[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32919-32931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16274]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8924-4]


Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative 
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to 
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone 
Protection Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, 
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that 
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and 
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document may be 
located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. 
For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Rebecca Kane at EPA 
by phone at: (202) 564-5960, or by e-mail at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c070d0209421e090e090f0f0d2c091c0d420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc979d9299d28e999e999f9f9dbc998c9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
technical questions about the individual applicability determinations 
or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the 
individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to 
the author of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part

[[Page 32920]]

61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination 
of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of 
construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses 
to these inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability 
determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP 
[which includes Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] 
and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations contain no 
specific regulatory provision that sources may request applicability 
determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding 
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and 
NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or 
recordkeeping that are different from the promulgated requirements. See 
40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written 
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory 
requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These 
inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the 
regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written 
responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory 
interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the ADI on a quarterly basis. In 
addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to 
the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The 
ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA 
letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS 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 69 such documents added to 
the ADI on June 17, 2009. The subject and header of each letter and 
memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief abstract of 
the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be 
obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on June 17, 2009; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as 
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, 
which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act. For example, this notice does not make an applicability 
determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither 
does it purport to make any document that was previously non-binding 
into a binding document.

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on June 17, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Control No.                   Category                    Subparts                      Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0900001..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Solar Flare
                                                                                            Requirements.
0900003..........................  NSPS                  OOO.............................  Performance Testing
                                                                                            and Test Waiver
                                                                                            Request.
0900004..........................  NSPS                  A, UUU..........................  Spray Dryer Equipped
                                                                                            with Baghouse and
                                                                                            Wet Scrubber.
0900005..........................  NSPS                  A, UUU..........................  Spray Dryer Equipped
                                                                                            with Baghouse and
                                                                                            Wet Scrubber.
0900006..........................  NSPS                  A, UUU..........................  Spray Dryer
                                                                                            Controlled by
                                                                                            Baghouse-Scrubber
                                                                                            System.
0900007..........................  NSPS                  XX..............................  Ethanol Plant
                                                                                            Receiving Gasoline
                                                                                            by Truck.
0900008..........................  NSPS                  Cc, WWW.........................  Landfill Expansion.
0900009..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Higher Operating
                                                                                            Temperature at
                                                                                            Landfill Wellhead.
0900010..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                            Temperature at
                                                                                            Landfill Wellhead.
0900011..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  New Temporary Higher
                                                                                            Operating Limit at
                                                                                            Landfill Wellhead.
0900012..........................  NSPS                  BBBB, JJJ.......................  Dioxin/furan Testing
                                                                                            at Small Municipal
                                                                                            Waste Combustor.
0900013..........................  NSPS                  Db..............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Proposal.
0900014..........................  NSPS                  A, RR...........................  Replacement
                                                                                            Regenerative Thermal
                                                                                            Oxidizer.
0900015..........................  NSPS                  PPP.............................  Glass Pull Rate and
                                                                                            Primary Amp/Voltage
                                                                                            Monitoring.
0900016..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative Timeline
                                                                                            to Correct Oxygen
                                                                                            Exceedances at
                                                                                            Wellhead.
0900017..........................  NSPS                  CC..............................  Opacity Standard for
                                                                                            Glass Plants.
0900018..........................  NSPS                  NNN, RRR........................  Flow Monitoring
                                                                                            Requirements for
                                                                                            Distillation Column
                                                                                            C-600.
0900019..........................  NSPS                  J...............................  Platformer
                                                                                            Regeneration Process
                                                                                            Unit Operations.
0900020..........................  NSPS                  J...............................  Wastewater API
                                                                                            Separator Unit
                                                                                            Operations.
0900021..........................  NSPS                  A, D............................  Relocating/Certifying
                                                                                            Continuous Opacity
                                                                                            Monitoring Systems.
0900022..........................  NSPS                  NNN, RRR........................  Flow Monitoring
                                                                                            Requirements for
                                                                                            Distillation Column
                                                                                            C-5222.
A090001..........................  Asbestos              M...............................  Vermiculite in
                                                                                            Facility Demolished
                                                                                            for Safety Reasons.
A090003..........................  Asbestos              M...............................  Residential
                                                                                            Structures
                                                                                            Demolished by
                                                                                            Municipalities for
                                                                                            Public Safety.
A090004..........................  Asbestos              M...............................  Demolition Procedures
                                                                                            Involving Asbestos-
                                                                                            containing
                                                                                            Vermiculite.
M090004..........................  MACT                  FFFF, GGG.......................  Initial Compliance
                                                                                            Demonstration for
                                                                                            Process Condensers.
M090006..........................  MACT                  FFFF............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Calculation of
                                                                                            Uncontrolled Phenol
                                                                                            Emissions; Use of
                                                                                            Soundproof Acoustic
                                                                                            Flare Monitoring
                                                                                            System.
M090007..........................  MACT                  GGG.............................  Floating Roof as
                                                                                            Process Tank Control
                                                                                            Device.
M090008..........................  MACT                  FFFF............................  Exclusion of Hydrogen
                                                                                            Halides and Halogen
                                                                                            HAPs.
M090009..........................  MACT                  RRR.............................  Installation of Sweat
                                                                                            Furnace at Area
                                                                                            Source Aluminum
                                                                                            Foundry.
M090010..........................  MACT                  FFFF............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring
                                                                                            Requirements for
                                                                                            Packed Scrubber.
M090011..........................  MACT                  GGGGG...........................  Excavated Soil Used
                                                                                            as Backfill.
M090012..........................  MACT                  FFFF, SS........................  Control Methods for
                                                                                            HAP Emissions from
                                                                                            Group 1 Process
                                                                                            Vents.
M090013..........................  MACT                  A, LLL..........................  Alternative Baghouse
                                                                                            Inlet Temperature
                                                                                            Calculation for Long
                                                                                            Wet Kiln.
M090014..........................  MACT                  FFFF............................  Use of Process
                                                                                            Condenser as
                                                                                            Recovery Device.

[[Page 32921]]

 
M090015..........................  MACT                  RRR.............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring and
                                                                                            Recordkeeping for
                                                                                            Scrap Dryer.
M090016..........................  MACT                  EEEE............................  Container-to-
                                                                                            Container and Truck-
                                                                                            to-Container
                                                                                            Transfers.
M090017..........................  MACT                  WWWW............................  Styrene Content Value
                                                                                            for Calculating
                                                                                            Emissions; Repairs
                                                                                            with Putty.
M090018..........................  MACT                  KK..............................  MACT Applicability
                                                                                            after HAP Is
                                                                                            Delisted.
M090019..........................  MACT                  MM..............................  New Compliance
                                                                                            Monitoring Limits
                                                                                            without Testing.
M090020..........................  MACT                  VVVV............................  Opting Out of MACT
                                                                                            after Compliance
                                                                                            Date.
M090021..........................  MACT                  A, CCC..........................  Monitoring and
                                                                                            Recordkeeping
                                                                                            Requirements.
Z090001..........................  NESHAP                F, V............................  Updating Vinyl
                                                                                            Chloride Leak
                                                                                            Detection and Repair
                                                                                            Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Backlog:

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on June 17, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Control No.                   Category                    Subparts                      Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0900023..........................  NSPS                  J...............................  Revising Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                            Hydrogen Sulfide.
0900024..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Compliance Timeline
                                                                                            for Well Exceedance.
0900025..........................  NSPS                  AAAA, WWW.......................  Alternatives to
                                                                                            Collection and
                                                                                            Control System
                                                                                            Design Plan.
0900026..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan.
0900027..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Conducting Additional
                                                                                            Tier 2 Sampling.
0900028..........................  NSPS                  J...............................  Modification of
                                                                                            Approved Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan.
0900029..........................  NSPS                  QQQ.............................  Designating Group 2
                                                                                            Wastewater Stream as
                                                                                            Group 1 Wastewater
                                                                                            Stream.
0900030..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                            Temperatures for Gas
                                                                                            Well.
0900031..........................  NSPS                  Db..............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan.
0900032..........................  NSPS                  Db..............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan.
0900033..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                            Temperatures for Two
                                                                                            Gas Wells.
0900034..........................  NSPS                  J...............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan.
0900035..........................  NSPS                  VV..............................  Closed Loop Sampling
                                                                                            Systems.
0900036..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                            Temperatures at
                                                                                            Multiple Wells.
0900037..........................  NSPS                  WWW.............................  Alternative Timeline
                                                                                            for Gas Collection.
M090022..........................  MACT                  RRR.............................  Thermal Chip Dryer
                                                                                            Operation.
M090023..........................  MACT                  A, JJJJJ........................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Method
                                                                                            and Performance Test
                                                                                            Waiver.
M090024..........................  MACT                  J, UUU..........................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Request
                                                                                            for FCCU COMS.
M090025..........................  MACT                  CC..............................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Plan.
M090026..........................  MACT                  AAAA............................  Determination Whether
                                                                                            Subpart Applies.
M090027..........................  MACT                  CC..............................  Designating Group 2
                                                                                            Wastewater Stream as
                                                                                            Group 1 Wastewater
                                                                                            Stream.
M090028..........................  MACT                  G, JJJ..........................  Alternative Control
                                                                                            Device.
M090029..........................  MACT                  AAAA............................  Determination Whether
                                                                                            Subpart Applies.
M090030..........................  MACT                  A, RRR..........................  Alternative
                                                                                            Monitoring Method.
M090031..........................  MACT                  JJJJ............................  Initial Performance
                                                                                            Test Waiver.
M090032..........................  MACT                  GGG, MMM........................  Use of Previously
                                                                                            Conducted
                                                                                            Performance Tests
                                                                                            for Initial
                                                                                            Compliance
                                                                                            Demonstration.
Z090002..........................  NESHAP                FF..............................  Designating Group 2
                                                                                            Wastewater Stream as
                                                                                            Group 1 Wastewater
                                                                                            Stream.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [A090001]

    Q: Does EPA approve a variance from 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, the 
asbestos NESHAP, to allow vermiculite material to be left in place 
during demolition at the former Coachman Motel in Bloomington, 
Illinois?
    A: No. EPA does not approve a variance to the asbestos NESHAP under 
any circumstance. However, the asbestos NESHAP identifies situations 
where regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) need not be removed 
prior to demolition, including a situation where the RACM was not 
accessible for testing and not discovered until after demolition, and 
as a result of the demolition, cannot be safely removed. The loose 
vermiculite material in between the walls at this motel appears to fall 
into this situation because, to remove it, the walls would need to be 
taken down, causing the ceiling to collapse. All exposed RACM and all 
contaminated debris must be treated as asbestos-containing waste 
material in this situation.

Abstract for [A090003]

    Q: Does the applicability determination issued by EPA on July 15, 
1993 (see ADI Control Number 930828) conflict with EPA's Clarification 
of Intent published in the Federal Register on July 28, 1995, as to the 
applicability of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (the asbestos NESHAP) to 
single-family homes?
    A: No. EPA believes that these documents are not in conflict, but 
rather are complementary and apply to different factual situations. The 
1993 applicability determination responds to the issue of a large 
municipality-orchestrated project where multiple single-family homes 
are being demolished as part of that large project over the course of 
the same planning or scheduling period, which, for most municipalities, 
we believe is done on a fiscal or calendar year basis, or in accordance 
with the terms of a contract. It is EPA's interpretation that the 
demolition of such multiple single-family homes under such 
circumstances by a municipality is subject to the asbestos NESHAP 
regulation, notwithstanding the residential building exclusion 
contained within the definition of ``facility'' in the asbestos NESHAP. 
The 1995 Clarification of Intent, on the other hand, deals with the 
demolition of two or more single-family homes on the same site (e.g., a 
city

[[Page 32922]]

block) that are under the control of a common owner or operator. Under 
that factual scenario, the single-family homes are considered to be 
(or, perhaps, to be a part of) an installation, as defined under the 
asbestos NESHAP, and are subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulation.

Abstract for [A090004]

    Q: Does EPA approve Environmental Consultants' request under 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart M, to leave vermiculite asbestos-containing material 
(ACM), which is loose between the load-supporting concrete block walls 
of a vacant commercial building in O'Fallon, Illinois, in place during 
the building's demolition?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that Environmental Consultants can leave 
ACM in place during demolition because it is a friable ACM, and the 
exception in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1)(iii) applies since it cannot be safely 
removed prior to demolition without causing the ceiling to collapse. 
All exposed regulated ACM and all asbestos-contaminated debris must be 
treated as asbestos-containing waste material and kept adequately wet 
at all times until properly disposed of.

Abstract for [M090004]

    Q: Does EPA approve Dow Chemical Company's request under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF (MON), to waive the initial compliance 
demonstration for process condensers at its Midland, Michigan facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Dow's request to waive the initial compliance 
demonstration for the specific process condensers listed in its request 
because the condensers are not designed to recover hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) and therefore cannot meet the initial compliance 
demonstration requirements without negatively affecting process 
operations. In addition, the condensers are vented to control devices 
that reduce HAP emissions per the MON.

Abstract for [M090006]

    Q1: Is a Soundproof acoustic flare monitoring system an acceptable 
method for the Albemarle Corporation facility in Orangeburg, South 
Carolina, to meet the flare monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
63.987(c), as referenced in 63.2450(e)(2)?
    A1: Yes. Based on information Albemarle Corporation submitted in 
its November 8, 2007 letter, specifically information from John Zink 
Company, the manufacturer of the Soundproof Acoustic Pilot Monitor, EPA 
concludes that the Soundproof monitoring system meets the requirements 
of 40 CFR 63.987(c).
    Q2: May Albemarle Corporation conduct an engineering assessment to 
calculate uncontrolled phenol emissions from its P30 process at its 
Orangeburg, South Carolina facility?
    A2: Yes. Phenol is used as the limiting reagent in the P30 process. 
During the reaction, phenol is converted to hydrochloric acid at a 1:1 
molar ratio. Due to the variable nature of the batch reaction, it is 
impossible to know the mole fraction of phenol during the reaction; 
thus, it is impossible to calculate the partial pressure. Phenol 
emissions were calculated by multiplying the HCl emissions from the 
process by the ratio of phenol to HCl in the scrubber liquid (0.14 
percent, obtained from test results).

Abstract for [M090007]

    Q: May a floating roof be used as a control device for process tank 
emissions to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG?
    A: Yes. A floating roof can be used in this application provided 
that the 93 percent reduction of HAP emissions required by 40 CFR 
63.1254(a)(1) is met. The 93 percent HAP reduction requirement can be 
satisfied by first calculating uncontrolled HAP emissions using the 
equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(A) and calculating the controlled 
HAP emissions using EPA's TANKS computer program, then calculating the 
percent reduction using these two values.

Abstract for [M090008]

    Q1: Does EPA approve of test conditions, data, calculations, and 
other means used at the MeadWestvaco facility in Charleston, South 
Carolina, to establish operating limits for a regenerative thermal 
oxidizer according to 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(3)?
    A1: EPA approval is not required for this request because 
MeadWestvaco is requesting to average emissions within specific 
processes and not across multiple processes.
    Q2: Can hydrogen halides and halogen HAPs generated due to halides 
present in water used as a raw material by the MeadWestvaco facility in 
Charleston, South Carolina, be excluded from uncontrolled emissions 
calculations under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF?
    A2: No. Although the levels of hydrogen halides and halogen HAPs 
are quite small, there is no de minimis value for these pollutants in 
MACT subpart FFFF. Also, there is no regulatory basis in 40 CFR part 63 
for EPA to grant such an approval.
    Q3: Does EPA approve the use of the reduced recordkeeping 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.2525(e)(3) under MACT subpart FFFF for 
miscellaneous organic chemical processing units (MCPUs) with 
uncontrolled halogen halide and halogen HAP emissions of less than 200 
pounds per year?
    A3: No. EPA does, however, approve the use of these reduced 
recordkeeping requirements under MACT subpart FFFF for MCPUs with 
uncontrolled halogen halide and halogen HAP emissions less than 100 
pounds per year.

Abstract for [M090009]

    Q: Does the installation of a sweat furnace at the Nemak USA 
aluminum foundry facility in Sylacauga, Alabama, which is currently 
exempt from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR (Secondary 
Aluminum Production NESHAP), make the facility subject to the 
requirements of NESHAP subpart RRR?
    A: Yes. According to 40 CFR 63.1503, aluminum foundries are not 
considered secondary aluminum production facilities if they only melt 
clean charge, customer returns, or internal scrap, and do not operate 
sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, or scrap dryers/delacquering 
kilns/decoating kilns. By this definition, the Nemak facility would be 
subject to subpart RRR upon installation of a sweat furnace at its 
facility. Specifically, as an affected source located at an area source 
of HAPs, the sweat furnace would be subject to the requirements of 
subpart RRR pertaining to dioxin and furan (D/F) emissions and the 
associated operating, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping 
requirements under 40 CFR 63.1500(c)(3). Per the applicability criteria 
in 40 CFR 63.1500(c)(4), the existing area source furnaces are still 
exempt from the requirements of MACT subpart RRR because they only 
process clean charge.

Abstract for [M090010]

    Q: Does EPA approve the requested alternative monitoring to the 
monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, for the C-
202 packed scrubber at the Rhodia Inc. facility in Charleston, South 
Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring of the scrubber column 
differential pressure, scrubber liquid inlet flow rate, and scrubber 
liquid acid strength in place of the monitoring requirements stated in 
40 CFR 63.990(c) [as referenced by 63.2470(c)]. Rhodia has identified 
that all three of these parameters have specific designed

[[Page 32923]]

operating conditions specified by the manufacturer.

Abstract for [M090011]

    Q: Would contaminated soil that the BP refinery in Whiting, 
Indiana, excavates as part of on-site construction activities, 
temporarily stores on-site, and uses as backfill on-site be subject to 
the Site Remediation MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG?
    A: No. The re-use of contaminated soil as backfill on-site without 
any cleanup activities is not subject to MACT subpart GGGGG.

Abstract for [M090012]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan under the 
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (MON), for 
the packed-bed caustic scrubber used to control phenol emissions from 
several Group 1 batch process vents at DynaChem, Inc.'s batch chemicals 
manufacturing facility in Georgetown, Illinois?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves DynaChem's request to continuously measure pH 
and scrubber flow rate (to determine the liquid to gas ratio) as an 
alternative to continuously measuring the scrubbing liquid temperature 
and the specific gravity. According to DynaChem, the phenol in the 
process reacts with the sodium hydroxide in the scrubbing liquid 
caustic solution to form sodium phenolate. As phenol is removed, the 
specific gravity will not vary significantly to provide the level of 
sensitivity needed for determining on-going compliance due to the 
limited solubility of the sodium phenolate. This alternative monitoring 
plan follows the requirements for absorbers removing halogenated 
compounds where the scrubbing liquor is reacting with the compound 
instead of absorbing it.
    Q2: Are DynaChem's condensers after the vacuum pumps in the epoxy 
and sulfonic acid production batch trains ``control devices'' or 
``process condensers'' under the MON?
    A2: Based on the information provided by DynaChem, the refrigerated 
vent condensers in the vent stream trains after the vacuum pumps (vent 
condensers 1, 2, and 3, and the post condenser) are control devices for 
the following reasons: (1) The primary purpose of these vent condensers 
is the control of HAP emissions; (2) three of the four condensers were 
installed at the same time as the non-regenerative adsorber units as 
part of a single control system for controlling HAP emissions to meet 
98 percent control and the fourth condenser is outside the unit battery 
limits and functions as an emission control device; and (3) these 
condensers account for a very small percentage of the total condensate 
recovered during a process batch.
    Q3: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan under the MON 
for Group 1 process vent trains, in the epoxy resin and sulfonic acid 
production processes, which are equipped with a combination of 
refrigerated vent condensers followed by two non-regenerative carbon 
canisters configured in series, at DynaChem's Georgetown, Illinois 
facility?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan involving the 
use of a Flame Ionization Detector (FID) to detect when the canisters 
need change-out. The frequency of such monitoring will be determined 
via performance testing. DynaChem must also install and operate a 
monitoring device capable of providing a continuous record of the exit 
(product side) gas temperature of the condenser.

Abstract for [M090013]

    Q: Does EPA approve a re-start of the calculation of the 180-minute 
rolling average baghouse inlet temperature (BHIT), under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart LLL, when the Holcim, Inc. facility in Dundee, Michigan, 
switches the emission controls on its long wet kiln <greek-i>1 from the 
carbon injection system to the scrubber/regenerative thermal oxidizer 
(S/RTO) system, and vice versa?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a re-start under MACT subpart LLL. Holcim 
conducted performance testing on long wet kiln <greek-i>1, which 
resulted in a BHIT limit of 419 degrees Fahrenheit when operating the 
S/RTO and a BHIT of 351 degrees Fahrenheit when operating carbon 
injection. Because Holcim has two temperature limits in two different 
operating scenarios, the facility needs to begin anew at zero the 
calculation of the 180-minute rolling average temperature when 
switching between the two control device scenarios.

Abstract for [M090014]

    Q: May the 3V Inc. facility in Georgetown, South Carolina, use a 
condenser as a recovery device to reduce collective uncontrolled 
organic HAP emissions from batch process vents by 95 percent as 
required by Table 2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF?
    A: No. Under MACT subpart FFFF, any condenser which recovers 
material for fuel value cannot be a recovery device used to comply with 
Table 2, and is deemed a process condenser.

Abstract for [M090015]

    Q: Does EPA approve Aleris International's request under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart RRR, to base the feed/charge weight to the scrap dryer 
on the weight of the feed/charge into either the ring crusher or the 
feed hopper at the Wabash Alloys facility in Wabash, Indiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Aleris International's alternative methodology 
request under MACT subpart RRR based on its claims that (1) there are 
no process losses at or through the ring crusher, (2) after the ring 
crusher and after the hopper the material is conveyed continuously to 
the scrap dryer, and (3) the equipment configurations do not allow the 
separate weighing of the feed/charge directly into the dryer.

Abstract for [M090016]

    Q: Are the following organic liquid transfers at the BP Whiting 
refinery in Whiting, Indiana, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, 
the Organic Liquid Distribution MACT: Container-to-container transfers 
via gravity or non-permanent hose or valve; and truck-to-container 
transfers via non-permanent hose or valve with or without a pump?
    A: Each of the loading/unloading activities described by BP meets 
the definition of a ``transfer rack'' under MACT subpart EEEE at 40 CFR 
63.2406, defined as ``a system used to load organic liquids into, or 
unload organic liquids out of, transport vehicles or containers''. 
However, BP does not explain whether, in addition to being non-
permanent, the transfers are related to special situation distribution 
loading and unloading operations or maintenance to make a determination 
on whether the exemption in 40 CFR 63.2338(c) would apply. If the 
organic liquid transfers are normal operating procedures necessary to 
keep process operations going, then the exemption in 40 CFR 63.2338(c) 
would not apply.

Abstract for [M090017]

    Q1: Concept Plastics of High Point, North Carolina, submitted 16 
photos with textual description, seeking determinations concerning 
whether the processes depicted in the photos are manual resin 
application, open molding, closed molding, or polymer casting under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. Concept Plastics also requested a 
clarification on how these processes were differentiated, with 
particular interest in how much ``working'' constitutes manual resin 
application.
    A1: EPA has determined that all Concept processes, described in 
photos,

[[Page 32924]]

are considered polymer casting per definition in 40 CFR 63.5935. These 
processes are defined as polymer casting because they involve a filled 
resin that contains no reinforcement material. There is no working of 
the resin after application except for smoothing the material or 
vibrating to remove air bubbles. Because there is no reinforcement to 
be wetted out, the resin does not have to be worked to the same extent 
as occurs on open molding manual resin application. Specifically, 
photos 1 and 2 show polymer casting as the materials are poured into a 
closed mold and the resin is allowed to cure. Photos 3 and 4 show 
polymer casting as the component materials are poured into a closed 
mold and brushed to remove an air pocket. Photos 5 through 8 show 
polymer casting operations that involve pouring the composite materials 
into an open mold and not working the resin during or after 
application. These processes do not meet the definition of open molding 
manual resin application. Open molding involves the resin being 
typically applied to the open mold covered with reinforcing materials 
(typically fiberglass cloth or mat), or the resin applied to the mold 
contains reinforcing materials. The resin is typically applied using a 
brush (although it is sometimes poured on), and a roller is run back 
and forth across the surface to remove air bubbles and to insure the 
reinforcement is completely wetted out. Several passes of a hand held 
roller are generally necessary to ensure complete wetting of the 
reinforcement. On the other hand, Concept Plastics processes are not 
considered closed molding since this broader category includes 
fabricating composites in a way that HAP-containing materials are not 
exposed to the atmosphere except during the material loading stage.
    Q2: Is the process involving a rotocast machine to allow the resin 
to contact and coat all sides of the mold, as described in photos 9 
through 12, ``centrifugal casting'' or ``polymer casting'' under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart WWWW?
    A2: EPA has determined that Concept processes, described in photos 
9 through 12, are polymer casting involving pouring the composite 
materials into an open mold that is then closed and rotated on more 
than one axis to allow the resin to contact and coat all sides of the 
mold. The resin is worked via this rotation after the mold is closed to 
ensure that all surfaces of the mold are coated. Based on photos 11 and 
12, the rotation does not appear to rely upon centrifugal forces to 
hold the composite materials in place until the part is sufficiently 
cured to maintain its physical shape. Hence, it does not appear to be 
centrifugal casting.
    Q3: Given that the styrene content of the ``neat resin plus'' 
varies, what value should the emission calculations use?
    A3: The weighted average of styrene content should be used to 
address the variable formulations used at the facility.
    Q4: Does the mixing of much of the catalyst and ``neat resin plus'' 
in one-gallon buckets constitute ``mixing'' under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart WWWW?
    A4: No. Because MACT subpart WWWW defines ``mixing'' as the 
blending of HAP-containing materials in vessels of five gallon or 
greater capacity, the mixing at issue here, and depicted in Photo 13, 
is not subject to the rule.
    Q5: Is minor touch up work done using resin applied in a putty form 
considered a repair under 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW?
    A5: No. The application of putties is excluded from the provisions 
of MACT subpart WWWW.

Abstract for [M090018]

    Q: Is the Reynolds Flexible Packaging Plant (Reynolds) in 
Louisville, Kentucky, subject to the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) for the Printing and Publishing 
Industry, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, after the compliance date if the 
primary HAP is delisted from the section 112(b) list of Hazardous Air 
Pollutants?
    A: No. EPA finds that it is appropriate to allow facilities to look 
back to the first substantive compliance date to demonstrate that the 
potential to emit HAPs on that date would have been less than the major 
source threshold, without counting emissions of the delisted pollutant.

Abstract for [M090019]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request to establish a lower compliance 
monitoring parameter limit without conducting a source test at the 
lower limit under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, for a smelt dissolving 
tank scrubber at the Smurfit-Stone facility in Florence, South Carolina 
(Florence Mill)?
    A: No. EPA does not approve this request. A source test will be 
required before a lower compliance monitoring limit can be established 
under MACT subpart MM.

Abstract for [M090020]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request from Stamas Yacht, Inc. (Stamas), in 
Pinellas County, Florida, to opt out of MACT applicability after the 
compliance date if actual HAP emissions never exceeded the major source 
threshold? Stamas was issued an initial Title V permit, based on 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPS), on September 11, 1998. 
The permit was renewed on December 29, 2003, at which time the 
requirements of the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing, 40 CFR 63, subpart VVVV were added.
    A: No. EPA does not approve Stamas' request because based on the 
1999 and 2000 styrene emissions, the facility does have the potential 
to emit major source levels of HAPs, even when its actual emissions 
level may be lower at this time. Therefore, we believe that the Stamas 
request to opt out of subpart VVVV applicability and to rescind their 
Title V permit should be denied.

Abstract for [M090021]

    Q1: Has EPA reconsidered its May 23, 2007 determination regarding 
the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CCC, Steel Pickling NESHAP, that apply to wet scrubbers on the 
two existing continuous pickling lines and the acid regeneration plant 
at Nucor Corporation's steel mini-mill in Crawfordsville, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA has reconsidered its earlier determination and 
reissued this superseding determination.
    Q2: How does 40 CFR 63.1162(a)(2), which requires that the scrubber 
flow rates be monitored continuously and recorded at least once per 
shift while the scrubber is operating, apply to the Nucor Mill?
    A2: Under 40 CFR 63.1162(a)(2) Nucor must install, operate, and 
maintain flow meters to monitor continuously the scrubber flow rates 
(makeup water and recirculation water flow rates) at all times the 
scrubber is operating. These flow rates must be recorded at least once 
per shift while the scrubber is operating. Furthermore, because 
operation of the scrubber with excursions of scrubber flow rates less 
than the minimum values established during the performance test(s) will 
require initiation of corrective action as specified by the maintenance 
requirements of the Steel Pickling NESHAP, the instantaneous scrubber 
flow rates must be displayed continuously in real time via gauges or 
digital readout systems to allow such corrective action if the flow 
rates drop below the minimum values established during the performance 
test(s).
    Q3: Are Nucor's scrubber flow rates monitoring systems ``continuous 
monitoring systems''?

[[Page 32925]]

    A3: Yes. The term ``continuous monitoring system'' or CMS is a 
comprehensive term that includes not only continuous emission 
monitoring systems but also various systems that provide continuous 
assurance that a NESHAP is being met. Notwithstanding this 
determination, EPA interprets 40 CFR 63.1162(a)(2) to require Nucor to 
record the scrubber flow rates once per shift.

Abstract for [Z090001]

    Q: Does EPA approve Dow Chemical Company's (Dow's) request to 
modify the leak detection and repair programs under 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart F, with regard to its Midland, Michigan facility by: (1) 
Increasing the leak definition for vinyl chloride detected with a 
portable leak detector from 10 to 500 parts per million (ppm); (2) 
eliminating weekly/monthly monitoring of valves, connectors, and 
compressors not monitored per Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
(Method 21); (3) eliminating weekly monitoring of all sealless pumps in 
vinyl chloride service; (4) replacing weekly monitoring of all 
compressors in vinyl chloride service with a designation of ``no 
detectable emissions'', and an annual verification by Method 21 
monitoring; and (5) changing the monitoring process from monitoring by 
plant personnel to monitoring by the site's fugitive emission 
contractor, and the data collection process from retention of paper 
checklists to retention of an electronic database?
    A: In regard to increasing the vinyl chloride leak definition to 
500 ppm [(1), above] and eliminating weekly/monthly non-Method 21 
monitoring of valves, connectors, and compressors [(2), above], Dow 
does not need EPA approval because these modifications would not change 
Dow's leak detection and elimination area program under 40 CFR 
61.65(b)(8)(i), and because Dow would continue to meet the requirements 
of 40 CFR 61.65(b)(8)(ii). Dow also does not need EPA approval to 
eliminate weekly monitoring of sealless pumps in vinyl chloride service 
[(3), above] because these pumps are exempt from monitoring under 40 
CFR part 61, subpart V. With regard to compressor monitoring [(4), 
above), EPA accepts the submittal of the information Dow provided as 
fulfillment of the requirements of 40 CFR 61.10(c) to provide 
notification to EPA of a change to any information provided in 40 CFR 
61.10(a), including the method chosen by the facility to demonstrate 
compliance. Finally, EPA approves Dow's request in (5), above, to 
change the monitoring process from monitoring by plant personnel to 
monitoring by the site's fugitive emission contractor, and the data 
collection process from retention of paper checklists to retention of 
an electronic database.

Abstract for [0900001]

    Q: May a solar-powered flare with a constant sparking device be 
used to control landfill gas emissions for purposes of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW?
    A: No. EPA does not recognize constant sparking devices as meeting 
requirements under 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.756(c)(1). The 
flare must also have a pilot flame and heat sensors such as a 
thermocouple or ultraviolet beam sensor with a recording device.

Abstract for [0900003]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the proposed performance testing protocol 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, for Duke Energy Indiana's Cayuga 
Generating Station in Cayuga, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the proposed performance test 
protocol submitted under NSPS subpart OOO, provided that the testing 
protocol is modified to incorporate the changes and additions listed in 
EPA's response.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Cayuga's request for a waiver for compliance 
testing using Method 5 or Method 17, pursuant to the requirements of 40 
CFR 62.672(e)(2), requiring that the emissions from the forced air 
vents in the Limestone Preparation Building shall not exceed the stack 
emission limits of 0.022 gr/dscf (using Method 5 or Method 17) and 7 
percent opacity (using Method 9) as given in 40 CFR 60.672(a)? Due to 
the nature and location of the forced air vents in the Limestone 
Preparation Building, Cayuga is unable to conduct a compliance test 
using either Method 5 or Method 17.
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Cayuga's test waiver request 
under NSPS subpart OOO, provided that the facility can demonstrate 
compliance for the two forced air vents in the Limestone Preparation 
Building by having no visible emissions, using Method 9 for the 
duration of 1 hour.

Abstract for [0900004]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart UUU, for Criterion Catalyst's spray dryer system 
equipped with a baghouse system followed by a non-Venturi type wet 
scrubber located in Michigan City, Indiana? Criterion Catalyst seeks to 
monitor continuously the fuel flow rate to the spray dryer process 
heater and the feed rate to the spray dryer in lieu of continuously 
monitoring the gas phase pressure drop across the scrubber.
    A: No. EPA does not approve the requested alternative monitoring 
plan under NSPS subpart UUU. Although EPA agrees with Criterion 
Catalyst that the pressure drop may not be an appropriate monitoring 
parameter for a wet scrubber that does not use a Venturi design, 
Criterion Catalyst has not made adequate demonstration that the feed 
rate to the dryer or the fuel flow rate to the process heater correlate 
to the gas flow to the scrubber or relate to the performance of the 
scrubber.

Abstract for [0900005]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring system (AMS) plan to 
comply with the mass emission standard under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
UUU, for Criterion Catalyst's spray dryer equipped with a baghouse 
system and wet scrubber located in Michigan City, Indiana? Criterion 
Catalyst seeks to monitor continuously the liquid-to-gas ratio in lieu 
of the pressure drop across the scrubber.
    A: EPA conditionally approves Criterion Catalyst's AMS plan under 
NSPS subpart UUU to monitor continuously the liquid-to-gas ratio in 
lieu of the pressure drop across the scrubber to comply with the mass 
emission standard. In addition, Criterion Catalyst must have continuous 
monitoring systems in place for the baghouse system since in this case 
the baghouses are essential to achieving compliance with the 
particulate matter (PM) emission standard, and Criterion Catalyst does 
not meet the exception in 40 CFR 60.734(a).

Abstract for [0900006]

    Q: Does EPA approve Criterion Catalyst's request, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart UUU, to monitor continuously at its spray dryer system in 
Michigan City, Indiana, the opacity of exhaust gases in the ductwork 
between the baghouse system and scrubber as an alternative to 
monitoring the opacity at the outlet of the scrubber?
    A: Yes. Because the opacity at the scrubber outlet cannot be 
measured accurately with a monitor due to interference caused by liquid 
water, EPA approves the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) under NSPS subpart UUU for the measurement of the opacity of the 
exhaust gases in the ductwork between the baghouse system and scrubber.

Abstract for [0900007]

    Q: Does the Illinois River Energy production plant in Rochelle, 
Illinois, which handles an ethanol/gasoline

[[Page 32926]]

blended fuel known as ``E-85'' and which receives fuel by truck, meet 
the definition of bulk terminal in 40 CFR 60.501 of NSPS subpart XX?
    A: No. The Illinois River Energy facility does not meet the 
definition of bulk terminal and is, therefore, not subject to NSPS 
subpart XX. Although the E-85 fuel meets the definition of gasoline, 
the bulk terminal receives gasoline only by truck, which was 
intentionally excluded from the rule's definition, as supported by the 
Background Information Document for NSPS subpart XX (Bulk Gasoline 
Terminals--Background Information for Proposed Standards, September 
1980).

Abstract for [0900008]

    Q: The Laraway Recycling and Disposal Facility (Laraway) in Will 
County, Illinois, consists of three physically separate waste disposal 
areas located within a single parcel of property and identified as: (1) 
The closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) unit, which 
accepted municipal solid waste (MSW) from 1973 to 1983; (2) the closed 
Trench 11, which never accepted MSW; and (3) the active 32-acre solid 
waste unit, which was permitted to accept MSW but never actually 
accepted MSW. Will a vertical and horizontal expansion of the active 
solid waste unit described in (3) be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A: No. Although the closed RCRA unit is an MSW landfill, and all 
three landfills are a single source or facility, a modification to a 
proven non-MSW landfill, such as the solid waste unit, would not make 
the entire facility subject to NSPS subpart WWW, as long as the solid 
waste unit continues to contain only non-MSW. If the expansion begins 
accepting MSW, then the solid waste unit (including the expansion area) 
and the RCRA unit would become subject to NSPS subpart WWW.

Abstract for [0900009]

    Q: Does EPA approve a higher operating temperature at Waste 
Management's Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility Well MW28 in East 
St. Louis, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: EPA approves a temporary higher operating temperature of 140 
degrees Fahrenheit only until May 31, 2008, because Milam has submitted 
only four consecutive days of data. EPA requests that Milam supply 
another three months of monitoring data before the Agency makes a final 
determination as to a higher operating temperature limit under NSPS 
subpart WWW.

Abstract for [0900010]

    Q: Does EPA approve a permanent higher operating temperature of 140 
degrees Fahrenheit at Well MW28 at Milam Recycling and Disposal 
Facility in East St. Louis, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A: No. On February 14, 2008, and March 7, 2008, EPA approved a 
temporary higher operating temperature of 140 degrees Fahrenheit, under 
NSPS subpart WWW, to last until July 31, 2008. [See ADI Control Numbers 
0900009 and 0900011, which are summarized in this FR Notice.] In March 
2008, the facility installed a new lateral line to the well, which has 
corrected the temperature exceedances. Therefore, no higher operating 
temperature is needed.

Abstract for [0900011]

    Q: Does EPA approve a new temporary higher operating temperature of 
150 degrees Fahrenheit for Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility's 
(Milam) Well MW28 in East St. Louis, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW?
    A: No. EPA does not approve a new temporary higher operating 
temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit for this facility, as it is no 
longer needed due to the installation of a new lateral line by Milam. 
On February 14, 2008, EPA approved a temporary higher operating limit 
of 140 degrees Fahrenheit until May 31, 2008, under NSPS subpart WWWW, 
pending the submittal of three months of additional monitoring data. 
[See ADI Control Number 0900009, which is summarized in this FR 
Notice.] Milam has now indicated that the temperature at the Well MW28 
will likely decrease with the installation of a new lateral line to the 
well. Therefore, EPA approves an alternative timeline until May 31, 
2008, to correct the temperature exceedances at MW28. EPA will also 
grant an extension of the existing 140 degrees Fahrenheit temperature 
limit until July 31, 2008, to gather additional monthly well data after 
the lateral line is installed in order to set the final operating 
temperature.

Abstract for [0900012]

    Q1: Pursuant to 40 CFR 62.15250(a) of 40 CFR part 62, subpart JJJ, 
may the Polk County Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF) in Fosston, 
Minnesota, skip two subsequent annual stack tests for dioxins/furans 
after demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan emission standard 
during three consecutive annual dioxin/furan stack tests?
    A1: Yes. Each small municipal waste combustor (MWC) unit at the 
Polk County SWMF has demonstrated compliance with the dioxin/furan 
emission standard for three years in a row (2005, 2006, and 2007). The 
Polk County SWMF must conduct a dioxin/furan stack test on each unit in 
April 2010.
    Q2: Pursuant to 40 CFR 62.15250(b) of 40 CFR part 62, subpart JJJ, 
is the Polk County SWMF required to conduct a dioxin/furan stack test 
every other year if both units at the facility have demonstrated 
dioxins/furans emissions less than or equal to 30 nanograms total mass 
per dry standard cubic meter at 7 percent oxygen for two consecutive 
years?
    A2: No. The Polk County SWMF qualifies for and has elected to 
implement the option in 40 CFR 62.15250(a). Thus, the requirement in 40 
CFR 62.15250(b) does not apply.

Abstract for [0900013]

    Q: Does EPA approve Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company's 
(Proctor & Gamble) request for an alternative opacity monitoring 
procedure for Boiler No. 2 at its Albany, Georgia facility, which is 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db? The primary fuel for the boiler 
is biomass, and No. 2 fuel oil is used during startup and as a backup 
fuel. Particulate matter emissions are controlled by a wet 
electrostatic precipitator (WESP). Due to moisture interference, the 
company proposes to monitor the total power input to the WESP as an 
alternative to a COMS.
    A: No. EPA does not approve Proctor & Gamble's request under NSPS 
subpart Db. The company will need to install a PM continuous emission 
monitoring system (PM CEMS) unless it can be demonstrated that a PM 
CEMS is not a viable alternative for the boiler.

Abstract for [0900014]

    Q: Would the replacement of three regenerative thermal oxidizers 
(RTO) with a single RTO system on three pressure sensitive vinyl/paper 
roll coating lines trigger the performance test requirements of the 40 
CFR part 60, subparts A and RR, at Avery Dennison's facility in Lowell, 
Indiana?
    A: No. EPA has determined that because no construction, 
modification or reconstruction appears to have occurred, as defined in 
NSPS subparts A and RR, the NSPS requirements have not been triggered. 
NSPS subpart RR applies to any affected facility that begins 
construction, modification or reconstruction after December 30, 1980. A 
modification could occur if the new RTO system proves to be less 
efficient

[[Page 32927]]

than the old RTO system at controlling volatile organic compounds 
(VOC).

Abstract for [0900015]

    Q1: Does EPA approve CertainTeed's request under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart PPP, to monitor only secondary voltage and amperage on the wet 
electrostatic precipitator (WESP) at its Kansas City, Kansas facility?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves CertainTeed's request under NSPS subpart PPP. 
The CertainTeed WESP operation is monitored and controlled by 
microprocessor based automatic voltage controllers that react extremely 
quick to changes in secondary voltage and current. (See also ADI 
control Number 0700066.)
    Q2: Does EPA approve CertainTeed's request to use flow cameras at 
its Kansas City, Kansas facility to comply with the monitoring 
requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, as an alternative to 
calculating the glass pull rate?
    A2: Yes. EPA has determined that the use of flow cameras is an 
equivalent, if not a better, monitoring method than the one specified 
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP. (See also ADI control Number 0600088.)

Abstract for [0900016]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, to correct an oxygen exceedance at Well MW20 at Milam 
Recycling and Disposal Facility in East St. Louis, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve an alternative timeline under NSPS subpart 
WWW for Milam to correct the oxygen exceedance at Well MW20. However, 
in the future, it is not sufficient for Milam to notify EPA of a 
parameter exceedance at a wellhead. In accordance with 40 CFR 
60.755(a)(5), the facility must request an alternative timeline within 
15 days of the initial exceedance.

Abstract for [0900017]

    Q: Saint-Gobain Containers Inc. requested a clarification on 
whether the opacity value, determined using the 99 percent upper 
confidence level, is a reporting threshold or a never-to-exceed limit 
under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Glass 
Manufacturing Plants, 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC?
    A: The opacity value determined under 40 CFR 60.263(c)(4) is not an 
opacity limit, but an exceedance. An exceedance could constitute 
credible evidence that the source is not being properly operated and 
maintained.

Abstract for [0900018]

    Q: Does EPA approve Advanced Aromatics, L.P.'s (AALP) request to 
use the flow monitoring methods of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2) in lieu of the 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2) for the Distillation Column C-600 
(and associated equipment) at its facility in Baytown, Texas?
    A: No. EPA does not approve this request because AALP's letter did 
not include specific details of valves associated with the C-600. 
Although AALP provided a drawing, it did not address the necessary 
criteria for evaluating and proving this request.

Abstract for [0900019]

    Q: Does EPA approve Delek Refining's (Delek) request to monitor 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in vent streams, pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, in lieu of installing a H2S continuous emissions monitor 
(CEMs) on the hydrochloric acid (HCl) scrubber, associated with the 
``Platformer Regeneration Process'' at its Tyler, Texas facility?
    A: EPA conditionally approves Delek's alternate monitoring request 
under NSPS subpart J, as described in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [0900020]

    Q: Does EPA approve Delek Refining's (Delek) request under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart J, to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in vent streams 
in lieu of installing a H2S continuous emissions monitor (CEMs) on the 
Wastewater API Separator Process vent stream combusted in the 
Wastewater API Separator Flare at its Tyler, Texas facility?
    A: No. EPA does not approve Delek's request under NSPS subpart J 
because Delek did not state the correlation between inherently low and 
stable H2S content in the exhaust gas stream to the process parameters 
proposed in the alternate monitoring plan for various wastewater 
streams being treated. Delek also did not include piping and 
instrumentation drawings to support its request.

Abstract for [0900021]

    Q: Does EPA approve Public Service Company of New Mexico's (PNM) 
alternative monitoring plan (AMP) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, 
involving the relocation and certification of continuous opacity 
monitoring systems at Units 4, 3, 2, and 1 at the PNM San Juan 
Generating Station in Waterflow, New Mexico?
    A: EPA approves PNM's AMP for all four units under NSPS subpart D, 
so long as they meet the terms and conditions specified in the 
Enclosure of EPA's February 28, 2008 response letter.

Abstract for [0900022]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Texmark Chemicals, Inc. (Texmark) request for 
flow monitoring requirements applicable to Distillation Column C-5222 
(and associated equipment) at its facility in Galena Park, Texas, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2) of NSPS subpart RRR in lieu of 40 
CFR 60.663(b)(2) of NSPS subpart NNN?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Texmark's request to monitor 
Distillation Column C-5222 (and associated equipment) at its Galena 
Park, Texas facility in accordance with 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2) in lieu of 
40 CFR 60.663(b)(2) for compliance with both NSPS subparts RRR and NNN 
standards.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Texmark's request to comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR in 
lieu of 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for Distillation Column C-5222, at 
its Galena Park, Texas facility?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves Texmark's request to comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements in NSPS subpart RRR in lieu of subpart NNN 
requirements, because these recordkeeping requirements correspond 
directly to those monitoring requirements to be implemented for the 
distillation vents under NSPS subparts RRR and NNN. Since subpart RRR 
provides some relief in testing and monitoring requirements in 
comparison to subpart NNN, a copy of the schematic required by 40 CFR 
60.705(s) needs to be submitted in the initial report to the State 
agency, and a copy must be maintained onsite for the life of the system 
to ensure that the affected vent streams are being routed to 
appropriate control devices under this approval.

Abstract for [M090022]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from Allied Metal Company (Allied) 
in Chicago, Illinois, to begin operation of a thermal chip dryer, under 
40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A: EPA approves Allied's request under MACT subpart RRR, provided 
that Allied operates the thermal chip dryer and all associated emission 
control equipment for performance test preparation beginning in January 
2007. All performance testing must be completed by March 1, 2007. If 
Allied cannot follow this schedule, Allied must cease operating the 
thermal chip dryer and notify EPA.

[[Page 32928]]

Abstract for [M090023]

    Q1: The Glen-Gery Marseilles Facility (Glen-Gery) in Marseilles, 
Illinois, operates two identical natural gas fired tunnel kilns subject 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ. May Glen-Gery use an alternative 
monitoring procedure whereby exhaust flow to the dry limestone absorber 
(DLA) will be verified by continuously monitoring the bypass stack 
damper position at least once every fifteen minutes during normal kiln 
operation, and any period in which the bypass damper is opened allowing 
the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA would be considered a MACT-
related event triggering corrective actions pursuant to the facilities 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request under 
MACT subpart JJJJJ. As explained in 68 FR 26704, the pressure drop 
across the DLA is only intended to demonstrate that kiln exhaust flow 
is being directed through the DLA, and is not bypassing the control 
device.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a performance test waiver for Glen-Gery 
seeking approval to conduct performance testing while Kiln A and B are 
operating at maximum production rates, but with different limestone 
extraction screw settings, and then apply the lower DLA limestone 
extraction screw setting to demonstrate ongoing compliance with both 
kilns under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ?
    A2: No. EPA denies Glen-Gery's performance test waiver request. 
Although both units may be identical in design and operation, there is 
an insufficient body of compliant performance test data demonstrating 
that the kilns have a low variability in emissions, and that the 
emissions profiles of the kilns are the same under MACT subpart JJJJJ.

Abstract for [M090024]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) submitted 
by ExxonMobil Oil Corporation's (ExxonMobil) refinery in Joliet, 
Illinois, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU?
    A: No. EPA does not approve ExxonMobil's AMP requesting identical 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to those granted 
under NSPS subpart J, for compliance with MACT subpart UUU. See 
determination filed as ADI Control Number 0800082. Specifically, EPA 
will not approve the same averaging time or the same method for 
determining excess emissions or deviations as that approved for the 
NSPS. Rather, this AMP must follow the continuous monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(1) identified as Option 2 in Table 3 
of MACT subpart UUU. This is consistent with the requirements requested 
by ExxonMobil.

Abstract for [M090025]

    Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's request for an alternative 
monitoring to use two carbon canisters in series instead of its current 
flare if it monitors the carbon canister system for 20 ppm breakthrough 
using a portable VOC analyzer twice weekly at its Joliet Refinery in 
Joliet, Illinois, under 40 CFR 63.643 of MACT subpart CC?
    A: No. EPA cannot approve this alternative monitoring request under 
MACT subpart CC without notification from ExxonMobil that continuous 
monitors and a back-up will be installed on the outlet of both the 
primary and secondary carbon canisters. EPA requests that you provide 
further details.

Abstract for [M090026]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Beecher Development Company Landfill 
(Beecher) in Beecher, Illinois, which is subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, given the 
applicability criteria of 40 CFR 63.1935?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that Beecher is subject to the requirements 
of MACT subpart AAAA because at the time of the compliance date for 
this subpart Beecher's nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emissions 
were greater than 50 Mg/year.

Abstract for [M090027], [0900029] and Z090002

    Q: Does EPA agree with BP Products North America (BP), Whiting, 
Indiana, that a wastewater stream, which is defined as a Group 2 
wastewater stream under 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC, National Emissions 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Petroleum 
Refineries (the Refinery MACT) and is managed in equipment that is also 
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ, and was 
designated by BP instead as a Group 1 wastewater stream, as allowed 
under the Refinery MACT and controlled and treated under the applicable 
provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, would only be subject to the 
provisions of NSPS subpart QQQ? Under the Refinery MACT, streams 
meeting the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream are required to 
meet the wastewater control requirements of the Benzene Waste 
Operations NESHAP (BWON) found at 40 CFR 61.340 through 40 CFR 61.355.
    A: Yes. The Refinery MACT at 40 CFR 63.640(c)(l) states that 
``after the compliance dates specified in paragraph (h) of this section 
a Group 1 wastewater stream managed in a piece of equipment that is 
also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ is 
required to comply only with this subpart.'' Therefore, EPA agrees with 
BP that if this facility were to designate a Group 2 wastewater stream 
as a Group 1 wastewater stream, as allowed in the Refinery MACT, it 
would not be subject to NSPS subpart QQQ per the overlap provisions 
under the Refinery MACT, specified at 40 CFR 63.640(c)(l), if these 
designated streams were fully treated and controlled as prescribed in 
the waste water provisions of the Refinery MACT at 40 CFR 63.647(a) 
through (c), and none of the treatment and control exemptions of the 
BWON rule were applied.

Abstract for [M090028]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of Lanxess Corporation (Lanxess) 
under 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and JJJ, for an alternative emission 
control device for the Lanxess Building 30 Organic Trap Oil-Water 
separator (organic trap), specifically that the organic trap scrubber, 
which achieves the required 95 percent organic HAP removal, be 
classified as the MACT control device for the organic trap instead of 
the facility's thermal oxidizer?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the Lanxess request for an alternative 
emission control device under MACT subparts G and JJJ because it 
believes the design of the organic trap scrubber was not properly 
evaluated. The evaluation: (1) Did not demonstrate the required HAPs 
emission reduction at all possible temperatures, only at 30 degrees C; 
and (2) only evaluated the emissions reductions for Acrylonitrile, 
Styrene, and MEK, despite the fact that Lanxess told EPA that ABS and 
Ethyl Benzene are also vented to the organic trap scrubber a small 
amount of the time. In addition, Group 1 wastewater/residual streams 
are sent to a storage tank, which vents to the organic trap scrubber. 
The storage tank is located outside of Building 30 thus the temperature 
of the tank would fluctuate with the weather. Lastly, Lanxess used 
estimations and not actual temperatures of the five Group I wastewater/
residual streams that are sent to the storage tank.

Abstract for [M090029]

    Q: Does the Lake County Landfill (Lake County) in Kirtland, Ohio, 
which is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, also meet the 
applicability

[[Page 32929]]

criteria in 40 CFR 63.1935 under NESHAP subpart AAAA?
    A: Lake County would be subject to the requirements of NESHAP 
subpart AAAA if at the time of the compliance date for this subpart 
Lake County's NMOC emissions were greater than 50 Mg/year. In order for 
EPA to make a final determination, Lake County should provide its 
nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emissions rate as of January 16, 
2004, the compliance date for this subpart.

Abstract for [M090030]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of Staker Alloys (Staker), under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart RRR, to use a data logger, a dual thermocouple and 
a digital readout as an alternative to calibrating the afterburner 
thermocouple at least once every six months at its facility in 
Hallowell, Maine?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Staker's request for alternative monitoring 
under MACT subpart RRR based on the series of setup and operation 
conditions set forth in the determination.

Abstract for [M090031]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request from Avery Dennison (Avery) for an 
initial performance test waiver under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, for 
its facility in Painesville, Ohio?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Avery's request for an initial performance 
test waiver under MACT subpart JJJJ based upon supporting data that 
included summary information from the most recent performance test for 
each existing thermal oxidizer and the Title V Compliance 
Certifications for Year 2005 for Avery Dennison Corporation, Reflective 
Products and Graphics Divisions.

Abstract for [M090032]

    Q: Does EPA approve Dow Chemical Company's (Dow) request to use 
performance tests previously conducted on three thermal treatment 
devices under 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and MMM for the initial 
compliance demonstration for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF?
    A: With certain contingency, EPA approves Dow's request to use 
performance tests previously conducted under MACT subparts GGG and MMM 
for the initial compliance demonstration under MACT subpart FFFF 
because these tests used the methods specified in 40 CFR 63.997(e), and 
because no significant process changes have occurred since these tests. 
Specifically, this approval is contingent on the production rates 
achieved during these prior performance tests as representing the 
highest production rates currently achievable.

Abstract for [0900023]

    Q: Does EPA approve Air Products and Chemicals (Air Products) 
request to use the process monitor as the primary method to measure H2S 
and eliminate the previously stipulated alternative monitoring plan 
(AMP) conditions that require random H2S grab sampling for two of its 
furnaces operating within ExxonMobil's Joliet, Illinois facility and 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
    A: No. EPA finds that the conditions of the AMP cannot be revised, 
because monitoring a process parameter is not a substitute for H2S grab 
sampling under NSPS subpart J. Please refer to a previous EPA approved 
AMP, filed as ADI Control Number 0100037.

Abstract for [0900024]

    Q: Does EPA approve of the alternative compliance timeline 
requested by the Zion Landfill (Zion), located in Zion, Illinois, to 
correct exceedances under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: No. EPA does not approve Zion's request for an alternative 
compliance timeline under NSPS subpart WWW. Zion was unable to correct 
the exceedance at both wells EW-39 and EW-45 within the 15-day timeline 
and is, therefore, required to expand the gas collection system within 
120 days of the initial exceedance.

Abstract for [0900025]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative design plans and monitoring and 
operations standards request from American Disposal Services of 
Illinois, Inc.'s Livingston Landfill (Livingston Landfill), located in 
Pontiac, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA?
    A: No. EPA does not find Livingston Landfill's request under NSPS 
subpart AAAA clear enough to approve. EPA requests that Livingston 
Landfill submit a revised letter to EPA with changes that are 
applicable to EPA, such as operational and monitoring alternatives. 
Note that design plan changes should be directed to the State, and 
operational and monitoring standard alternatives should be directed to 
EPA.

Abstract for [0900026]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request from BFI Waste Systems of North 
America (BFI) for its Quad Cities Landfill located in Milan, Illinois, 
to waive nitrogen monitoring at interior wellheads and monitor only 
oxygen, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request because 40 CFR 60.753(c) allows 
a landfill to monitor either nitrogen or oxygen.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a request from BFI Waste Systems of North 
America (BFI) for its Quad Cities Landfill located in Milan, Illinois, 
to have 180 days after start-up of new wells to meet all operating 
conditions, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A2: No. EPA still cannot approve this request. However, BFI may 
make this request under NSPS subpart WWW for specific wells within the 
gas collection and control system (GCCS) with supporting data.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a request from BFI Waste Systems of North 
America (BFI) for its Quad Cities Landfill located in Milan, Illinois, 
to treat Quad Cities Landfill as a separate landfill from Millennium 
Waste Landfill to reduce the frequency of surface scan requirements, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A3: No. EPA finds that Quad Cities Landfill and the Millennium 
Waste Landfill are considered one landfill under NSPS subpart WWW.
    Q4: Does EPA approve a request from BFI Waste Systems of North 
America (BFI) for its Quad Cities Landfill located in Milan, Illinois, 
to not be subject to the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and 
testing requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, for treated 
landfill gas?
    A4: Yes. EPA previously approved this request for treatment of 
landfill gas at BFI's Quad Cities facility. See previous determination 
filed as ADI Control Number 0800069. As a clarification, EPA approves 
the flare as part of the treatment system when it is combusting treated 
gas. If the flare is controlling emissions that are not treated, then 
it is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) and 
(B).
    Q5: Does EPA approve a request from BFI Waste Systems of North 
America (BFI) for its Quad Cities Landfill located in Milan, Illinois, 
for approval of a closure report submitted to meet the requirements of 
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A5: No. EPA finds that since the Quad Cities Landfills and 
Millennium Landfill are considered one landfill under NSPS subpart WWW, 
the closure report must be submitted when the landfill as a whole 
ceases accepting wastes.

Abstract for [0900027]

    Q: Does EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, the 
monitoring request from Rock Island County Landfill (Upper Rock) in 
Milan, Illinois, to conduct additional Tier 2 testing to

[[Page 32930]]

update the 2006 values as it has expanded the active gas collection 
system?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Upper Rock's monitoring request under NSPS 
subpart WWW. Where the requirements for submittal of a Gas Collection 
and Control System (GCCS) design plan and installation of a GCCS have 
been triggered, EPA has determined it will allow owners or operators to 
conduct additional Tier 2 testing until the compliance deadline for 
installing the GCCS, provided that a GCCS design plan was submitted 
within one year of the first exceedance of the 50Mg/year threshold. EPA 
has also determined that allowing owners or operators to conduct 
additional Tier 2 testing is reasonable as nonmethane organic compound 
(NMOC) emission rate results are more representative of current 
conditions if they are calculated using up-to-date Tier 2 sampling 
data.

Abstract for [0900028]

    Q: Does EPA approve BP Products North America's (BP) request to use 
at its facility in Whiting, Indiana, detector tubes with a dual range 
of 1-20 ppm and 10-200 ppm to conduct H2S testing under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, given that BP could not locate tubes with ranges specified 
in the RFG AMP Guidance issued January 9, 2006?
    A: Yes. EPA approves BP's request to use detector tubes at the 
Whiting, Indiana facility with a dual range of 1-20 ppm and 10-200 ppm 
under NSPS subpart J.

Abstract for [0900030]

    Q: Does EPA approve Elk River Landfill's (Elk River) request for an 
alternative operating temperature under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, of 
145 degrees F for gas well number 26r at its Elk River, Minnesota 
facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Elk River's request for an alternative 
operating temperature under NSPS subpart WWW. Based on the supporting 
information presented by Elk River, it appears that the methanogenic 
process is still at an anaerobic phase at the higher landfill gas 
temperatures, and no evidence of subsurface landfill fire is present at 
the site.

Abstract for [0900031]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Db, at the Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery 
(FHR) plant in Saint Paul, Minnesota, specifically the use of an 
alternative dual span value for the continuous emissions monitoring 
system (CEMS) for nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) to be installed on 
an existing boiler?
    A: Yes. EPA approves FHR's alternative monitoring plan request 
under NSPS subpart Db, specifically the request for a dual span range, 
one span value of 50 ppmdv and a second span value set at 500 ppmdv, 
for the EU 126 NO<INF>X</INF> CEMS.

Abstract for [0900032]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of International Specialty Products 
Lima (ISP-Lima) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, to use an analyzer 
span change from 500 ppm to 140 ppm for the nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) continuous emission rate monitoring system (CERMS) at 
ISP-Lima's Butanediol Plant <greek-i>1 Scrubber Offgas Boiler (SOGB) at 
its facility in Lima, Ohio, for the purpose of providing a more 
appropriate span range for the actual NO<INF>X</INF> emissions emitted?
    A: EPA approves ISP-Lima's request for alternative monitoring under 
NSPS subpart Db, provided that ISP-Lima meet the series of conditions 
set out in the determination.

Abstract for [0900033]

    Q: Does EPA approve Stony Hollow Landfill's (Stony Hollow) request 
for alternative operating temperatures under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW, for two gas wells at its Dayton, Ohio facility, 145 degrees F for 
gas well number 26 and 150 degrees F for gas well number 27?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Stony Hollow's request for alternative 
operating temperatures under NSPS subpart WWW. Based on the supporting 
information presented by Stony Hallow Landfill, it appears that the 
methanogenic process is still at an anaerobic phase at the higher 
landfill gas temperatures and no evidence of subsurface landfill fire 
is present at the site.

Abstract for [0900034]

    Q: Does EPA approve Sunoco's request for an alternative monitoring 
plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for its Toledo, Ohio refinery, to 
allow parametric monitoring of the wet gas scrubber in lieu of a 
continuous opacity monitoring system at the catalyst regenerator, in 
which pressure of the water supplied at the discharge of the 
recirculation pumps supplying water to the scrubber filtering modules 
and flue gas pressure drop across the scrubber filtering modules will 
be continuously monitored and recorded?
    A: EPA approves Sunoco's request for an alternative monitoring plan 
under NSPS subpart J, provided that Sunoco meet the several conditions 
set out in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [0900035]

    Q: Does EPA agree with BP Products North America (BP) that a Sentry 
closed loop liquid and gas sampler system is sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance with the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC 
in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV, at the BP facility in Whiting, Indiana?
    A: No. EPA determines that because the remaining vapors in the 
sampling system lines will be purged, causing VOC emissions to the 
atmosphere, this sampling system does not meet any of the compliance 
options under 40 CFR 60.482(5)(b).

Abstract for [0900036]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of Noble Road Landfill (Noble Road) 
for an alternative monitoring plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW 
that would allow an operating temperature of 160 degrees F for well 
numbers EW01, EW02, EW03, EW04, EW05, EW06, EW07, EW08, EW09, EW10, 
EW11, EW12, EW61, EW62, EW63, EW64, EW65, EW66, EW67, and EW68 at its 
facility in Shiloh, Ohio?
    A: EPA approves certain of Noble Road's request under NSPS subpart 
WWW as follows: Based on the supporting information presented by Noble 
Road, it appears that the methanogenic process is still at an anaerobic 
phase at the higher landfill gas temperatures for wells EW10, EW63, and 
EW65 and no evidence of subsurface landfill fire is present at the 
site. EPA will approve an operating temperature of 150 degrees F for 
gas well EW10 and an operating temperature of 140 degrees F for gas 
well EW63, and EW65. However, EPA does not approve of Noble's request 
for an operating temperature of 160 degrees F for wells EW01, EW02, 
EW03, EW04, EW05, EW06, EW07, EW08, EW09, EW10, EW1I, EW12, EW61, EW62, 
EW63, EW64, EW65, EW66, EW67, and EW68.

Abstract for [0900037]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of County Environmental of Wyandot 
(County) for an alternative timeline and alternative operation under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW, for wells EW2, EW3, EW4R, EW8, and EW9R, at 
its facility in Carey, Ohio? Specifically, County is planning to 
install a new 14-inch header line to replace the current 10-inch line 
and for worker safety, the portion of the header system that will be 
affected will

[[Page 32931]]

be isolated from the rest of the collection system. The facility also 
states that by doing this, wells EW2, EW3, EW4R, EW8 and EW9R will have 
no vacuum applied and will remain off during the duration of the 
construction, expected to last until July 15, 2006.
    A: Yes. EPA approves County's request for an alternative timeline 
and alternative operation under NSPS subpart WWW, for wells EW2, EW3, 
EW4R, EW8, and EW9R.

    Dated: June 8, 2009.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E9-16274 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>