGD system? 

60.11(d) Ibwever, i t Is clearl y not the intent o f 60.11(d) 

t o allo w source s t o continue operating for any 

appreciabl e length of time afte r malfunctions ar e 

detected . 

AS Santa Marina Refinery 

(6-18-75 O'Connell-R. IX) 

If modifications to an existing 

facility causet (1) an Increase in 

emissions of a pollutant; and (2) 

an overall decrease in enission of 

that pollutant at 'the source, is 

the facility subject to NSI'S? 

60.1 4 Ito An overal l decreas e In mission s from the sourc e 

i s not oonsidered a modification under 60.14(d) . 

Update - This determination MIS baaed on the EPA 

definitio n of stationar y source a s a combination 

of facilities . Using this definition . (EPS di d 

not apply when an existin g facilit y was modified 

such that ne t emissions o f any pollutant (ran 

the entir e plant (combination of facilities ) 

decreased. The U.S. Court of J^peals for 

Washington, D.C. in ASARCO v. EPA (January 27 . 

1978), ruled the EPA definitio n must be rejected 

a s inconsisten t with the language of the Clean Ai r 

Act. If modifications t o an existin g facilit y 

cause an Increase in pollutant emissions, the 

facilit y i s subjec t t o NSPS, even i f net emissions 

a t the plant decrease . 

x: K-v.-a-*fc.r*v*y.«ttMwr|V"-"'?r -T T H --•"*••"•-':"- ••- -y "IL' '-••/ • t.H * .,'.—•'., ••'!-» '.;.f **•.*. 1 i.afl >|K • I ,( f '""• • 

M i I..H. J 

[ 
r 

a**: RErUUNCF. QHE&IUON AFt'-EX.TH) 

RUGULATJON 

DtTERMINATION DISCLBSION 

A-9 tscanaba Paper Mill 

(8-5-75 , McUxiald, R-V) 

Does installatio n of nozzles 

allowing existin g toiler s to 

burn No. 6 fuel oi l constitut e a modification? 

60.14(e)(4 ) No The facilit y is exempt under 60.14(e)(4 ) because 

this unit was already turning | 2 oil . 

A-10 tftviromvental Products 

(11-7-75 , Wilson to CoJien) 

Does an opacit y monitor which 

averages we r a 5 minute period 

meet §60.11 requi raneiits7 

60.11 COndi- Since regulations stipulat e a 6 minute averaging 

tiona l period, users of the 5 minute averaging apparatus 

must agree ln writin g t o EPA's us e of excess 

emission reports (based on 5 minutes) t o initiat e 

enforcement o f 60.11(d). 

A-l l Gleason, OOC, t o Carroll, 

USSli, 9-26-75 

Does nodular control of sources 

with installatio n phased over an 

extended time period nte t NSPS 

requ i rement s? 

Sec . Ill , tto "EPA lacks affirmativ e authority t o permit cperaCAA. tion of a source not in tota l compliance with 

NSPS, unless non-ocmpliance is...beyon d the 

source owner's control- " 

A-12 Olin Corp. Sulfuri c Acid 

Pliuit (10-8-75 . Harrison, 

(R-Vl) 

Calculations indicat e tliat a process notificatio n will |robal>ly 

not result in an increase in 

emissions, l>ut Uiis is not certain . 

Are performance tests necessary? 

60.2(h) Vea lests must IK made before and afte r the modification for emissions of SOj and acid mist. 

13 

01 
CODE: REPEICE-NCE. 

A-13 Memo, Stevens t o Ptatf 

11-17-75 

pUKSTUW AFFhSCItl) 

liFxajfAI'lON MlNATION 

DISCUSSION 

A used refinery process healer is 

being converted from natural gas 

to naptlia fuel tor installation 

in another refinery. Arc emissions in U>e previous installation 

or Iran tin; replacud unit at tho 

new installation considered in 

determining Oie an>licability of 

Part 60V 

60.2(h) Relocation or ownership change docs not constitut e 

a modification. Clianging the unit to burn naptlia 

does constitut e a modification if a>; emissions 

increas e relati\*e bo ti e same unit in its previous 

installation . 

A-14 lette r to Michigan Dept. 

o f Natural Resources 

(R. Wilson t o D. Carlson) 

6 January 76 

Is an incinerator which was 

partiall y constructed prior 

t o August 17, 1971, aid was 

recently ormpleted unlet a new 

construction permit subjec t to 

NSPS? 

60.2(i) Ves Since tire construction was not continuous, the 

facilit y is subjec t t o NSPS. 

A-15 lette r t o Pliotanation Inc. 

(K. Wilson to R. Iloiiiisoth) 

19 January 76 

Is it possibl e t o inle<jilately cal i- 60.13 

brate a double ended transinissxaneter (d)(3) 

cn a routine basis by ii«le|»_-mleiitly 

checking each emi? 

No The ligh t projection, ligh t detection , and 

instrument electronic s should be calibrated as a 

unit to provide ti e systtm check required. 

A-16 Mono (E. Idiicli t o Dave Kee) 

15 Oct. 76 

Do NSPS apply to sources reconstructed alte r Uie- |«o[0.sal date 

for lli-> applicabl e standard? 

60.15 Yes Reconstructed sources are bounl by the same 

applicabilit y data as new sources. 
uui*: RM-'LVI-IMCI. otifLsrioN AFTEX-TEID 

RE-GIIIATION 

ItTll.RM1NAT10N 

DISCUSSION 

A-17 lette r t o thvirorinental 

rata Corp. (R. Wilson to 

II. lord) 19 Jan. 76 

I tow mud i time can lie used for 

dail y calibratio n cheeks on 

opacit y monitors, and lew sliould 

data (-resen tat ions liandle this 

check? 

60.13(e ) 12 minutes should be sufficien t tine for a dail y 

calibratio n check. This would result in the 

emission of two 6 minute averages. Ihe data kept 

on fil e a t the source should reflec t thes e cali -

bration checks, which should be excluded Iran any 

excess anissio n calculations. 

A-18 lette r t o Reliance 

Instrument Manufacturing 

Corp. (R. Ajax to W. I byes) 

24 Feb 76 

Is a transinissaneter vjiich docs 

not include a met lied for producing a simulated zero opacit y 

condition acceptable as a 

continuous nonitoring ilevice? 

60.1 3 No Significant negativ e error s could go undetected. 

(d) , (e ) Also, the use of effluen t opacit y measurement a s a 

part o f a calibratio n procedure may be unworkable 

di e t o inabilit y t o obtain stabl e stack effluen t 

opacity . 

A - l 9 Mono (J . Vernet to K. Ibaly) 

2 March 76 

Was construction of Chevron's 

planned refinery facilitie s 

begun lefor e June 11, 1973? 

60.2(g ) No Even though the construction of the storage 

facilitie s for this refiner y was contracted befor e 

June 11, 1973, refinerie s and storage facilitie s 

are separat e affecte d facilitie s under NSPS, e o 

the date o f storage facilit y construction i s 

irrelevant. 

A-2 0 lette r (I). Goo twin to 

G. McCowan) 24 March 76 

Is a specifi c <tita reduction 

nonitoring teclmiipie which 

involve s wet I a s is measurement acceptabl e iiitlcr l^'I'C? 

60.13(a ) "Alternative Rata Reduction Procedures Using Wet 

Basis Qcygen Stack Measurements" was publlsha i in 

the Cctote r 12, 1976 Federal Registe r 

(41 m 44838). 

A-21 Memo (R. Wilson to 

I). Ikmsen) 18 May 76 

May one se t of monitorinj systems 

l e place ! on a oriunon st.ick to 

measuie emissions from 3 fossil 

fuel-fire d steam generators? 

60.1 3 Yes If tire affects! facilitie s liavirrj thei r effluents 

combined ar e al l subjec t to the same emissions 

standards, this is permissible . 

TJ 

^1 
C U* RIl-'LRhaNCt: QUESTION AFVULTtX) 

RtXaJIATlON 

laflKRMiNATICN DISCUSSION 

A-22 Meno (It. Wilson to 

1. Ilickstein) 1 April 76 

.Is a new toile r insta l lo ! a s an 

auxiliar y to an existin g boile r 

a mollification of an existin g 

source , bringing loth tlie new and 

old toiler s under NSPS? 

60.5 No Only Ure new boile r would be subjec t t o NSPS 

A-23 letter to Plateau, Inc. 

(T. Harrison to W. Ifagler) 

19 aXily 76 

Same as A-l 3 See A-l3 

A-24 Memo (T. Harrison to 

E. Reich) 12 August 76 

Revised 24 Novemtaer 76. 

Is a gas fired generator which 

has teen mndifial to turn fuel 

o i l required t o meet NSI'S only 

when turning fuel oil ? 

60.2(h) No NSPS apply to any stationar y source which contains 

60.1 an affected facility , the construction or modification of which i s coninencai afte r the dat e of 

publication of the standard applicabl e to that 

. facility . 

A-25 lette r to Iynatron 

(R. Ajax t o R. Molly) 

20 August 76 

Does tlie lynatron Model 1100 on -

stack calibratio n technique conform 

t o tlie zero sp;iri system dieck 

requirements for cn«icity monitoring devices? 

60.13(d) Yes However, tlie performance specification s ar e to be 

(3) met by each affects! instrument. As ouch, 

confonnaiice to NSPS can onl y be determined on an 

iristruiuent-by-instrument basis and any premarket 

approval or certificatio n of a particula r instrument model or product line is inappropriate . 

TJ 

bo 
CU*. REFEHI-INCE: U.EiTH*. AFFECTED 

REKUIAT10N 

DfcTtRM1NAT10N 

DISCI BSION 

A-26 letter to Clark Oil & 

Refining Corp. 

(T. Voltaggio to K. Bruggink) 

27 August 76 

Does tlie Tutwiler netlicd (IXJi* 

Metlod 9-59) adequately denonstrate onnpl iance with SO2 

rei'S for tie Wood River 

Refinery? 

60.8(b) Yfes Ihis determination does not mean that the Tutwiler 

(4) method is an approved equivalent or alternative 

metlod for NSPS compliance. ' 

A-27 letter to Baker f. Eeniels 

(T. Voltaggio to J. Carney) 

26 August 76 

a) Will construction of a proposed sulfur recovery facility 

constitute modification of a 

refinery? 

b) Wil 1 construction of a iroposed sulfur recovery facility 

at an existing refinery constitute 

construction of a new sulfur 

recovery plant under NSPS? 

60.2(h) No 

Conditional 

The sulfur recovery facility will not increase 

emissions from any affected facility. 

Proposed NSPS for sulfur recovery plants were 

published in 41 FR 43866 on October 4, 1976. 

Should construction eminence after this proposal 

date the facility would be subject to NSPS. 

A-28 letter to Nubert II. Wayner 

Co. (R. Ajax to W. Irespasz) 

30 August 76 

a) Docs the leeds am! Northrup 

single pass opacity transmissoneter meet tlie continuous noiiitoring requirement of NSl"S? 

b) Is a s|an sol at 100% 

opacity acceptable? 

60.13(d) 

(3) 

No 

No 

The leeds fc Northrup instrument does not provide a 

system check necessary for acceptable perfonnance. 

Span value should be limited to provide an 

exiianded scale across tlie range of tie emission 

standard. 

c) May tie requii unent for tlie 

iieasutenient of (jmcity le satisfiul ly averaging ovei discreet 

6-mirnite [cricals? 

60.2(x) Yes Six minute periols are defined as being discreet. 

L 
cu*; REyi-aHENCI-: QtillSTIU, AI-FELTU) 

REXAJIATION 

rt.TE.RMINAT1CN 

DISCISSION 

A-29 lette r l o Qtark-Mahoning 

(O. livel y to G. VJialey) 

I Cutoler 76 

Does ti e dismantl iiTj an) rein -

stallatio n of part of a facilit y 

constitute; new construction or 

modification which would bring i t 

under NSPS? 

60.14(a ) No It is not a modification sinc e ther e is no 

60.15(b) increase in an i as ions. It i s not new construc -

tion (reconstruction) sinc e thes e changes would 

not cost nore than 50% o f ti e cost of an entir e 

new facility . 

A-30 lette r t o PPG Industries 

Inc. (O. livel y t o T. Taylor) 

5 October 76 

Did PIG Industrie s coniience 

construction on its II ami 12 

waste heater prior t o 

August 17, 1971? 

60.2(i ) No A purchase order showed that ti e unit was ordered 

on October 14, 1974. 

A-31 lette r t o Joy Manufacturing 

Co. (R. Ajax to 

G. Bercovitz ) 8 October 76 

Does the Joy Manufacturing 

Opacity Monitor on-slack calibration teelmicjue conform t o 

tlie' zero span system dieck 

requirements for opacit y monitoring <levices? 

60.13(d) Yes Ibwever, the performance specification s are to be 

(3) net by each affected instrument. As such, 

conformance t o NSPS can only be detennined on an 

instrument-by-lnstrument basis anil any premarket 

approval or certificatio n of a particula r instru -

ment no lei or product lin e is inappropriate . 

See A-25. 

A-32 lutte r to Giant Refinery 

(T. Harrison t o A. Morris) 

13 May 76 

Did Giant Refinery c\jiinejiee 

construction prior to 

June 11, 1973? 

60.2(i ) Mr> Construction began in October of 1973. 

A-33 lette r t o Southern 

Union Gas (Jo. (T. Harrison 

t o II. Knox) 21 April 76 

Did Southern Union Gis (.U. 

eminence <x«isf me t ion <m itt 

letrolei m liquiils stoi.i'ie 

vessels at lovii»|stou, N.M., 

prior lo June II, 1973? 

60.2(i) No 'lie construction contract with Foster Wheeler was 

dateal 9/10/73. 

o 
S2 c.

z 

 — 

a

11 

 5 

a; 

5 

is 

5 

2 

•a 

'i 

> • 

> 

2a 

a 9 

F3 

1 = 

•« 01 X 

o •-. - i 

°f 

si ... 

O 01 w 

a. — 

1) il 'J 

•aa" 4^ $ 

— fl o cfl u _ — 

•a. .V . 

>aaJ (N 

1* 

0 a9 

w X P 

ID 

U f l a 

3 < > 

OJ s — —• m 

i 

il = >.j* a 

•u w ^ a. w 

u « i S i 

4) O la 0 fl Jl la 

•a S = ffiaS? 

BllKI»;« ; 

to 

Oi 

Ji 82 

in . J 

2 2Z 

. fi s 

ii g 

3 <A 

oi -

u a o 

^ 2 fl 

u 2 aj 

B = 

c. c —> 

m 

oil 

2 £ "u 

u

•o 

 IS 

.a. v£ 

5 • 

z u 

4 

Is 

£

3-a

 XJ 

* 

3 S5 

£

0

 a 

 w 

• kl 

C SJ 

0 *"" 

^ 5 

?

y 

 «• 

La J 

a's 

a. 3 

a | 

(N 

: * 

li 

9 XJ 

z -u 

U (N 

a -

; £; 

0 

. 3i2 

10 -J c 

a - J •-. 

= 3 0 

aa = ~ 

O O 1 

>Ja .J ~ * 

fl " 

31 a 

fl

\xl 

 U 

— 91 

aa (71 

tl — 

£ U 

• J - 5 

2 . 

i 

2*1 

fM 03 

;

i i 

Z 

§ 

•^ m 

3 ^ 

? 2 

5 "" 

10 V 

e l 

CJ 

0 C ^a 

fl — 

•a £ a 

5 *J «. 

Oa -aa 

01 

"53 I Si S 

3 U 

Z X J 

O g 

C 

fl

L

 c 

e 

•a 

fl o i^ 

fl • — : 

ir. « J 

'

3

 a3 " " 

•- 10 3 

fl i*. 0 y 

•c 

i! 

"*

M 

^ 

a

X 

i 

•

0 

1 

3 

u 

"

TM 

7 

; 

,fl 

cj 

aa

0 

l 

r» 

r

>a 

-

S 

>, a

—

J 

. 

IZ ' 

<

aS 

u 

o ! 

Q

2 

J . 

Si 

10 

(0 

5

'C 

a 

 < 

a

a 

j 

1 : 

0 

c 

0 

c 

fl 

01 -

c 

• 

3

"S 

1 • 

3 Si 

(J s 

2 1 

-

 m 

3 H 

w -JI fl — 

c j i — 

:i S T 

j3 5 "3 3 -

•J -J La -Z 

«:••:•• » 

« s '-S a I 

i S w - _ > 

-a 3 S.C ~ T 

I i 
cunt mi'mtaNLE (Allium IN AFKHCTKI) 

IttXJIIIATlCIM 

ULTL'RM1NAT10N DISCUSSION 

A-38 Meno t o R-IV (E. Heidi 

t o II . Uercjnan) 

5 Jul y 77 

In detennining wliether a modifi - 60.1 4 

catio n lias occurred, does L'l'A (b)(1) . 

or the source have tlie Imnlen o f (b)(2) , 

proving whettier or not unissions (d ) 

fra n an existin g facilit y have 

increased? 

Although $60.14(b)(1 ) indicate s tha t tliere i s an 

initia l burden on tbe Agency t o consider the 

an lesion factor s i n AP-42 to detennine i f tlier e 

i s an increase i n on lesions , tlie burden shift s 

to the source i f AP-42 (o r another superior alter -

nativ e unissio n factor) fail s t o clearl y indicat e 

an increase o r decrease l n ani ssions. In the 

situatio n vhere the emission level cannot tie 

established clearly , both the provisions o f 

§60.14(d) an ! §60.14(b)(2 ) Indicat e tha t the 

burden i e c n the source to demonstrate to the 

Administrator' s satisfactio n tha t the changed 

conditions do not resul t i n an increase i n emissions. YDU nay proceed on the assumption that , 

since aniasions cannot be determined clearly , 

ther e lias lee n an Increase i n emissions, and 

permit source documentation that there lias been 

no increase slould the -assumption be disputed. 

A-39 lette r to Hawaiian lilec. 

Cb. (li . teich to 

K. Hell ) 18 Jul y 72 

Does a lette r of intent to purchase components for a promised 

facilit y constitut e omuencing 

construction? 

G0.2(i ) Con- (lice a lette r of inten t to purchase i s issued, 

ditjoua l there i s usuall y a period during which the orde r 

can be cancelled a t no cost to the purchaser. 

Afte r ti e dat e upon which the onle r cannot be 

cancelled without incurrin g a cancellatio n charge, 

t i e purchaser ltas entered into a contractua l 

obligatio n t o construct. 

A-40 Mono to K-Vl (li. Utich 

l o II. Dersinaii) 19 July 77 

a ) Must lil"A or the auiie e [lov e 

that a malfunction lias i-n.vurrud? 

!•) I f a mal fiinct ioniivj :j)in>-e 

does i«'l expul i t ionsly wove hack 

int o cxiiipl iatH-e, is it stil l 0.11-

siilela l to l e in a slat e of inalfuuclion? 

GO. I I 

6(1.11 (d ) n-> 

lli e source lias the lurden of proving that a malfunction hat) occur raj . 

SlKii a source would l « considered to have noved 

fran a stat e o f mal function to a stat e of noncoii|)l iance . 
am; RI-MiMiNLli (AHisrioN AKHX.TH) 

RUGUIAT10N rcrERM1NATI0N 

DISCtSSION 

A-41 Muio t o R-1V (li. Heidi to 

T. GiM»s) 23 August 77 

.Is tlie la s is of the existin g 

facilit y or the lasi s of tlie 

entir e stationar y source used 

in tlie calculatio n of the annual 

asse t guideline repai r allowance , 

which is referred to in the 

definitio n of capita l expenditure 

in Section 60.2(U>)? 

60.2 

(UJ) 

'ID determine whether or not a modification has 

occurred due t o an increase in production rate , 

compare the amount of money spent for physical 

or operational change t o tlie existin g facilit y t o 

the product of the existin g facility' s basis ami 

tlie annual asse t guideline repai r allowance for 

tlie existin g facility . If more than one existin g 

facilit y i s located ln the same stationar y sourc e 

and tliere is an increas e in emissions fran both 

facilities , use the basis and repai r allowance of 

eadi separate existin g facilit y for determining 

whether or not a modification has occurred. 

A-42 Memo Ui R-IV (E. Raich t o 

J . Wu) 29 Sept. 77 

Miat procedure should lie fi>l lowud 

when an af foeta l facilit y has not 

been performance tested in tlie 

180 day period following startup 

due t o shutdowns cause*! liy equipment malfunction? 

A-43 Memo t o K-1V (li. Reich Same as A-39 

t o K. Iiii Hips) 30 Seiit. 77 

60.8(a ) Consider issuing a 113(a) order requiring the 

owner or operator to notif y tlie Administrator 

upon restartup (by telephone ; t o lie followed by 

confirmation in writing) and als o requiring a per -

fomiance test a s soon as practicabl e tliereafte r 

but no late r than 30 days afte r restartup. .If th e 

facilit y is unable to operat e a t the'maximum production rat e for tlie initia l performance test, a 

sul>sequent purfonnance test may be required when 

the facilit y achieves maximum production ln order 

t o assure eunpliance with tlie standard. 

See A-39 

A-44 Maio t o It-VIl (li. Reidi 

t o li. Ste|4ienson) 

20 iJecemlxsr 77 

Is a steam generator wliose capita l 

cost of reconstruction is only 43% 

of the cost of a «xiup>i.il >lc new 

steam generator subject l o NS'.'ii 

due to reconstruction? 

60.IS No If the fixed capital cost (Including al l lalxir 

costs) of reconstructing the affected facilit y 

( as defina i in the applicabl e subpart) is less 

tlian 50% o f the onut of an entirel y new affected 

facility , then the affected facilit y Is not subjec t t o NSPS. 
UJ* : RIl'liRLNLIi QMiSTKM 

A-45 Meno t o R-l (li. 

t o C. K. ftnos) 

5 January 78 

Reich 

AtVlaCTI-J) 

M-XJUIATKJN 

DfcTKRM J NATION 

DISCUSSION 

Does an as|Jialt concret e 

plant wliose "dryers; systems 

fur screening, handling, 

storing , ani weighing lo t 

aggregate ; systems for mixing 

asplialt concrete ; and tlie 

loailing, transfer , aril storag e 

systems associated with emission 

control systems" liave I ecu 

replaced, subject t o NSI'S due 

t o reconstruction? 

60.15 

60.90 

Yes All o f tlie components of the affected facilit y 

were replaced except for the systems for loading, 

transfering , and storing mineral filler . Tbe 

fixed capita l cost (including al l lalo r coats) of 

reconstructing tlie affected facilit y (as defined 

in 60.90 ) exceeds 50% o f the oost of an entirel y 

new affecte d facility . 

1) the estimated lif e of the affected facilit y 

afte r replacements i s substantiall y the same a s 

the lif e of a comparable new facility ; 

2) tlie ccinponents being replaced contribut e t o 

ncet o f the emissions from tlie facility ; ami 

3) there appear to he no unreasonable economic o r 

technical limitation s on compliance inherent in 

the proposed replacements. (Please note that 

tliese othe r criteri a ar e only considered afte r tlie 

50% capita l cost criteri a is satisfied. ) 

A-46 lette r to Texas Air 

Umtro l hoard (li. Reich 

t o J . Key) 0 l-'eb. 78 

Uses HiviiXHUipental Uita (tjrp's 60.1 3 

zero ji g proculure meet the (d) 

requirements of §60.13(d)? 

Ns Ihis teduiique may be an acceptable alternativ e 

procedure for thei r specifi c instrument. 

A-47 Meiio t o K-iV (li. Reich 

t o V. Traina) 

13 Feb. 70 

ro the reconstruct icm regulations 

apply from the .til e ol |ni|>>s.il 

of any stand,ml which noy apply? 

60.15 Ves 'Hit; reconstruction regulations were promulgate! 

long afte r many rfc'I'S had already leen promulgatal. 

Hefore tlie reoonstniction regulations were proposed, i t WHS rur tollc y t o nuke an existin g 

source which wus reconstructs subject t o t\EIS i f 

i t was dctunnined that the source wus "reliuilt t o 

sudi an extent that it was essentiall y a new 

source". 'Ilie reconstruction regulations were iro -

niil.jjtul t o clarif y tlie metliols tliat UA would 

use lo <let ermine whether a reconstructed source 

would qualif y as a iiew source ani l e subjec t t o 

IMSI-S. 
si 

si 

3 

2 

•5 2 jj 

S B 

O -

RSM* 

y a <u (N CM 

I I5 ^ p £ = | 

fi g^ 5 - ^ 

•C t J C 8 

c » n 3 

V -S — r -

5Tg

 a

 " 

"3 Cn b i | <u 

tO 0 aW «« * 

ss;~8 3 w 

2 •« p oi"" oi 3 

•o o a o XJ 8 s 

—.0 1 

g-

,1

 a 

OS 01 

13 

5 

£ 

< 

i 

•jg o g g -g J 

=,£ 35 s 

oi <w iw g o a 

6 —* «H 2. 

_ *

r 

* £.U4 J 

TJ « j) q 

r-sfa2

 3

i 

Q , C w <o 

Z •" oi o a M 

8 

"n S 

xjS^^ B 

xJ V c xi xi u J; 

* . S ? -J 

»^^o S 8 2 

01 - i 

•c 5 o 

••< la 

HI xJ Q 

10 J 

CO 

•3 ® -S 

a xi 

s 
ounii HUdNliMCai CJI II -ST ION AKFHLTED 

K1UUIAT1CN 

IJiTERMJNATION 

DISCUSSION 

A-50 Meiii) l o K-VI (E. Iteich t o 

II. lierymaii) 9 May 78 

Does conversion frun gas l o coal , 

gas to oil, or oil to coal in a 

wet process portlairJ cement kiln 

constitute inolificat ion iixler 

ICFS? 

60.14 ND A wet process portlairl cement kiln wliidi switches 

(e)(4) frcin gas io oil, gas to coal, or oil to coal, 

qualifies for tlie exemption ureter 40 CFR 60.14(e) 

(4) because it has the capability bo turn these 

alternative fuels. 

A-51 letter to Irivirosphere 

(W. Stevenson to 

T. Oirney) 22 May 78 

May source-specific opacity 

standards te established under 

NSI'S? 

60.11 

(e) 

Yes 

A-52 letter to lixxon 

(!•'. lorter to. T. Rioads) 

13 Sept. 78 

a) Does a physical or (jperational 60.14 

change to an existing stationary 

gas turbine constitute iirnlification if emissions of NUX do it.it 

increase in tennis of pnu.ls par 

liour? 

b) Would LI tnl a is l. ion of an alter- 60.14 

native fuel whicii reiiulls in (e)(4) 

increased emissions of t*JK 

const itule iimdi f icat im if the 

existing gas turbine vtis 

originally designt«1 with tlie 

cajti) i i I i ty to I urn this alternative fuel? 

INC 

No 

As long as emissions of tf\ in tenns of pounds 

per hour do not increase, the stationary gas 

turbine will not be considered to he nodified. 

If ani ssions of NC),. increase, then data and 

infonnation outlining the design capability of the 

existing gas turbine to turn the alternative 

fuel should be evaluated. 

TJ 

01 
a* ni KH'l-WNirii Qtii-yi:n-N AFFULTED 

RBGIJIATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

A-53 Moio t o H-V1II (E. Reich 

t o U Vinson) 2/27/79 

Are Montana Dower Company's 

Golstrip Units 3 anti 4 subjec t 

t o NSI'S, sul>|virt D, rather tlian 

suli ar t

 lia ? 

60.2(i ) Yes Oonstruction cn units 3 and 4 coninenced prior t o 

the proposal dat e of tlie 161% fur electri c utilit y 

steam generating units. The two units will be 

subjec t to the requirements of 40 CFR 60 subpart 

D. However, Montana Dower must maintain a continuous program of oonstruction and the facilitie s 

must be conpleted within a reasonable time ; stculd 

Montana Power experienc e any sel f imposed treaka 

in thei r oonstruction schedule which would be 

counter to tlie requirements that a continuous progran be maintained, thes e units may becone subjec t 

t o sulipart ta. 

A-54 Meno t o R-I II (E. Iteich t o 

II. Ileim)' 2/22/79 

a) lias a source which runoves 

a i r pollutio n ecjuipnent, as a 

result of a SIP relaxation, 

undertaken a nol i f icat ion? 

b) Mould such a modi f icat ion 

subject tlie source to NSI'S 

retpiiiuiients, i f tlie source was 

wt subjec t |irior lo tlie 

ncalif ication? 

60.14(a), Yes A modification i s defined a s "any physical o r 

60.14(e)(5 ) operational change t o an existin g facilit y which 

results in an increas e in the unission rat e of any 

pollutant t o which a standanl applies". One 

exemption t o tills definitio n i s "the addition or 

use of any devic e whose primary function i s tlie 

reduction of ai r pollutants, except where an 

emission control system i s removed". In this cas e 

where an anissio n control ays tan is being runoved, 

the operation is not exenlptel and is considered 

a modification. 

60.14(a ) \e s "l)icn nodificatlon , an existin g facilit y shal l 

become an affected facilit y for each pollutant t o 

whidi a standanl appl ie s and for which tliere is an 

increase in tlie anissio n rat e to the atmosphere." 
tXJUi REFERENCE QUESTION AFFBLTED 

RfcXJUlATlON 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

A-55 Maio to K-III (E. Reidi 

to S. Wassersug) 4/12/79 

Has I'EICO's unit 14 at the 

Dickerson generating station 

coninenced construction for the 

purposes of NSI'S? 

60.2(i) Conditional Ihe term "commenced" states, "with respect to the 

definition of "new source" ln $lll(a)(2 ) of the 

Act, that an owner or operator lias undertaken a 

oontinous program of oonstruction or nodification 

or that an owner or operator has entered into a 

contractual obligation to wdertake and oanplete, 

within a reasonable time, a continuous program of 

construction or nodification". 

PETCO has entered into a contractual obligation 

for the oonstruction of mi t 14. There is, however, 6<aie question as to whether PU'OO has (1) 

completed oonstruction of the boiler or (2) undertaken a continuous program of oonstruction. The 

issue is not only whether PEPOO can satisfy these 

criteria, but also the timing of its activities. 

While PEPCO may not have undertaken a continuous 

program to complete unit 14 as early as 11/14/72, 

when tlie original contractual ooiinitment was 

entered into, it may in fact have ccmnenced a continuous program prior to the proposal date of tlie 

revised NSPS for fossil fuel-fired utilit y steam 

generators. 

Ihe status of oonstruction of unit | 4 must be 

ascertained before a determination can be made; 

liowever, if PEPOO has interrupted its construction 

program for a period in excess o f 2 years, through 

tlie (resent time, tlien tlie init would be 6<*>ject 

to tlie revised standard. 

Hxlatei (See next page) 

00 
OOUE REFERENCE tHH-i.TI.iN AFFELTED 

RfcTJUIATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCISSION 

A-55 lette r from R-ILI t o PEPCO 

(Scliranm to Kirk) 7/23/79 

ND Tlie PEPOO progran of construction does not satis -

fy tlie definitio n of "caunenced oonstruction" 

because construction has not been continuous and 

wil l not be completed within a reasonable time . 

There wil l be a 6 1/2 t o 7 1/2 year gap in constructio n from the time the preliminary sit e 

activitie s were completed and al l boile r components received t o the time of the earliest projected dat e of actual oonstruction. This i s no t 

a continuous program within the meaning of the 

Act. A reasonabl e time frame for a plant such 

a s Dickerson 4 would be fran 5 t o 7 years. 

Completion i s now expected i n 1987 - an 11-13 

year period and not within a nonnal time frame. 

Tie reasons presented by PEPOO for this 11-13 

year period do not justif y the delay. 

A-56 Memo t o R-Vlll (E. Ifcich 

t o L. Vinson) 20 Aug 79 

May a source remove continuous Monitors duriuj performance testing ? 

60.1 3 No Under sectio n 60.13(e) , continuous nonitoring 

(b) , (e ) systai e must be in continuous operation except 

for system breakdowns, repairs, calibration' 

cliecks, and zero and span adjustments. These 

exceptions do not include parfonnanoe testing . 

CO 
twe 

a 

RirU<b.CE (JUI-ST10N AlVU.-ltD 

RU3JLATIOM 

ULTEHMINATION 

P1SCU&10N 

A-b7 Utte r (I4.1JI to til 11) 

1/9/BO. 

<Ji wluhct; Ui U|«tite cet t.iJu «juu 

turbines to improve efficiency 

and out|*it. UxJcr this fiogram 

there.will probably be an increase 

in NQ„ emissions Uicn firing 

distillate fuel, and a greater 

decrease when firing natural gas. 

a) If, after the qpdate, the 

turbines ate fired part of the 

time on natural gas and the 

remainder of the time on distillat e 

fuel, such that the yearly average 

N0X and SO2 emissions do not 

increase, would this be a 

modification? 

b) Docs EPA consider on either 

a de minimus or administrative 

necessity basis that'certain small 

increases in the .level of emissions 

would not require that the changes 

be classified as modifications? 

60.14(a) Yes B/en though the turbines will emit less over the 

60.14(b) course of a year, there will be increases uf.cn 

distillate fuel is used. Since modification is 

based on. increased emission rate, art! emission 

rate is expressed in terms of Kg/hr, any increase 

in anission rate during the periods uhen 

distillate fuel is burned, will require the source 

be considered modified for NSI'S purposes. 

60.14(b) No There is no specific de minimus level or percent 

thereby increases below that level would not be 

considered modifications. If anission levels 

increase, a modification will be deemed to have 

occurred, Emissions rates can he determined front 

either Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (AP-42) or other emission factors if they 

demonstrate a clear increase or decrease. If the 

anission rate is based on results fran manual 

anission tests or continuous nonitoring. Appendix 

C (Student's t test) shall be used to determine 

if an increase or decrease, has occurred. In this 

instance, a modification occurs only if the 

emission rate after the change is statistically 

significantly higher than the rate before the 

Change. 

c) Are before and after 

emissions based on actual 

emissions, under hSPS? 

60.14 Yes Under NSPS, emission rates before and after a 

change arc based on actual source* emissions. 

Citinj fran the preamble to the proposal provisions for NSPS modifications (39 FH 36946): " Jbr 

an existing facility to undergo a modification 

there must be an increase in actual emissions ". 
are REFBtQCE amsnou AFFHCTH> 

RBaULATICM 

LETEHMUMTIOH 

vr B- La.. 

DISCUSSION 

A-58 Memo (Reich to Snith) 

4/15/80. 

At what point in time will 60.2(1) 

NSPS regulations apply to 60.14(e)(6) 

sources such as prefabricated proposed 

internal combustion engines. Subpart FF 

where the source, after being 

manufactured, may li e on the 

shelf before being bought and 

used? 

Under tho proposed IC engine standard, the initia l 

owner/operator is considered to he the original 

manufacturer, sinc e i t is the manufacturer rather 

tht/i the ultimate user who is responsible for 

oonstruction of the engines. Ihe regulations will 

apply to JC engines for which construction, by tiie 

manufacturer, ccmsences on or after tiie effectiv e 

date of the regulations. The purchase of er. IC 

engine vhich is cons true tod prior to the effective 

date is equivalent to a change in ownership arO 

not considered a modification. The owner/operator 

is ultimately responsible for canpllance wit.*, the 

standards. 

"•) Where tha performance 160.8 

standard la stated in two 

significant digit* (e.g. , 

0.04 gr/dscf), what procedtar** 

*rs to ba appl lad by tha region 

in determining compliance whan 

tha test results ara atatad In 

tens* of thraa significant digit*? 

b) Mutt diacration do tha regfcn* |60.8(b) 

and dalagatad atatsa hava In 

halving testing requirement*? Can 

taat* ba waived base) an an agreemmt t y tha aouroa to oenduct 

annual leak check* or otlier OIM 

pr*cticee7 

c ) Doe* tha region hava. tha |60.8(b) 

authority to allow tha etat* to 

waive tha epsclflo stack taat for 

tha asphalt plant ln Oaneve, VO 

Legally, anything greater than 0.04 1* a viole -

tlon (a.g. , 0.0401). Ibwever, moat engineers 

tend to round off results ani therefor* 0.044 

would ba reported a* .04 and .045 would ba 

reported aa .05. A better guida would b* that 

anything Blowing greater than a 10% excess la 

worth aonalderlng for enforcement action. 

Region* hove authority to telv* parfcrmance teat* 

or (in thi* ceaa) • retest providing they obtain 

•aaurance* flrora D6SE that tha waiver is cans la -

tent with national policy* Delegated atate* 

oonnot inllaterall y waiva parfotmanoe testa . 

Ye», *e* 59(b) above. A* • policy matter, stack 

test e should only b* waive] in compelling cir -

cumstance*, m thla ansa tha qjaation l a vhether 

tha stack teat, already performed, coupled with 

certain other actions, can support a finding tha 

standard will be met, thus obviating tha need Box 

a reteat, Theee other action* uhould include 

documentation by a ocmpeUnt engineer that the 

cause for any excess trolea Ions has been ulimlnated, ard It oon reasonably be sail that a 

rateat would dew canpllance. 

T E H fceno (Reich toMteocb*T 

e/20/ao 

Y*a 

Tl 
COCK RER8BC8 CMESTIOtl APFHCTED 

REGULATICN 

DETERMLNATICM 

DISCISSION 

A-60 Mono (Reich to Qanlebring) 

6/18/80 

"*1 Wbuld oonstruction of an 

experimental due gas douulfurlratlon and resource reoovery 

prooaa* b* aubject to NSPS? 

b) After removal of 

the experimental facility , 

•ey Southern Illlnol * revert 

bade tn tha present applicable 

em las I on standards? 

160.2(h) No 

160.14(e)(5) lt> 

Construction of this demonstration facility does 

not constitute a modification since there will 

not be cn Increaaa in euiasiona. 

Htm the demonstration facilit y 1* removed, 

Southern Illinois would be considered modified and 

would need to meet the applicable NSFS. Ihis is 

becatisa a source 1* considered modified if an 

enisalona control system is rtmoved. ESSE is 

aware {60.14(e)(5) may t e inconsistent with other 

Agency policy, and la currently working with 

OVQPS to mend thla provision. 

A-el Meeo (Midi t o Sawyer) 

9/16/80 

An existing source was shut 

down ln 1975, and now wishes 

to reopen. Would such a reopening subject the source 

t o NSPS, Subpart E? 

Slll(*)(2 ) of 

the CAAj S60.2 

(g),(h);S60.14(e) 

(3)| 560.15(b) 

No See determination A-2. This source in existence 

prior to the effectiv e date of S-ibpart E would 

not be subject to that NSPS when it resumes operations after the effectiv e date. 

Under $lll(a)(2 ) of the Clean Air Act, a new 

source is "any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after 

the publication of regulations (or, if'earlier , 

proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of 

performance under this section which will be 

applicable to such source". Resumption of operations in this case is not a modification because 

emissions will not increase over the source's 

previous operating emissions. Additionally, an 

increase ln the hours of operation of a source is 

exempt fran modification provisions. Resorption 

of operations is not a reconstruction because the 

changes required in this case are not extensive 

enough to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.15(b). 

Nor can this re-startup be considered construction of a new source. The source owner is merely 

taking those steps necessary to return the plant 

to its former operating condition. This could not 

legitimately bo characterized as construction, 

defined as the "fabrication, erection or installation of an affected facility". 

ro 

ro 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION 

A-62 Nemo (Reich to Leplc) 

11/26/80 

AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

rETERHINATION 

DISCUSSION 

ASARCO's converte r No. 4 

currently operates partl y 

on a one-converter mode 

and partly on a two-converter 

mode. During two-oonverter 

operation, sane converter 

off-gases are bypassed to the 

ESPs and emitted bo the atmosphere 

without recovery of S0 2 . In 

one-converter operation, al l 

of the off-gases can be processed and there is no bypass 

of tn treated gases. 

ASARCO plans to make physical 

changes to converter No. 4 , 

but feels tha t would not be a 

modification inder NSPS because 

the off-gases fran an enlarged 

No. 4 converter operated more 

frequently an a one-converter 

mode will not Increase over 

current emissions. What procedure should be followed bo 

determine if a modification 

will occur? 

60.14(a), (b) In otder to determine emissions to the atmosphere 

prio r to the change, ASARCO must determine, over 

some previous period, the total emissions, in kg, 

to the control device before the bypass. Tlie 

percent contribution of converter No.4 t o this 

tota l must be danonstrated. Next, ASARCO mjst 

determine the tota l amount emitted, in kg, to 

the atmosphere from the bypass and control 

equipment. Assuming the sane percentage contribution to atmospheric emissions a s converter 

No. 4 makes to emissions to the control device 

before the bypass, converter No. 4 emissions to 

the atmosphere can be determined. 

After the change, atmospheric enissions, in kg 

per hour, attribute d to converte r No. 4 can be 

determined using the same procedure. The two 

rate s can then be compared to determine if a 

modification has occurred. 

_ > 
REGULATION 

l/l. 1 L-li — 

MINATION 

DISCUSSION 

A-63 Memo (Reich to Will the repair of an 60.15(f); Under $60.15, the determination for 

reconstruction Is based on several 

factorsi 

(1) the fixed capital cost of the new 

components compared to the fixed 

capital cost required to 

construct a comparable new 

facility; 

(2) the estimated life of the 

repaired facility compared to the 

life of a comparable new 

facility; 

(3) the extent to which the replaced 

components contribute to the 

emissions from the facility; 

(4) the economic end technologic 

feasibility of meeting the 

applicable standard. 

In this case the cost of repairs 

exceeds 501 of the cost of a new 

facility, the estimated life of 

the facility is the same 

repaired or new, the components 

being replaced are a major 

contributor to emissions from 

the facility, and control has 

been shown to be technologically 

feasible. 

in considering economic feasibility, EPA 

must assess whether the costs of the 

control options which would be employed 

to achieve compliance are clearly 

disproportionate to the quantity of 

emission reduction that would result 

from such control. In this case the only 

control option, an amine treater, has 

control costs clearly disproportionate 

to the resulting emission reduction. Since 

meeting the NSPS is not economically 

feasible, the repairs would not be 

considered a reconstruction, and the source 

would not be covered under NSPS. 

EPA will continue to explore the economic 

feasibility of compliance if an additional 

furnace(s) is rebuilt. 

No 

Edlund) 2/5/81 existing gas-fired 

furnace be a reconstruction, thereby 

triggering NSPS 

coverage under Subpart J for petroleum 

refineries? 

Subpart J 

ro 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

A-64 Memo (Ossias to Goodwin)' 

9/24/81 

Do the reconstruction 

provisions permit 

replacement costs to 

be aggregated over 

an indefinite period 

of time? 

50.15 No S60.15 permits only the limited policy of 

aggregating replacement costs stemming 

from a single planning decision. 

Reconstruction is defined as the 

replacement of components of an existing 

facility to such an extent that "the fixed 

capital cost of the new components exceeds 

50 percent of the fixed capital cost that 

would be required to construct a 

comparable entirely new facility" and it 

is technically and economically feasible 

to meet the NSPS. Sections 60.15(d)-(f) 

imply that "new components" include only 

those components the owner proposes to 

replace. Since proposed replacements 

cannot reasonably be interpreted to 

include components replaced pursuant to a 

series of distinct past decisions, 

aggregating the cost of several 

independent replacement projects completed 

over an indefinite period is inconsistent 

with $60.15. 

Note: This supersedes determination 

AA-5(d). 

ro 

Ul 
CODE Dat

e of 

Response 

QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETIK-

MINATICN 

DISCUSSION 

A-64 

Update 

$60.15 permits only the limited policy 

of aggregating replacement costs 

stemming fran what may be viewed 

objectively as a single planning 

decision. Reconstruction is defined as 

the replacement of components of an 

existing facility to such an extent 

that "the fixed capital cost of the new 

components exceeds 50 percent of the 

fixed capital cost that would be 

required to construct a comparable 

entirely new facility" and it is 

technically and economically feasible 

to meet the NSPS. Sections 

60.15(d)-(f) indicate that "new 

components* include only those 

canponents the owner "proposes" to 

replace. Since replacements made 

pursuant to a series of distinct 

decisions over an indefinite period of 

time cannot reasonably be interpreted to 

be part of a single "proposal", unlimited 

aggregation of the cost of such 

replacements is inconsistent with 

$60.15. 

However, there is no indication 

that EPA Intended to rely completely 

on an owner's subjective view of which 

replacements are part of a single 

"proposal". To avoid the anbiguities this 

would create, EPA is considering 

interpreting "proposed" replacements to 

include all that are comnenced (but not 

necessarily completed) within a one or two 

year period. Until this is finalized, any 

questions regarding this issue should be 

addressed to DSSE. 

ro 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

Letter (Reich to 

Chavez) 7/2/82 

A-65 Performanc

e testing$60.8 (f) , 

of an asphalt plant Part 60, 

showed particulate Appendix A, 

emissions averaging Method 1 

0.038 gr/dscf, 

compared to the NSPS 

limit of 0.04 gr/dscf. 

In performing the test, 

25 traverse points, 

rather than the minimum, 

number of 42 required 

by 40 CFR 60, Appendix 

A, were used. 

Additionally, nozzles 

were changed during 

one of the runs, 

resulting in a run that 

was 66* isokinetic. Is 

this performance test 

valid? The source has 

contended that since EPA 

is considering reducing 

the minimum number of 

traverse poits, and since 

the average of the three 

runs showed oompliance, 

the test should be 

considered valid. 

No $60.8(f

) requites that a performance 

test be based on three valid test runs, 

except under certain enumerated 

conditions which do no apply in this 

case. The test was not performed 

according to the Method 1 format for 

determining the minimum number of 

traverse points. .Since there is no 

indication that this provision will 

be changed in the near future, testing 

must be governed ty EPA procedures 

currently in place. The test is invalid. 
CODE REPERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

A-66 Memo (Rasnic to 

Voltaggio) 7/23/82 

Can instrumental 

performance methods 

for NO-j and 0 2 

be used in lieu of 

EPA test methods 7 

and 3 during performance 

testing? 

$60.8; 

$60, Appendix A 

Conditional At least three relative accuracy 

test runs should be made before 

and after tiie performance test. 

The results of the relative 

accuracy tests and the measured emission 

levels relative to the emission standard 

could then be used to determine the 

acceptability of the instrumental 

measurement data. This extensive 

verification procedure is necessary 

because the proposed instrumental 

measurement method represents an equivalent 

method as provided at $60.8, and its 

approval requires the same protocol 

and technical data support as is 

required for any other proposed test 

method. 

Iro 

_J°° 
cu*: wi'iwu**: UHKbTJlN Al-llLTIJ) 

WJGUIATKTN 

U.TEfiMI NAT KIN 

DISCUSSION 

l>-l General Miblic Utilitie s 

Corp. Gillxirt Plant, New 

.Jersey (*Y»r. 17, 1972 -

Megmmol I) 

.If gas turbine exhaust gase s are 

consume! in a new or modified 

fossi l fuel-firo d stean generat o r as coitUitition air , would the 

oontritaitiou fran tlie turbine 

exhaust gase s l e elided to ll«e 

fossi l hiel t>ji<«jetion (toiler ) 

effluen t in <k.-teniiining 

oanpl iance? 

60.4 0 N3 Ouipl iance Is judged only on ti e amount of lieat 

ani oanliu&tion effluents aided l y fossi l fuel . 

The performance test for determining compliance 

must be conducted with no interferenc e from tlie 

turliine exliaust gases. 

l>-2 Generali CHittlic Utilitie s Corp. 

lake City Plant, tri e County, 

Perm. (July 3 , 1972 -

Megomiell) 

Sauu a s D-l. Same a s D-l 

U-3 Carl E. Baile y Plant, 

Augusta, Arkansas 

(Mar. 20, 1973 - Ytoell) 

would ti e fuel switch t o oi l and 

tlie installatio n o f soot Mowers 

to a steum generathtj unit which 

was tfesigntx] U> Uiru lot h natural 

gas aril fuel oi l prio r t o 

Aug. 17, 1971, constitut e a 

modi f ica t ioti? 

60.14(c)(4 ) Usridi- Tliere will be an increas e ln anission fran tlie 

tiona l fuel switch, I»jt sinc e tlie unit ve s designed t o 

bum fuel oi l prior t o Aug. 17, 1971, the fue l 

change would not constitut e a "change in the 

metlial of operation." However, the installatio n 

of ax>t blowers may cause a "physical change" Lo 

t i e holle r which is a "modification of the 

af fecia l facility. " Tills detennination is based 

on ti«j design and ti c intended use o f the boiler . 

If tliere is a clea r lnlicatloti in the ifesign that 

the st>x bloweis were t o he installa l a t sane 

future date , tlie installatio n of too t blowers 

would not he a "modification," but litr e ly a continuation of originall y planned oonstruction. 

ro 
axe RflPERUICE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

D-4 Allen Steaa Plant, 

Memphis, Tenn. (Apr. 

1973 - Quarles) 

hbuld the appplication of refuse 

19, wastes as an alternative fuel for 

an existing fossil fuel-fired 

steam generator constitute a 

"modification" to such facility? 

60.40 No It is the interpretation of this office that the 

60.2(h) use of refuse waste as an alternative fuel would 

not bring an existing fossil fuel fired steam 

generator within the scope of applicability of 

NSPS since refuse does not constitute fossil fuel 

as defined by $60.41(b) 

D-5 City of Ames, Iowa, Plant 

(May 2, 1973 - Allen) 

Sans as D-4. Sames aa D-4. 

D-6 South Miss. Bower 

(May 10, 1973 

J. Perrln Quarles) 

Same as D-3 Sane aa D-3. 

D-7 Texaco, Anaoortes, Hash. 

(Hay 17, 1973 - Allen) 

(a) Is the carbon monoxide 60.40 

wests heat boiler proposed for 

the Anaoortes facility subject to 

NSPS for fossil fuel-fired steaa 

generators? 

(b) is the 00 (a waste by-product 60.41(b) 

from the fluid catalytic cracking 

unit) which is consumed in this 

boiler considered fossil fuel? 

(e) How would the performance 60.46(b) 

test be conducted for a fossil 

fuel-fired steam generator which 

burns waste by-products as 

supplemental fuel? 

Yes 

No 

Conditional 

The proposed boiler has a design capacity of over 

250 mm Btu/hr. At times the boiler will be fired 

with 100 percent fossil fuel. Construction was 

commenced after August 17, 1971. 

It ia the interpretation of this office that 

waste by-products such as CO from FCC units are 

not fossil fuels as defined by $60.41(b). The 

definition covers only those fossil fuels which 

are not waste materials. 

Such unit would be required bo fire 100ft fossil 

fuel during the performance test. The test 

should be conducted at or above the normal steam 

production rate, but preferably at design capacity 

in order to avoid the necessity of additional 

tests if normal operating capacity is increased. 

J 
U1)E Kl *EKKNL"E CUES.'. KM AIVH.'1'KI) 

KUGUIATICN 

U.TERM1IMATICN 

DISCUSSION 

D-8 Norther n .III. Gas. CD. 

Plant, Morris. 111. 

(June 25, 1973 - Wilt-on) 

(a) Would an almonnal unavoidab l e sliort tenn peak operation 

o f an existif« j unit above its 

design capacity bring tlie mi t 

within tlie applicaliilit y of USPS? 

(b) .Is vaporized naptlia which is 

burned ln a new steam generator 

subjec t t o NO„ standards Air 

gaseous fossi l fuel ? 

( c ) Would a calculated value for 

NOx emissions lased on fuel ,u»l 

a i r rate s of ti e toile r lie acceptab l e to meet tlie performance test 

or tlie monitoring retjuirements for 

a steam generator? 

60.4 0 No 

60.4 4 

60.4 6 

60.4 5 

Yes 

l\t>/ 

Yea 

Tlie applicabilit y i s based cn the maximum design 

capacity of the affected facility , not the cperatiug rate . Furthermore, tlie standards were 

not intended t o cover abnonnal operations of any 

affected facility . As Indicate ! i n $60.8(c), per -

fbnnance tests should onl y be conducted inder 

conditions o f representativ e perfonnance (i.e. , 

tlie conditions wider which the facilit y would 

operate lit a normal manner). 

Vaporized naptha i s a gaseous fossi l fuel and 

thus, a unit burning this fuel would be atijec t t o 

standards for NQ^ applicabl e t o gaseous fuels. 

EPA cannot presentl y accept a calculated ualue for 

NC^, emission staiilards. Iferformance tests 

must l e conducted. However, this calculatio n 

approach nay be used for converting continuous 

monitor measurements fran n m to lb/nrn Btu. 

D-9 Uiptxit Co., Sabine River 

Plant, Orange, 'lexas 

(June 28, 1973 - Allen) 

(a) Sane as A-4 

(b) lv> waste liy-iv.<jdiK:ts frun 

petro-chuuical processus ixnistitut e fiissil fuel? 

60.2(h) 

60.41(b) 

No 

No 

Sane a s A-4 

See D-7(b). 

TJ 
IX11E KEKEKI-NCE CtlESrKJN ' AFFH.'11-.I) 

ItHGI II AT KM 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

D-9 bupunt Oo. , Sal lin e Rive r 

cont'd. Plant, Orange. Texas 

(.June 28, 1973 - Allen 

(c ) Are ti e two new proposed 

boiler s for rupont's Sabine 

River plant subjec t t o NSI'S/" 

(d) Sane as 07(c ) 

60.40 Yes They liave a design capacity >• 250 mm Btu/hr o f 

fossi l fuel heat input and construction began 

afte r August 17, 1971. 

Same as 07(c ) 

l>-10 Master Wheeler OOrp. 

(July 6. 1973 - Wilson) 

(a) Can tlie lerfonnance test for 60.46 

particulat e matter l e waivol for 

gaseous fossil fuel-fire d steam 

generators? 

(b) Can tlie continuous monitoring 60.45 

of smoke opacit y l e wnivel for 

kerosene and distillat e oil-fire l 

steain generating units ? 

(c ) If identical steam generating 60.46(b) 

units with a crjmrm ai r pollutio n 

control system ani a onnoii sLack 

are lurninj ti e sank.- fuel, IKW 

would ti e perfonuance tests l e 

conducted? 

Yes 

No 

Conditional 

A waiver of performance test may be granted If the 

owner or operator of a source denonstrate s by 

otlver means t o the Administrator's satisfactio n 

that tha affected facilit y i s being operate ! i n 

compliance with the standards. 

Only continuous monitoring o f smoke opacit y for 

gaseous fossil fuels is exempt bran ti e regulation . 

Perfonnance tests should be car ria l ai t with al l 

units firing simultaneously. IAer fbrnnnoe tests 

should he aorUucted a t or above ti e neximum steam 

production rate , (preferably a t desityi capacit y 

in order t o avoid the necessit y o f additiona l 

tests if normal operation capacit y is increased) 

whil e fuels representative o f normal oonlltion s 

are being burned. 

L 

w 

to 
cunt: tttl-EKENL'E QUEbTdlN AM-WI'M) 

ItUOUIATlUN 

UII'ERMINATKN 

DISCUSSION 

O-IO luste r Wlteeler Cbip. 

cont'd . (July 6. 1973 - Wilson) 

( d) If a different fossi l fuel is 60.8(c ) 

consulted in each of ti e identica l 

Btetin generating units with a 

cumioti ai r pollution control 

syste n and a cumrai stack, low 

would the perfonnance tests l e 

conducted? 

( e ) Is tt.ptha a fossi l fuel ? 60.41(b) 

( f) Sane a s l»(b) 

( g) Is hagassee a fossil fuel? 60.41(b) 

Conditiona l 

Yes 

No 

Performance tests should be conducted for each 

unit eejiarately in order t o ensure that no one 

unit i s exceedinj ti e standard aril als o for al l 

units togethe r ln order t o ensure that the contro l 

devios is equall y effectiv e under ful l load. Wlien 

a l l units ar e tested together , ti e fonnulae of 

{60.43(b) and §60.44(b) apply for SOj and H(\ 

respectively . 

It is a derivativ e o f petrolajm, derive ! for th e 

purpose o f creating useful heat. 

Sane a s D9(b) 

It is not a derivativ e of coal , petroleum, o r 

natural gas. 

D-ll Balicock fc Wilcox 

(Aug. 2 , 1973 - Wilson) 

(a) Would the triplication of 6O.40 

refus e wastes, wucd wastes, I .ark, 60.2(h) 

vegetation , animal or other waste 

by-proiucts as an alternativ e fuel 

for an existin g fossil fuel-fire d 

steam generator constitut e a 

•"muditicatiun" to such facility ? 

(b) Is a new steam general ing 111 It Sulijiarts 

which I wis a design capacity o f not e D & L 

11 kill 2'jO nm IHu/lu fossil fuel heat 

input aril is desiguul to cxaismie 

not e Uuu 50 'l'/ilay of sol iii wuste 

subjec t to eithe r or loth of li e 

standards foi steam genet alm s aitl 

incinerators? 

Isb See U-4 

Itvleter- Tliis situatio n i s presentl y under review by EPA 

mined l>c<*lquarters. Any requests for ileterminations on 

this subjec t mist be forwarded t o n&SE for resolu -

tion. Ifiis Issi e relate s t o new construction and 

is not a modification issie , a s in D4. 

Update - Ti e steam generating unit would be si*>-

ject to lot h Subpart O (or Ita, if applicable ) and 

Sulxoart K. See D-49 an ! D-90 for similar situa -

tions. 

co 
n 

CUlt RH-IJUWLTi OHT:ST.<JN 

11-11 

cont'd . 

Babouck i Wilcox 

(Aug. 2 , 1973 - Wilson) 

Al-liJL'IU) 

HI-MJIATIGN 

l*.TI.KM1NAT10N 

DISCISSION 

( c ) Is ti e a|iplicabilit y o f NSI'S 60.4 0 

baseil u i ti e noiinal ({era ! ing 

capacity o f a steam generator? 

( d) I s ti e lea t generated by waste 60.4 0 

by-products considered in calcu -

latin g the lea t iii|»il to an ajipli -

cabl e steam generator? 

( e ) Same as 07(c ) 

( f ) Does the he.it input to steai.i 60.4 0 

generating mit s inclul e sensible 

heat fru n crxuUistion ai r or fuels? 

( g) Sane as 179(b) 

(h) Sane as 01 

Ma 

(3 

No 

The applicabilit y i s based on the maxinun design 

capacit y o f the affecte d facility , not U e qiera -

tin g rate . 

See D-l 

Sane as D7(c ) 

Oil y the grass heating value of the fossi l fue l i s 

used to determine heat input to steam generating 

units . 

Same as 09(b ) 

Same a s Dl 

11-12 anility o f Fairfa x 

(Aug. 9 , 1973 - Wilson) 

Sane as M Sane as 1)4 

b-13 McClellan Plant, Camlen, Aik . 

(Aug. 16, 1973 - Wilson) 

Sane as 1)3 Sane as 03 

u 
cu*: 

I>-I4 

KiiuamE 

J. M. Ikiler Cbrp. 

(Aug. 16, 1973 - .Johnson) 

uumvHM AIVUL"I'M) 

RIXIJIATKN 

ifc-ri:KM1NATI0N 

DISCISSION 

(a) IO waste by-products fran 

carlxxi black mfg. constitut e 

fossi l fuels? 

(b) Sane as 011(f) 

( c ) Sane as l>7(c) 

60.41(b) IM) See U7(b) 

Sane a s 011(f) 

Sane a s D7(c) 

IVI5 Virginia i:lec. L lower Co. 

(July 25, 1973 - Wilson) 

Sane a s 1)4 Same as D4 

D-16 Miss. Power t. light . Miss . 

(Oct. 4, 1973 - Wilson) 

Sane as 1)3 See 03 

1)17 Rwte r Wheeler Corp-

(fct. 23, 1973 - Wilson) 

Tie axdiustiui of fossi l tuel 

provide s necessary heat hi an 

emissions control devii« . It 

t i e flue gas is IIIOVUIKI in 

t i e toiler , would ti e emissions 

frun li e flue gas It; counted in 

determining li e <«inpl iance of 

t i e Uiiler ? 

60.4 0 No Tliis is oonsidere l the recovery of a waste by -

product. Therefore, ti e en lesion s from U e fil e 

gas would l e excluded. Tie perfonnanoe test 

would have t o be ooniucted wit I out recovery of the 

flue gas to prevent interference . 

UjjJate 

Foster Wheeler (Wilson, 

4-22-75) 

(.'an U e |urfoiin.iin.-u test l e m i 

ductul with the emissions fix in 

the loile i ani s.u*llH.-.itei liu l 

affeclol) ouJlined? 

6 0 . 40 Vbs As lory as ther e is a means for ifetermining the 

aiu»mts of pollutants a«l<lal to ti e loile i emissions l y the sarrlheater. 
CU*J kiiuttMO-: ouiisnt*. AirULTIXI 

RtUUIATUN 

ItaTfc'KM1IMAT1UN 

DISCUSSION 

D-IO Sinf lower Plant (Nov. 

1973 - Wilson 

13. Sane a s 1)3 See 03 

b-19 Internal Muioranduni (Wilson 

t o Irwin Dickstein, Itegion 

VIII - Nov. 14, 1973) 

Are NSI'S applicabl e to an 

existin g ci>al-firal |nwer 

plant which will he converted 

t o gas? ('Ihe gas is st.pplied 

frun a coal gasi.ficatiu i plant.) 

60.4 0 No .It is not a modification sinc e tler e is no 

increase in eiiissions. The coal gasificatio n 

plant has I D tearing in the natter sinc e NSPS 

affects onl y the boiler . 

u-20 Texaco, Inc. 

(Nov. 27. 1973 - Wilson) 

(a) IO process gase s from 60.41(b) 

petroleum refinerie s constitut e 

fossi l fuel ? 

( b) If ti e primary |niri>ise of a 60.41(a ) 

steam generating mi l is to uuntrol pollutio n rather than tn 

produce steam, wonhl such unit l e 

subjec t Lo NSPS? 

tto 

No 

( c ) Same a s 1)11(c) 

(d) Sane a s l)7(c) 

Process gases, meaning any gase s generated t y a 

petroleum refinery , except fuel gases, would not 

constitut e fossi l fuel . Fuel gases, meaning any 

gase s generated t y a refiner y for U e purpose o f 

creating useful leat , ar e fossi l fuels. 

Tie unit is only subjec t when ti e primary purpose 

is to generate steam. 

Same a s Dll(c ) 

Sane a s D7(c) 

TJ 

CO 

0 1 
tX«Ka RU-tKlMCt OlkaSCKlN AFFtLTtl) 

RIMJIATICN 

IJ-.TKRM1NATIGN 

DISCtbSION 

D-21 Fla. Iriwer I ligh t Co. ln 

Palalka, Fla. (12-21-73 . 

Wilson) 

Is the steam generator which 

is a part of U e inoposod 

oouhinul cycl e ga s tutbit e 

unit subject t o NSI'S? 

60.40 l b Tha generator has a design capacit y of less than 

250 MM Btu/hr of fossil fuel hea t input. 

D-22 Georgia-Pacifi c Corp. 

in Plaquemine, la . 

(1-9-74 , Wilson) 

Can IPA waiue until si x munUis 

afte r startup U e installatio n 

o f continuous nonitor s for NOK 

cn a steau generator? 

60.45 No Ti e regulations do not provide a means foe obtain -

ing a waiver t o delay the installatio n o f required 

continuous monitors. However, U e reg s do not 

require tltat ti e monitors be installe d a t the tin e 

o f startup. They onl y requir e tha t the nonitor s 

be Installed and ln working order just prior t o 

the performance test required t y §60.8 . 

update! Revised-See D-55 

D-23 Union Gublde Corp. 

in Siuth Charleston, 

W. Va. (2/4/74 , Wilson) 

Dees the installatio n of two or 

more boilers, each ratul a t <•' 

250 MM Utu/hr lu t Uie sum o f 

which ls > 250 M-1 litu/hr, constitut e oonstruction within U e 

meaning of NSI'S? 

60.40 ND The affected facility is deflno] as each in It 

(boiler) with a related design capacity of more 

than 250 MM Btu/hr heat input of fossil fuel. 

D-24 Anerlean Crystal Sugar 

to. In Fargo, N.I). 

(2-14-74. Wilson) 

S*ie aa 1)23 Sane us D23 

i 
uin; itu-uuMct: 01II iiV !<*, AFFU.*.1:» 

1UUUATKM 

I *.TERMINATION 

DISCISSION 

b-25 Unim Carbide Corp. in 

So. Charleston, W. Va. 

3/15/74 , Wilson) 

Would a fuel switch trcin 

g a s to oia l at a steam 

generator constitut e a 

modification? 

60.2(h) Condi- .If the steani generator was designed to accomodat e 

and tional the use of coal as an alternativ e fuel prior t o 

60.4 0 6/17/71 , then converting fran gas to coal would b e 

within the exception provided in 60.14(e)(4). 

l>-26 Ark. lower tv light OD. 

in littl e Hxrk, Ark. 

(3-22-74 , Wilson) 

Same as 03 Same as D3 

l>-27 Central Maite lower Co. 

in Augusta, Me. 

(3/27/74 , Wilson) 

Sane a s 1)4 Sane a s D4 

D-28 He thi el em Stee l Unp . 

in Uethleiein, Pa. 

(3/27/74 . Wilson) 

Is the IM-4 Transmlssaieter 

acceptabl e for nonitoring 

opacity as re<|uirul by 

40 CFH 60.45(a)(1) ? 

60.45 Ccurii- Tie instrument wil l t e acceptatile if i t con fame 

tional with U e specification s of 40 CFR 60.45(b). Ihe 

instrument must be Installe d ani in workinj order 

prior to the perfonnance test required Ly 40 OR 

60.8 . More detaile d specif Icat lots are being 

(level opal t y LPA and slDuld be iropoeoi ln the 

F.R. in April '74 . It is important to note, Utat 

once an instrument is found l o be acceptable for a 

facility , this does not guarantee that this typu 

of instrument wil l l e approved in a different 

a|ipl lea tion. * 

* Continuous nonitoring requiienuits were revised in 40 l'l< 4l>25t)'on 6 OjU4*r 75 

co 
IMJIi HKFIKIMCK itn-ar-uti AFltUTIJ) 

KUJJIATKtN 

l*.TKRM1NATION 

DISCISSION 

D-29 Burns k MclUtinell for 

Ala . Ldectri c Co-op. , 

inc. , Artlalusia, Ala . 

(3-29-74 , Wilson) 

Will ti e installatio n of two 

new coal-fire d loiter s at 

t i e sit e of an exlstiu j coatflreil toile r bring ti e 

existiitj toile r within ti e 

scci|e of aiplicabi l it y of NSI'S? 

60.40 No Section 60.40 define s the affecte d facilit y a s 

each toiler . The applicabilit y is cfetenninod 

lndeperklently for each boiler ; therefore , the 

installatio n of new boiler s would in t affec t U e 

existin g boiler . 

D-30 Wuyerlvaetiser Co. in 

Plymouth, N.C. 

(4-11-74. Wilson) 

Is ti e proposed Imggul fuel 

boile r for Weyerliaeuser's 

facilit y a t PlynouUi. N.C. , 

subjec t l o NSI'S? 

60.40 Yes li e proposed boile r wil l he fired with more than 

250 Ml Btu/l r fossil fuel hea t Input. The logged 

fuel does not constitut e fossi l fuel a s defined t y 

60.41(h). Therefore, compliance wil l he deter -

mined only on the amount of heat and combustion 

e ff lie n t s added by U e fossil fuel . lerfonnance 

tests should be conducted with U e boile r consuming 100 percent fossil fuel a t or above U e 

normal steam production rate , but preferably a t 

design capacity . 

Updates A revision of NSPS subpart D published in 

41 FR 51397 on 22 Nov. 76 include s burning o f wood 

residue s in combination with fossil fuel for use 

a s a dilutio n agent in complying with the SOj 

standard. All standards must l e con filia l with 

when ainlxisting Uiis aaiibination of fossil fuel 

aril wood waste . 

D-31 Scott Paper Co. i n 

Skowiiagen, Me. 

(4/11/74 , Wilson) 

Sane as l)3n See 030 
UJ*: Kl'aFI-aKlaNL'l. QUISTION AM-Hri>J) 

KUUIIATKIM 

U.TI.KMINATION DISCISSION 

l>-32 aiel l Oil Co. in WJC.1 

River (6/27/74) 

Can IX'A grant eat exemption unti l 

May 30, 1975. from li e NSI'S 

for ti e new Wool River Kefinery 

Boile r 117? 

60. 1 No .It is not within the authorit y of ti e Administrator 

(60.40 ) under Section 111 o f ti e Clean Ai r Act t o grant 

variance s fran compliance with NSPS. 11 er e i s 

authority inde r Section 113 t o issue an enforce -

ment order requiring compliance within a specifie d 

period. This, l n effect , would allow a varianc e 

fran compliance untU such period expires. However , this slould be used onl y i n limited circumstance s where, e.g. , the overall environmental 

impact would be beneficial . Hi cur judgement, an 

enforcement order was not justifie d in tliis 

instance . 

|)-33 Uetevoise fc leilerman 

for San Diego Cas & 

Idertri c Cunjiany 

(4/22/74 . Johnson) 

Are NSI'S applicabl e to a cr<nl>ineil 

contiustion turbir e aul steam 

generating plant? 

60.4 0 No Tie oanliustion turbine is not an affected facilit y 

as define ! by $60.40 ; the lea t input to U e steam 

generator is 100% effluen t frun ti e oanliustion 

turbine with no supplemental fossi l fuel lea t 

input. 

l>-34 miryland l*?wer Co-op, 

Alma Wisconsin Plant 

(5/15/74 , Pratt. R-V) 

( a) What ilea|roe of sulfur content 60.0(c ) 

(maximum, minimum, iiilcnnoliate ) 

in coal would l e oonsideruil 

representativ e cotilitions for a 

ferfotiikuice lest ? 

(li) Can FI'A delennine violat ion 60.0(f) 

o f ti e SO2 emissions u/er li e 

|erio l of a year? 

CouJitiona l 

No 

Perfonnance testing vhlle turning ooal with the 

maxiiiun exiiectod sulfur content would be required 

in order to assure compliance under U e worst 

Possible conditions. 

current regulations dutennlne violation of ti e 

emission standard by a perfonnanee test vliich 

calls for 3 consecutive sampling runs of approxlmalel y 1 hour thiration eai.li. lima Ue regulations 

proviife fur an averagiirj time of approximately 3 

lours, lixii sampling run consists of 2 twenty 

minute samples taken at 30 mi nute intervals. 

TJ 
CU*J RFFHatNCK 

I)-34 

(cont. ) 

(JtllaSTlON AirO-TH ) 

RBGIJ1ATION 

l*.TKItMlNATION 

DISCUSSION 

( c ) Can excess emissions caused 

by variations in sulfur content 

of fuel l e considered a malfunction? 

60.2(q) No This situatio n could not be considered a "sudden 

and unavoidable failure " since , under noat cir -

cumstances, excess sulfu r content i s foreseeabl e 

based upon fie l analyses. Ti e technology exists 

to blend various type s of fuels in order t o 

assur e conpllance with the SOj standard. 

l>-35 internal Memorandum 

(Wilson l o Jotm lOyle, 

R-Vl, 6/12/74 ) 

(a) Same as D-10 (a) 

(b) How would the NOx emission 

test be ccmluctul for two steam 

toiler s (fossi l fuel iru.ait and 

carbon black v*»ste off-ga s input) 

which vent to a cciiuion stack? 

60.45 Conditional 

See O-10(a ) 

Since the two subject hollers each have a fossil 

fuel potential of greater than 250 UM Btu/hr and 

both vent to a common stack, i t is acceptable to 

only test NCL emissions fran the one stack with 

t i e toilers fired with 100% fossil fuel at Uei r 

design oapacity. 

D-36 Internal Menoraulum 

(Wilson to CDnrad Simui 

6/25/74) 

Are steam generator ifiits using 

WO-Fllttl, a txmiercial fuel 

manufactured from sol id waste, 

as a primary fuel subject to 

NTiPS for fossil fuel-firul 

steam generators or incinerators? 

Suhiarts Condi- Since HCO-FltX docs not contain icn-canbus tibles, 

H i t tional it cannot he considered a solid waste and thus 

these units will not fall .rider Ue NSI'S for 

incinerators. Even though UUD-KtJI-:i, which is not 

a fossil fuel, is U e primary fiel being burned, 

theso sources may be subject to ti e fCIS for 

fossil fuel-fired steam generators if Uey are 

deslgne! to burn greater than 250 hH Btu/hr. of 

fossil fiel leat input. 

Jr 
(..»*: iti.iM.KNCi-: UIKITItW 

D-17 Southern Illinois IViwer 

('ixip-'rative (B/lti/74 , 

Ouarlcs) 

Is a steam generator whiih burns 

50» coal and SO* coal iodis e 

subject l o NSI'S? 

AFI«riH) 

RHtailATION 

60.42 

60.43 

60.44 

l*rrHtMINATlON 

Yes; 

However 

DISCISSION 

60.44 was revised on January 16, 1975, t o exempt 

fran U e N0_ standard any unit which burns a 

soli d fossi l fuel containing 25%, l y weight, o r 

more of coal refuse . 

D-J8 Shel l Oi l CcxHpai.y 

(9/27/74 , McDonald, 

Region V) 

(a) Can one sample lor HO-^ l>e as 60.46(d) 

I on j an 7(1 minutes? 

(b) Wlkit constitute s a complete 60.46(d) 

sampling run for SO2? 

(c ) How is cctnpl iance determined? 60.8(f) 

Yes 60.46(d) require s a minimum sampling time of 20 

minutes. It does not specify a maximum time. 

A complete sampling run require s two samples taken 

a t approximately 30 minute intervals. Ti e 

tota l elapsed time for one rtn under the condition s suggested by the company would be 170 

minutes (7000+70). 

Each performance test for compliance wil l requir e 

three separat e runs. Compliance wil l Uien Le 

determined on ti e basis of ti e aritluneti c mean o f 

U e Uiree runs. 

D-39 Wisconsin Electri c Power 

Co. (Wilson, 12/13/74) 

Same as b-4 See D-4 

D--4II Internal Mniorandim 

(Wi Ison lo Doyle, 

Region VI, 4/11/75) 

(a) Shell (.'hemical Company ir. 

installin g a natural gas/pi tchfiru l stoiin general01 . Is pi till 

lo.ssil fuel? 

60.41(b) NO Pit0)1 is a by-product in Shell's olefin s process 

ami i t is not derived for li e purpose of creating 

useful leat . 

(b) How should lU |cr 1 101 malice 

tests U; coitluctt.il? 

60.11 

60.46 

Ihe tni t slould be fired with 100% natural gas. 

l i e proposed sampling location is adequate for 

gaseous..sampling. fmly cine sampling fnint is 

necessary lor N0X fc Orsat sampling. Ti e 

s^flipliiL) point 

cenlroid . 

in ti e duct shall l e at the 

*. 

_ " 
corn: I.IJ'IJ.KNC.: OtttSTION 

D-40 

(colli . ) 

AFFUCTO) 

KUJUIATION 

DbTKRMINAT1CN 

DISCUSSION 

(c) May ti e followiuj perfonnance 

tests le wuiveli 

1. A waiver on Ue determination 

of Btack gas velocity auJ volumetric flow rate (Method 2) aid in 

lieu calculate Ue flue gas flow 

usirg a mass airl leat balance on 

the steam generator. 

2. A waiver on Ue detenuination 

of nolsLure in ti e stack gas 

(MeUrxl 4) and insteail use of Orsat 

(Mctliod 3) plus li e ixii|xjtal products of cxutxistion, lesed cn 

en ultimate fuel analysis and 

leating value, to detemiiie iioisture. 

3. A waiver on ti e deteimination 

of {articulate emissions (Method 5). 

4. A waiver on ti e deteimination 

of sulfur dioxide unissions 

(MeUiod 6). 

5. A waiver on Ue visual delerinination of ti e opacity of ti e 

emissions (Metlod 9). 

(SO.8(b) Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

.es 

Uuiecea- Method 9 is not a performance test, 

sary 

I J 
UOL KI:I-|]<II*I: IUKSTION AI-M-X-'IHI 

RiXJIIATION 

l»-4l Public Servic e Commission , Stat e of N.Y. 

(Wibsiin, 2/19/75) 

Can KPA grant a suspensi m under 

NSI'S for installatio n of a dry 

flue gas desulfurination system 

sinc e it has to t been cilctpialcly 

demonstrated on a lul l scal e 

production mil ? 

60.40 

DM1-.UMINATICN 

No 

DISCUSSION 

KPA does not have autlorit y under Sectio n U l 

t o susfend NSPS under any circumstances. Adequately demonstrated technology is availabl e t o 

achieve U e standards. 

Update: li e Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 

added Slll(j) , which provide s autlorit y to waive 

NSPS t o encourage U e use of an innovative technologica l system or systems of continuous emission 

reduction, li e waiver shal l not extend beyond 

eitle r 1) seven years afte r ti c waiver is granted 

or 2) four years afte r U e dat e U e source commences operation, whichever is earlier . 

D-42 Indianapolis lower I 

Light Co. (McDonald, 

Region V, 5/16/75 ) 

Sames as D-41 Sec D-41 

D-43 Central Illinoi s Public 

Servic e Co. (U/29/75, 

Itsjro) 

Can one or more modular control 

units l e installed at a dat e 

Ityoul achievement of inaxin.ini 

pet formal ice ? 

60.43 No Since tler e is no evidence of force s beyond ti e 

control of the source owner preventing timely compliance , U e entir e facilit y must meet ti e require -

ments of 60.43 in the nenner prescribed by 60.8 . 

D-44 Ooonjia-Pacit i c 

(7/9/7'j) 

Ate autianohi l e tire s used as a 

supplement ai y ltiel considered a 

fossi l liei. ' 

b0.41(b) No Ant<mobile tire s are not produced Cor U e purixjse 

of creating useful leat . 

D-45 Sliell ClK.inical Co. 

(6/i/7!>) 

Is pil<li a l.issil fuel? 

Is a facilit y luniijiij pitch ai«i 

naluial gas subject hi lieopacity slaitlaid? 

60.41(b) No 

bO.42(a)(2 ) No 

Pi Id) is not produced for ti e purpose of creating 

useful leat. 

Clearly, aiy visible emissions would not be die 

to txmbustion of natural gas. 
CUHi RKKKNINCK (.HFSTKIN AFFK'll-3) 

KHJMIATIt*. 

i*:n:iaMINATION DISCUSSION 

l)-4b luste r WUrelcl (V28/75 , 

Stevens) 

An.1 Mni.ssioiaS liim <iul ci»nIxcition which is mce:.:;aiy to 

u|urat e a toile r emissions 

control device subject to 

Subpart I)? 

60.42 

60.43 

No I'rovidinj neans exist to identit y ani measure 

boile r (missions separately , only U e steam 

generator emissions are subject. 

D-47 I. Ite r to (Julf Oil 

Chemicals Co. ((!. Stevens 

l o F. lleriy) 12/29/75 

Is an C>2 or COj nirmitor for 

flue gase s requited i.-ven whim 

ro other continuous monitoring 

systems are required unlet NSPS? 

60.45(d) No Tie intent of the of U e regulation is to 

requir e 0 3 or CO-> analyzer s for the |urpos e 

of converting pollutant emissions into proper 

writs for comparison with U e {appropriate standards. Ilerefore , Oj and COj monitors are not 

required vlien continuous monitors for SOj and 

M>> ar e not required. 

D-4U lette r (H. Heals l o 

D. lla/ele ) 1/12/76 

( a ) Should ti e lltu attributio n 

and subsequent N" , H>t, and 

particulatc- emissions trim a 

flue gas releat system which 

conplemcnts a Flue Cas IX;sullurizal ion system lx_- considered 

in determining onnpl iance with 

NSI'S? 

Sulipait D No Since U e fossil fuel used for U e relea t system 

is not toed to generat e steam', its Btu contribution is not considered in determining compliance 

with NSPS. 

(b) Should NO , .JV, and 

part icul all.- emissions fr<m such 

a n-lieat system l e <i >nsii.ei <xl in 

deteiininiinj Mil'S ctinpl iance? 

60.46 Condi- Km 1 ssion s tests nay be conducted eithe r l y not 

60.11(b) tional heatiirj ti e fuel or in seme other manner accepta -

ble to the Administrator . 

Ol 
cun; lll-l-'UCHNCK CX IKS-HUN 

b-49 letter , (U . Stevens t o 

(Jtule s lauer) 3/4/7 6 

AFFUCTKI) 

K1IJIIAT1UN 

I*:II:RMl NAT ION 

DISCUSSION 

a ) Itiw do NSPS afiply to steam 

generators firin g a combination 

of eithe r fossi l fuel , municipa l 

waste, ai«l wocxl waste materials , 

or nunicirial waste an . wood-waste 

material s exclusively? 

Sulxparts 

D I E 

.If a stean generator i s burning a conblnation o f 

fossi l fie l and mnlcipa l or wood waste materials , 

i t i s subject t o Subpart D i f i t i s designed to 

burn greate r tlian 250 mUlio n Btu per lou r o f 

fossi l fuel heat input. Since ti e waste material s 

a r e in t fosBil fuels , as define d by 60.41(b) , the 

perfbrmance tes t would liave t o be conducted wit h 

the ini t burning 100% fossi l fuel . Steam generators designed to burn municipal wastte o r wood 

waste material s exclusivel y ar e not subject t o 

Subpart D; however, i f a municipal waste steam 

generator I s burning more than 50 tons per day o f 

soli d waste, as defined by 60.51(b) , then I t i s 

subject to NSPS for Incinerator s (Sulxpart E) . 

updatei A revisio n o f t*»PS Subpart D published i n 

41 FR 51397 on Novenbsr 22 , 1976 include s turnin g 

o f wool residues i n combination wit h fossi l fue l 

for use aa a dilutio n agent i n complying wit h the 

SOj standard . Al 1 standards must be conpl led 

wit h when ccntxistirg thi s couhinatic n o f fossi l 

fue l and wood waste. 

b) What Is ti e definitio n o f 

fossi l fiel ? 

c ) Do NSPS limi t gaseous emissions of annul ia , S^ '

 o r 

organic oinjounds from to I id 

URiste incinerators? 

60.41(b) 

Sulipart K Isb 

Fossil fue l means natura l gas, petroleum, coal , 

aiil any form o f solid , liquid , or gaseous fuel 

derive l fran such material s for the purpose o f 

creatin g useful heat'. 

D-50 lette r (T . Harrison t o 

Jones and SewelI) 3/8/7 6 

Same as l>-3 See D-3 
tXlHi 

D-51 

KIl'KKIN-.'l-: (J «-STUN 

Muio (R. Wilson to 

I). Hansen) 5/10/76 

AI-rUL-IU) 

RIU.II AT KM M1NATKN 

DISCUSSION 

a ) Same as D-l1(c ) 

b) If low sillfui fuel is used 

t o comply with ti e SO2 standard, 

aitl fuel analysis is U6ul for 

monitoring, i s a grab sample 

analysis o f each load of fuel 

sufficien t to meet U e nonitoring 

requirements? 

60.45 

(b)(2 ) 

See D-l 1(c ) - .If the generator was modifi.il s o 

Uiat i t would be incapable of operating in excess 

of 250 mil lie n Utu/lour , tle i It would not be subjec t t o NSI'S. 

Since this sectio n o f the regulation is currentl y 

lelr q reviail , we cannot specificall y detennlne 

the frequency of analysis a t this tine . This 

method seems appropriate a s an interim measure. 

l> 52 lette r (D. Goodwin t o 

W. Killer ) 3/24/76 

Same a s D-51(a) See D-51(a) 

D-53 lette r (R. Wilson to 

M. Reilly ) 4/1/76 

Is a oial/oi l slurry a onibination fossi l fuel? 

60.43(b) Yes The SO? and NO,, emission limits wuuld vary 

60.44(b) depending upon the % of heat input deriva l from 

each of U e fuels (coal L oil) . 

D-54 Meno (R. Wilson lo 

T. Iturison) 4/7/76 

Sine as D—3 

See D-3 

D-55 Meno (R. Wilson to 

laegions 1-X) 4/15/76 

May a source vjKise r*>x nimi- 60.13(b) 

loriu j I'txpiiruiiuit is contitrjenl 60.45(c ) 

uixm (l e results of ti e |e i fonitiiK-e CO.8 

test be nlbiwol ii)> In 1. nonlhs 60.44 

afte r ti e |c i loniaimi.' test is 

cioduclo l l«-foie insbil I ing such 

e< juipmijil ? 

Yes Tie regulations will be rev 1 so l accordingly. 

_ T 
§

5 

5 

'i , 

us *Jj J : 

—

3 

 *S •w 

< 0 O 

. 51 

S ~ 

5 

•71 i 

I J 

C o . 

1 =5 

•5 a Z 

r iS fl 

•. 5 

u 

j r . 

6--a. 

— «T 

5 9 

XJ a 

*3 

X 

8 £ 

J la J 

M » 

41 £"• • 

- w W 

i

J

n 

. 

- a it 

3*185 

•a •' - « a 

5

 a * -

 n 

0 a » j2 " ^ 

ii«oS- = 

J j jg 

(3 — ^a 

3 i | 

01

tw 

 - . 

- I * 

ii c 3 

cs 

in 

•8 

u >, 

Std 

* = = * $ 

tf i*

 e

 » 

<A L. i i ^a) 

<o o rn SSI S.a 

s s 

i 

p^ 

" fl •- a 

-i * * " J C J 

- 5) f i 

•- 'J M C -i — = 

3 

Z 

5

* 

3 ^ 

5 ° 

&> 

. J 

Li 

I * 2 r 

3 
UOI-: KKI-'lvKKNCi: 

b-t>l lette r t o IXJW (O. Lively 

Ui Itiunds and llaigre) 

9/JI1/76 

(MII-liiTUM 

Same a s D-3 

Airnrnrn 

1.1X211 ATHlN 

rxja"iH«-

MINATKlN 

DISCUSSION 

See D-3 

b-62 lette r lo W.A. Hirai 

Associate s (C. Stevens t o 

M. Tanaka) 10/13/76 

Dees ti e odditicn ol nuuiici|>ui 

waste as fie l lo an existin g 

bagasse— fuel oil-fire d steam 

generator bring U e generator 

under NSI'S, wlen bagasse wil l 

continue to l e greate r Uian 511% 

of ti e waste being consi«ned and 

als o contribute greater tlian 50* 

of ti e total energy input? 

60.51(b) No H e addition of combustible materials other tlian 

60.40 fossi l fuels does not bring U e tni t aide r NSI'S; 

furthermore, sinc e ti e soli d waste consumed in the 

boile r would be less Uian 50% municipal type 

waste , ti e unit would not be subjec t t o NSI'S for 

incinerators. 

l>-63 lette r to Knviiimniental 

Data Corp. (It. Wilson t o 

II. lord) 1/19/76 

May OT>2 continuous nuiitnring 

equipment l e installu l tkiwnst.ream of a wet limestone 

SCIUUAJI destilfuriztitim unit ? 

60.45 Yes A 1% increas e in the Fc factor is required when 

limestone scrubbing is utilized . Ti e regulation s 

wil l be amended accordingly. 

D-64 lette r to linjare Butte 

lileclri c Corp-

( I. bic-ksleiu t o K. Vig) 

3/16/76 

May (ri^ oontiuuous nonitorimj 

equipment la: in.-.Uil Inl dnwnstieam 

of a fl y ash 11 in- <|.is dcsulfutization mil ? 

60.45 Yes A It increas e in the t'c factor is required. 
cu*: KH-'HaKNCT: 

11-65 Mtiio (Ij. Stevens to Katz) 

9/30/7 6 

Utl|i>-|:l(M AlFUCILl) 

KtXJUIATKN 

u;ri:itMINATKN 

DISCUSSION 

IX> NSI'S apj>ly t o two fossi l fuel -

fire d steam generator s Uiat have 

a ooiiiiun stack , vJien each 

generator i s ilesignul to Uirn 

less Uian 250 nm Dtii/lmir. le t 

tojetle r Ue y Inr n greate r Uian 

250 nm Btu/linur? 

60.4 0 

60.41(a ) 

No 

l>-66 Muio (U . Stevens t o 

D. Santella ) 10/1/7 6 

Sane as D-36 Same as D-36, Plus 

Should U e non-oanbustible s not be renewed prior 

to burning, NSI'S for incinerator s may apply . 

D-67 Mu m (lieii h to 

I . Stevenson ) 11/15/76 

la U e iroratio n equation which 

was originall y prom 11 gated 

(Dec. 23 . 1971) under §60.43(c ) 

stil l valid ? 

60.43(c ) Mo The equation was revised to allo w an owner/cperator 

to use natura l gas I n conjunction with nonoanplying oi l o r coal t o meet the standard. 

l>-6n Meno (leld i t o O. lively ) 

11/24/7 6 

Can an existin g fossi l fuel-fire d 

steam generator, which wus luou<jlit 

uitler NSI'S di e t/i a conversion 

from natural <jas l o oil , ounvert 

I lack to gas an i m t l e subject 

t o NSI'S? 

60. 1 N D Even afte r reconversion t o gas ti e source stil l 

fall s tnder U e NSI'S definitio n of applicability . 

l>-69 Muio (leic h t o 

O. lively ) 12/29/7 6 

WTU M a waste lea t recovery 

Ulile r foi l iikle r NSI'S for fossi l 

fuel-tiru l steam geneialois? 

60.41(a ) No A waste heat recovery boile r docs not fi t th e 

definitio n of a fossil fuel-fire d steam generator. 

Ol 

o 
tun. 

itij'ijtiiMCt: UMSiMtN AIVU-TLD 

R1GIIIATION 

i»;it:BMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

l>-70 Maio (Uitdi t o Air 

I)KJInfeei ing Branch 

thief. Keg ion IV) 

1/12/77 

May a fossil fuel-fire d steam 

generator viiich use s a Bui«plenenldry non-fossil fuel oile r 

tlian wood waste fie l l e allowed 

t o have ti e lea t input of ti e 

supplementary non-fossil fuel 

included for determining 

compliance wiUi NSI'S? 

60.45 No Srhpart D has no provisions for allowing the heat 

(f)(6 ) inputs frcni non-fossil fi e la other Uian wood 

resIdi e fuels to t e Included for determining conpi iance . fich a generator must fir e onl y fossil 

fue l (aid wool residue) during performance tests . 

D-71 Memo t o H-1V (fc. Heidi 

t o T. Oibbs) 2/10/77 

Is a cumhination wool residue / 

fossi l foel-fired steam generator , 

which consumes greate r tlian 250 mn 

Btu/lir. of fossi l fte l heat Inpit 

onl y during almomial operations 

causei] l y mal fiuiction of li e fuel 

feeding system, subjei.-t l o NSI'S? 

60.4 0 Tfes Tie unit has a design capacity o f greate r than 

(a)(2 ) 250 tun Btu/hr . of fossil fuel heat input and is 

therefor e subjec t t o NSPS, Subpart D. 

D-72 lette r ln U-X 

(11. Ituiseu t o 

R. Mikkelseii) 3/4/77 

If three fossi l fuel-fire d steam 

generators exhaust t o a plenum 

ani thai to a dual fli e stack, 

wil l armllnunus mini tilling systems 

l e necessary for loth flues? 

60.45 Condi- Since the plerun i s very small aid wil l not protional vide adequate mixing t o assur e identica l gas 

canposlticn in both flues, i t wil l be necessar y 

t o instal l opacity , NX\. and 003/02 monitoring 

equipment in both flues. Dual continuous monitors 

for SOj ar e nut required sinc e littl e fluctua -

t e expected in the SO2 concentration o f exhaust 

gases because the fuel used to fir e each generator 

is drawn fron a cannon supply. 

l>-73 Meno to K-VI I If an affected facilit y elects 

(I-:. Ifcich to f. Urlver) l o nuiilo r ^i 2 l>y fie l sampling 

5/3/77 ani analysis under sect ion 60.45 

(b)(2), is it lofiire d tn 11mduct t>m 11 sampling al. this line ? 

60.4 5 

(d) 

No Since sectio n 60.45(d) is now reserved in U e 

regulations, the facility Is not required t o 

conduct sampling and analysis a t this time . Ihe 

regulations are expected to be uiervled soon. 

Tl 

Ol 
U1JK I<I>H<II*.I: <jtn
*i!K»i Ai-vucn-j) 

RIGUIATJCIM 

DLTKRMINATICN 

DISCUSSION 

l>-74 Meno t o R-Vl (K. Reich 

t o II. Bergman) 5/5/77 

Sane as D-l See D-l 

l>-75 lette r t o Ni*MA (E. Reich 

t o J . Greoo) 5/9/77 

a) Is an existin g fossil fuel- 60.40(b) 

fired steam generator vliich is 

nolifle d t o bum less tlian or 

equal to 5t) T/day of solid waste 

subject t o NSI'S? 

b) Is an existin g fossil fiel - 60.5 0 

fired steam generator which is 

mallfle<l to turn greate r titan 

SO T/day of sol id waste subject 

t o NSI'S? 

No 

Conditiona l 

"Any change to an existin g fossi l fuel-fire d 

steam generating unit t o accomodat e U e use of 

combustible materials, oilie r titan foss U fuels 

as defined in this aiopart, shal l not bring Uiat 

unit under U e applicabilit y of this subpart." 

Such a tni t nay b e subjec t t o NSPS for nu.icipa r 

incinerators, depending upon it s deslign an ] 

operating conditions. 

c ) Same as D-49 

d) Sane aB D-49 

e ) Sane as D-ll(b ) 

S e e D-49 

S e e D-49 

S e e D-l 1(b) 

l>-76 lette r t o D. Anderson 

from G. SIevens 3/24/77 

l>> liy-product blaal furnace gas, 

liy-prolmt tar tn m coke ovens 

and ly-produc l ixike iven gas 

constitut e fossi l fi e Is as 

defined t y $CO.41(b)? 

60.41(b) No They ar e tut derivo l for the purpose o f creating 

useful leat . 

l>-77 lette r t o Sirrii e U). 

(T. Gili.s t o II. Stokes) 

5/16/77 

Miat sU.il.l l e li e lei>jlli of fi e 

leak <ia_ialiiK| rat e lor a luilcr ? 

O e to four hours. 

Ol 

ro 
cii*: lUJ-llttNCK Gill-STUN AITHLTM. 

RKIIIATION 

U-TKRMINATION DISCUSS KM 

IV7U Muio t o K-V1I (E. Ifclili t o 

It. Markey) G/29/77 

Ifcw is uoot-blowiiy l o l e 

inclmle.1 in rerfonikince tests 

for fossi l fuel-fiii* i steam 

generators vJiich liave ion -

con tirmoua, non-aulciiiatic 

uoot-blowing? 

60.8 Units which do not blow soot continuously must 

have Ue effect of soot-blowing included ly 

performance testing in the normal manner, provided 

Uiat the following precautions are takeni 1) sootblowing is permitted only during one of the test 

runs, 2) this soot-blowing is representative of 

the plant's typical cycle, and 3) the test run in 

which the soot-blowing occurs is properly weighted 

wtitn averaging with the other two test riais. The 

soot-blowing performance test run should include 

as much of the soot-blowing cycle as possible. 

The weight of the soot-blowing performance test 

rui may be determined ty tha following generalized 

equation. This equation insures proper weighting 

of a eoot-blowing performance test run regardless 

of vhether the soot-blowing lasts the entire time 

of the test rin, and also regardless of the ixinter 

and duration of the non soot-blowing test runs 

mada while performance testing a fossil fuel-fired 

steam generator. 

W - ST/(AR-S0) 

WHERE R - the average nuttier of hours of 

operation per 24 hour day. 

S - tlie average rember of hours of 

eoot-blowlnj operation per 24 hour 

day. 

T » the total test time of Ue non sootblowing perfonnance test runs 

(lours). 

A <= fie time spent blowing soot during 

the soot-blowing perfbnnance test 

rin (lours). 

B = the time spent not blowing sxjt 

during tie soot-blowing performance 

lest mn (hours). 
cu*: RU-UalME 

I1-7U 

oon't. 

UUI-STX*. A1VUCIW 

IttrjIIIATION 

DETEKMINATIGN 

DISCISSION 

Multiply ti e soot-blowing test rui Ly W befor e 

talking U e arithmeti c nean of U e porfonnance 

test runs a s required l y Section 60.8( f) . 

Ihis determination has been revise ] ani can he 

found a t D-88. 

D-79 Muio t o R-V (E. teich t o 

1. Gross) 10/7/77 

Is permanent derating of steam 

generator s an acceptable metliod 

o f avoiding ftpplicahility to 

NSPS, Sill-part U? 

Subpart D tea The derating nust be acconpliBhod througli a 

permanent physical change ID the affected facilit y 

vJiich wil l preclul e i t fran operating a t a oapa-

,'•' cit y greate r Uian the derated value . 

l>-00 Meno t o R-VI (E. Neidi 

t o II. Bergman) 12/13/77 

I taw slioul'l the conflic t letween 60.4 2 

t i e steam generator opacity (a)(2) , 

stain lard and IJ'A reference (g)(1 ) 

iieUmd 9 , U K neans t o (Liter- Ref. MeUi. 

mine opacity , be resolved? 9 

The steam generator opacit y standard was anendad 

on Dec. 5 , 1977, t o allow one si x minute period 

fer liour of not more than 27% opacity . 

D-Ul Muio IO R-IV (E. K_-icli l o 

T. Gibt.s) 11/1/77 

Will a Ixjiler vJiich turns a 

c-uiliin.il ioti of wtx.il waste, &|eut 

sulfit e I it riot, ani oil , t e 

subjec t t o NSI'S? 

Subpart D tes The toller rfonld be performance tested while 

firing a representativ e combination of fossi l 

fuel and wood waste a t or aliove U e normal cperating rate , Ixit preferably a t deslcyi capacity . 

D-02 Muno l o H-1V (E. keidi t o 

II. Uisebio) I/9/7U 

Is a sleaim generator wlii.ti lairns 

11X1% Mfjl lu^i.lne subject to 

NSI'S, fiil^n t I)? 

60.4 0 l\r> units wlildi burn 100% wood residue do not fit ti e 

definitio n of affected facilit y in Section 60.40 . 
UJ*: Kn-'EHEM.'E 

l>-U3 Muio l o R-IV (E. Reidi 

t o B. reals) 2/2H/7B 

(jUKSTItiN AEm.'1'Eli 

RIUIIATKM 

I*:IT:RMl NAT KIM 

DISCI ES1UN 

What s|ec i fi e changes t o a 

fossi l fiel-firu l steam 

generatrc wield insure that 

derating is acecnipl ished 

througji a rennanent physical 

diarige Uiat preclule s operat i m at a capacit y greate r 

Uian U e derated valie ? 

SUlipart I) In this case , wliere new loite r fans whose maxlnam cwpacity i s lelow 250 nm Btu/lir . ar e being 

instal la] , IvPft should be sent a copy of engineering calculation s showing the tota l ga s flow 

corresponding t o less than 250 mn Btu/hr . an) a 

fan curve fran the Can manufacturer stowing the 

maxlnun capacity of the fan to l e less Uian the 

gas flow corresponding t o 250 mn Utu/lr . 

l>-84 Muio l o R-IV (E. t-teich 

t o .1. Sargent) 4/29/76 

May a new steam generator which 

will Ixim low sul fur coal t o 

achieve ciinp] lance with NSI'S, 

turn higli sul fur coal fran the 

tin e of startup inti l ti e tin e 

perfotinanne tests are required? 

60.11(d) No Section 60.11(d) state s tha t a t al l times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, an ! malfunction, owners and operator s shall , t o U e 

extent practicable , maintain an! operate any 

affected facilit y Including associated ai r pollution control equipment in a manner consisten t 

with good ai r pollution contro l practic e for 

mlnimizinj auissions. 

l>-85 Menu to R-VI (E. fteich 

t o A. Harrison) 3/3/7 7 

foes |yrolysis fuel oi l constitute fossil fuel? 

60.41(b) No, .If a new steam generator which turns pyrolysis 

towever fuel oi l is designs) t o burn nore tlian 250 nm Btu/ 

h r . of fossil fiel , then i t will be subjec t t o 

NSPS, subfiart D, an) alculd l e performance teste d 

whil e turning 1008 fossi l fuel a t or alove normal 

stean production rate , hut preferably a t design 

capacity . 

D-06 Muio l o R-l I I (E. lelcll 

t o S. Wassersug) 9/6/7 0 

May fiiirticijlate mailer aitl S<v» 60. 0 

| e i fonnauoe tests l e waivoI for (b)(4 ) 

a steam .eneial.oi vJiii.h will I urn 

12 fuel oil ? 

Ves Uicotitrolled enissions ar e well below the standard. Ti e facilit y Is subjec t t o continuous 

monitoring that wil l inl ica t e excess enlssions, 

ani fuel analysis may be required a t ai y tin e t o 

assur e onnpl iance with U e stanlard. 'He source 

is requir e I lo notify UV\ immediately if i t 

KW!tele s t o a dirtie r fie l vhich nay liave U e 

potentia l to exceed ti e standanl. 

Ol Ol 
tun: 

IV117 

ItEKERENCE I»IE..TIIH AIKECTKD 

ittxajiAi'iori 

Menu in R-VIl (P. Culver 

to file) 9/25/70 

Does hoi lout, i.e., the first 

firing ol a lew steam generator 

to remove oils alii so in that 

would otlerwise hinder steam 

generation, constitute startup? 

60.2 

(o) 

m-.Ti.iaMINATJGN 

No 

DISCUSSION 

Dollout i s a pre-startq p procedure ard shuuld not 

Le considered to be part of source startup . 

D-8U Meno t o Regions (frcm 

E. Iteich) 3/6/7 9 

See D-7B 6 0 . ti Unit s wliidi do not blow soot continuously may have 

U e effec t of soot blowing included Ly performance 

testin g i n the normal manner, provided: 1 ) soot 

blowing i s permitted onl y during one of the tes t 

runs (i f greate r than 50% cf particulat e emissions 

occur during snot blowing periods , Ue n soot 

blowirrj should be required durin g 2 tes t runs) , 

and 2 ) U e soot blowing performance best m n 

should include as mudi of the soot blowirrj cycl e 

as possible . Mien a start duratio n soot blowing 

period limit s the number of point s whidi wil l he 

sampled during U e portio n of the tes t run tha t 

t i e soot blowers ar e on , then al l of the sampling 

point s lying on a t leas t one stack or duct dia -

meter sliould be sampled while ti c scxit blowers ar e 

o n , i f possible . 

The representativ e average poinds of particulat e 

imissions per millio n Btu (E) must he calculate d 

by li e lollowin j gereralize d equation rathe r Uian 

l y simple averagin j as outline d i n 40 CIH 60.8(f ) 

E = E (AjOLJ?

 + E i!t"J? 

.'SIR ~AR NIJHJ R 

BS) 

AR 

where: 

E = |xxinds of particulate emissions pur million 

Btu leat input (lb/ntn Dili or ng/.l) 

01 
o n : RU'ERINCE Ot'i^niiiN AH-TITI'l-J) 

RtUUIATKN 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

D-B8 

(emit. ) E = average E for dail y operating time 

E = average E o f sample(s) containing soot blowing 

SBR 

E =• average E o f sample(s) with no soot blowing 

NOS11 

A <= hours soot blowing during sample(a) 

B * hours not soot blowing during sample(e) containing 

soo t blowing 

R = average hours o f operation per 24 hour s 

S = average hours of soot blowing pe r 24 lour s 

If a significant variation ln the quantity of excess ai r 

is expected, then an additiona l analysis should he conducted . 

D-09 lette r (E. Uticli l o 

M. I€.vipudi) 2/23/79 

Are U e lour I y lea t fnpul s of 

t\a«) seiiarale axil-fire d steam 

generators, each of 2tm millio n 

Btu per I pour, aiklitive for NSI'S 

pur|r«se3, if lot h are imilul 

thrrxigli a txiinini precipi l.iliu ? 

60.40 , 

60.41 

No An affected facilit y is defined a s "each fossil 

fuel-fi rui stean generating unit of more than 250 

million Btu fe r hour". I-tssil fuel-fired steam 

gereratiuj unit means "a furnace or boile r used l n 

U e irocess of turning fossil fie l for U e purpose 

of producing stean l y heat transfer'*. Base) on 

Uiese dof Initlor e tlie lea t inputs are lo t 

additive atxl NSIS would not apply. 

See D-23 an ! D-65. 
an A: ItEEEKENCE OIIL'.THltl AI-THf-TED 

KIX1JIATICN 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

I J- 911 Mum t o R-1X (E. Reich l o 

C. Idler ) 4/25/79 

A resource recovery facilit y wil l 

burn refuse derived li e I. Hil l 

the Mil's for fossi l fuel-file d 

steam generators ami lor 

incineiatois apply to this facility ? 

60.40(a)(1), Condi- An USPS applie s bo each fossi l fuel-fire d steam 

60.50 , 60.51 tional generating unit of more than 250 millio n Btu |e r 

lour . Since refuse derived fuel is not a fossi l 

fuel, U e resource recovery facilit y would not be 

covered unless, in aildition to refus e derive ) 

fuel , U e facilit y would als o l e capable of 

burning 250 million Btu per Ixxr of fossi l fuel . 

An NSPS applie s to eadi incinerator of more than 

50 tons per day charging rate . Incinerator is any 

fur nance used in U e process of turning soli d 

waste for U e purpose of reducing ti e volune o f 

t i e waste by tamoving combustible material . If 

t i e resouroe recovery facilit y has a diarginj rat e 

greate r than 50 tons par day and burns soli d waste , 

it would l e subjec t to the incinerato r NSPS. 

Also se e discussion at Da-1. 

D-91 Memo to R-Vl (Reich to 

button) 6/211/79 

a) What is li e |jro|er spun value 

t o l e used with an NT) non j lo r 

wliidi is required In fxun a combination ol Iossi I ami um-ldssi I 

fuels ? 

60.45(c)(5 ) Ti e span valve should Le 500 ppm, Wiich MIS droscn 

t o represent a range consistent with the neasurul 

emission rate of 86 nanograms/joule. 

b) What is ti e value of I and I c 

t o l e usi-d wlieii using an tK>x 

monitor wheie loss i I ani nonfossi l I lie I are I ire. I simnl taiieously? 

611.45(f)(5) 'Ihe formulas outlined in 60.45(f)(5 ) can Le used; 

however, U e fie l feed txmposition must be 

iletetmined. If individual values for natural ga s 

and purge gas are known, K and Fc factor s can be 

detetniinol for eadi gas and then prorated t o 

obtain an overall factor . 

Bs 
CtlU KU'U:1NCK (UIOTIUN Airiciu) 

PFGULATION 

ll-TKHMINATIf>» DISCIK-JiOM 

D-5>2 tMro (Reich t o (Wine ) 

11/27/79 

An oil-firo o boiler in ti e 

City of I-akeland will be converted to coal/oil mixtures 

(CXM). The boiler is currently 

subject to N.PS. Will ti e 

conversion subject the source 

to Subpart D, Co, or neither? 

60.40a (d) Yes - NSPS apply

 to th o

 owner or ojierator of any 

Subpart 0 stationary uource vlilch contains an affected 

No- . facility , the construction or modification of 

Subpart Da which is commenced after the effective rlate of ti e 

standanl. Onue a source is subject to ISPS, it 

will always be subject; the boiler cannot be 

exempted fran continuing to meet Sdopart D. Mien 

the CT>. are burned, the source must meet the 

proration standard under Subpart D. 

Ihe holler Is considered an et 1st ing facilit y 

. for purposes of Subpart Da, ard would be exempted 

from meeting Da since S60.40a(d) exempts fron 

. mod if icat ion provisions any change to an existing 

unit originally-designed to fire osseous or 

liquid fossil fuels, to accomodate the use of any 

other fuel. 

D-93 Memo (Reich to Celcelman) 

2/4/E0. 

A utilit y generating plant was 111(a)(8) of 

ordered to convert to ooal under CAAA of 

the lower Plant and Industrial 1977. 

Fuel Use Act. Ihe generating 60.15(b) 

plant will effec t so many changes 60.14(e)(4) 

that it will be considered a 60.40a(d) 

reconstruction as well as a 

modification. Docs the exemption for modification wder 

Slll(a)(0 ) of ti e Clean Air Act 

alas tpply to reconstruction? 

No- Subpart Da, a t S60.40o(d), exempts a inlt (ran 

Subpart 0 applicability when a fuel conversion is underCondi- taken: "any dianqe to an existing 6tean generating 

tional - unit originally designed to fire gaseous or liquid 

Subpart Da fossil fuels, to accomodate the use of any ot.'ier 

fuel (fossil or non fossil) shall not bring that 

unit under the epplicabilit y of Uils sibpart". 

however, the total, financial contribution of the 

fuel conversion must be separated fran costs 

attributed to upgrading and in-proving the quality 

of ti e facility . If theso other costs are in ti e 

amount to trigger the reconstruction rcqulrurents. 

Subpart Da may apply. 

Although Subpart O exempts fuel conversion notifications required under an energy order, modification is different from reconstruction. EPA 

considers reconstruction tantamount to buildirg a 

new source, and U e exemption provided for modifications should not apply to reconstructions. 
CCDE RfJlHQJCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGUI.ATION 

DmmMIN'ATKaN 

DISCISSION 

D-94 Memo (fcich to Murphy) 

3/21/80. 

Would the proposed conversion 

of Schiller Station Unit | 6 

fran oi l to coal be subject 

to Subpart D or Da? 

60.40a(d) No Tie unit would not be subject to Subpart Co, 

60.14(e)(4) since S60.40a(d) exempts sich conversions fran 

being considered as modifications. Klether the 

unit is sdtijcct to Subfart D depends on vhethc-r 

it is exempted under {60.14(e)(4), which state s 

that use of an alternative fuel is not considered 

a modification if, prior to August 17, 1971, ti.e 

existing facilit y was designed to accomodate t.K.at 

alternative: use. A facilit y is considered to ba 

designed to accommodate an alternative fie l if 

that use could be accomplished under ti e 

facility's oonstruction specifications as 

anendoJ prior to the change. Unit 16 wus constructed prior to 1971, and its construction 

specifications arc identical to those of ir.its 

4 and 5 . Since units 4 and 5 burned cool prior 

t o 1971, unit 6 also had the capability of doing 

s o . Hence the exemption indcr 560.14(e)(4) is 

applicable an) the unit is not subject to Subpart 

D. 

T f W 

B/n/ao 

(Midi t o Ullrich) Northern Petroleum Oanpany baa 

two hollars raaulrad to monitor 

ID, •aUalona. Ths hollars burn 

• variable ocrabination of fossil 

and nonfoesll funis, with 

hydrogen gas aoraprlslng as Much 

• • 701 o f tha nonfossll ooropoiMnt. 

•id CFR 6fl 

Subpart D, 

Afyandlx A 

(Method 19) 

a) Dstsmlna the correct 

aquation far calculating tha 

P-Fhctor whan hydrogen gas 

Is ana of tha eanponants flrsd 

in ths toollar. 

b) Dstsrelna If • 00-j 

monitor can ba uaad to oonvart 

NO- concentraticn values to 

units of standanl If hydrogen 

9as is burned. 

Sinos ths tydrogan gss strssa contains organic 

compounds, ths 9Q equation in Method 19 may be 

used; ths uas of this equatfcn i s only practical 

If ths composition at ths nonfbssll t—X stream 

does not vary. 

A CO] monitor cannot to used to oonvart N \ 

concentration values to units of maas per unit 

calorifi c value if hydrogen gas only is turned. 

However, a CDj tocnitor can ba tued If thu )ydiv>-

gun gas Is always bums! In combination with a 

fossil fuel. This practice would ba limltal t y 
COM BBrasacs OESTIOM AFKUCTUJ 

RUQLDAriCN 

CfcTERMI NATION 

DISCUSSION 

IMS 

(out, ) 

o) DetenaJne a proosdurs for 

prorating ^-factors for uss ln 

calculating tt\ axosss .Missions 

from CD4 data whm tha Dollar l a 

burning a aanblnatlon of fossil 

and nonfossll fuals. 

d) Determine a proosdurs for 

prorating tha NO, amission liialt 

If a oontoinaticn of fossil and 

nonfossll fuels Is burned. 

tha accuracy of ths CDj monitor aa nore tydrogen la bumedf ths resultant CDj ln tha effluent 

gas strean will be lowwr as tha proportion of 

hydrogen i a Increased end ths instnment nuat 

measure tha CDj with greater accuracy. 

Tha procedure for prorating Pc-Pactor» in thla 

situation is ths sama am described for a combination of fossil funis. Since tha boilers 

burn variable oaublnatlcns, this procedure may not 

ba easily carried out* 

It l a unclear why this situation rfould arias. 

Subpart D has no provisions for allowing the 

hsat inputs fraa nonfossll fuels other than wood 

residua fuela to bo included for datarmlnlng 

aonplianoe. Ihe NO„ emission limit is tuned 

only on ths heat content resulting fran the 

combustion af fossil fuel, prorated only to 

aoaount for ths burning af a oattolnatlan o f 

fossil fuels. 

•) Datamini a procedure for 

calculating tto IBL .Mission 

rats and amission "imitation for 

a performance test to bs 

oonductad on a boiler burning 

a ocnbinatlon of fossil snd 

nenfossii fusls. 

ths anission limitation uaad for a parfonnanoe 

test should ba that limitation specified at 

40 CFR 60.44. This limitatiai specifies a mass 

par utlt of haat input tterlved fran fossil fiel . 

Therefore, Subpart D requires that 1001 fossil 

ftul be burned during ths performance testf ths 

only proration procedure allowed is for a 

ocmblnation of fossil fuels, or a oonhlnation of 

fossil and wood residua fuels. 

D-96 Moo (Raich t o CfenfcfarJng) 

ifr/eo 

NOuld Modifications of 

handling and feeding equlp-

•ant at aavaral units siiijact 

Um units t o USPS? 

1

60.2(h) 

60.14(e)(2) 

Oandltional It appears that Northern States i a undergoing an 

increaaa in production rate, tnia would be 

subject to NSPS i f i t involves a capital expenditure cn ths facility , ths Individual boiler. 

It Is thus essential to determine if the con— 

ponents being enlarged ara part of the affected 

facility . 

bi 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

rFTERMINATION 

DISCUSSICN 

D-97 Memo (Reich to Ferdas) 

9/19/80 

A steam generator is designed 

to bu m primarily wood waste 

supplemented by No. 6 fuel oil. 

The owner wishes to burn 2.4% 

sulfur fuel oil in combination 

with wood waste such that the 

NSPS of 0.8 lb ST>2 per mm 

Btu Is not exceeded during 

normal operations. Is tlie 

exclusive use of 2.4% sulfur 

fuel oil allowable during 

periods of startup, shutdown 

and malfunction? 

S60.2(o), Yes The Chesapeake Corporation is not required to 

(p), (q); stockpile low sulfur oil for use during periods 

$60.11(d) of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; burning 

2.4% sulfur oil is acceptable. Fhiissions during 

these periods must be limited to the extent 

practicable, as required by 40 CFR 60.11(d). 

It should also be pointed out that lack of 

sufficient quantities of wood waste cannot be 

considered a malfunction and that lack of 

availability of fuel oil is not a justifiable 

excuse for non-compliance. 

D-98 Memo (Reich to Gardebring) 

11/21/80 

(a) Are ramping and soot 

blowing cycles considered 

representative conditions 

for coal-fired steam generators? 

(b) Under what circumstances 

can Method 17 be substituted 

for Method 5, ln performance 

testing? 

$60.8(c) Soot Soot blowing is a normal part of every source 

blowing- operation, and it would be artificial to cut the 

Yes cycle off during the performance test. Soot 

Ramping- • blowing was considered in developing Subpart D 

No and in subsequent amendments to that standard. 

Ramping is not necessarily representative of 

source operation, particularly in this case where 

the source in question is base loaded. Additionally, there is little evidence to supiort a 

contention that ramping was considered in the 

original Subpart D testing data. 

40 CFR 60, Method 17 can be used as an alternative to 

Appendix A Method S at fossil fuel-fired steam generators 

when (1) the flue gas temperature at the 

sampling location is consistently less than or 

equal to 320°F and (2) the flue gas at the 

sampling location is unsaturated with water vapor. 

For flue gases unsaturated with water vapor and 

having temperatures greater than 320°F, the 

acceptance of Method 17 as an alternative to 

Method 5 will be based on the demonstration that 

the particulate matter concentration determined 

by Method 17 is greater titan or equal to the 

particulate matter concentration that would be 
axe REFERENCE OUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATICN 

CRTFRMINATION 

DISCISSION 

•easured by Method 5 at a temperature of 320°F. 

If sit e specifi c sampling logistic s preclude or 

compromise the use of Method 5, requests for the 

alternative use of Method 17 should be 

addressed bo the appropriate regional office . 

*D-99 tette r (Johnson to 

Dhonau) 12/11/80 

Is peat considered a fossil 

fuel for purposes of Subparts 

D and Da? 

60.41(b)| 

60.41a 

* Clarification 

No Fossil fuel meana "natural gas, petroleum, coal 

and any form of solid, liquid or gaseous fuel 

derived from such materials for the purpose of 

creating useful heat". Peat Is not considered a 

fossil fuel under this definition; hence, 

electri c utilit y power plants burning peat would 

not be subject to NSPS uvless they were also 

capable of firing fossil fuel at a heat input 

rate of over 250 nn Btu per hour, ln vhlch case 

they would have to meet the standard for that 

portion of the fuel comprised of fossil fuel. 

For new units capable of combusting 

more than 73 MW heat input of fossil 

fuel (either alone or in combination 

with any other fuel), Subpart Da 

would apply and the performance test 

would be conducted regardless of the 

actual fuel fired. The Subpart Da 

standard was written purposely to 

avoid any proration of the standard 

based on the percentage of fossil 

fuel in the total fuel mix. However, 

if the percentage of fossil fuel is 

25 percent or less, the boiler is 

classified as a resource recovery 

unit under the definition in 

Section 60.41a. A boiler capable 

of firing over 73 MW heat input 

of fossii fuel, which burns over 

75 percent peat on a calendar 

quarterly basis, would be considered a resource recovery facility. 

TJ 

bi 

co 
CODE REFERENCE 

D-160 Memo (Reich to 

Voltaggio) 

1/23/81 

D-1Q1 Letter (Reich 

to Chandler) 

2/11/81 

QUESTION APFECTED 

REGULATION 

Do waste lubricating 60.41(b) 

oils which are rerefined and then 

burned in a steam 

generator constitute 

fossil fuel? 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

No 

Would the conversion 

of two boilers from 

No. 6 fuel oil to 

coal be subject to 

Subpart D? 

60.2| 

60.14(e)(4)! 

60.15 

No 

.U-Sjetf 

Fossil fuel is defined at 40 CFR 60.41(b) 

as "natural gas, petroleum, coal, and any 

form of solid, liquid or gaseous fuel 

derived from such materials for the purpose 

of creating useful heat." Haste lubricating oils are not considered fossil fuels 

because their purpose is not the creation 

of useful heat, but rather for use as a 

lubricant. 

The steaa generator will become subject to 

NSPS if, at any time. It burns or becomes 

capable of burning fossil fuel at a heat 

input rate of over 250 mm Btu per hour. 

It must then meet the standard for that 

portion of the fuel which is fossil fuel. 

Since the boilers ln question commenced 

construction prior to the time of proposal 

of Subpart D, they will be subject to NSPS 

only if they undergo a modification or 

reconstruction. As provided at 40 CPR 

60.14(e)(4), the following shall not be 

considered a modification! "use of an 

alternative fuel or raw material If, prior 

to the date any standard under this part 

becomes applicable to that source type, 

the existing facility was designed to 

accommodate that alternative use. A 

facility shall be considered to be designed 

to accommodate an alternative fuel or raw 

material if that use could be accomplished 

under the facility's construction 

specifications as amended prior to the' 

change...". Since the two boilers were 

desiqned to accommodate the use of coal 

prior to August 17, 1971, these boilers 

qualify for the exemption in 

560.14(e)(4). 

As defined ln 60.15(b), reconstruction 

"means the replacement of components of 

an existing facility to such an extent 

thatt (1) the fixed capital cost of the 

new components exceeds 50 percent of the 

fixed capital cost that would he required 

to construct a comparable entirely new 

facility, and (2) it is technologically 

and economically feasible to meet the 

applicable standards set forth in this 

part." The source has demonstrated that 

the costs of the new components for 

boilers one and two will be significantly 

lens than 50 percent of the cost for 

comparable entirely new boilers. 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTICN AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

ttTERMINATION DISCUSSION 

D-102 Memo(Reich to Garber) 

7/9/81 

four ooal-fired 

boilers each have 

a design rated 

capacity of 294.9 mn 

Btu per hour heat 

input rate. The 

boilers have been 

operated for varying 

periods of time 

above 250 mm Btu per 

hour, but because of 

design defects, have 

not been able to do so 

on a continuous basis. 

Is Subpart D applicable? 

«U0.a),2J 560.40(a)(2) state s that the standard 

applies to each fossil fuel-fired steam 

generating unit capable of firing fossil 

fuel at a heat input rate of more than 

250 mm Btu per hour. This has 

consistently been Interpreted to mean 250 

mm Btu based on design capacity art) not 

normal operating capacity. The boilers ln 

this case have a design capacity of 

over 250 mm Btu, are physically capable of 

operating at this rate , and have done aa 

ln the past. Additionally, the source has 

not been able to present any technical 

evidence to support Its claim that the 

boilers ate not capable of firing over 

250 mm Btu per hour. 

See determinations D-20, D-51 and D-59. 

Only the heat Input fran fossil fuels end 

wood residue are to be used. This is 

based on the provisions of 

560.43(a)(1), %hich prohibit any owner or 

operator from discharging SOj emissions 

ln excess of 0.81b/mm Btu heat input 

derived from liquid fossil fuel or .liquid 

fossil fuel and wood residue. Non-fossil 

fuels such as coke oven gas are not 

Included, and thus cannot be used to show 

compliance. 

See determination D-70. 

Yes 

D-103 Memo(Relch t o Ferdaa) 

8/7/81 

Does Subpart D allow 

the heat input from 

non-fossil fuels to 

be Included for 

determining compliance 

with NSPS? 

60.43(a) NO 

...... . • a . • 

01 

Ol 
O

0 

l _ 

all IC 

2£ 

a I E • S.5 £ 

41 «J 

C H lai l L 

^ tl 41 -< 0 

41 C O •D -» 

.. - _ ., -•• ji u e ,i3 i 

n 41 4> 41 -a _ Q.rt (/I— ti n u u 

BiH^-£X.a<Iis g .CCO . 

0 — ias o gx i 'R''~"P

3

 1! J* i ^3 

ui JS'j: 

Si i. ~" 

aJ u 

u 

is 

41 

*i C 

z 

a o i ° 2. £

 w

fl-o tc 12 s Sag 

C H (0 

&§ o o 

IN 

0

3 

0 

f

G S> £ rt 

rt UJ 01 

_> rt 4) -O 

"3 O &• 15 

3-S h.£ S 

rt 0) Bl £ IQ 

rt (U g y & . aj ••* 4) 

.ess 

I 

A 

3 2 

3 * 

wo 

o 51 o--

•M 41 aaa

1

 Q 

2 ? 41 « 5. 

0 IS rt 4-> 

IS U 0 rt u 

f « M H 

>i V, g. 

V - " 
m»: i<i:in<iwti: rUKSTK*! Al'lTX-'IM) 

KHJIIAI'ION 

M.-I1.IIMINATHW 

DISCI fcSItJN 

IVi-l Mum lo It-Ill (K. 14.'uli to 

II. li-im) 12/7/78 

Hie .Southeastern I'uhl ic ik.'ivice 

Authority of Virginia is planning 

lo build a resouroi.' roooveiy plant. 

Hie boilers have a ca|iacity to 

burn 316.9 x IO6 litu. NLIIIIMI 

o|«raliiij conditions coll tor 80% 

UHt-' and 20% coal, altlomjli 11111% 

coal can be fired. 'Hie boilers 

will he used exclusively Ui furnish 

stean fc eleclricil y lo the 

Rirtswiulh Naval Shi|>yarii. 

Should tl*.- proposed NSI'S for 

electric utilit y sleain generating 

units (43 Ht 42154, .Sept. 19, 1978) 

tie applied to litis facility? 

tO.40, 60.40a 

60.41, 60.41a 

No Hie proposed NSPS is applicable to sources satisfying two tests: 1) tlie source must be an electric utilit y steam generating unit wtiiiii cuwienced 

construction after 9/18/78; and 2) tlie source must 

he capable of oanbusting note Uian 73 mw (250 

million ntu/hour) heat injxit of fossil fuel. 

Altlomjli meeting tlie accord test, tlie boilers do 

not appear to meet the first. "Electric utilit y 

steam generating mit" means "any steam electric 

generating unit that is constructed for the purpose of supplying more than one-third of its 

maximum design electrical output capacity to an 

electrical distribution systtm (br sale." In tills 

case, the electricity will be sold, but not 

through an electrical distribution systtm to tlie 

general |*iblic. Hie boilers will not be Bubject 

to tlie proposed NSIS pwido l the electricity will 

next be Bupplial hade through the distribution 

system once it enters tlie shipyard, tliese boilers 

will be subject to the existing NSIS for fossil 

fuel-fired steam generators. 

Update: Hie prunulgated NSPS defines electri c 

utilit y steam generating init as any steam electric yenerating unit that is physically connected 

to a utility power distribution systan ani is 

constructed for the purpoue of eel liny note tlian 

25 mw electrical out|ut and more tlian 1/3 of its 

potential electrical out|>ut capacity. Hesource 

recovery mits incorporating steam electri c 

generating units that would meet li e applicability 

requirements tut Uiat oanbust less than 25% fossil 

fuel on a quarterly basis are not covered by tlie 

St>j * reduction requirements l301 ar e siliject lo 

the St)? emission limitation and all other 

provisions of Ota regulation. 
umt: 

IXi-2 

io:ii]tii*i: till .ST ION Aini-'iwi 

IUIJIIAIKIN 

mrn:itH1NATU-N IlISCIJESlON 

lette r t o llivimspliei e 

(l\. Illicit lo S. (IIIIIIiiKjs) 

7/2V « 

a) Is an existiu j j«**.-r plant 60.40a(d) 

considered U» have l«jun 

originall y designed l o Uirn coal , 

o r oiI or gas, it it originall y 

burned aw l but was tlien 

modified and currently turns oi l 

o r gas? 

b) If the plant in ijueslion was Snlipjrt II 

determined to lie "originall y ami Vu, 

designed" l o Uun owl , prior to 60.14(e)(4), 

B/18/71 , would i t he exeni|it firm CAA £111(a) (8) 

NSHS under Subfiai t I) and fla, if 

t i c plant was now modified t o bum 

coal ? 

Yes 

Originall y designed refer s to wliatever the plant 

was capable of burn in j prior to tlie dat e of 

proposal of the relevant standard. 

linder 40 U-'K 60.14(e)(4), tlie use of an alternat e 

fue l or raw material is not considered a 

modification , if "prior to Uie dat e any standard 

under this part becomes applicabl e t o tha t sourc e 

ty[>e, Uie existin g facilit y was designed t o 

accraroodate tliat alternativ e use." 

If the plant were considered to be originall y 

d e s i glial to I Him oi l or gas, conversion t o coa l 

would not subjec t i t t o Subpart Oa. Conversion 

would subjec t a source (not subjec t t o Subpart 

Da) t o Subfku't U unless i t could slow conversion 

was by reason of an order under tSECA or any 

su|icrseding legislation . 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTBD 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

Da-3 Letter (Reich 

to Stuart) 

4/2/81 

A cogeneration power 

plant will have two 

785 mm Btu per hour 

input boilers 

connected to a single 

turbine generator. 

The plant is covered 

under Subpart Da. 

Does this plant 

require a spare flue 

gas desulfurlzation 

(FGD) module? 

60.40a(a)r 

60.46a(d)(3) 

Under 560.46a(d)(3), "an affected facility 

with a malfunctioning FGD system may be 

operated if SO2 emissions are minimized 

by ... designing, constructing and 

operating a spare FGD system module for an 

affected facility larger than 365 MW (1250 

mm Btu per hour) heat input." Affected 

facility is defined at S6O.40a(a) as each 

electric utility steam generating unit 

capable of combusting over 250 mm Rtu per 

hour heat input of fossil fuel. Although 

each boiler is an affected facility, 

neither is larger than 1250 mm Rtu per hour 

Input, and neither requires a spare FGD 

module. 

The cogeneration plant must still meet two 

provisions during emergency conditions. 

Under $60.46a(d), an affected facility with 

a malfunctioning FGD system may only be 

operated If SO2 emissions are minimized 

by 1 

(1) operating all operable FGD system 

modules, and bringing back Into 

operation any malfunctioned module as 

soon as repairs are completed, and 

(2) bypassing flue gases around only the 

FGD system modules that have been 

taken out of operation because they 

were Incapable of any SO2 emission 

reduction or which would have suffered 

significant physical Hamaqe if they 

had remained in operation. 

No 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETER-

MINATION 

DISCUSSION 

Da-4 LetterfReic

h to Miller) 

5/15/81 

Da-5 Memo( Reic

h to Bealsf 

8/10/81 

Electric utilit y 

steam generating 

unit is defined as 

any steam electri c 

generating unit that 

is constructed for 

the purpose of 

supplying more than 

1/3 of Its potential 

electric output 

capacity and more 

than 25 MW electrica l 

output to any utilit y 

power distribution 

system for sale. For 

purposes of determining 

applicability of 

Subpart Da to 

cogenerators, does 

EPA consider only the 

net power delivered t o 

the utility ? 

40 CFR 

60.41a 

Yes EPA di

d not Intend that electric power 

generated at an Industrial site and 

used at the Industrial'site be 

considered as being si^pllcd to the 

grid system for sale. IV sale, EPA 

meant electric power actually supplied 

to the grid systea for distribution. 

I.e. the electric power generated by 

ths cogeneration unit minus the 

industrial on-site consumption. 

ia 

An affected facilit y 

is defined at 

$60.4 la as "any stem 

generating unit that 

constructed for the 

purpose of supplying 

more than 1/3 of its 

potential electri c 

output capacity and 

than 25 MW electrica l 

output to any utilit y 

power distribution 

system for sale." A 

source plans to 

construct a boiler with 

a 1,095 mm Btu per hour 

heat input capacity. 

The electric output 

supplied to the power 

distribution system for 

sale will be less than 

1/3 of the potential 

electric output capacity 

on a yearly average 

basis, but greater than 

1/3 during the 180 day 

sumner period. Is this 

proposed boiler subject 

to Subpart to? 

Subpart 1ST 

No 

It MM newer Intended that ths standard * 

cover this boiler, which over the aourse 

of a year will sell leas than 1/3 of lbs 

potential electric output capacity. 

Although Subpart Va does not currently 

specify a time period over which the 

1/3 threshold is to be determined, 

technical amendments to Da being 

prepared by OAQPS will specify the use 

of an annual averaging period for 

determining ths 1/3 threshold value . 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

Da-6 Letter (Johnson to Binder) 

9/14/81 

Subpart Da provides 

that resource 

recovery facilities 

combusting less than 

25 percent fossil 

fuel on a calendar 

quarterly heat input 

basis are exempt 

from the S02 

percentage reduction 

requirement. Can a 

facility which 

normally utilizes 

less than 25 percent 

fossil fuel utilize 

fossil fuel in 

excess of 25 percent 

during a refuse 

collection strike 

and still retain the 

resource recovery 

exemption? 

60.43a(d) Conditional Ihe liberal 25 percent allowance was 

provided because EPA recognized the 

problems involved ln operating resource 

recovery facilities, and wanted to allow 

for intermittent periods when refuse was 

not available, periods of equipment 

breakdown, and startip periods. The 

facility at issue intends during the 

winter months to supplement waste with 

fossil fuel to the extent that the fossil 

fuel may supply 20 percent of the total 

heat input. Whether the facility is a 

resource recovery facility exempt fran 

the percentage reduction requirement will 

be based cn whether the source can 

present reasonable assurance it will be 

operated below the 25 percent fossil fuel 

cut-off. 
CODE REFERENCE 

Da-7 I

Memo (Reich to 

•fleals 5/3/B2 

QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

"al Arte boilers less $60.40a(a) 

than 250 mm Btu/hr 

exempt, i rrespecti ve 

of how much electricity 

is produced for sale? 

Yes 

b)Th e company is 

involved in cogeneration 

of electricity. Would 

it matter whether the 

company generates 

electricity, uses «4iat 

is needed on-site and 

sells the remainder to 

a utility, or initially 

sells all electricity 

to the grid and buys 

back the electricity 

needed on-site? 

$60,41a Yes 

The affected facility is each electric 

utility steam generating wit capable 

of combusting ove 250 mm Btu/hr heat 

input of fossil fuel. 

The two methods would not be treated 

differently, since the net amount of 

of electricity sold to the grid would 

be the same in both cases. 

See also Da-4 

c)T o be Subpart Da, 

must a boiler sell 25 

MW and 1/3 of tlie 

potential electric 

output capacity? 

d) Is power sold 

computed on a yearly 

$60.4 la Yes 

S60.41a 

average on 

An electric utility steam generating 

unit is defined as 'any steam electric 

generating unit that is constructed 

for the purpose of supplying more than 

1/3 of its potential electric output 

capacity and more than 25 MW electric 

output to an/ utility power distribution 

system for sale. Both conditions must be 

met for a boiler to be subject. • 

It was never intended that the standard 

cover a boiler selling less than 25MW 

over tie course of a year. EPA is 

currently preparing technical amerrtments 

specifying a yearly averaging period, ami 

will consider the 25 MW a yearly average 

when evaluating an application. 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

e) Is the power 

sold relative to each 

turbine generator, or 

the total of all the 

turbine generators 

at a site, or to each 

boiler, for purposes 

of determining Subpart 

Da applicability? 

$60.41a Where there are several generating units 

which pass steam through a ccmmon turbine 

generator, the annual average net power 

sales (the electricity produced by the 

turbine generator and sold to the utility) 

can be determined. The total can be 

proportioned back to each boiler, based 

an the amount of fuel lrput from each 

boiler, to determine how much of the sales 

to assign bo each boiler. 

For example, if two boilers of over 250 nm 

Btu/hr heat lrput pass steam through a 

cannon generator and sell a total of 60 MW 

of electricity, the total will be 

proportioned back bo each boiler. Assuming 

the fuel input from each boiler is the 

same, each boiler will sell 30 MW. If this 

Is more than 1/3 of the potential electric 

output capacity, each boiler will be 

subject to Subpart Da. 

In another example, two boilers of equal 

heat input rate send steam through a 

single turbine generator and sell a total 

of 40 MW electricity to a utility grid. 

Assuming the fuel input fran each boiler 

is tlie same, the 40 MW of total sales 

would It- ; roportloned equally, with each 

boilci -jned 20 MW. Hence, neither 

boi let <-. i exceed the 25 MW and hecane 

subject to Subpart D, however. 

^i 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

Two points must be emphasized in 

this determination. The annual 

average net power sales are 

proportioned based on the amount 

of fuel actually fired in each 

boiler, not simply on boiler 

capacity. Subpart Da cannot be 

circumveneted ty combining steam 

fran existing and new facilities 

of identical capacity and supplying 

a greater proportion of the steam 

using the new facility. The 

second point is that using this 

proportional approach is only 

possible when the boilers are 

interconnected to the steam turbines 

by a cuiimi steam line. 

L 

J 
. 5 K -

_ l

M 

 lm 

z 

"a c 2 

iS 

s 

s 

I 

- fe 

— <£ 

a. a- o 

5 - 1 

r2 * 

" 5 -

s * a 

0 

s 

-; i 

£ 2

N 

5 — J 

HI" 

•V > , 

n

r 

 e 

s. 

s 

y ui u

x 

i 

- 51 

01 - c 

n « aW P 

>s oi C 3 .' fe » C 

U C ^ It 

"-« T - XJ ^ 41 

x. Z — 3 Z 

•5 H & 5 I * 

!*•. al *^ >. 

ID B H \_ , 

"2 fe ~ g — (». 

" ?i Q

 &

 S"< 

*£ ^S

8

s 

* 9 >< - S 

*- g — *J c 10 J 

"5

B&$1%2$ 

 sis' 

•5 fl — 

§ <5 ~ 

"B w 

S 0 — 

fe •"

 w 

* * 

-3. , 

W - Jl 

1

3 

s 

 3 » 

6 £3 .pfe 

n I

 z

 s

 a

 * > S S j , 5 .fe 

- 3- • * = 

«>*-.„ _ 

10 1) — 

;42j» 

S2 

J . 

u — 

— >a ~ 

* J —1 
out: 

t - 4 

BIJWHKK UHI-STUN Ait-tlcriai) 

R1X1IIATICN 

IH-.TKHMlNATltN 

DISCUSSION 

Internal inunoratilum (Wllacii 

t o Devine, Ifeyion I, 

11-10-74) 

.Is tlie combined nunicipal 

reftise/scwtige slmVje Incinerator pnijiOBol for Hie trwi 

of Ifcilyofce, Massachusetts, 

subject t o HKCS under 

Sui-purt i-:,o, or both? 

Subparts Subpart E 

Rcvisedi 

See B-7 

Ihe facilit y Is onl y subjec t t o N5I5 for municipal incinerator s because (1) tlie feci lil y i s 

designed primarily aa a nun le i pal incinerator 

and (2) the fecillty wil l consume 100 tone/day 

of soli d waste , more than 75% of wlildi i a 

municipal type waste . Since the regulations 

for sewage sludge incinerator s do not specif y 

how the standards wil l apply vhen sewage sludge 

is bums) ln ccntiination with other waste 

materials. It wil l he necessary t o refer al l 

questions of interpretatio n of Subpart O, othe r 

Own 100% sewage sludge , t o OSSK. Me have re -

quested 0AQPS t o prepare amendments to the 

sewage sludge regulation t o clarif y this 

situation . 

L'-5 Internal manoramliin (Wilson 

t o Ikanher, 11-29-74) 

If an existin g fossil fuel-fired 

steam ijenerabor is chaikjol 

t o acociwialale Uie use of nore 

tlian SO Ions/day of soli d 

waste (niuiiei|v,l type), is 

that unit subjec t t o Sub|vu~l 

t? 

60.5 0 ND On June 14, 1974, M>PS were amended t o specifi -

call y exempt such steam generator s from Subpart 

D. At. tlie time this amendment was being considered, we tlnught It was unnecessary t o exempt 

tliese inits fran subpart E sinc e Uie "primary" 

purpose of audi units was t o generate steam, not 

reduce wtste . 

L'-6 Akron nunicl|¥il 

incinerator (boyer 

to alones, 11-10-75) 

Hie Akron mdiclfvil incinerator 

generates Ble<-nn .inI Is design**! 

for fossil fuel fiiiiHj if live 

refus e subtly should l e inter -

rupted. Is it subject lo 

SulHMil I) (Sle.nn ffcnerat ion)? 

Sulifnrls Mas If tlie design heat input for fossil fuel exceeds 

I) and I. 250 mJUicn ntu/ltr . 

^i 

01 
Ulti HIIIHII*:.-: (Jtll'^liKM AKKtl-'ITJl 

RMUUIATItN 

IOTERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

E-7 Meno (W. .lobnsan l o 

R. n'Unviell) 17 May 76 

Ibw do NSPS apply to a proposed 

cruidnul niriicipal refuse/sewnrje 

sltnlje incinerator for wliidi live 

fee.I make iq> lno not been 

determined? 

Subparts CTND .If the incinerator burns greate r than 50% municlE s. O pal refuse . Subpart E applies. If i t turns 

greate r than 50% sewage sludge . Subpart. O applies. 

If O applies, an optional prorated standard based 

an the percentage of eadi waste consumed wil l be 

acceptable . Optional SIP - (Sewage sludge SID) 

(% sludge ootmmed) + (municipal refus e inc . STD) 

(% refus e consumed). Ihe 20% opacit y stahlard for 

sludge appl ie s a t al l times under Subpart O 

except during malfunction, startup, or dmtdown. 

The source could conceivably qualif y for a less 

stringent opacity standard under 60.11(e) . 

See detennination E-12 for update 

E-8 lette r t o Michigan l>ept. 

o f Natural Resources. 

(R. Wilson t o I). (Prison) 

f» January 76 

Ia an 85 ton/day solld-liqnid 

waste incinerator subject lo 

NSPS for iimicipal incinerators? 

60.51(b) OM) If It is designed t o burn more than 50 tons/da y of 

soli d waste, i t is subjec t t o NSPS. 

E-9 Mum (Heidi t o I). Hansen 

19 .Ian. 77 

Would Seattle's proposal soli d 

waste lyiolysis facility be 

ccmslderol a municipil incinerator 

subject to NSI'S? 

ND Pyrolysis is a totall y differen t process than 

Incineration, ani i t is not appropriate t o 

afiply NSPS incinerator stanlards to the process. 

L 

t: 
cxi*; 

t>-io 

RI3'H(l-Nt>: 

lette r in K-X (C. (iaiil.lirxj 

t o A. Nswnan) 4/12/77 

UUKSTHN Al>'IXTn-3) 

RIWIATION 

ll-.TKHMINATICN 

DISCI SSIOI 

Is ti e pro|x.sed "starved ai r 

gasifier " in Richland, Washington, 

subjec t t o NSI'S for n>uiici|>al 

Incinerators? 

60.51 No The facilit y onl y partiall y oxidize s the soli d 

waste material under starved oxygen conlltlon s 

ani then ca|*tures the entir e hot conbustibl e 

gas generated ln the process for by-product 

usage. Due t o tliese major desicai differences, 

the facility i s not siabject to NSI'S Subpart E. 

t'-l l lette r to Alaska lumlier 

(K. lepl c t o O. Mason) 

5/10/7 7 

Is a bleach plant incinerator 

wtitdi burns onl y chanicals re -

coverud ln tlie sulfit e |ulping 

process subjec t to NSI'S for 

imnici|>at incinerators? 

60.51 No Tlie chemicals turned do not fi t the definitio n 

of solid wast e l n 60.51(b). 

E-12 lette r t o Alaska (J. Karmer 

t o T. Itanna) 1/24/78 

What is the present appl icabilit y Sibparts 

o f NSI'S t o cont liner! iiiaiici|ial E & O 

incinerator/sewage treatment plants ? 

Municipal Incinerator 

Sewage Itefuse % Chargliq 

Sludget Rate 

(tons/day ) 

100 0 any rat e 

51-100 0-49 >5 0 tota l waste 

0-50 50-100 > 50 tota l waste 

0 100 ' iz- SO mun. refus e 

1-99 1-99 

11-99 

0-1 0 

i=. SO tota l waste s 

> 1.1 sewage sludge 

Appl icabl e 

Subpart 

(40 art 60) 

subpart O 

•prorated, O/E 

eulipart E 

none 

subfiart O 

1-09 _ 50 tota l wastes, subpart O 

£.1. 1 sewage sludge 

90-100 L 50 tota l wnstes, 

i. 1.1 sewoge sludge 

none 

* se e determination E-7 
' 

.S 

1 *d 

~ s 

F t 

2

I 

I

s 

>•< 

r 

1 

1 

j 

1 

•

2

1 A 

 I 

 I 

1 

1 

i 

1 

nee the m

fuse, mo

ste consrd wastesnbust ible

glass an

define] 

lustrial 

incinera

:ilit

y wi

32ss.Ssa.So'.s . 

co 

a ^ 

— <J3 

in 

60 

ter (a 

e 

i ner

If Uie steam 

greater tlia

n 

woul

d als

o 

stringent. 

u 

8-

U 

XJ 

u 

a 

aU 

- 0 Jl 

« * » - I

s

 Jr

3 

(0 k. rt — 1 T 13 _ 

~B a iJi Wil l an industrial heater which wil 1 tha

n 50 T/ilay of 6 

lie subject Lo NSI'S 

ators? 

i

a 

i ~ 

a a . ^ 

_Moil) to lt-11 c 

Lo M. Scxilni 

19 APR 7H 

£ 1 | = 

3 , , 

I i 

i

5JS 

s _ •" <»• 58 'is 

c

" Wl 11 a steam genera 

burns greater tlian 

soli

d waste t

« subj 

Incinerator staular 

u

1 

 — 

— 18 Memo to R-II 

to D. Santel 1 

10 MAY 78 

z 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

E-15 Memo (Reich to 

Santella) 

4/10/81 

A modular incinerator 

system is supposedly 

designed such that it 

has a capacity of less 

than 50 tons per day. 

Test reports and flow 

calculations both 

indicate the charging 

capacity is over 50 

tons per day. Does 

NSPS Subpart E apply 

to this system? 

60.50(a) Yes Subpart E states that the standard applies 

if the charging rate is over 50 tons per 

day. The background document states that 

charqlnq rate refers to the capacity of the 

incinerator. Since test results and air 

flow calculations show that the incinerator 

unit can process more than 50 tons per day, 

it is clearly capable of processing more 

than SO tons per day, snd is thus subject 

to the NSPS of 0.08 gr/dscf. 

TJ 

® 
CODE REFEROICE QUESTION 

E-16 Memo (Reich to Kahn) 

10/30/81 

AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

A permit was issued 

for oonstruction of 

a device to recover 

silver from exposed 

photographic film. 

The application 

claims the device is 

an experimental 

pyrolysis device. 

Evidence suggests 

that municipal/ 

commercial type 

refuse will be 

burned, not solely 

photographic film. 

Is this device an 

incinerator subject 

to NSPS? 

60.51 Conditional This is not a pyrolysis device because it 

Yes operates under oxygen rich conditions 

(see E-9 and B-10). Incinerator is "any 

furnace used in the process of burning 

solid waste for the purpose of reducing 

the volume of the waste by removing 

combustible matter." Solid waste is 

"refuse,' more than 50 percent of which is 

municipal type waste consisting of a 

mixture of paper, wood, yard wastes, food 

wastes, plastics, leather, rubber and 

other combustibles, and noncombustible 

materials such as glass and rock." 

According bo the application, RDF will be 

evaluated, including wood, paper, 

cardboard, office. Industrial and 

municipal waste. Since these materials 

are considered solid waste, and since the 

purpose of the device is to reduce the 

waste volume, this device should be 

considered an incinerator. Since its 

charging rate is over 50 tons per day and 

it was constructed after the effective 

date of Subpart E, it is subject to 

Subpart E when burning solid waste. 

TJ 

co 
II 

m:II:UI>* I-: 

Amcord Inc. in Clatkdjle, Arizona (3-^!)-74, 

Wils-m) 

t»u:STi<iN 

AITI H«: pr<)|«s«.«I changes lo 

the Ainund bictlil y in ("laikdale considered a iwl i lici t ion 

or construction uvdcr NSI'S? 

AI>IX*li:i» 

I'KtailAIKaM 

60.60 

mrii:itMINATHN 

DISCISSION 

F2 Inleinal Mcnorandun, (Wilson 

lo rtcaln, Region IV, 4-11-75 

ami 5-15-75) 

How <lues a |ortliii»t cement plant 

which utilizes tin' kiln exhaust 

to heat tlie leeil tn tlie dryer 

a|iply lo Mil's? 

60.60 

r-3 

F-4 

Ideal Cement Cn. 

Wilson) 

(7-31-75) 

letter to Envirotedi 

(G. Stevens to 

IJ. Marline/) 

211 January 76 

Are cement plants which convert 

fnin natural ijas lo coal subject 

to Part 60? No discernible 

increase in emissions inrcuis. 

SAUK AS F-2 

60.14 

60.62 

60.63 

60.62(a), 

(c) 

No 

Aincord claimed that tic information in it s request under 60.5 is confidential ounmorcial anil 

financial information. Therefore, this determination has been classified "(-UK OFFICIAL IHE 

CNI.Y." Tlie Enforcement Division Director in 

each region has a onpy of this determination. 

The feed rate to be used ln determining compliance of ti e kiln shall be the feed rate to the 

kiln only. Section 60.62(a) states that "no 

owner or operator shall cause to be discharged 

into the atmosphere from any kiln any gases which 

contain particulate matter in excess of 0.15 

kg per metric ton of feed (dry basis) to the 

kiln" . The performance test slvould be conducted 

with ti e feed to the dryer sliut off. 

The absence of a significant increase in emissions as determined by the student's T test in 

Appendix C of Part 60 excludes them from 

applicability. 

SAMK AS F-2 HAG 

I I the gases from Uie kiln pass through the kiln 

collection device prior to enterinj the raw mil l 

dryer, tien tlxi raw mill dryer control device must 

lie designed to meet the 10% opacity standanl only. 

'Ihe source could conceivably apply for a less 

stringent Capacity standard uixlcr 60.11(e). The 

opacity standard for tlie kiln collection device 

is 20«. 

laL'ttcr tn Dept. ol Human 

Heimurces (It. tl'fxmnell lo 

Iv. Urogory) 19 April 76 

SAMIv AS I-J See F-3 

loo fro 
CODE REFERENCE OUlvSTItlN AFFIvCTED 

RICUI-ATION 

Dlv-lt.ltMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

F-6 lette r t o Portland Cement 

Assn. (W. Johnson to 

C. Sclinetijetger) 

24 June 76. 

Ilow do NSPS emissions standards 

d|ol y to a new operation involvii»l a 4 stage prelieater with a 

prccalcine r and tvyposs from which 

there are two outlets for emissions? 

60.62(a ) 

(1) . (2) 

With the bypass closed , the system must meet tlie 

particulat e anissio n and opacit y standards of 

60.62(a). With the bypass opL-n, sin.ultaneous 

sampling at both ojtlet s must yiel d a oailiincd 

(•articulate anission s rat e ro greate r than .30 

lb/bi n of feed and each anissio n point i s . 

limited to a 20% opacit y requi rement. 

F-7 Memo (Stevens t o 

Mas]any) 10 Jan. 77 

May allowabl e particulat e emission 

rate s fran both ti e kiln aril tlie 

clinke r coole r be added when both 

thes e facilitie s have only one camion 

vent t o tlie atmosphere? 

Yes Adding the emissions rate s to provide a oonblned 

allowable emissions rat e is acceptable . 

F-8 Memo t o R-X (C. Gaulding 

t o B. Eusebio) 3 May 77 

(a) What is ti e applicabl e particu- 60.62(a ) 

lat e standard for a kil n uhose design 

incorporate s a feature whereby the 

product is cooled prior to discharge? 

(b) SAME AS F-3 

(C) SAME AS F-2 

Tie plant in question doe s ro t have a clinke r 

cooler . Tlie kil n i s designed such Uiat tiie 

clinke r is cooltd in a lower extension of the 

kiln . Since no justificatio n lias been provided 

lo slww that this kil n wil l result in greate r 

emissions than tlo;:c- found in nore trai l tional 

kilns, this kil n must meet ti e particulat e 

anission standards for kiln s in section 60.62(a) . 

(b) See F-3 

(c) See F-2 

oo 

co 
tun-: itivFi-jtmct OHVIION AH'H"IM1 

Hiiaiiy\TKW 

I>.-IT:RMINATICN 

DISCUSSION 

C.-I lielter from R-VII to 

J. East in 29 June 79 

G-2 Memo (Reich t o 

Davis) 5/12/82 

ro the NSPS regulations pertaining lo niti ic .«:i«l plants 

ap|>1y to any facility which 

produces M.ak (30-70*) 

nitric acid, regard Ieiis ol 

its size? 

60.70 Yes Tie regulations apply to any facility producing 

weak nitric acid by either Ue pressure or 

atmospheric fircssure process. Tliere is no 

minimum size governing ajif>l icat ion of the regulations. The units in question, which arc capable 

of producing less tlian two tons of acid per <liy, 

are coveiod under Subpart G. 

A nitri c acid plant $60.2» 

was constructed in $60.14(e)(6)j 

early 1975. The Subpart G 

company has now 

discontinued use of the 

control device, claiming 

the plant i6 not subject 

t o Subpart G because it 

is composed of existing 

equipment relocated to the 

site . Is this a new 

source subject to NSPS, or 

rather tbe relocation of an 

existing source and as such 

exempt under $60.14(e)(6)? 

This facilit y was constructed using 

components fran two existing nitri c 

acid plants in different States, 

as well as $168,532 of new equipment. 

An existing nitri c acid plant is 

any nitri c acid production unit the 

construction of which cemmenced 

before August 17, 1971. This facilit y 

did not exist as a production unit 

before that date, even though sane 

of its components were in existence 

prior to that date. Rather, this 

plant represents a new nitri c acid 

production unit formed fran parts cf 

several existing units as well as 

new components, and is thus subject 

to Subpart G. 

oo 

js. 
RM-'lvlll-NL'K (JtllvSTKN 

II-I Itetrolt Oioiilcal Works, 

Mich. (Nuv. 21. 1973 -

Wilson) 

AlVt-L-llvn 

RIUIIATIOM 

IKTKRM INATIOIM 

DISCISSION 

(a) See A4 

(b) If production is increased 

aliovc design ca|>acity ani an 

emission omitrol ilevice is installe d to irevent. an inc revise 

In actual emissions in terms of 

weight o f |o l lutant/tline (e.g . 

lb/hr), is this a nodification? 

6O.IT0 

60.2(h) 

No 

See A4 

Tills could not be considered a modification 

sinc e tliere is no Increase in emissions. 

11-2 Allie d Cliemical Plant, 

Anaoortes, W.. (6-10-75, 

D. Hansen, R-X) 

Where a facilit y is enlarged arid 

"new" on IssIons are Intermingled 

with old emissions, tow is complianc e determined? 

60.0 2 

60.8 3 

The entir e facilit y (old and new section ) is sub -

jec t to NSPS unless the new emissions can he 

monitored. 

11-3 lette r t o Northwest Air 

Itillution Autliorlty 

(I). Hansen to 

O. Ibllman) 12 Mar. 76 

May the instmnent spin of tlie 

continuous unission monitoring 

equipment lie se t at 0-2000 |ipn at 

Allie d Chemical's recently expimled 

Sulfuri c Acid plant in R-X? 

Yes Tie accuracy, calibratio n error specifications, 

and response time of the noni tor would be the 

same a s required t y NSI'S but the zero ani cali -

bration drif t would diffe r t y as much a s 25 ppm. 

11-4 

11-5 

lette r to 3M (1)., 

(T. Voltaggio l o 

l>. Derifora<Vi) 

19 fiel. 76 

leLte r (O. livel y to 

C. White) 7 Jan. 77 

.Is SL>2 testin g with Matliesou- 60.1 3 

Kltagawn ga s detecti m lul-us every 60.84 

s i x mollis «in <«x.tplable alternativ e 

t o SOj omit iniKms nonilor h>j fiir 

Sulfuri c Acid plants? 

No 

Is a sulfuri c .el d plant which is 

desitjnol t o lre<il ani o.mvert the 

sulfur ilioxide onill.ed from £inc 

concentrat e roaslfuj subject l o 

HSI-J? 

60.01 

(a) 

Using tliese tubes, a sample could only be drawn 

fran a point several indie s inslite the stack, and 

only lOOoe of sample is withdrawn. Also, deter -

mining stack gas Dow fran process inle t ai r 

conpressnr curves Is of questionabl e accuracy. 

Ihese tubes ar e not deslgna l for aid are not 

suitabl e fiir meaaurirrj effluen t emission levels 

(run process stacks. 

No NSI'S do not apply to facilitie s where conversion 

to sulfuri c acid is utilize d primarily a s a means 

o f preventing sulfur dioxide anisslons t o tlie 

aUiio6|iliere. 

oo 

oi 
<»n H : Itlvl-lvltlNCC 

l - l Interna l Mcmorandiin 

(Conlwiii Ui Regional 

flit ic e Director s AI.W 

Program Div . 

H-27-74). 

(«u:;rii»i AFFIX .TED 

l.rXaJIAI'I.N 

Wv-n:nMINATIfJN DISCUSSION 

Are Asphalt Plants whirl. u;»: li e 

Dryer brim I'n.X'a.s subjecl Lo 

USPS? 

60.90 Yes T i e possibilit y of hydrocarbons in ti e exhaust 

gases raise s some question concerning applicatio n 

of a bag-louse to thi s type of plant , li e oil s 

could possibly coat and plug ti e hags. There is , 

however, nothing which precludes a|iplicatio n of a 

venturi scrubber. 

1-2 

1-3 

1-4 

Interna l Mcmorandiin 

(Wilson t o llevine. 

Region 1 , 11-4-74) 

Interna l Memorandim 

(Wilson t n Wassersmj, 

Region III , 12-5-74) . 

(Joe Holmes turn 

R»«|ei' Gorski , Regiixi V, 

2-21-75 ) 

l i e Narragansott Improvement Company 60.90 

lias replaced a rotar y dryer, a mixing lower, including screening 

systun storage bins , a weigh lo|i|ier 

and mixer and also live existin g 

electrostati c precipitato r with a 

fabri c filte r dust ci>l lector, is 

thi s ini t subject to NSI'S? 

Are asphalt plant s nountul on 

trucks ("Asphalt-Mobile " plants ) 

subje.rt t o Nil's? 

Yes Since thi s facilit y lias replaced nearl y al l of the 

canpnnent parts which comprise an asphalt concrete 

plant , and these part s account fo r most of the 

emissions associated wit h such a facility , i t i s 

equivalent to the installatio n of a new source. 

60.90 Yes 

Is an existin g |o i t.ihle .i:.|balt 

plant subject lo-NSI'S i l il. Ir.insler s OWIH;| sli i|> aul leloc.ites? 

60.90 No 

T i e background document (APTD-1352c) a t page 119 

indicate s there i s no justificatio n for not in -

cluding portabl e plant s under the standard . 

Initially , performance test s stoul d be oondicted 

cn each affecte d facilit y unti l ti e Regional 

Offic e is reasonably confiden t tliat AsplialtMohile plant s are consistentl y achieving conp i iance with NSPS. Once consistent conpl iance 

i s assuiurt, performance test s may be waived i n 

accordance with Section 60.8(h)(4 ) of NSI'S 

See page 9310 o f March 8 , 1974 Federa l Register. 
iS 

£ -

S r i 

£ 31 46

 fl 

tTic.c n o 

d f SI* * £.5 

vo io c 2 b 3 

- .. 5 « 51 -

, %*C 

a

c 

"i

C 

 i-1 -

t.a: i ^ 

i a o J 

xJ ~ Z 

— i . a; * J 

aU XJ Z 

J2 '•" S — 

c XJ ir. ^ 

IS e 3 *• 

— — c/i 01 

I T

Si

! 

1 

a-li 

0 i 

*ish

171 

a— <N 

<N CN 

e c 

15 S 

8 3 

•Jl X 

11 

it 

%2 

-X XJ 

L "i? (N 

•S •* 

Cl - • 

la K O 

< IB aP 

U 3) aO 

U £ CD 

u

 2. 2 "* M K ° 

a •? "•* o*i 

[JJ» 5 * 

8 Bj*£.3 t^l 

i s = S «-« 

«S««Jt( i 

»Ja.» . ffl U -/ 

— 41 

£ — 

fM — 5 

"

c

 9 5 

s 

•s .« 

—

ffSj| 

 >a ^ j . 

II) ->• .u i . 

sirs 

c S ^

-

 "i :*• 

6 — ii 

C i) -I .W S! 

? 1 ^ | -

i - 5 .=• § 

£ * s "x 

-•r « ^ " 

fi *

 B

i a 

a. - .aJ .± 

10 II 1. c 3 

C •£ •€ — J 

5f = 

I N pa 

ON ^ 

a

o 

L

F 

B 

a 

8 

m 

8 

v 

3 

IS 

•

XJ 

3 VJ 

•t 

M 

Sa' 

0 

•^ 

V 

s 

= EH* 

5 0! "3 

0! t J£ xJ 

— c J 

< ~ — w 

VI 

< 

ra> 

L. I 

41 = 

M — 

L 
ai* : RM--tKI*K>: fJtlKS'l'-ICN AiriLTIJ) 

w-niiATicN 

rt-TKRMINKTICN 

DISCUSSION 

1-9 lette r t o Tfcmng brothers, 

Inc. (T. I feu rlson to 

J . Ibdley) 1 April 76 

Smne as 1-6 See 1-6 

1-10 lette r t o Industrial 

Asrlwilt (W. Pierce to 

M. Masters) 19 October 76 

!«iiie a s 1-6 See 1-6 

1-11 Memo t o R-VII (E. Reich 

t o E. Stenlienson) 

21 Mar 77 

(a) If an existin g as|halt 60.1 4 

concret e plant IVIG an Increase (e)(4 ) 

in emissions due l o I lie recycling 

of as|iialt anrl there are no 

physical changes t o tlie plant 

necessary t o accomodat e Uie use 

of recycled aspliatt material, does 

the plant leocnie 6ulije»:t t o NSI'S? 

(b) If an existin g asptialt orncrete 60.14 

plant has an increas e In anis e lot is 

due to tlie recycling of asphalt, ant 

tliere are fliysical changes necessary 

t o the plant t o accrum>kile the use 

o f recycled asiilicilt material, iloeu tlie 

plant heoune subject l o NSI'S, 

Suljar t I? 

No ""Hie evistln g facilit y was designed t o aucumudate 

tha t alternativ e use" (recycled asphalt). 

\tes In this cas e th e above exception does not apply 

( c ) Must a plant vahlch is (resentI y 

oiveio l l y NSI'S otmtiiine l o nvet 

NSI'S viiil e iccyc l ii»| as|ihalt? 

(<l) How tJ«Kil.l f«-i fonimico test e 

I c cuttlm-tal for a pl.ml wliidi 

i e recycling i'isf4»fil 17 

6O.90 Mes 

Performance tests Should be conducted vhil e 

processing recycled materials in the normal 

imnner a t or a!ove normal production rate , but 

preferably a t design capacity . 

oo 

oo 
cx»*: RIJ'lJII-NCT: QUEST U N AEKHLTEI) 

RMGMIAThN 

TER -

MINATION 

DISCUSSION 

1-12 Meno t o R-X (E. Heidi 

t o R. inner) 2B SEP 70 

Is one perfoniiance tost run 

performed on an as|lialt omicrete 

plant with an a|irurently a<1«)iiate 

control devic e sufficien t t o 

determine oonpl iance with NSI'S, 

Suljart 17 

60. 3 H} Ti e source should he require ! t o conduct perfor -

mance tests in accordance with the requlranenta 

o f 40 CFR 60. 8 

1-13 lette r Alalama AKJ 

(Reich t o Tliunas) 

17 Aug 79 

Is an asphalt plant which converts 

fran a lot-mix production to a 

cold-mix proluctlcii subjec t t o 16PS7 

60.91(a) No Cold-mix asphalt facilitie s ar e not subjec t t o 

NSPS. Ibwever the plant would be required t o 

meet the standard anytinB i t i s operated a s a 

hot-mix plant. 
ai*; RH-KKIM-t: QUIXSTUN AFFBLTET) 

KttJUIATlOM 

ITI.TERMINATItf. 

DISCISSION 

J-1 Internal Memoranlitti 

Farmer to Stevens 

lO/B/74 

Will ti e steam generator t o lie 

Installe d at a hydrogenat.ion 

facilit y be subjec t t o NSI'S for 

fuel gas tr»i*xiet ion devices? 

60.10 0 hb The functions of the plant apparently ar e different fran thos e of a petroleum refinery (Section 

60.101(a)). In addition, the unit would not fal l 

wrier steam generator standards (Subpart D) 

because ti e hydrogenaticn unit's off-gase s 

were not produced "for tlie pirpose of creating 

useful heat". 

J- 2 Gulf niiladelphi a 

refinery . Dorter t o 

Stevens 11/21/75 

Are gas pilo t lights for a new 

oil-fire l petroleum prc»?38 

heate r subjec t t o $60,104? 

60.104 No These pilots constitut e less than 0.5 t o f the heat 

releas e Cor tha unit. It was not the intent o f 

the regulation t o cove r 6uch insignifican t 

sources. Pilo t lights ar e not considered t o be 

combustion sources. 

J - 3 lette r t o Region IV 

B. Italian! t o T. Harrison 

7/20/7 6 

When should petroleim refinery 

hydro-joi sul title continuous 

monitoring systems l e installed 

under NSI'S? 

60.105(a)(4 ) In a timely manner afte r specification s ar e 

issued for Sectio n 60.105(a)(4). 

J-4 lette r in Rag ion IV 

D. Heals t o M. Uiffy 

3/21/77 

ITo NSI'S for fluid catalyti c 

cracking mil s apply to Ashland 

Oil's residual oi l converter 

fchich wil l have a nnxiinnii onpacit y o f 200 U.l/.loy an I anit less 

than I lb/hr of jtirticulates ? 

Subpart J NO NSPS for fluid catalytic cracking units were 

never envisioned to cover 200 hbl/day units. If 

larger slae residual oil converter inlts were 

built. It Is likely that they would be abject to 

NSPS. 

TJ 

CO 
±3 il 11 

5 ?

ft 

! 

A

5 

. 

z 

© w IB 

Sci I

s 

0 £ IN- 1 .d I U f> 

I 

rs 

:2 C g ~ »• &

3 

t x £ VJ = £ QJ U O IS aW 5 jj 

I 

I

a 

! 

•c J

s 

0 

 (V. 

CSS , 2 5 "

c 

5 

XJ

"

 V 

e 

E 

si u 0 r> 

5S^ 41 . ^ - I " *5 

a

s 

5 •C 

 f» a — 

SiC is 2 * — cv 5 = 0 ^3 »^ 

*•» -* r-

§** 

II* 

Jfc ^a 1-S. 

9-BI .0 

0 0 0 

|^> e 

SSji S S

a 

i 

-it 

s 

c 

•Ho 4) -~i •J £ IS Z 

COO-

41 5 xJ- h 41 a. 2 « S5 

?

H 

 • 1

li 

1 

w IS A -

>a

5 

S 

IS * '- rs VJ t; 

ill cy 13 — u r "J 5

XJ

3 

 r-

k. La Pa 

•5 
(in*; Uin-Jt-KNCI. OHKaTlttJ AFITXTMI 

HHaiiATinr, 

rariratMINAT10N 

DISCUSSION 

J - 9 Menu t o Ifcsjion II 

K. I*.'ich t o G. Hire Ian t e 

11/2/77 

Hiy a refinery l«' granted a 

waiver from tlie !>>2 and HMS 

monitoring provisions of 

Suhiort J? 

60.1115 

(a)(J ) 

No At the tine that this request was made, ther e were 

no provisions for granting waivers fran NSI'S. 

•I- 10 Menu t o Region II 

K. Reich l o C. Marc 1ante 

11/9/7 7 

Is a plant wliidi processe s 

paraxyleue Iron mixed 

xylene s subjec t t o NSI'S, Subpart J ? 

60.101(a) Yes The mixed xylene s constitut e petroleum derivative s 

J-l l ' Memo to Region II 

K. Reich t o K. Giaccone 

B/l 7/78 

Is an ST>2 continuous monitoring 

system which monitors the slack s 

of two crude oi l heaters using 

a sample trans|or t 1 inc fran each 

stack and a ouimnn sn-^ analyze r 

and electroni c recoidor acceptable? 

60.105 

(a)(3 ) 

Yes The system described above wil l be acceptable a s 

long a s each stack is sampled every 15 minutes and 

both stacks ar e tested simultaneously during Uie 

continuous monitor performance specificatio n test . 

J-1 2 Memo t o Region VI (K. Reich 

t o II. Hergman 10/3//H) 

a) Dries refinery generated natural 

gas constitut e luul gas? 

60.101(d) 

b) Arc |rocess lieaters which ar e Sirfipart .1 

capable of burnirrj fuel gas, but not 

actuall y used to hum I in-1 gas, 

subjec t t o NliPS, {.uhparl J? 

Yes 

NO If at some future time the fuel is switched to 

fuel gas, tlien ti e process heater s wil l be subjec t 

t o NSPS, Subpart J . 

.1-13 Memo t o Region VI 

K. Ifeicli tn II. Hergman 

9/26/78 

IO liutaue .ml pio|viiic l.l<: fractions 

constitut e fuel gas':' 

60.101(d) Yes These gase s ave generated by a petroleum refiner y 

irocecr. unit. 

CO 
cane RtTERtNCK 0L&SI.ICN AFFECTED 

RUGUIATIGN 

CCTUtHINATION 

DISCUSSION 

J-14 Han (E. Raich to 

M. Itxipar 7/17/79) 

Does tha definition of 

petroleum refinery, for purposes 

of NSPS, include topping plants? 

60.101 tea Topping plants in a pipeline are used for 

distillation and the distillatio n process ia 

clearly covered under 40 CFR 60.101(a) i 

"Patroleta* refinery" mans any facilit y engaged in 

producing gasoline, kerosene, distillat e fuel 

oils, residual fuol oils, lubricants, or other 

products through distillation of petroleum or 

through redistillation, cracking or reforming 

of unfinished petroleum derivatives. 

J-15 Kemo (Raich to Sydnor) 

3/19/DO 

Does Subpart J apply bo solvent 

refined coal plants? 

60.100(a), ODndi- In tho SHC I prccctui, wtmru II« vn.il li; i'iui.l^.1, 

(b) tional I rooted ;*%} tlun flltrrnl , the product does rot 

(0.101(b) ' fall under tlie definition of |ulrolcun n.t i!cf ir.ed 

a t $60.101(b) and the plant would rot cone uidor 

tit- <k.fInlti<*i of |v*tin1eun refinery. Tbo SIC It 

process generally utilize s a nore lyplc.il ref iniuj 

process with the final product a liquid. This 

product would fall aider Uie definition af 

petroleum in 560.101(b). Therefore, if any of the 

affected facilitie s mentioned in $60.100(a) are 

usud in the process. Subpart J would cpply. 

TJ 

CO 

co 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

TU Memo (Re i ch 

to Miller) 

1/2/81 

A small petroleum 

refinery, to be 

constructed shortly, 

will contain a 

reflex drum. The 

drum will Intermittently release a 

small amount of gas, 

which will be vented 

to a boiler for 

destruction. Would 

the boiler be 

considered a fuel 

qas combustion 

device, and the 

source subject to the 

monitoring provisions 

of Subpart J? 

6ft.101, 

60.105 

Since off qas is helng vented to a fuel qas 

combustion device, the source is subject to 

Subpart J and must fulfill the monitorlnq 

requirements in $60,105. Because of the 

low concentration of H2S in the process 

qas, it is appropriate to allow an 

alternative method of monitorlnq in this 

case provided that compliance is 

demonstrated and the quality of the process 

qas or some other parameter does not chanqe 

siqnlfIcantly enough to jeopardize 

compliance. 

Yes 

CO 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION APFBCTTO 

REGULATION 

DETER-

MINATION 

-j=lT Memo(Relc

h to Kohnert) 

7/7/81 

Does Subpart J apply 

to a new boiler 

Installed to replace 

the refinery's two 

existing boilers? 

40 CFR 60, 

Subpart J 

Yes 

•3=ir Mem

o (ReldTTo— 

Wagoner) 1/22/B2 

HjS is stripped from 

fuel gas to meet the 

NSPS for a new boiler. 

If the ll

2

S is 

returned to the fuel 

gas supply of an 

existing fuel gas 

combustion device, 

would this constitute 

a modification and 

subject the existing 

device bo NSPS? 

560.14(e), 

Stixpart J 

TB" 

MSOSSICN 

The provisions of 6ubpart J are 

applicable to any new,'modified or 

reconstructed fuel gas combustion device. 

A fuel gas aonbustion device, defined 

at $60.101(g), includes ary boilers 

used to ocntxist fuel gas. Therefore, 

installation of the boiler, after the 

effective date of the regulation, 

constitutes oonstruction of a new source 

and subjects the boiler to provisions 

of Subpart J, providing its fuel source 

continues to be refinery fuel gas. 

Tlie exemption at $60.14(e)(4) provides 

that use of an alternative fuel or raw 

material is not, in itself, considered a 

modification if the source is capable of 

accomodating this fuel or raw material. 

In this case, the existing combustion 

device is already capable of burning fuel 

gas. 
eg 

xJ

0 

 U) 

13 t  

fio tu * —• u a 

<B 0 

O O O 

.6 v£ aO 

IO 

S o 

~ 8 s 

i« 0 

ta os c. 

u -y u >. 

e t c 

£ E 41 _ W 

^ c N ty io 

u — C m 

-?.?*. 8 

ID U t£ u 

CM 

6 * 

II 

b »^ 3 — *J 9 

Q,b«ir t 

drill 

4) - I 

kl - I .H 

8 .8 2 8-5 

tfl — *n S p 

<"*u 5 in w o 

X « «w v H£ ^ 

e - piil ! Jt r 

(SU E S- n 

£UQ.kkw« s 

tl 

>a"S 3 

S*o 2 n 

_ w TO u C n a u 

e - p e io pi t u 

* •* 2 ••• "•< "» c o 

~ a u &•§ J 5 e o 

8: 

S'S'o 

« C "O i> 2 
CODE Date of 

Response 

QUFSTTCN AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

nPTFRMINATICN 

DISCUSSION 

d) What is tbe Intent 

of S60.105(a)(4)? 

Its Intent is to allow monitoring ot ll2s 

concentration of the fuel gas far a 

conbustlon device which removes H^S prior 

to burning, as an alternative to SO, 

monitoring. For a eourcehaving several 

carioustion devices which burn a cannon 

fuel, H2S monitoring may be performed at 

one point where the HjS concentration is 

representative of all feed supplies. Where 

Gource control methods do not conform to 

the provisions, alternative monitoring 

requirements ace provided at 

560.105(a)(3). 

Continuous monitors for SOj should be 

Installed and operational prior to 

performance testing. Continuous monitors 

for H2 S should be installed ln a timely 

manner after specifications are issued. 

e) While performance 

specifications for 

ll2S CEMs renaln 

unpromulgated, what 

is EPA's policy 

regarding the 

implementation of 

S60.105(a)(3 and 4)? 

Tl 

CO 

^1 
IW • « <U 

JBO S 

V aO £ 01 

«5U 

JJTJ 8 J JS B 

8 =

E

 - * 

3 Qtil^l O 

ft)— 

aW .W 

3fl 

•

8 

9 
an: RU-'Utt-no: ot II wr II w AITtCTUI 

RtXUIATICN 

nCTKRHINATICN 

DISCUSSION 

K-l Internal Memo, Region VI. 

(Wllmi t o Itoyle) 8/12/74 

If arnirmla storage tanks ar e 60.110 ODnriidiangal to stor e crude oil . Is 60.2(h) tional 

that considered a "modification"? 

Tliese tanks are subjec t t o NSPS only i f they were 

not designed prior t o An a 11, 1973, t o accomo -

dat e the storage of crude oil . 

K-2 lette r bo Exxon (M. Trichon 

t o F. Westphal) 12/30/75 

a) Is a causti c storage tank 

subjec t l o NSI'S? 

60.1Kb , d. Cbrriie , f,) tiona l 

.If tha causti c Is not a petroleum liquid , petro -

leum hydrocarbon, o r condensate, the causti c tank 

i s not affected . 

b) to a storage vesse l for 

petroleimi liquids greater than 

40,000 gallons subject t o NSI'S? 

60.110(a) Tfes 

K-3 Memo in Region VI 

(A. Harrison to N. Radford) 

4/6/7 8 

Ikies relocation of storage tanks 

constitut e mull f icatlon ir»ler NSrS? 

60.14(e)(6 ) No Relocation o f existin g facilitie s does not consti -

tut e nodifIcatlon under NSPS. 

K-4 Meno in Region VI 

(A. Ihrrlaon to V. lajiness) 

7/14/78 

IS a petrole.ni liquids storag e 

vesae l at a drillin g ami |roi1uctlon facilit y subject t o NSPS7 

60.110(b) No This subpart does not apply to storage vessels for 

petroleum or condensate stored, processed, and/or 

treated at a drilling an) production facility 

prior to custody transfer. 

TJ 

CO 

CO 
aeaTicM Mracreo 

RtniATIOH 

IKTHtM NATION 

OIBCUniCH 

"EPI Lattar IRalch to Vlanic) 

6/ia/ao 

t^trolaua la daflnad aa "tha 

aul a oi l rantvad Arcn tha 

earth and tha olla darlvad 

froa tar aanda. ahale 

and coal*, roc Ua purpoaaa 

of UC ragulatloia. doee 

faatrolaua Include olla ton—1 

In tha ooal-ooking procaaa— 

ooal tar and lta refined ooal 

tar olla? 

ltt.UU Ito lha definition of patrolcua aa currantly uead In 

federal VOC ragidtJona doea not lnclule ooal tar 

and lta refined ooal tar olla . tha original 

lntant of tha definition tat to enaur* coverage) 

at ooal gasification and liquefaction. IC It \m 

a<t<—fftantly datenalned that ooal tar or ooal tar 

olla are algrtltlcant contributor* to ai r 

pollULlon, VfK May ragulat* th— at that tl—. 

•I 
OOOE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATICN 

DETEPMIMATICN DtSCUSSICN 

Ka-2 Letter (Heidi to Goldberg/ 

Raher) 8/26/81 

Wbuld the 

Installation of 

piping, ptrp or 

mixer to a storage 

tank in conjunction 

with a product 

storage change (which 

Increases missions) 

cause the tank to 

became subject to the 

NSPS? 

S6<U«(e). 

SUipart Ka 

ConditionalIs there a de minimus Subpart Ka 

Increase threshold, 

I.e . one ton/year, 

below Uilch the NSPS 

would not apply to a 

non-exempt storage 

change? 

No 

Providing that emission Increases are 

the result of the product storage change, 

the Installation of piping and/or pumps 

would not sifcject the tank to Subpart Ka. 

The switch in product is exempted by 

S60.14(e) because the existing tank is 

capable of accommodating an alternative 

fuel. The piping and pumps are 

Inconsequential because this equipment 

is not considered part of the affected 

facility , the tank. However, the case 

of the froduct change and Installation 

of a mixer would subject the tank to 

Subpart Ka. Because the product change 

requires blending, the tank Is not 

considered capable of accomodating the 

alternative fuel. Also, the mixer Is 

considered part of the affected facility . 

Thus the Increase In emissions resulting 

from the changes Is cons idered a 

modification. 

For storage tanks, mission factors are 

used to approximate emissions, missio n 

factors do not provide the necessary 

precision to discern whether there was an 

Increase of one ton/year. Increases are 

determined on a kg/hr basis, so that a one 

ton/year Increase would result In an 

emission difference which could not 

practically be approxlmatied on an hourly 

basis. 

J 
CM* RWUfl-JJUK 0UI-2>TI0N AFFULTU) DCTKR- DISCUSSION 

RHGIJIATKJN M1NATI0M 

Ir-1 Meno t o ftegion II Is a secondary learl smelter Subpart L tee Since heat la being reflects! off of the refrac-

(E. Heich to P. Ciaccune) which utilizes a rotary kiln tory lining Into the charge in order tn melt It, 

1/12/78 subject to Nb°l*S? the rotary kiln la essentially the sane aa a 

rotating reverberatory furnace. 

XI 

to 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

L-2 Memo (Reich 

to Geiselman) 

1/5/81 

A rotary kiln subject 

to NSPS Is controlled 

by two baghouse9. A 

proces baghouse 

controls charging and 

smelting emissions, 

and a separate 

sanitary baghouse 

controls tapplnq 

emissions. Tests 

of the process 

baghouse show a 

violation of the NSPS. 

Do emissions from the 

sanitary baghouse 

need to be determined? 

60.122} 

60.123(b) 

No Emissions from the sanitary baghouse do 

not have to be tested, and should not be 

combined with the emissions from the 

process baghouse In order to determine 

compliance with the particulate standard. 

This is based on two factors. The test 

data used in development of the standard 

did not include.emissions data from any 

sanitary baghouse. Also, this decision 

aqrees with 560.123(b), which states that 

"particulate sampling shall be conducted 

during representative periods of furnace 

operation, includinq charging and tapping." 

Hence, the standard applies; to the emission 

stream being ducted through the capture 

device that leads to the process baghouse 

during all phases of furnace operation, but 

does not apply to any emission streams 

being ducted through other capture devices 

during tapping. 
a i * RIKHO-NCK uunsrwN AFFHCrU) 

RBGIJIATKN 

IKTKRMl NAT ION 

DISCUSSION 

M-l Internal Maiorandim Bock 

t o Barry, (4/10/74 ) 

l b ti e foJeral NSPS apply t o a 

plant tin t uses nustl y oone r 

art] brass irejuls to pro luce 

billet s Erun vAiicti oon« r tubing 

is made? 

60.130 No Oi page 45 o f volume one of the backgrourd docuI ment (APTIV-1352a) It i s stated that "the standards 

| do not apply to . . .brass or bronea foundry opera-

\ v tions. " The plant In qjestlo n appears t o he more 

' a foundry than a secondary brass or bronaa ingot 

plant. 

M-2 Internal Memorandum 

Wilson-Miller Region I. 

(12/20/74) 

•Is the leonatd C. Manrtelt Assoc i a tea , 60.130 

Inc. facilit y in Pi-ovlilenre,R..I., 

subjec t t o NSiS? 

Ito The described facilit y i s not sttoject t o NSPS 

becauaa tha electri c arc furnaces were constructed 

prio r to June 11, 1973, and the aldltlo n of an ai r 

pollutio n contro l system by Itsel f would not make 

the facilit y sUrJect to the standard. In the 

event ther e has been a modification, or substan -

tia l reconstruction o f the furnaces sinc e 6/11/73 , 

tha only standard of performance tha facilit y 

would ba arfvject to Is Section 60.132(b). vhlch 

does not Include a concentration limit . 

Tl 

Ul 
Ct* * RI-FUtt-KCb' OUKSCKN ArVHurm 

RtJGtMATHJN 

i*:n:RMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

N-l Meno t o R-IV (E. Reich t o 

T. Uil*,s) fl/11/77 

Are O-IIOP furnaces subjec t 

t o NSI-S, Ailrar t N? 

Subpart N No Since the NSPS cnf>loy Best Availabl e Control 

Technology Cor en 1 salons oontrol. to rake O-DOP 

furnaces subjec t t o NSPS would imply that ti n 

50 mg/dacm NSPS particulat e emissions standard 

would represent BACT for 0-DOP furnaces. Recent 

test data has shown tha t Q-DOP furnaces are abl e 

to meet a more stringent onisslc n standard when 

using BACT. ta order to prevent us Aran incor -

rectl y implying tha t the NSPS Subpart N onisslona 

standard represents BACT for the Q-BOP furnace, 

the Q-BOP furnace wil l not ba subjec t t o Subpart 

N. This type of facilit y will Is subject to a 

much nore stringent s tarn lard under prevention o f 

significant deterioration (BACT) and/or mder the 

new source review interpretative ruling (IAER), 

as applicable. 

Revised i see update'N-2 

N-2 letter to AAPCC (J. Fanner 

to T. Owen) 11/0/78 

a) Is ti e O-0OP process Sulipart N 

of steel prodticticn an affected 

source inder 40 CFR 60, Sibpart N?» 

b) What portion of ti e pro- 60.144 

ducticn cycle should Ilk* lest 

enconftass? Arc tlio rnrulcMn feriuds 

l«,'tw«.-tr> oxy<|et) blouu sain>lel or are 

tliese |xrii«lo cxclmlud trim the 

test [<L-riod? 

\tes A Q-BOP furnace is an affected facility . This was 

stated explicitly in the preamble to the BOPF 

opacity atandard then it was promulgated on 

April 13, 1978 (43 FR 15600). 

The regulation statesi For metlod 5, the sampling 

for each run shall centime for an integral iuntier 

of cycles with total duration of at least 60 

minutes. Tho sampling rate shall ha at least 0.9 

dscm/hr (0.53 dscf/mln) except that shorter 

sampling times, v*en necessitated by process 

variables or other factors, may be approval by the 

Mninistrator. A cycle shall start at the beginning of either U e scrap preheat or the oxygen 

blew and shall terminate Immediately prior to 

tapping. 

Tl 

b> 
C U * REFERENCE 0»IKI7|-KM AFFECTED PETER- DISCUSSION 

RHUWATIfH H1NATION 

N-2 A cycl e start s a t the beg I m l in o f the scrap pre— 

(cmt. ) hea t I n the furnace vessel , or , when ther e i s no 

scrap preheat i n tha furnace, i t start s a t the 

beginning of the oxygen blow. A cycl e terminates 

immediately prio r to tapping. 

Typically , ti e hirrrlovn (fo r melt sampling) i s a 

period o f low missions . A source might be 

tempted to extend these periods unduly during a 

performance tes t I n order to dilut e the tota l 

(missions , vhich ar e measured on a mass concentratio n basis under the standard. Such circumvention 

o f the standard i s precluded fcy sectio n 60.8(c) , 

which reads t Performance test s shal l be conducted 

unle r such conditions as the Administrato r shal l 

specif y to the plan t operator based cn repre -

sentativ e performance of the affecte d facility . 

c ) toes the inclusion o f scrap .It should ha expected to decrease ti e emission 

preheat and hot metal ciiaixje concentration . 

increase or decrease ti e anlssio n 

concentration as nyrwo l to 

sanfiling only (l e tixytjui blow 

per ial ? 

•Please note tha t thi s supersedes determination N-l dated 8/11/77 . 

Tl 
C M * REFERENCE QUEST-IM4 AFFECTED 

RIM 11 AT ION 

l«TERMINATICN DISCUSSION 

O-l Interna l MaroranJixn 

(Wilson t n Storlazzl , 

R-l , 6/19/74 ) 

For the pirios e of |erfonnatice 

testing , low Bliould the unifosi -

tio n of sewage sludge l e segregated 

int o primary sludge and otlier 

material s (e.g . grit , grease, 

screenings, etc.) ? 

60.15 0 Gbndi- Reference NO. 4 liste d cn page 61 o f Vol . 1 of th e 

tiona l hackgroiBid document (APTD-1352a) Indicate s tha t a 

typica l feed mixtur e for a sewage sludge Incinera -

t o r Includes such material s as grease , scum, grit , 

screenings, supplemental fuels , et c 

0 - 2 Interna l Mcmorarrlun 

(Wilson to Oevine, R-I , 

7/5/74 ) 

Same as E-4 See E-4 

0 - 3 Interna l Menoranhm, 

(Wilson t o Devine, 

fk»j»on I , 7/24/74 ) 

Is the Kllllngly , Connecticut 6O.IS0 

sewage sludge incinerato r subject 60. 1 

t o rei'S? 60.2(1 ) 

\fea OOnstructlon o f th e Kllllngl y treatment plan t 

"oonnenced" afte r June 11 , 1973. 

0-4 Menu, (R. Duprey to 

Norman Erxninston 2/27/7 6 

a ) Do KBPS cover grit , scum, and 60.15 0 Yea 

waste lime sltrlge burned in (l e furnace along wit h thu> sevoye sludge? 

b ) Do NSIS cover inclierator s used 60.15 0 No 

**ioll y for ti e pur|x>ee of reactiva -

tin g lin e slinVje? 

c ) no NSPS rixpiir e Installatio n o f 60.153(a ) N J 

a coi l iiiiKms nutlt m iixj ilsvice for (I ) 

mxiiturii»j , rccY>nlii>|, atil storing 

d.il<t <«i sewtHjc slt»l>|o <Ji.ui(ol lo 

t i e furrkict;? 

Flow rat e measurements must he made of al l such 

itputs . 

Where non-recoverable waste lime i s aonbined wit h 

sewage sludge i n a sewage sludge incinerator, the 

stanlard i s applicable . 

The purpose o f the monitoring device i s to measure 

sludge input t o the furnace during O e compliance 

test . 

Tl 

00 
C M * 

O-S 

REFERENCE CIITCITNM AFFECTED 

n m 11 AT KM 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

Mtnn (R. Wilson bo 

J . HTkMuld) 5/4/76 

Same as f)-2 See 0- 2 

An optional prorated standard 'based on the 

percentage of each waste consumed wil l be acceptable . The 20% opacit y standard for sludge applie s 

a t al l times except during malfunction, startup , 

o r shutdown. The source oould conceivably qualif y 

for a less stringent opacit y standard under 

60.11(e) . 

•OPTIONAL STANDARD - (Sewage Sludge Std.) 

(ISludge Consuned) • (Municipal Refuse Std.) 

(%Refuse Consumed) 

0-6 Memo (Acting Director , DSSE 

l o J . McDonald) 8/12/7 6 

a) Is a grit/ooars c screening s 

incinerator subje-et to the 

particulat e sewage treatment 

plant Mil's? 

b) Should inonitorinj aul |«_-rformance testing It losctl un ti e 

tota l dry solid s in|xit of gri t 

ami screenings? 

c ) Would a yrit/crmi'se scrurnlngs 

incinerator be suliji-ct t o tIK* 

|kii t icid.itc incimi •Uoi tn;it; -

Sub|>ait E i i il Inn mil: 

1) note 11 kin Sn Ions |«'i iliy 

of wet ;«>l ids? 

2) mm.- I Km Sll tons p.-r <kiy of 

ill y :»l id:;? 

60.150 Yes 

60.153 

60.154 

60.51(b) 

Yes 

No 

In ti e June 11, 1973, Federal Register , sewage 

sludge is defined a s the waste by-product of 

mwicipa l sewage treatment processes, including 

any solid s removed in any unit operations of such 

treatment process. Even Dough this definitio n 

was removed when ti e regulations were promulgated. 

It i s our feeling tha t this definitio n supplie s 

the intent of ti e final promulgation. 

Subpart E was designed to cover Incinerator s 

burning more than 50% municipal type waste . Qrlt/ 

coarse screeninjs are not considered municipal 

type wastes. 

T l 

CO 
ave REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGUIATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

0-7 Memo (G. Stevens to 

T. Lyttle) 10/11/76 

Is ti e wet air oxidation (Zbapro) 

|«roceaa fur sludjc reduction 

considered a scwugo slukje 

incinerator subject to NSIS or 

NESIIAPs? 

60.150 No Net air oxidation la not an Incineration process. 

0-8 tette r (C. McCutchen to 

H. Kwcn) 1/3/77 

Must particulates froa plume 

su|i>retiSora be Included In the 

allowable limit for sludge 

incinerators? 

60.152 Yes The NSPS standard of 1.3 lb/ton of dry sludge 

was establlslied as a total aulas ion limit. 

0-9 Haao In Region X 

(C. Gaulding to M. Hooper) 

4/18/77 

O-10 Homo (Reich t o Jacobs) 

12/29/80 

Is a sewage sludge incinerator 

which was constructed between 

Jime 11, 1971 are! March 8, 1974 

subject to NSPS even though the 

promulgated start lard differs 

from ti e proposed standard? 

60.150 Yes Since th* change In question neither affected the 

60.1 renter or type of facilitie s srfeject to NSPS nor 

the stringency of the emission standard, the uiit 

Is aUrject to NSPS. 

The Papillion Creek Hater 

(dilution Control Plant 

has two identical fluid bed 

Sludge incinerators tfiich 

have met the NSPS emission 

limitation. One of the 

Incinerators, unit 321, was 

tested at a rate of 15,000 

pounds per hour (pph), but 

the operator now wishes to 

charge the unit at 20,000 pph. 

Should a new performance test 

be required at the Increased 

charging rate , for this unit? 

560.8| 

Subpart Of 

$114 of the 

CAA 

Cond 

No 

engineering judgement suggests that Increasing 

the sludge load rate of wi t 321 t o 20,000 pph 

would be reasonably expected to result In compliance , and hence a new performance test wider 

S60.8(c) need not be required. Several factors 

support thisi 

(1) The equivalent uiit , which burns the same 

composition of sludge, was tested at a sludge 

load rate of 22,000 pph and met the standard with 

• wide margin of compliance. 

(2) Unit 321 has se t the standard, even though 

at • lower rate . 

(3) The low volatil e solids content of the sludge 

used in the unit 321 performance test caused less 

efficient burning than would occur If the current 

type of sludge is burned. 

(4) The owner has agreed that the ash loading 

not exceed the ash loading rate during the wilt 

321 performance test. This alone is insufficient 

to ensure meeting the standard because the 

pressure drop across the scrubber must be controlled a s well. 

Specifying sludge and ash loading limits or a 

type of sludge to be burned are not requirements 

**ilch must be met In order for wilt 321 t o avoid 

conducting a performance test, but failure to meet 

these conditions will lessen the justification for 

believing this Incinerator is in compliance. 

Additionally, the Nebraska PEC and EPA are free to 

require an additional performance test at any time 

at the Increased loading rate, based on $114 of 

the Clean Mr Act and 40 CFR 60.8(a). 
cu* REFERENCE OHI 1ST ION AFFECTED 

RHntllATHlN 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

P-l letter in Region IX 

(R. O'Obrmell to 

R. Sl'evwright) 8/17/77 

a) Would a fuel swltih frun gas 60.163(c) 

ami oil to oral at an existing 

or>|>per sinel ter constitute a 

mnlification w»ler NSIS? 

b) Would the coal handling 60.250(a) 

equipnent necessary to 

accctuplish this fuel switch 

be subject to NSPS? 

No 

W»s 

Tie regulation states "A change in the fuel canhusted in a reverberatory furnace shall not be 

considered a noil float ion under this part." 

Thermal dryers, pneumatic ooal cleaning ojulpment, 

ooal processing and oonveying equipnent, ooal 

storage systems, and ooal transfer an] loading 

systems located in a coal preparation facilit y 

which processes more than 200 T/day and was 

oonstructad after Octcrer 24, 1974, will be subject to NSPS. Subpart Y. 
[ 

OI* REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED DETER- DISCUSSION 

RIEUIATION MINATION 

Q -l Mara (l>. Bel l t o O. Stevens) Do NSPS for zinc smelters apply 60.17 1 Yea A roaster is defined as any facility in which a 

5/12/76 to roasters at an electrolytic line sulfide ore concentrate charge is heated in 

zinc smelter? the presence of air to eliminate a si<y>lf leant 

portion (more than 10%) of the sulfur contained 

in the charge. 
U l * REFERENCE UIKSTIlN t^xim, MHJWR ON DISCUSSION 

S-l Mano t o Region III 

(E. Reich t o S. Wassersug) 

1/19/78 

What is a reasonable |ercent of 

t i e tin e t o exjec t violation s of 

tKVS considering al l eniasion 

test data? 

Subpart S NSPS are expected to he met a t al l times except 

during periods of startup , shutdown, or naif mo -

tion . Wa have the discretion , however, to requir e 

a retest of a facilit y fchich fall s a aonplianc e 

test di e to what appears to be randan variabilit y 

in anise ions. 

Tl 

3 
DETERMINATIONS nf APPLICABILITY 

rooE REFERENCE 

I T-I | Memo (Reich to 

Devine) 11/16/82. 

QUESTION 

AFFECTED 

REGULATION DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

Are research and d e~ v e Fo pm e nt 

facilities subject to 40 CFR 60, 

Subpart T, the NSPS for Wet-Process 

Phosphoric Acid plants? 

47 FR 26750 No EPA proposed 

(47 FR 26750) 

NSPS for Suhpa 

to exempt plan 

capacity of 15 

or less of equ 

feed. This cu 

exempt rnsearc 

facilities and 

but would not 

commercial uni 

on June 21, 1982 

to revise the 

rts T, II, V and W 

ts with a design 

tons per day 

ivalent P2O5 

toff would 

h and development 

pilot plants, 

affect any 

ts. 

Tl 
a i * REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REailATIcN 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

X-l MOID t o Itejion VII 

(E. Iteich to E. Rephenson) 

8/11/77 

a) tX> NSPS apply to granular 

triple siferpbosfliate storage 

facilitie s ubidi are int located 

at manufacturing plants? 

b) .If ti e granular triple 

si^errltosrhate contained in a 

storage facilit y is mure titan 

10 days old, may performance 

testing l e waived under 60.8(b)(4)? 

60.241(a) 

60.6 

(b)(4) 

Yes 

Ytss 

The regulation does not specify a sl » cutoff nor 

does it stat e that these facilitie s mist be 

located at the sama sit e aa the manufacturing 

facility. 

Most fluoride missions from granular tripl e 

superphospliate occur In the first 10 days 

following manufacture. 

Tl 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

Y-l tette r (Jack Ravan t o 

J . Cboper o f Al. Air 

Pollution Control 

amission ) 10/4/76 

Do NSPS apply t o tlos e 

facilitie s viiich sim|>ly stor e 

or load ooal without performing 

any of ti e processe s liste d in 

the definitio n of ooal 

preiaration plants? 

60.251(a) No Only sources Which break, crush, screen, clean o r 

dry large anounts of ooal were Intended to be 

covered. 

Y-2 Mono t o Region VII 

(E. Raich t o D. Townley) 

2/24/77 

a) Are ooal unloading operations 60.251 No 

covered by NSPS Cor ooal pre -

paration plants? 

b) la equipnent used t o transfe r 60.251 No 

ooal from unloading operations t o 

storage covered by KGPS for ooal 

preparatlui plants? 

c) Are cfen storage pile s subject 60.251(h) tto 

t o NSPS for ooal preparation plants ? 

Bjuipnent used to unload ooa l doe s not fi t th e 

definitio n of any affected facilit y for ooal 

preparation plants In Subpart Y. 

Equipment used to transfe r ooal from i n load ing 

operations t o storage doe s not fi t the definitio n 

of any affected facilit y for ooal preparation 

plants in Subpart Y. ' 

Open storage pile s ar e specificall y exempt wider 

60.251(h). 

Y-3 Memo t o Region III 

(E. Reich t o F. Alpiser ) 

12/12/77 

• to a ooal dewetering system tAiloh 

is deslgnul to dcvoter oral witlout 

haviig a gaa stream cone int o 

direc t contac t with "tie ooal 

subjec t t o NSPS, Sulfar t Y, 

Section 60.252(a) ? 

60.251(e ) No Such a unit does not fi t th e definitio n of thermal 

dryer in Section 60.251(e). 

Y-4 Latte r (Reich to Kixwcll) 

12/28/7 9 

MOuld the thermal drye r 

portion o f ti e coa l pre -

paration plant NSPS apply 

t o new coal dryer s in vhic h 

coal is iidirectl y heated , 

such &s a Bearce drye r vher e 

heat is transferred to the 

coal through a metal shell ? 

60.251(e ) No In this case , the inner drye r tiix j i s heater! by 

o i l burners aid this hea t i s transferred through 

the metal shel l to the ooal . Sinc e the hca;t c ga s 

6trea.ii is not in direc t contac t with the coal , 

this i s not considered a thermal drye r arc) would 

not need to meet NSPS. 

Tl 

0) 
CXI * REFERENCE O "EST ICN AFFECTED 

RHJOIATION 

l*TERMINATICN 

DISCUSSION 

AA-1 Wilsh t o Pal I an letter , 

11/6/75 

toes Part 60 a^l y to electri c 

ar c furnaces in a stee l fo«»idry? 

60.271 No Section 60.271(a) expressl y excludes furnaces from 

vhlch the nolte n stee l i s cast into the shape ct 

finisha l products, such as in a foundry. 

AA-2 OTE Sylvania; Salem, Mass. 

(DSSE Director bo lUinan) 

2/22/76 

a ) Oould scrap iron be oileti - 60.271(a ) No 

tutod for preroducol iron le i lets 

t o eion * an EAF from NSIS? 

b) If no flux materials are 60.271(a ) lbs 

aiVlal t o the EAF, nny It be exempt 

from NSPS? 

Scrap iron Is not in the form of prereduced iron 

pellets. 

The furnace i s merely a crucibl e with no flux 

materials added to the process. Only EAFs t o 

vhlch flux materials ar e added during tha process 

were cons 1 der a l In the development of N5PS. 

AA-3 tone Star Steel , Dallas, 

Tex. (DSSE Directc*- t o 

Knudson) 4/22/76 

May an FAF with a steam hydro 

system for enission control us e 

an alternat e manual cniissiona 

testii q netho l cn a yearly lasts ? 

60.273(a ) Cbrrll- If i t i s datennined by inspection that the steam 

tlonal hydro syston necessitate s an alternat e non 1 tor ing 

method, then the annual enission test would be 

acceptable . At the time of the performance test , 

the source is required to monitor al l parameters 

critica l to the performance of the control system 

o f the affected facility . The source should then 

be required to continuously monitor thes e parameters and to keep appropriate records for EPA 

inspection. 

AA-4 Memo t o Region VII 

(R. Shlgeliara t o D. 

8/3/7H 

Is an alternat e testing 

llirgt) procudure acceptable for testin g 

2 new MK.1TN stee l electri c arc 

furnaces? 

60.8(b ) fee The alternat e testin g method that MOOR stee l 

suggested wil l ba acceptabl e in this case . 

Omtact this offic e i f details on the alternat e 

metlol ar e desired. 
UJH: KIFHIFMCK (JIKiTION AFFICI11) 

RFDUI.ATICN 

DETKKMlNATION 

DISCISSION 

AA-5 Komo (!;oich t o Glaccone) 

12/13/79. 

a) In order to determine if 

a reconstruction has occurred, 

what I tons of equipment are 

considered part of an EAF 

facility? 

b) Would increasing transformer 

capacity be a modification under 

NSPS? 

60.270(a) 

60.14 

60.14(e)(2) 

No 

c) Should the cost of auxiliary 

equipnent be considered viien 

making a reconstruction determination? 

d) Are costs to be considered . 

cumulatively wtien making a 

reconstruction determination? 

60.15(b) 

60. IS 

No 

Yes 

An EAF consists of the following items of equipment: shell , tilting platform, furnace superstructure, roof lif t and swing apparatus, furnace 

tiltin g gear, and dust handling system. 

The transformer is considered an auxiliary component, not part of the affected facility . 

Increasing capacity, even if omissions increase, 

would not be considered a modification under 

$60.14. In addition, wde r 560.14(e)(2) a3 

amended (43 FR 34347), an increase in ti e production rate at an existing facilit y will rot be 

considered a modification if that increase can ba 

accorplishcd wit)out a capital expenditure on the 

facility . • 

Reconstruction re fere only to the replacement of 

conponents of an existing facility , vhich docs not 

includo auxiliary components. 

Allowing facilitie s to replace components one at a 

'time, without subjecting the facilit y to NSPS, 

would circunvent the intent of the regulatio.ns 

aid tha Clean Air Act. The reconstruction definition at $60.15 does not consider time limitations 

for replacement conponents. 

" » WWI I i im\mmm~r**rV9mmi*m ,IHI»»H I . IIJW^ . 

J 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGUIJvriON 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

AA-6 Memo (Reich to 

Watman) 5/3/81 

Opacity standards arc$60.272(a)(3 ) 

established for emissions 560.274(c), (f) 

exiting from a shop 

and due solely to the 

operations of any EAF(s). 

Section 60.272(a)(3)(iii) 

states that these opacity 

standards apply only during 

periods when flow rates 

and pressures are being 

established. What is the 

purpose of the provision 

and when do the opacity 

standards apply? 

The opacity limitations at $60,272 

(a)(3) are for fugitive shop emissions, 

not primary emissions exiting from the 

control device. Since it is difficult 

to attribute fugitive emissions 

to a specific facility or operation, 

and the only facility inside 

the shop subject to NSPS is the EAF, 

it would be difficult to show that 

opacity violations caused specifically 

by the EAF are occurring. The intent 

of 560.272(a)(3)(ill) was to avoid this 

problem by requiring that opacity 

standards he met only when flow rates 

and pressures are being established 

under 560.274(c) and (f). Procedures 

for determining flow rates or pressures 

are established only when an owner or 

operator is required to demonstrate 

compliance, i.e., during performance 

testing when the sources of fugitive 

emissions can be more accurately 

determined. 

Dally records of capture air flow rate 

and pressure in the free space are used, 

rather than opacity readings, as a means 

of insuring carfjliance. If a maxiimm 

pressure and minimum flow rate 

(established during the performance 

test) are not maintained, another 

performance test can be required. 

Tl 

CO 
DETERMINATIONS of APPLICABILITY 

CODE REFERENCE OUESTION 

AFFECTED 

REGULATION DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

nn-i Memo (Roich to 

Deals), 9/10/82 

A Kraft Pulp Mill has three 

existing batch digesters which 

are vented to one blow tank. 

The company has proposed the 

addition of a new digester which 

will also be vented to the 

existing blow tank. How does the 

Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS, 40 CFR 60, 

Subpart F)F), apply to this 

modi fication? 

«r>n.2Hl(d); 

60.2H0(a) 

The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills defines the 

affected facility an the "digester system". 

This includes "each continuous digester 

or each hatch digester used for the cooking 

of wood in white liquor, and associated 

flash tank(s), blow tank(s), chip 

steamer(s), and condenser!s)." See 

40 CFR 60.281(d). 

For the modification in question, the 

affected facility (subject to the 5 ppm 

TRS standard) would include the new 

hatch digester and that part of the 

existing blow tank associated with the 

new digester. For example, if all of the 

digesters, both new and old, have the 

same capacity and are operated equally, one 

quarter of the blow tank emissions are 

subject to the 5 ppm standard. 

Tl 

ho 
OODE REFERENCE aCSTION 

CT>1 Memo (Reich t o Dutton) 

6/19/80 

AFFECTED 

REGUIATICN 

Did construction on Guardian's" 

fla t glass furnace commence cn 

or before \Axie 15, 1979, the 

proposal date of the glass 

furnace standard? 

60.2(g) 

60.2(1) 

DETERjgNATICN 

"Tta" 

DI5CU5SIGN 

Tha Issue is whether Guardian entered Into 

contractual obligations to build the furnace 

before'Ana 15, 1979. Guardian's documents show 

a purchase order for a glass furnace 10/25/79 but 

Guardian asserts that a lette r on 2/16/79 was a 

contractual obligation. Thle letter , by itself, 

la difficult to accept aa a binding contractual 

obligation for the construction because It 

authorizes design rather than construction of the 

furnace. Furthermore, tha lette r does not appear 

to represent a final and binding agreement die to 

references to a later purchase agreement, final 1-

cation of contract details, and a flna price only 

after specifications and daslgns ara finalized. 

Tl 

ho 
a i * REFERENCE OUES'MDN AFFECTED 

RHJUIATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

r»>-l lette r t o Anlianser 

Dusch (J . Earner to 

J. Stei n 9/8/78) 

Are maltlrt) plants crweral by 

NSPS, Suljttrt 1)1)? 

Subpart DD tto Me did not Investigat e this industry an) db not 

have the necessary information to determine tha t 

the standard slral d be . 

ro 

ro 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION DISUCSSION 

Letter (Reich to 

Lambert) 4/13/82 

DD-2 Would the addition of 

800,000 bushels of 

storage capacity bring 

an existing 800,000 bushel 

grain storage elevator 

under Subpart DO? Tbe 

standard includes a size 

cutoff of one million 

bushels. 

$60,301 YES If an expansion project would bring the 

permanent storage capacity of a grain 

elevator above the NSPS cutoff, the 

standard would apply to any affected 

facilitie s that are constructed or 

modified as part of that project or any 

future project. 

DO-3 Memo (Reich to 

thitmore) 5/20/B2 A proposed grain storage 560.301(b) YES 

facility will be filled 

via trucks which will dump 

into portable augers. Is 

this subject to NSPS, Subpart 

DD? 

Section 60.301 (b) defines the term grain 

elevator as any "plant or installation 

at which grain is inloaded, handled, 

cleaned, dried, stored or loaded." The 

regulations apply to a facilit y 

performing one or more of these 

operations. Since the facilit y at issue 

is involved in loading, unloading and 

storage, it is subject bo the standard. 

ho 
CODE REFERENCE a »EST ION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

QG-1 Memo to Region IV 

(E. Reich to T. Globe) 

4/4/78 

a) lbs construction oommenced CO.2(1) 

on gas turbine mlt 6 before 

October 3, 1977? 

b) llaa construction oaimenced on 60.2(1) 

gas turbine tnlta 7 and 8 before 

October 3, 1977, if operation 

will not occur ixitil aa long as 

alx years later? 

As a result of substantial oanpllance with the 

contract nede prior to October 3 , 1977, for 1979 

delivery of unit 6, and expenditure of funds under 

l t a terms, txilt 6 i s an existing source for Oe 

purposes of NSPS. 

Ki this and similar cases, information should ba 

' requested Indicating »hy a contract was le t ao far 

in advance of tha projected delivery date. There 

may be justifiable reasons, such aa a planned 

operating interrelationship or a standard industry practice. If It appears a contract was 

signed to circumvent tha applicability of NSPS, 

the source la not considered to have a continuous 

program which was Initiated to eoiplete construction within a reasonable time. 

1E=1 Latter (Raich t o RoeabaRyJ 

3/5/80 

OU-3 tette r (Reich t o Uml) 

6/13/80 

A turbine that la operated 

only to raplace a block of 

power that la interrupted 

qusllflea as an "emergency 

gas turbine". How frequently 

can this lntsrrifitian occur? 

W.331 

What is acceptable as am i tor Ing 

and recording systems for seating 

tha continuous monitoring re -

quirements of this standard? 

160.334(a) 

Tha Interruption'must not ba a freguant or routine 

occurrence and auat be abort tana (e.g. , once c r 

twice a year and lasting a few days a t most). 

Additionally, • change In location or ownership 

o f a turbine, that was an emergency gas turbine, 

tahlch will ba used for other reasons, wil l ba 

subject to the NSPS, i f construction at tha 

turbine ouwiienoaJ after the proposal date 

(10/3/77). This would also apply to a gaa 

turbine that was originally prchasad ae an 

emergency turbine, but l a than operate) for other 

The continuous monitoring require) nee) not ba • 

continuous chart recorder, but could be within a 

data acquisition system and printed out a t discret e 

intervale . These Intervale should not be , utder 

any clrcumstancee, any leas frequent than every 

15 minutes. 

GG-4 Memo (Johnson t o Need) 

12/11/B0 

Alyeska operates two Identical 

gas turbines at Pump Station 

No. 2 subject to NSPS. One of 

turbines has been performance 

tested, and complied with the 

emission limits. Will EPA 

agree to waive the testing 

requirements for the second 

turbine? 

60.8(b)i Tea A waiver can be granted If the source owner or 

Subpart OG operator has demonstrated "to the Administrator's 

satisfaction that the affected facilit y is in 

compliance with the standard". In this case , best 

engineering judgement suggests the second turbine 

would meet the standard becauset 

(1) an identical turbine operated at the same 

sit e and using the same fuel met the 

standard 

(2) the turbine meeting the standard did so with 

a large margin of compliance, having NO, 

emissions o f 45.6 ppm, compared to the 

standard of 150 ppm. 
j i 

CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

I . 

OG-5 Memo (Reich to Reed) 

12/17/80 

Chugach Electri c operates a gas 

turbine in Alaska subject to 

NSPS. This turbine is virtually 

Identical to another turbine in 

Michigan vblch has been bested and 

met NSPS. The difference between 

the two turbines is that the 

Chugach unit is a dual distillate / 

natural gas machine while the 

Michigan init is a distillate-onl y 

machine. Hill EPA agree to waive 

the testing requirements for the 

Chugach turbine? 

60.8(b); 

Subpart GG 

Yes A waiver can be granted if the source owner or 

operator has demonstrated "to the Administrator' s 

satisfaction that the affected facilit y is in 

compliance with the standard". In this case, 

best engineering judgement suggests the Chugach 

turbine would meet the standard because i 

(1) a virtually Identical turbine located in 

Michigan met the standard 

(2) the Chugach turbine will use natural gas as 

a primary fuel, with distillat e as emergency 

back-up only. Tbe Michigan turbine mot tlie 

standard using only distillate , whose N0„ 

emissions are higher. 

OG-6 Utte r (Raich bo Mulllken) 

12/29/B0 

Is a manufacturer of gas turbines 

considered an owner or operator, 

and hence subject t o Subpart GG? 

60.2(f)i Conditional Owner or operator Is defined, a t 40 CFR 60.2(f), 

60.330; Yea aa "any person who owns, leases, operates, con60.332(h)! trols, or supervises an affected facilit y or a 

Slll(e ) of stationary source of which an affected facilit y 

the CAA is a part". A gas turbine is an affected 

facility , inte r 40 CFR 60.330. For purposes of 

Subpart GG, EPA considers the manufacturer as 

the original owner or operator, and hence sdbject 

to the standard. The exemption a t 40 CFR 60.332 

(h) is only a case-by-case exemption for those 

turbines engaged by manufacturers in research and 

development. 

Once a manufacturer has sold a turbine, the manufacturer is no longer considered the owner or 

operator of that turbine, and would no longer be 

subject to the provisions of Slll(e ) of the Clean 

Air Act for that turbine. 
b 8 

fi 

Kiss E JUS 5 

;fc;i «j En 

£ ^ T <m C -! 

B r "I 

323! 

, •- 3 

I —< e _ is 

I c 2 o « 

4

6 

fi 

1 

s 

-

4 

I 

o o 

VC VO 

• ii l Q. o 

jfSitajJf i 

iiffjfil 

« 0 • 3 *• • 3 $ = S **" 

~ "D u — <0 0 4) >< V — 3 1 JS $ *5 !B i> £ C D 

5-< _IOUC«U'DCI - .o n ja 5 3 qi b 

J m J* J i 3 b l il 3 ^H «s — ai coiCwoSo o 

Situi^^ulOunixf^nHli C C— vV 5 *J 

tl 0 li V 0 W Q. £4-iL«lilQ.lI0u J u-nui-" 

DtHiuajCj i Q «•" 8 " l-> - f 4 V U to xx a. E 

l*utv«PBS&)ilx2%ZSiHl.t35z'ii- x 

w

6 

w 
I 

i. 

8 

M tO 

tx tu tt) 10 

L2riC ° i S 

ft £ 0 

u u _ _ 

£5-PS 

i-es&ii 

~

SI 

 in 

u — 

01 £ 

M xl 

xl — 

s.sSsS.tigl 

S

6 

T 
DETERMINATIONS of APPLICABILITY 

CODE REFERENCE OUESTION 

AFFECTED 

PEGULATION DETERMINATION DISCUSSION 

EPA has previously determined (see 

summary GG-6) that the manufacturer 

of an NSPS affected gas turbine is 

considered the original owner/operator. 

Thus, testing of the gas turbines at the 

manufacturing site is acceptable providing 

EPA is notified of such tests and that the 

tests are conducted under the same 

conditions as the turbines are to be 

operated at their final destination. These 

conditions include fuel quality, fuel flow, 

and inlet air flow. 

EPA may be able to approve such a 

procedure, but would need to do so on 

an individual model and fuel quality 

basis. EPA is not in a position at this 

time to establish what significance levels 

the computer simulations would have to 

meet for approval. Each such submission 

should he addressed to the Director, 

Office of Air Ouality Planning and 

Standards. 

cr,- in Letter (Reich 

to Solt) , 

9/22/H2. 

a) Wil l EPA accept performance 

tests conducted at the 

manufacturing site , rather than 

the owner/operator's site? 

60.R(h)(3) Yes 

h) Can EPA waive, on a case hy 

case basis, the requirement 

for performance tests where a 

manufacturer has demonstrated 

through the use of historical 

data and computer projections 

that the NO, emissions from the 

proposed turbine application fall 

well within the Subpart GG NOx 

standard? 

60.8(b)(4); 

Subpart GG 

Yes 

Condit ional 
CODE REFERENCE QUESTION AFFECTED 

REGULATION 

DETERMINATION 

DISCUSSION 

MM-1 Letter (Reich 

to Dicker) 

3/3/81 

Does Subpart MM, 

Standards of 

Performance for 

Automobile and 

Light-Duty Truck 

Surface Coatinq 

Operations, apply 

to a truck-body 

manufacturer 

whose primary 

products are walk-in 

van bodies and 

specialty bodies? 

60.390(a) No As provided at 560.390(a) the standard 

applies "to the following affected 

facilities in an automobile or light-duty 

truck assembly planti each prime coat 

operation, each guide coat operation, and 

each topcoat operation." By the phrase 

"automobile or light-duty truck assembly 

plant," FPA intended to cover plants that 

construct the chassis and then add the 

body, engine and other components. EPA did 

not intend to cover and the standard does 

not cover custom shops designed only to 

build specialty or walk-in van bodies on 

chassis already assembled by the customer. 
OU»: REI'I'HMUCK (iiKs-rrrw AFrTJCTMl 

PHJIIATIlW 

DKTKKHINATOTN 

DISCUSSION 

lll(d ) Munrt t o Mcufnn II I 

(I: . Ifcicli to II . Ifcim) 

4/17/7H 

Are nitrorjcn-|>l>i).';|il»)rusintas.siin) (NIK) for t 11 ize r plants 

subject to tl* ; reqiu'runenls o l 

suction 111(d) of the Clean Air 

Act? 

CAA 

111(d) 

Nu NI'K fertilize r plant s arc not intended to be 

subject to Section 111(d) . 
i 5 

3,b r 

is 9 

ft ft r* 

£ m. «^ 

illf11111 

88 

ills

1

!!! 

11 

1 ' I 

I I 

— IB 

I I 

I ! 

*-, £ 

b 3 ~ 

if - r 

2 g S 

3 - J5 

IS *— JJ xl 

<xl •<"! 0 10 

— b b 

g ) ^ ^ I F 

b 

b 

is 

0 m as 

> 

_ ft XI 

f*fr 

R § <s -

•n g "c '2 

5 — i

1

 y 

8 1 ^ b 

—. b *J o 

E IS 85 

b J) b X 

xx w JJ £ _ 

Sgr 

» f t 

8 = ft 

5§2 g 

S±g J 

ii 5

 Q

4 

b . 2 - ^ 

> — 

0 — 

Us 

fM 

i 
P.32 

Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Statement Of Intent and Purpose 

This certifies that the records described on this form have been 

microfilmed in the regular course, of business at the U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with the 

standards set forth in 41 CFR 101-11.506. The silver original 

microfilm has been placed in secure storage. 

The records affected by this conversion are regulatory materials 

supporting EPA actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Date 

Wfl(oCfi