Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32919 

currently no blowers manufactured in 

the United States that have the same 

product specifications in place. The 

specifications for the new blowers 

required that both the gear-end and the 

drive-end of the blowers shall be oil 

splash lubricated for minimal 

maintenance and long service life. 

Grease lubricated bearings are not 

acceptable and maximum average noise 

level, within enclosure, 76 dba 

measured at 6 locations at a distance of 

3 feet from the blower system.’’ 

Since the original WWTP was built in 

1990, additional homes in the 

community were constructed closer to 

the WWTP than existing houses had 

been. Moreover, because there is no 

additional space in the basement of the 

operations building, the two new 

blowers had to be constructed outside 

the operations building. The PSD has 

also provided information that the lownoise stand alone blower enclosure 

ensures that the plant does not become 

a noise nuisance to the Cedar Grove and 

Happy Valley Community. The Aerzenstyle blowers are the quietest blowers 

available. Given the proximity of the 

new residents and the necessary exterior 

location of the blowers, the PSD had a 

reasonable and appropriate basis to 

limit the project specification to ultraquiet blowers. 

The PSD’s submission clearly 

articulates entirely functional reasons 

for its technical specifications, and has 

provided sufficient documentation that 

the relevant manufactured goods are not 

produced in the United States in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantity and of a satisfactory quality to 

meet its technical specifications. 

The April 28, 2009 EPA HQ 

Memorandum, ‘‘Implementation of Buy 

American Provisions of Public Law 

111–5, the ‘American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009’ ’’, defines 

reasonably available quantity as ‘‘the 

quantity of iron, steel, or relevant 

manufactured good is available or will 

be available at the time needed and 

place needed, and in the proper form or 

specification as specified in the project 

plans and design’’. The PSD has 

incorporated specific technical design 

features for its blowers for noise, 

improved reliability and ease of 

maintenance. 

The PSD has provided information to 

the EPA representing that there are 

currently no blowers manufactured in 

the United States that have the exact 

same product specifications in place. 

Based on additional research conducted 

by the Office of Infrastructure & 

Assistance and to the best of the 

Region’s knowledge at the time of the 

review, there does not appear to be 

other blowers to meet the PSD’s exact 

technical specifications. 

Furthermore, the purpose of the 

ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery 

in part by funding current infrastructure 

construction, not to delay projects that 

are ‘‘shovel ready’’ by requiring utilities, 

such as the Claywood Park Public 

Service District, to revise their standards 

and specifications and to start the 

bidding process again. The imposition 

of ARRA Buy American requirements 

on such projects otherwise eligible for 

State Revolving Fund assistance would 

result in unreasonable delay and thus 

displace the ‘‘shovel ready’’ status for 

this project. To further delay 

construction is in direct conflict with a 

fundamental economic purpose of the 

ARRA, which is to create or retain jobs. 

The Office of Infrastructure & 

Assistance has reviewed this waiver 

request and has determined that the 

supporting documentation provided by 

the Claywood Park Public Service 

District is sufficient to meet the criteria 

listed under Section 1605(b) and in the 

April 28, 2009, ‘‘Implementation of Buy 

American provisions of Public Law 

111–5, the ‘American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009’ 

Memorandum’’: Iron, steel, and the 

manufactured goods are not produced in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities and of a 

satisfactory quality. 

The basis for this project waiver is the 

authorization provided in Section 

1605(b)(2). Due to the lack of production 

of this product in the United States in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality 

in order to meet the District’s technical 

specifications, a waiver from the Buy 

American requirement is justified. 

The EPA’s March 31, 2009 Delegation 

of Authority Memorandum provided 

Regional Administrators with the 

authority to issue exceptions to Section 

1605 of ARRA within the geographic 

boundaries of their respective regions 

and with respect to requests by 

individual grant recipients. Having 

established both a proper basis to 

specify the particular good required for 

this project, and that this manufactured 

good was not available from a producer 

in the United States, the Claywood Park 

Public Service District is hereby granted 

a waiver from the Buy American 

requirements of Section 1605(a) of 

Public Law 111–5 for the purchase of 

blowers using ARRA funds as specified 

in the PSD’s request of April 9, 2009. 

This supplementary information 

constitutes the detailed written 

justification required by Section 1605(c) 

for waivers ‘‘based on a finding under 

subsection (b).’’ 

Authority: Public Law 111–5, section 

1605. 

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E9–16265 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: kane.rebecca@epa.gov. For 

technical questions about the individual 

applicability determinations or 

monitoring decisions, refer to the 

contact person identified in the 

individual documents, or in the absence 

of a contact person, refer to the author 

of the document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The General Provisions to the NSPS 

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32921 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JUNE 17, 2009—Continued 

Control No. Category Subparts Title 

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 municipalityorchestrated 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 singlefamily 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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 loadsupporting 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 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 ongoing 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 changeout. 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 #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 #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-tocontainer transfers via gravity or nonpermanent hose or valve; and truck-tocontainer 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, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32924 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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 HAPcontaining 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 onegallon 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’’? 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 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 nonVenturi 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32926 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 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. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32928 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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 MACTrelated 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32930 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

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 

(NOX) 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 

NOX 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 (NOX) continuous 

emission rate monitoring system 

(CERMS) at ISP-Lima’s Butanediol Plant 

#1 Scrubber Offgas Boiler (SOGB) at its 

facility in Lima, Ohio, for the purpose 

of providing a more appropriate span 

range for the actual NOX 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32931 

1The purchase or acquisition of a failed 

depository institution in receivership refers to the 

purchase of the deposit liabilities, or both such 

liabilities and assets. 

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 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Notice of Agency Meeting 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that 

at 11:55 a.m. on Thursday, July 2, 2009, 

the Board of Directors of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation met in 

closed session to consider a matter 

related to the Corporation’s corporate, 

supervisory, and resolution activities. 

In calling the meeting, the Board 

determined, on motion of Vice 

Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, 

seconded by Director John E. Bowman 

(Acting Director, Office of Thrift 

Supervision), concurred in by Director 

John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the 

Currency), Director Thomas J. Curry 

(Appointive), and Chairman Sheila C. 

Bair, that Corporation business required 

its consideration of the matter which 

was to be the subject of this meeting on 

less than seven days’ notice to the 

public; that no earlier notice of the 

meeting was practicable; that the public 

interest did not require consideration of 

the matter in a meeting open to public 

observation; and that the matter could 

be considered in a closed meeting by 

authority of subsection (c)(9)(B) of the 

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B)). 

The meeting was held in the Board 

Room of the FDIC Building located at 

550—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

Dated: July 6, 2009. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–16171 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

RIN 3064–AD47 

Proposed Statement of Policy on 

Qualifications for Failed Bank 

Acquisitions 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). 

ACTION: Proposed statement of policy 

with request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to 

issue a Statement of Policy on 

Qualifications for Failed Bank 

Acquisitions (Proposed Policy 

Statement) to provide guidance to 

private capital investors interested in 

acquiring or investing in failed insured 

depository institutions regarding the 

terms and conditions for such 

investments or acquisitions. This 

Proposed Policy Statement is being 

published with a request for comment 

in order to obtain the public’s views on 

the provisions of the policy statement 

before it becomes effective. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

the FDIC no later than August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the Proposed Policy Statement by 

any of the following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/ 

federal/notices.html. Follow 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the agency Web site. 

• E-mail: Comments@FDIC.gov. 

Include RIN # 3064–AD47 on the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive 

Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. 

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be 

hand delivered to the guard station at 

the rear of the 550 17th Street Building 

(located on F Street) on business days 

between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Instructions: All comments received 

will be posted generally without change 

to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ 

federal/propose.html, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Topping, Counsel, Legal 

Division, (202) 898–3975 or 

ctopping@fdic.gov, Charles A. Fulton, 

Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562–2424 

or chfulton@fdic.gov, or Mindy West, 

Chief, Policy and Program Development, 

Division of Supervision and Consumer 

Protection, (202) 898–7221 or 

miwest@fdic.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background 

Recently, private capital investors 

have indicated interest in purchasing 

insured depository institutions in 

receivership.1 The FDIC is particularly 

concerned that owners of banks and 

thrifts, whether they are individuals, 

partnerships, limited liability 

companies, or corporations, have the 

experience, competence, and 

willingness to run the bank in a prudent 

manner, and accept the responsibility to 

support their banks when they face 

difficulties and protect them from 

insider transactions. 

Especially in light of the increased 

number of bank and thrift failures, and 

the consequent increase in interest by 

potential acquirers, the FDIC has 

evaluated the policies that apply in 

deciding whether a prospective 

acquisition is appropriate. The FDIC has 

reviewed various elements of private 

capital investment structures and 

considers that some of these investment 

structures raise potential safety and 

soundness considerations and risks to 

the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) as 

well as important issues with respect to 

their compliance with the requirements 

applied by the FDIC in its decision on 

the granting of deposit insurance. The 

concerns center on the need for fully 

adequate capital, a source of financial 

and managerial strength for the 

depository institution, and the potential 

adverse effects of extensions of credit to 

affiliates. These structuring issues are 

present with respect to any new 

proposed acquisition of a failed insured 

depository institution. 

The FDIC is seeking public input on 

this Proposed Policy Statement. This 

guidance describes the terms and 

conditions that private capital investors 

would be expected to satisfy to obtain 

eligibility for a proposed acquisition 

structure. These measures would cover 

capital support and cross guarantees; 

transactions with affiliates; secrecy 

jurisdiction investors; continuity of 

ownership requirements, and 

disclosure. 

II. Request for Public Comment 

The FDIC invites comments on all 

aspects of the Proposed Policy 

Statement, including the following 

questions: 

1. The measures contained in the 

Proposed Policy Statement will not be 

applied to individuals, partnerships, 

limited liability companies, or 

corporations, that accept the 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES