Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30905

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6993–5]

Recent Posting to the Applicability

Determination Index (ADI) Database

System of Agency Applicability

Determinations, Alternative Monitoring

Decisions, and Regulatory

Interpretations Pertaining to Standards

of Performance for New Stationary

Sources and National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces

applicability determinations, alternative

monitoring decisions, and regulatory

interpretations that EPA has made

under the new source performance

standards (NSPS)(40 CFR part 60), and

the national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)(40

CFR parts 61 and 63).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An

electronic copy of each complete

document posted on the Applicability

Determination Index (ADI) database

system is available on the Internet

through the ADI at http://es.epa.gov/

oeca/eptdd/adi.html. The document

may be located by date, author, subpart,

or subject search. For questions about

the ADI or this notice, contact Valerie

Bynum at EPA by phone at (202) 564–

4189, or by email at

bynum.valerie@epamail.epa.gov. For

technical questions about the individual

applicability determinations or

monitoring decisions, refer to the

contact person identified in the

individual documents, or in absence of

a contact person, refer to the author of

the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The General Provisions to the NSPS

in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in

40 CFR part 61 provide that a source

owner or operator may request a

determination of whether certain

intended actions constitute the

commencement of construction,

reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s

written responses to these inquiries are

broadly termed applicability

determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and

61.06. The NSPS and NESHAP also

allow sources to seek permission to use

monitoring or recordkeeping which is

different from the promulgated

requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i),

61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f).

EPA’s written responses to these

inquiries are broadly termed alternative

monitoring decisions. Further, EPA

responds to written inquiries about the

broad range of NSPS and NESHAP

regulatory requirements as they pertain

to a whole source category. These

inquiries may pertain, for example, to

the type of sources to which the

regulation applies, or to the testing,

monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting

requirements contained in the

regulation.

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued

NSPS and NESHAP applicability

determinations, alternative monitoring

decisions, and regulatory

interpretations, and posts them on the

Applicability Determination Index (ADI)

on a quarterly basis. The ADI is an

electronic index on the Internet with

over one thousand EPA letters and

memoranda pertaining to the

applicability, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP.

The letters and memoranda may be

searched by date, office of issuance,

subpart, citation, control number or by

string word searches.

Today’s notice comprises a summary

of 63 of such documents added to the

ADI on April 17, 2001. The subject,

author, recipient, and date (header) of

each letter and memorandum is listed in

this notice, as well as a brief abstract of

the letter or memorandum. Complete

copies of these documents may be

obtained from the ADI at http://

es.epa.gov/oeca/eptdd/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

The following table identifies the

database control number for each

document posted on the ADI database

system on April 17, 2001, the applicable

category, the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part

60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by

the document, and the title of the

document, which provides a brief

description of the subject matter. We

have also included an abstract of each

document identified with its control

number after the table. These abstracts

are provided solely to alert the public to

possible items of interest and are not

intended as substitutes for the full text

of the documents.

ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 17, 2001

Control No. Category Subpart Title

M010002 .............................. MACT ................................ KK ...................................... Coating Finishing Lines with Some Rotogravure Printing

M010003 .............................. MACT ................................ T, GG ................................. Degreaser Subject to Aerospace MACT

M010004 .............................. MACT ................................ DD ..................................... Applicability of OSWRO MACT to a Chute

M010005 .............................. MACT ................................ GG ..................................... Aerospace MACT Applicability & Transition Policy

M010006 .............................. MACT ................................ JJJ ..................................... Alternative Monitoring

M010008 .............................. MACT ................................ H ........................................ Applicability to In-line Check Valves

M010009 .............................. MACT ................................ LLL ..................................... Performance Test Deadline Extension

M010010 .............................. MACT ................................ A ........................................ Test Waiver Request

M010011 .............................. MACT ................................ DDD, NNN ......................... Mineral Wool & Wool Fiberglass Resin Curing

Z000006 ............................... NESHAP ............................ FF ...................................... Treatment and Control Requirements for TSD Facilities

Z010002 ............................... NESHAP ............................ F, V .................................... Equivalent Equipment and Procedures

0000117 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Coke Oven Gas Under NSPS Subpart Db

0000118 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Request for Waiver for Monitoring Under Subpart Dc

0000119 ............................... NSPS ................................. VVV ................................... Subpart VVV Applicability to a Battery Pack Line

0000120 ............................... NSPS ................................. OOO .................................. Portable Automatic Aggregate Sampling Devices Applicability

0000121 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Definition of ‘‘all 12 hour periods’’ Under Subpart J

0000122 ............................... NSPS ................................. OOO .................................. Test Waiver for Stone & Lime Company

0000123 ............................... NSPS ................................. NNN ................................... Alternative Monitoring Methodology

0000124 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Boiler Modification

0000125 ............................... NSPS ................................. DDD ................................... Waiver of Source Test

0000126 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Alternative Fuel Usage Recordkeeping

0000127 ............................... NSPS ................................. BB ...................................... Brown Stock Washer Exemption

30906 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 17, 2001

Control No. Category Subpart Title

0000128 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG, A ................................ Subpart GG—Alternative Monitoring and Testing

0000129 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG, A ................................ Subpart GG—Waiver of Initial Performance Test

0000130 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Subpart Db—Coke Oven Gas & Furnace Oven Gas

0100001 ............................... NSPS ................................. AAa .................................... Alternative Sampling Procedure

0100002 ............................... NSPS ................................. OOO, A .............................. Relocated Crusher

0100003 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Monitor Certification Deadline Extension

0100004 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Predictive Emission Monitoring

0100005 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Alternative Monitoring Procedure

0100006 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... NOX Emission Standard Applicability

0100007 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG, A ................................ Test Waiver

0100008 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Recordkeeping Waiver

0100009 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db, A ................................. Predictive Emission Monitoring

0100010 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db, A ................................. Predictive Emission Monitoring

0100011 ............................... NSPS ................................. HH ..................................... Alternative Opacity Monitoring Under NSPS Subpart

HH

0100012 ............................... NSPS ................................. PPP ................................... Request to Monitor Third Field of a Three-Field Wet

ESP

0100013 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Alternative Opacity Monitoring Under Subpart Db

0100014 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule

0100015 ............................... NSPS ................................. AA ...................................... Applicability of Subpart AA to EAF at a Foundry

0100016 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Approval of Derate Proposal

0100017 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Schedule Under Subpart GG

0100018 ............................... NSPS ................................. NNN, RRR, Dc .................. Alternative Monitoring Proposals

0100019 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Alternative Monitoring for Subpart GG

0100020 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Alternative Monitoring for Subpart GG

0100021 ............................... NSPS ................................. OOO, LLL .......................... Performance Test Deadline Extension

0100022 ............................... NSPS ................................. BB ...................................... Exemption from TRS Standards for Brown Stock

Washers

0100023 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Nitrogen Monitoring Waiver

0100024 ............................... NSPS ................................. EE ...................................... HVLP Transfer Efficiency

0100025 ............................... NSPS ................................. VV ...................................... Applicability to In-line Check Valves/Limited VOC

Equipment

0100026 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Opacity Monitoring Alternative

0100027 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG, A ................................ Test Deadline Extension

0100028 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Opacity Monitoring Alternative

0100029 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc, A .................................. Test Deadline Extension

0100030 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG, A ................................ Test Deadline Extension

0100031 ............................... NSPS ................................. UU, A ................................. Visible Emission Test Reduction

0100032 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Opacity Monitoring Alternative

0100033 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule

0100034 ............................... NSPS ................................. J, A .................................... CEM Requirement for Measuring H2S Vapors in Loading Racks

0100035 ............................... NSPS ................................. J, A .................................... Approval of H2S Alternative Monitoring for Loading

Racks

0100036 ............................... NSPS ................................. VVV ................................... Alternative Compliance Method Under Subpart VVV

0100037 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Refinery Fuel Gas Alternative Monitoring Plan

0100038 ............................... NSPS ................................. QQQ .................................. QQQ Applicability to Oil Refinery

Abstracts:

ADI Control #M010002

Q. Is a facility with finishing lines

that perform rotogravure printing and

coating excluded from the Printing and

Publishing MACT if it maintains records

under Section 63.829(f) for each

finishing line?

A. Yes. The facility is excluded from

the MACT provided it maintains records

under Section 63.829(f) to show that for

each month the mass of inks, solvents

etc. applied by the print station on each

finishing line does not exceed five

weight-percent of the total mass of inks,

solvents, etc. applied by that finishing

line in that month.

ADI Control #M010003

Q1: How should potential to emit be

calculated for the halogenated solvent

cleaning MACT?

A1: The equation for PTE in the

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning MACT is

the correct equation to use when

determining PTE for the MACT.

Q2: Is Component Repair Technology

(CRT) a major source as defined at 40

CFR Sec. 63.2, subject to the Aerospace

MACT?

A2: Yes. CRT is considered a major

source as defined at 40 CFR 63.2 and is

subject to the Aerospace MACT based

on the PTE.

Q3: Is CRT subject to Title V

permitting?

A3: Yes. CRT is subject to Title V

permitting.

ADI Control #M010004

Q1: Does the client’s portable funnel

type ‘‘chute’’ meet the definition of

transfer system under 40 CFR 63.681?

A1: Yes. Based on the information

submitted and a phone call on March

01, 2000, your client’s chute does meet

the definition of transfer system under

40 CFR 63.681.

Q2: What emission control

equipment, if any, is required during the

transfer of material from container to

container for the purpose of repackaging

the waste?

A2: Required control equipment

which are not individual drain systems

are given at 40 CFR 63.689(c)(1)—(3).

The control equipment includes covers,

hard piping or an enclosed transfer

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30907

system vented through a closed vent

system to a control device.

ADI Control #M010005

Q: Does the Aerospace MACT apply

to the United Airlines Indianapolis

Maintenance Center (IMC)?

A: Yes. Based upon the information

submitted, IMC’s hangars would be

considered new sources subject to the

Aerospace MACT. As a new source,

compliance with the Aerospace MACT

is required at the time of startup.

ADI Control #M010006

Q1: Is water flow rate an acceptable

alternative to water temperature and

specific gravity for monitoring the

performance of a scrubber on 3M’s Poly

(ethylene terephthalate) line?

A1: Yes. Since the company uses a

once-through water system, the water

flow rate be a better indicator of

scrubber performance than the water

temperature and specific gravity. Q2: Is

monitoring the chilled water

temperature an acceptable alternative to

monitoring the product side

temperature on a condenser at the

plant?

A2: No. The request did not provide

enough information explaining why the

proposed alternative parameter will be

as good an indicator of condenser

performance as the product side

temperature.

Q3: Will EPA accept the use of

Method 25D to determine the group

status for the plant?

A3: Yes. The proposed test method is

consistent with the applicable standard.

Q4: Will EPA accept the use of EPA

Method 21 to identify leaks?

A4: Conditional. The proposal is

unacceptable if the company only

intends to repair leaks confirmed

through Method 21. The proposal is

acceptable if the company intends to

use Method 21 to find and repair

additional leaks that would not have

been detected through visual, audible,

olfactory, or other detection methods.

ADI Control #M010008

Q1: Are small valves which are less

than 0.5 inches in diameter and are

associated with instrumentation systems

considered valves under 40 CFR

60.482–7? Because valves which are less

than 0.5 inches in diameter are not

considered valves under 40 CFR Part 63

Subpart H, should they be included in

component counts under NSPS Subpart

VV?

A1: Valves which are less than 0.5

inches in diameter and are associated

with instrumentation systems are

considered valves under NSPS Subpart

VV. Although valves of less than 0.5

inches in diameter associated with

instrumentation systems are not

regulated as valves under 40 CFR Part

63 Subpart H, they are considered to be

components of instrumentation systems,

which are regulated by Subpart H.

Because NSPS Subpart VV does not

specify an instrumentation system as a

separate piece of equipment regulated

by the standard, valves of less than 0.5

inches in diameter associated with

instrumentation systems are regulated

by the Subpart VV standard as valves.

Q2: Is an in-line check valve subject

to the requirements of Sec. 60.482–7(f)

or is it considered a no detectable

emissions valve?

A2: Since in-line check valves are

enclosed within process piping for

directional control and do not have the

potential for fugitive emissions which

are regulated by the standard, they may

be considered exempt from the Subpart

VV regulation as valves.

Q3: Subpart H of the MACT standards

at 40 CFR 63.160(a) exempts equipment

that is in organic hazardous air

pollutant service for less than 300 hours

per year. Is equipment in VOC service

less than 300 hours per year required to

be monitored under Subpart VV?

A3: Since NSPS Subpart VV does not

include an exemption for equipment

that is in organic hazardous air

pollutant service for less than 300 hours

per year, equipment in VOC service less

than 300 hours per year is not exempt

from monitoring requirements.

ADI Control #M010009

Q: Due to weather conditions, a

facility subject to Subpart LLL will not

be able to test some control devices and

maintain production levels required for

testing by the deadline required by 40

CFR 63.7(b). Will EPA approve a 60 day

extension of the deadline?

A: Yes. The request for an extension

was approved.

ADI Control #M010010

Q: Can the requirement to conduct a

performance test on a flare at a plant in

Pensacola be waived?

A: Yes. Because continuous flow

monitors that are installed on natural

gas and process gas streams ducted to

the flare provide information that can be

use to verify compliance with the flare

performance requirements in 40 CFR

63.11, it will not be necessary to

conduct a test on the flare. As a

condition for approval of this testing

waiver, the company must recalibrate its

flow monitors annually and report

exceedances on a semiannual basis.

ADI Control #M010011

Q: Is a facility that cuts e-glass fiber

from textile mills, mixes the fiber with

thermoset plastic resin, and cures the

mixture in an oven, subject to the

mineral wool or wool fiberglass MACT?

A: No. The facility does not produce

the fiber that it uses, does not use any

of the sources or manufacturing lines

named in the MACTs, except curing

ovens, uses the ovens to cure the resin

but not the fibers, and is not part of a

manufacturing line stretching across

separate facilities.

ADI Control #Z000006

Q: Although the annual quantity of

benzene managed at a treatment,

storage, and disposal (TSD) facility does

not exceed 10 Mg, the TSD facility

receives waste from facilities described

in Sec. 61.340 which do generate an

annual quantity of benzene greater than

10 Mg and are subject to Subpart FF.

Will the treatment requirements in Sec.

61.342(c)(1)(i) and the control

requirements in Sec. 61.342(c)(1)(ii)

apply to the TSD facility?

A: Yes. A TSD facility is subject to the

treatment and control requirements in

Sec. 61.342(c)(1)(i) and (ii) if the total

annual benzene (TAB) quantity received

on-site is greater than or equal to 10 Mg

per year, or if the TSD facility receives

waste from any facility listed in Sec.

61.340(a) whose TAB exceeds 10 Mg.

ADI Control #Z010002

Q: A company plans to install a liquid

ring vacuum compressor and has

proposed that the compressor would

meet the requirements of Subpart F as

an equivalent piece of equipment. Does

the company’s proposal qualify as

equivalent equipment and procedures as

allowed by Sec. 61.66 of the Subpart F

regulation?

A: Yes. The Subpart F regulation at

Sec. 61.65(b)(3)(iii) indicates that

compliance with the provisions of 40

CFR Part 61 Subpart V will also

demonstrate compliance with the

provisions of Sec. 61.65(b)(3)(iii). The

company has proposed to demonstrate

compliance by meeting the

requirements of Subpart V at Sec.

61.242–3(i). The company has indicated

that it will designate the compressor as

having no detectable emissions as

described in Sec. 61.242–3(i) and Sec.

61.246(e)(2).

ADI Control #0000117

Q: Is coke oven gas the same as coal

for purposes of the Subpart Db

requirements?

A: Yes, coke oven gas is the same as

coal by definition under Subpart Db.

30908 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

ADI Control #0000118

Q: May a residual oil fired boiler

which has a heat input capacity greater

than 30 million BTUs/hr and is subject

to Subpart Dc use fuel supplier

certifications for monitoring compliance

with the SO2 limit?

A: No. Under Subpart Dc, only

distillate oil fired boilers of that size

may use fuel supplier certifications for

showing continued compliance with the

SO2 emission limit. With regard to the

facility in question here, boilers greater

than 30 million BTUs/hr in heat input

capacity that burn residual oil are not

allowed to show compliance via fuel

supplier certifications.

ADI Control #0000119

Q: Is a new fiber coating pilot plant

for battery manufacture subject to NSPS

Subpart VVV?

A: Some lines are subject and others

are not based on the definition of an

affected facility. In this case, the plastic

film coating line is not subject as there

is a specific exemption for plastic film

coating under Subpart VVV.

ADI Control #0000120

Q: Is a portable automatic aggregate

sampling device subject to NSPS

Subpart OOO?

A: No. Portable automatic aggregate

sampling devices are not covered by the

definition of an affected facility under

Subpart OOO.

ADI Control #0000121

Q: What is the definition of ‘‘periods

of excess emissions’’ under Subpart J

Section 60.105(e)(4)?

A: Under Section 60.105, the language

‘‘all 12-hour periods’’ appears for SO2

emissions. EPA interprets this to mean

all periods during which the ‘‘rolling 12

hour average Claus Sulfur Recovery

Plant SO2 emissions’’ exceed 250 ppm

for plants which are controlled by an

oxidation or reduction system followed

by incineration.

ADI Control #0000122

Q: Will EPA waive the Method 5

testing requirement for the new feed bin

baghouse installation at a stone and

lime company?

A: Due to the efficiency of the new

baghouse and difficulty in doing the

Method 5 testing, EPA will waive the

particulate mass rate testing as allowed

under Section 60.8 if it is satisfied that

the source is in compliance with the

regulations by other means. The Method

9 visible emission readings must still be

taken.

ADI Control #0000123

Q: A company has a production unit

which uses a vacuum seal pot for both

product recovery and the control of total

organic compound emissions, and has

proposed to monitor the temperature of

the seal pot as an alternate monitoring

methodology. The temperature of the

seal pot would be monitored at least

once every 15 minutes and exceedances

would be defined as any 3-hour average

temperature which is 110C above the

temperature measured during the

performance test. Would this be

acceptable?

A: Yes. The measurement of

temperature would be an acceptable

measure of equipment performance of

the seal pot.

ADI Control #0000124:

Q: A company made physical changes

to a boiler in 1988 to increase its

capacity to burn bagasse, and in 1994

they began firing wood in the boiler.

The boiler has an annual capacity factor

for fuel oil of ten percent or less. Is the

boiler an affected facility under Subpart

Db?

A: Yes. The physical changes which

were made to increase the use of bagasse

also increased its capacity for burning

wood, which increased the hourly

emission rate of PM. The boiler has

undergone a modification and is an

affected facility subject to the Subpart

Db emission standards for PM. The

Subpart Db emission standards for NOX

and SO2 do not apply to the boiler.

ADI Control #0000125

Q: A facility which manufactures

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin

using terephthalic acid and ethylene

glycol as raw materials requested a

waiver from testing three esterifier

receiver tanks in the raw materials

preparation section of the plant. Is a

source test waiver appropriate?

A: Yes. A waiver was granted because

testing of other similar emission points

provides adequate assurance of

compliance and because the tank

emissions are very low when compared

to the rest of the process.

ADI Control #0000126

Q: A company which has three

natural-gas fired 12.0 MMBtu/hr steam

generating units requests permission to

keep records of fuel usage on a monthly

basis rather than daily as required by

Subpart Dc. A single gas meter will be

used for the entire plant and the fuel

usage for each unit will be prorated

based on its design heat input capacity

as a percentage of the total design heat

input capacity for all natural gas-fired

units at the plant. Is this an acceptable

alternative fuel usage recordkeeping

frequency?

A: Yes. The proposal to keep records

for each steam generating unit on a

monthly basis is acceptable.

ADI Control #0000127

Q: Is a company which proposes to

make changes to a brown stock washer

system exempt from the TRS standard

due to technical issues and the costs

associated with incinerating the exhaust

emissions?

A: In order to make a determination

as to whether the exemption allowed

under Sec. 60.283(a)(1)(iv) is

appropriate, additional information

concerning the project will be needed.

ADI Control #0000128

Q1: Will EPA waive the requirement

to monitor the nitrogen content of

pipeline natural gas and allow an

alternative STM standard test method

for monitoring the sulfur content?

A1: Yes. Each of the turbines are

fueled with pipeline natural gas which

contains no fuel-bound nitrogen. EPA

will approve the use of ASTM D 5504–

94 or 5453–93 for sulfur analysis.

Q2: Will EPA allow semi-annual

monitoring frequency for sulfur content?

A2: Yes, if the source has

demonstrated low data variability and

sulfur content results which are below

the standard.

Q3: Will EPA approve the use of a

CEM to monitor NOX emissions on a

source which uses water injection to

control NOX and a request that the

source not be required to continuously

correct the data to ISO standard ambient

conditions?

A3: Yes, the use of a CEM is approved

and the source does not have to correct

the CEM data to ISO standards since the

source demonstrated that their

emissions are well below the standard.

Q4: Can a source use the NOX CEM

RA test to conduct the initial

performance test?

A4: Yes, EPA approved the RA test for

the NOX CEM as an alternative to the

initial performance test.

ADI Control #0000129

Q: Will EPA provide a conditional

waiver for the initial performance test?

A: Yes, because the source is a peak

loading station and conditions have not

allowed the source to operate to perform

the initial performance test by the

deadline.

ADI Control #0000130

Q1: Does coke oven gas constitute

‘‘coal’’ as defined under Subpart Db?

A1: Yes. For the purposes of Subpart

Db, coke is a coal-derived synthetic fuel,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30909

and hence is regulated as coal under

Subpart Db.

Q2: Does blast furnace gas constitute

‘‘coal’’ as defined under Subpart Db?

A2: No. Blast furnace gas is not

derived from coal, and hence, is not

regulated as coal under Subpart Db.

ADI Control #0100001

Q: Is an alternative sampling

procedure proposed for a baghouse used

to control particulate emissions from an

electric arc furnace (EAF) acceptable?

A: Yes. Because the amount of

particulate collected with this baghouse

represents less than four percent of the

total particulate collected by the two

baghouses used to control EAF

emissions, measuring the flow rate at

the baghouse inlet would be an

acceptable alternative to measuring the

flow rate in each of the 14 exhaust

stacks on the baghouse during

performance testing.

ADI Control #0100002

Q: Is a relocated crusher at a facility

subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart

OOO?

A: Because this crusher was originally

constructed in 1973, it would be subject

to New Source Performance Standards

only if it has been modified or

reconstructed after the applicability date

of Subpart OOO (August 31, 1983).

Because the determination request from

the company addressed the issues of

modification and reconstruction only

from a subjective standpoint, it will be

necessary to obtain additional

information in order to resolve Subpart

OOO applicability conclusively.

ADI Control #0100003

Q: Will EPA grant an extension of the

deadline to complete certification

testing of nitrogen oxides continuous

emission monitoring systems installed

on three combustion turbines?

A: An extension of the certification

deadline under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart

GG is acceptable to Region 4 because

market conditions do not currently

justify operating these peaking turbines.

However, to request an extension of the

certification deadline under 40 CFR Part

75, the company must submit a petition

to the Clean Air Markets Division at

EPA Headquarters.

ADI Control #0100004

Q: Can a nitrogen oxides predictive

emission monitoring system (PEMS) be

used for demonstrating initial

compliance and conducting ongoing

monitoring on a boiler at a chemical

company?

A: Yes. Based upon the results of a

relative accuracy test audit conducted at

three different boiler loads and the

average nitrogen oxides emission rate

reported by the PEMS for the initial 30-

day compliance test, the PEMS can be

used both for demonstrating initial

compliance and for conducting ongoing

monitoring.

ADI Control #0100005

Q: Is monitoring the hydrogen sulfide

content of the fuel gas for two hydrogen

reformer furnaces at a refinery using

Draeger tubes an acceptable alternative

to installing, certifying, and operating a

hydrogen sulfide continuous emission

monitoring system on the fuel gas line

upstream of the furnaces?

A: Yes. Based upon historical data on

the fuel gas hydrogen sulfide content

and the fact that the company in

question has an economic incentive to

keep the sulfur content of the fuel gas

low in order to avoid damaging the

reformer catalyst, the proposed

alternative will be adequate for

monitoring the fuel gas hydrogen sulfide

content.

ADI Control #0100006

Q: Under what conditions will firing

a recovery boiler at a kraft pulp with

only natural gas when the mill is shut

down trigger the applicability of the

nitrogen oxides emission standard in 40

CFR part 60, Subpart Db?

A: As long as the company complies

with the annual capacity factor limit of

ten percent or less for natural gas in its

federally enforceable permit, the boiler

will not be subject to the nitrogen

oxides limit in Subpart Db. In addition

to answering this basic applicability

question, the determination provided

input on a number of issues involving

the deadline for initial testing and

compliance demonstration procedures

should the annual capacity factor for

natural gas ever exceed 10 percent.

ADI Control #0100007

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement to

conduct an initial performance test on

two simple cycle combustion turbines if

testing on two identical units at a

facility indicate that emissions are less

than 50 percent of the nitrogen oxides

emission standard in 40 CFR part 60,

Subpart GG?

A: Yes. Based upon the expectation

that the variability in emissions between

identical units will be low, waiving the

requirement to conduct testing on a unit

when the margin of compliance on an

identical unit is high would be

reasonable. The fact that nitrogen oxides

continuous emission monitoring

systems will be installed, certified, and

operated on each turbine at the facility

provides additional justification for

waiving the requirement to conduct

testing on all four units at the plant.

ADI Control #0100008

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement to

monitor the amount of fuel burned each

day in a boiler?

A: No. Fuel usage records are needed

in order to verify that the company is

not burning fuels to which an emission

standard applies. Although the

requirement to keep fuel usage records

cannot be waived, a monthly fuel usage

recordkeeping frequency was approved

in this case because the only fuels

currently burned in the boiler are

natural gas and propane.

ADI Control #0100009

Q: Can a nitrogen oxides predictive

emission monitoring system (PEMS) be

used for demonstrating initial

compliance and conducting ongoing

monitoring on a package boiler at a kraft

pulp mill?

A: Yes. Based upon the results of

relative accuracy test audits conducted

at three different boiler loads and the

average nitrogen oxides emission rate

reported by the PEMS for the initial 30-

day compliance test, the PEMS can be

used both for demonstrating initial

compliance and for conducting ongoing

monitoring.

ADI Control #0100010

Q: Can a nitrogen oxides predictive

emission monitoring system (PEMS) be

used for conducting ongoing monitoring

on two boilers in South Carolina?

A: Based upon relative accuracy test

audit (RATA) results, the PEMS for

natural gas firing in Boiler No. 1 is

acceptable, and the PEMS for natural

gas firing in Boiler No. 2 will be

acceptable if the company applies a bias

correction factor of 1.072 to all nitrogen

oxides results reported for this unit. The

PEMS for oil firing cannot be approved

for either unit because the company did

not conduct RATAs that could be used

to evaluate the accuracy of the PEMS

when this fuel is fired.

ADI Control #0100011

Q: May Method 9 readings be used as

an alternative to continuous opacity

monitoring of a lime kiln where the

COM does not provide accurate

measurements because of steam

interferences?

A: Yes. Method 9 readings may be

used as an alternative to continuous

opacity monitoring under specified

requirements, which include daily

readings and quarterly reporting.

ADI Control #0100012

Q: May a facility monitor the voltage

and current of the third field of a threeVerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:28 Jun 07, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 08JNN1
30910 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

field wet electrostatic precipitator

instead of each field?

A: No. A facility is required to

monitor each field of the wet

electrostatic precipitator.

ADI Control #0100013

Q: Will EPA approve the use of

Method 9 visible emission readings in

lieu of a COM for a Subpart Db boiler?

A: Yes. EPA approves the use of

Method 9 instead of the installation of

a COM due to the very clean fuel being

required for use in the boiler and the

limited period of operation allowed in

the permit. Similar allowances have

been approved by EPA in the past under

similar circumstances.

ADI Control #0100014

Q: Will EPA approve under Subpart

GG a custom fuel monitoring schedule

for pipeline quality natural gas fuel

being used at new gas turbines?

A: Yes. EPA approves the use of a

custom fuel monitoring schedule based

on the national policy of 1987 for

stationary gas turbines burning natural

gas fuel. The fuel quality indicates that

compliance will be met at the turbines.

ADI Control #0100015

Q: Is a specific furnace at a foundry

plant subject to NSPS Subpart AA?

A: No. At the time of installation of

the ‘‘C’’ furnace there was an exemption

provided for Electric Arc Furnaces

located in foundries.

ADI Control #0100016

Q: Will EPA approve a boiler deration

proposal from a company to limit the

size of boilers at two facilities?

A: Yes. EPA Region III approves the

deration proposal because it meets

EPA’s Policy on boiler deration for

limiting the steam generation capacity

of the boilers.

ADI Control #0100017

Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel

monitoring schedule under Subpart GG

for Jet A fuel to be burned in certain gas

turbines due to the small amount of

time they are used and the fuel quality

specifications?

A: Yes. EPA has the authority to

approve custom fuel monitoring

schedules under Subpart GG based on

the operation of the turbines and the

characteristics of the fuel supply.

ADI Control #0100018

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative

monitoring procedure for the distillation

column vent streams from a new Acetal

Resin plant that involves monitoring

valve positions and total gas flow? Will

EPA approve alternative monitoring

procedures for opacity and fuel quality

at the company’s new Subpart Dc

boiler?

A: Yes, EPA has the authority to

approve alternative monitoring

procedures under the General

Provisions of the NSPS program if the

circumstances warrant it and EPA will

approve alternatives under the

company’s conditions due to the

physical infeasibility of vent gas

monitoring in the manner prescribed in

the rule and fuel quality considerations.

ADI Control #0100019

Q1: May a utility facility use acid rain

program monitoring requirements to

demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR

part 60, Subpart GG at a 52-MW

combustion turbine?

A1: Yes. You may use CEMs as

required by the acid rain program to

demonstrate compliance with NOX and

sulfur limits in 40 CFR part 60, Subpart

GG.

Q2: May the facility use a custom

monitoring schedule for sulfur content

in fuel and waive the monitoring

requirements for nitrogen content in

fuel at a 22-MW combustion turbine?

A2: Yes. You may use the custom

monitoring schedule as outlined in the

August 14, 1987, memorandum from

John Rasnic to all Regions. You may

waive the monitoring of nitrogen

content in the fuel when burning

pipeline quality natural gas but not

when burning ι2 distillate fuel oil.

ADI Control #0100020

Q1: Can a utility use CEMs for NOX

monitoring in lieu of the fuel

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part

60, Subpart GG?

A1: Yes. You can use CEMs as

required by the acid rain program to

demonstrate compliance with NOX

limits in 40 CFR part 60, Subpart GG.

Q2: Can the utility use the monitoring

provisions of 40 CFR part 75 for sulfur

content in fuel in lieu of the fuel

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part

60, Subpart GG?

A2: Yes. You can use the monitoring

provisions of 40 CFR part 75 for sulfur

content in fuel in lieu of the fuel

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part

60, Subpart GG.

ADI Control #0100021

Q: Due to weather conditions, a

facility subject to Subpart LLL will not

be able to test some control devices and

maintain production levels required for

testing by the deadline required by 40

CFR 63.7(b). Will EPA approve a 60 day

extension of the deadline?

A: Yes. The request for an extension

was approved.

ADI Control #0100022

Q: Does a brown stock washer qualify

for an exemption from the TRS standard

under sec. 60.283(a)(1)(iv)?

A: Due to the technical issues and

costs associated with the brown stock

washer system project, a temporary

exemption from the Subpart BB

standard for TRS can be granted.

ADI Control #0100023

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement to

monitor the nitrogen content of the

landfill gas burned in a turbine?

A: Yes. Based upon the results of

samples collected and analyzed over a

12-week period, the landfill gas does not

contain any fuel-bound nitrogen.

Because fuel-bound nitrogen is not

present in the landfill gas, and because

any free nitrogen in the gas will not

contribute appreciably to the formation

of nitrogen oxides, it will not be

necessary to monitor the nitrogen

content of the landfill gas.

ADI Control #0100024

Q: Is it acceptable for a company to

use a transfer efficiency value of 60

percent for the high volume low

pressure (HVLP) spray equipment used

in its metal furniture coating operation

when determining compliance under

Subpart EE?

A: Yes. It is acceptable provided that

the operating pressure at the guns’ air

nozzles is no greater than 10 pounds per

square inch. Based upon EPA’s

knowledge of the relative performance

of various coating application

technologies, it is likely that the Agency

would have assigned HVLP equipment

a transfer efficiency equal to or higher

than the 60 percent value specified for

manual electrostatic spray equipment in

Subpart EE if HVLP equipment had

been evaluated during the development

of the standard.

ADI Control #0100025

Q1: Are small valves which are less

than 0.5 inches in diameter and are

associated with instrumentation systems

considered valves under 40 CFR

60.482–7? Because valves which are less

than 0.5 inches in diameter are not

considered valves under 40 CFR part 63

Subpart H, should they be included in

component counts under NSPS Subpart

VV?

A1: Valves which are less than 0.5

inches in diameter and are associated

with instrumentation systems are

considered valves under NSPS Subpart

VV. Although valves of less than 0.5

inches in diameter associated with

instrumentation systems are not

regulated as valves under 40 CFR part

63 Subpart H, they are considered to be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30911

components of instrumentation systems,

which are regulated by Subpart H.

Because NSPS Subpart VV does not

specify an instrumentation system as a

separate piece of equipment regulated

by the standard, valves of less than 0.5

inches in diameter associated with

instrumentation systems are regulated

by the Subpart VV standard as valves.

Q2: Is an in-line check valve subject

to the requirements of Sec. 60.482–7(f)

or is it considered a no detectable

emissions valve?

A2: Since in-line check valves are

enclosed within process piping for

directional control and do not have the

potential for fugitive emissions which

are regulated by the standard, they may

be considered exempt from the Subpart

VV regulation as valves.

Q3: Subpart H of the MACT standards

at 40 CFR 63.160(a) exempts equipment

that is in organic hazardous air

pollutant service for less than 300 hours

per year. Is equipment in VOC service

less than 300 hours per year required to

be monitored under Subpart VV?

A3: Since NSPS Subpart VV does not

include an exemption for equipment

that is in organic hazardous air

pollutant service for less than 300 hours

per year, equipment in VOC service less

than 300 hours per year is not exempt

from monitoring requirements.

ADI Control #0100026

Q: Is an opacity monitoring approach

based upon the collection of visible

emissions data during periods of No. 6

oil firing an acceptable alternative to the

installation of continuous opacity

monitoring systems on two boilers

whose primary fuel is natural gas?

A: Yes. Based upon the low annual

capacity for oil in these units, the

proposed opacity monitoring alternative

is acceptable.

ADI Control #0100027

Q: Is an extension of the deadline for

completing initial performance testing

on a turbine unit?

A: Yes. Based upon numerous

operating problems that the operator has

experienced while firing oil, extending

the deadline for completing testing for

up to 720 operating hours following the

resumption of oil firing will be

acceptable. Basing the test extension on

operating hours, rather than calendar

days, is a better approach for this unit

due to the limited operation on oil so far

and the possibility that the operator may

encounter additional operating

problems when oil firing resumes.

ADI Control #0100028

Q: Is an opacity monitoring approach

based upon the collection of visible

emissions data during periods of No. 2

oil firing an acceptable alternative to the

installation of a continuous opacity

monitoring system on a boiler whose

primary fuel is natural gas?

A: Yes. Based upon the low annual

capacity for oil in this unit, the

proposed opacity monitoring alternative

is acceptable.

ADI Control #0100029

Q: Is an extension of the deadline for

completing initial performance testing

for several facilities at a plant in South

Carolina acceptable?

A: Yes. The only emission unit

subject to New Source Performance

Standards is a boiler subject to Subpart

Dc. Delaying the test for up to 30 days

following the restart of the unit after the

installation of a char removal system

would be acceptable to Region 4. A

decision regarding whether to extend

the deadline for completing testing on

other emission points subject to limits

in a permit issued by South Carolina

can be made at the discretion of the

Department of Health and

Environmental Control.

ADI Control #0100030

Q: Is an extension of the deadline for

completing initial performance testing

on a combined cycle unit in Florida

acceptable?

A: Yes. It is acceptable to extend the

deadline for completing the initial

performance test until 30 days after the

resumption of oil following the repairs

in order to give the operator an

opportunity to repair leaks in the water

injection system used to control

nitrogen oxides emissions during fuel

oil combustion.

ADI Control #0100031

Q: Can the duration of visible

emission observations be reduced from

three hours to 90 minutes for a sand

unloading and conveying operation?

A: Yes. Based upon the intermittent

operation of this facility and the

stringency of the applicable standard,

reasonable assurance of compliance can

be obtained by collecting 90 minutes of

visible emissions data while the facility

is in operation.

ADI Control #0100032

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement to

monitor the opacity of a boiler fired

with oil?

A: No. Although the annual capacity

factor for oil fired in the boiler will be

low, Subpart Db does not provide for an

opacity monitoring exemption based

upon annual capacity factors. Even

though the requirement to monitor

opacity cannot be waived, an alternative

monitoring approach based upon the

collection of visible emissions data

during oil firing would be acceptable.

ADI Control #0100033

Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel

monitoring schedule for turbines at a

facility?

A: Yes. Based on the fuel quality data

submitted for the pipeline-quality

natural gas fuel used by the turbines,

EPA has approved a custom fuel

monitoring schedule in accordance with

EPA’s National Policy.

ADI Control #0100034

Q: Can EPA waive the requirement for

a CEM under Subpart J for loading rack

vapors?

A: Yes. Provided certain

circumstances exist, EPA can approve

an Alternative Monitoring Plan

submitted to EPA.

ADI Control #0100035

Q: Does a facility have to install a

continuous emission monitor for

monitoring H2S vapors from a loading

rack?

A: No. Under certain circumstances,

EPA’s Policy allows for approval of an

alternative monitoring method for this

pollutant from this emission source.

ADI Control #0100036

Q: Will EPA approve the definition of

‘‘VOC used’’ as ‘‘VOC emitted’’ for

purposes of Subpart VVV?

A: Yes. In order to be consistent with

past determinations on this issue for

pultrusion processes where a lot of the

styrene used in the process ends up in

the final product, EPA will allow the

facility to use the amount of unreacted

styrene to calculate the VOC usage rate

for purposes of the listed throughput

exemption under Subpart VVV.

ADI Control #0100037

Q: Will EPA approve a facility’s

alternative monitoring plans for several

refinery fuel gas streams at its petroleum

refinery?

A: Yes. The alternative monitoring

plans are approved in accordance with

the Guidance entitled ‘‘Alternative

Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J

Refinery Fuel Gas: Conditions for

Approval of the Alternative Monitoring

Plan for Miscellaneous Refinery Fuel

Gas Streams.’’

ADI Control #0100038

Q: Do the changes made by the

previous owner of a West Virginia

refinery, pursuant to a RCRA Consent

Order, trigger NSPS applicability under

Subpart QQQ?

A: Yes, the changes made are, in some

respects, construction of new affected

30912 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

facilities and also the modification of

other affected facilities through the

completed projects.

Dated: May 30, 2001.

Michael Stahl,

Director, Office of Compliance.

[FR Doc. 01–14476 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6994–6]

EPA Science Advisory Board; Request

for Nominations for the Arsenic Rule

Benefits Review Panel; and

Notification of Public Advisory

Committee Meetings and Request for

Nominations for the Advisory Council

on Clean Air Compliance Analysis

(Council)

ACTION: Request for nominations to the

Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel of

the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB).

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Science

Advisory Board is announcing the

formation of an Arsenic Rule Benefits

Review Panel (hereinafter, the ‘‘Panel’’)

and soliciting nominations to this Panel.

The EPA Science Advisory Board was

established to provide independent

scientific and technical advice,

consultation, and recommendations to

the EPA Administrator on the technical

bases for EPA regulations. In this sense,

the Board functions as a technical peer

review panel.

Any interested person or organization

may nominate qualified individuals for

membership on the Panel. Nominees

should be identified by name,

occupation, position, address and

telephone number. To be considered, all

nominations must include a current

resume providing the nominee’s

background, experience and

qualifications.

Background

Following the January 22, 2001

Federal Register promulgation of the

arsenic rule, a number of issues were

raised to EPA by States, public water

systems, and others regarding the

adequacy of science and the basis for

national economic analyses informing

decisions about the rule. Because of the

importance of the arsenic rule and the

national debate surrounding it related to

the science and economic analyses that

inform the decision, EPA’s

Administrator publicly announced on

March 20, 2001, that the Agency would

take additional steps to reassess the

scientific and economic issues

associated with this rule, to gather more

information, and to seek further public

input on each of these important issues.

Consistent with that commitment, the

EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will

convene a panel of nationally

recognized technical experts to review

the estimates of the benefits associated

with the final arsenic in drinking water

rule.

An important aspect of forming any

panel is the charge that is to be

addressed during their review. At this

time, the EPA charge to the subject

panel has not been received. Once

received, that charge will be placed on

the Science Advisory Board website

which can be found at www.epa.gov/

sab/. Members of the public wishing to

comment on the charge should send

their comments to the Designated

Federal Officer, Mr. Thomas Miller, as

noted below. When the charge is placed

on the SAB website, the date of its

placement will be noted therein and

comments on the charge will be

accepted for ten calendar days following

that date or the date for closing the

nominations process which is the

subject of this notice, whichever is later.

In addition, the membership of the

Panel itself will be posted at the same

SAB website within 15 calendar days of

closure of the nomination period.

The criteria for selecting Panel

members are that Panel members be

recognized experts in their fields; that

Panel members be as impartial and

objective as possible; that Panel

members represent an array of

backgrounds and perspectives (within

the disciplines relevant to this review);

and that the Panel members be available

to participate fully in the review, which

will be conducted over a relatively short

time frame (i.e., within approximately 3

months). Panel members will be asked

to attend at least one public meeting

followed by at least one public

teleconference meeting over the course

of 3 months; they will be asked to

participate in the discussion of key

issues and assumptions at these

meetings, and they will be asked to

review and to help finalize the products

and outputs of the Panel. The Panel will

make recommendations to the Executive

Committee (EC) of the SAB for approval

of the Panel’s report and transmittal to

the Administrator.

Nominations should be submitted to

Mr. Thomas O. Miller, Designated

Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory

Board, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,

telephone (202) 564–4558; FAX (202)

501–0582; or via e-mail at

miller.tom@epa.gov no later than June

18, 2001. The Agency will not formally

acknowledge or respond to

nominations.

Advisory Council on Clean Air

Compliance Analysis (the Council)

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that the Advisory

Council on Clean Air Compliance

Analysis (the Council) of the EPA

Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet

on the dates and times noted below. All

times noted are Eastern Daylight

Savings Time. All meetings are open to

the public, however, seating is limited

and available on a first come basis.

Important Notice: Documents that are

the subject of SAB reviews are normally

available from the originating EPA office

and are not available from the SAB

Office—information concerning

availability of documents from the

relevant Program Office is included

below.

1. Advisory Council on Clean Air

Compliance Analysis (Council)—June

22, 2001 Teleconference

The Council will conduct a public

teleconference meeting on Friday, June

22, 2001 between the hours of 1 pm and

3 pm (Eastern Daylight Savings Time).

The meeting will be coordinated

through a conference call connection in

Room 6013 in the USEPA, Ariel Rios

Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

The public is encouraged to attend the

meeting in the conference room noted

above, however, the public may also

attend through a telephonic link if lines

are available. Additional instructions

about how to participate in the

conference call can be obtained by

calling Ms. Diana Pozun one week prior

to the meeting (June 15, 2001) at (202)

564–4544, or via e-mail at

pozun.diana@epa.gov.

Purpose of the Meeting

The purpose of this teleconference

meeting is to begin the Council’s

process of providing advice to the

Agency in developing the third in a

series of statutorily mandated

comprehensive analyses of the total

costs and total benefits of programs

implemented pursuant to the Clean Air

Act. Section 812 of the Clean Air Act

requires the EPA to periodically assess

the effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments on the ‘‘public health,

economy and the environment of the

United States’’ and to report the

findings and results of the assessments

to Congress. Section 812 also