Source: https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2006/12/04/E6-20440.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 14:15:38
Document Index: 467743480

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 60', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 0600001', 'art 82', 'art 60', 'art 61', 'art 60', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 61', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 60', '§ 1882', '§ 208', '§ 552', 'art 60', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 82', 'art 60', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 61', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 60']

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, 70383-70392 [E6-20440] :: Environmental Protection Agency :: Regulation Tracker :: Justia
Justia Regulation Tracker Environmental Protection Agency Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program, 70383-70392 [E6-20440]
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, 70383-70392 [E6-20440]
Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices Dated: November 20, 2006. Michael S. Hacskaylo, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6–20438 Filed 12–1–06; 8:45 am] 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 date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564–7027, or by e-mail at: malave.maria@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: BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Background Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western has determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–8250–5] Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: 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 The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP 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 40 CFR part 63 and section 111(d) of the CAA programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. 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 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Control Category Subpart 0600001 ............ 0600002 ............ 0600003 ............ 0600004 ............ 0600006 ............ 0600007 ............ 0600008 ............ 0600082 ............ M060001 ........... M060002 ........... NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ MACT ............... MACT ............... Dc ..................... BB ..................... BB ..................... Db, Dc .............. J ........................ J ........................ AAa ................... A, J ................... MMM ................ MMMM .............. VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 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 broadly termed regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. 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 63 such documents added to the ADI on November 10, 2006. The subject, author, recipient, date 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. The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on November 10, 2006; 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. Title Alternative Fuel Monitoring. Exemption from TRS Standard for Brown Stock Washer. Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber. Fuel Supplier Certification Statements. Alternative Monitoring Plan for a Catalytic Cracking Unit. Alternative Monitoring Plan for a Flare. Alterations to an Electric Arc Furnace. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Production Facility. Compliance Test Waiver Request. Post Vulcanized Rubber-to-Metal Parts Bonding. Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70383 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 70384 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices Control Category Subpart M060003 ........... M060004 ........... M060005 ........... M060006 ........... M060007 ........... M060008 ........... M060009 ........... Z060001 ............ 0600009 ............ 0600010 ............ 0600011 ............ 0600012 ............ 0600013 ............ 0600014 ............ 0600015 ............ A060001 ........... A060002 ........... A060003 ........... A060004 ........... A060005 ........... A060006 ........... M060010 ........... M060011 ........... M060012 ........... M060013 ........... M060014 ........... M060015 ........... 0600016 ............ 0600017 ............ 0600018 ............ 0600019 ............ 0600020 ............ 0600021 ............ 0600022 ............ 0600023 ............ 0600024 ............ 0600025 ............ 0600026 ............ 0600027 ............ 0600028 ............ 0600029 ............ M060016 ........... M060017 ........... M060018 ........... M060019 ........... M060020 ........... M060021 ........... M060022 ........... M060023 ........... M060024 ........... M060025 ........... M060026 ........... Z060003 ............ MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... NESHAP ........... NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ Asbestos ........... Asbestos ........... Asbestos ........... Asbestos ........... Asbestos ........... Asbestos ........... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ NSPS ................ MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... MACT ............... NESH ............... DDDDD ............. DDDDD ............. EEE .................. IIII ..................... MM ................... A, EEE .............. A, EEE .............. FF, V ................ WWW ............... WWW ............... WWW ............... WWW ............... WWW ............... WWW ............... VV ..................... M ...................... M ...................... M ...................... M ...................... M ...................... M ...................... HH, HHH .......... NNN .................. MMMM .............. PPP .................. H ....................... FFFF, HHHHH .. A, G .................. UUU .................. SS ..................... A, KKKK ........... UUU .................. A, KKKK ........... Dc ..................... OOO ................. UUU .................. A, D .................. Dc ..................... A, CC ................ A, CC ................ A ....................... G ....................... YY ..................... HHHHH, MMMM MM ................... JJJJ, OOOO ..... NNNNN ............. S ....................... S ....................... S ....................... EEEEE ............. S ....................... FF ..................... Summary of Headers and Abstracts mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstracts Abstract for [A060001] Q: Are residential structures that are demolished as part of a larger project, such as highway expansion, subject to the asbestos requirements under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: Yes. EPA finds, pursuant to 40 CFR 61.145, that if two or more residences under the control of the same owner or operator are part of a larger demolition project, such as highway expansion, they are subject to the asbestos regulation, NESHAP subpart M. VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 Title Common Duct Testing and Acid Rain Program Opt-in. Firetube Boilers. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Operating Parameter Limit. Use of Previously Conducted Transfer Efficiency Test. Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber. Alternative Monitoring Locations and Parameters. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Waste Combustor. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dual Purpose Valves. Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. Landfill Gas Processing System as Treatment. Temperature Monitors in Gas Turbines. Liquid Urea Manufacturing Operations. Demolition under Control of Same Owner or Operator. Removal of Floor Mastic Using a Mechanical Buffer. Applicability of 260 Linear Feet Requirement. Test Method for Spray-applied Acoustical Materials. Regulated Asbestos Containing Material. Meaning of Preclude Access and Dripping. Clarification of Ownership and Co-location. Metal Building Insulation. Post Vulcanized Rubber-to-Metal Parts Bonding. Use of Tetrahydrofuran (THF) as Raw Material. Nitrile Stripper Column System. Non-Dedicated Mixing Vessels. Modification of Nitric Acid Plant. Tile Dryers. Coating of Dishwasher Racks. Commencement of Construction. Opacity Monitoring Exemption. Commencement of Construction. Reporting Frequency Requirements. Air Classifiers. Titanium Dioxide Ore Dryers and Product Dryers. State Monitoring Requirements in Lieu of 40 CFR Part 60. Alternative Opacity Monitoring. Modification and Capital Expenditure Calculations. Modification and Capital Expenditure Calculations. SIP-mandated Expenditures and Reconstruction. Once In/Always In Rule. Dry Spinning Spandex Production Process Units. Coating of Test Panels Not Used in Final Product. Alternative Monitoring of Smelt Dissolving Tank Scrubber. Point of Determination for Group of Coating Lines. Alternative Monitoring Plan for HCL Scrubber. Alternative Monitoring Parameters for a Dual Control System. Clean Condensate Alternative & Creditable Reductions. Applicability of White Liquor Oxidation System. Molding and Core Making. Clean Condensate Alternative & Creditable Reductions. Benzene Emissions from Exchange Leaks. Abstract for [A060002] Q1: Is floor mastic a Category 1 asbestos-containing material under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: No. EPA finds that floor mastic is not a Category 1 asbestos-containing material under the Asbestos NESHAP. However, pursuant to 40 CFR 61.141, it is a Category II asbestos-containing material. Q2: Does the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad on floor mastic cause the floor mastic to become friable, and thus a Regulated AsbestosContaining Material (RACM) under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 A2: Yes. EPA finds that pursuant to 40 CFR 61.141, the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad causes floor mastic to become friable and, thus, it is considered a RACM under the asbestos NESHAP. Abstract for [A060003] Q: Does the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet on pipes apply to caulking and roof flashing materials that qualify as regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: No. EPA finds the 260 linear feet threshold is applicable only to pipes E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices moved in a careful way to minimize asbestos fiber release. under the asbestos NESHAP. Other materials, such as caulking or roof flashing, are subject to the 160 square foot standard as specified in 40 CFR 61.145. Abstract for [A060004] Q1: Has EPA issued guidance specifically about spray-applied acoustical materials under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: No. EPA has not issued guidance under the asbestos NESHAP specifically about spray-applied acoustical materials. Q2: Does EPA recommend that the public assure spray-applied acoustical materials to contain asbestos without testing, and, what method(s) should be used to test these materials under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A2: No. EPA is not recommending that the public assure spray-applied acoustical materials to contain asbestos without testing. In regards to testing spray-applied acoustical materials, Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) is specified in 40 CFR part 63 as the approved testing method; however, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TLM) is also an acceptable method. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstract for [A060005] Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, require that all asbestos-containing materials be removed before the demolition of a facility? A: No. The asbestos NESHAP does not require all asbestos-containing materials to be removed before demolition. However, all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) must be removed from a facility being demolished or renovated before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the material or preclude access to the material for subsequent removal. Abstract for [A060006] Q: Could EPA clarify the meaning of the words ‘‘preclude access’’ and ‘‘dropping’’ in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) and 61.145(c)(6) of the asbestos NESHAP, subpart M? A: EPA finds that the use of the term ‘‘preclude access’’ in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) of the asbestos NESHAP is intended to ensure that all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) expected to be disturbed during the demolition or renovation is removed from the facility before any action is taken that could prevent safe removal of the RACM during a later phase of the project. The use of the term ‘‘dropping’’ is intended to prevent RACM from falling (instead of being ‘‘placed’’) on the floor and to ensure that RACM is VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 Abstract for [M060001] Q: Does EPA waive the Method 5 test requirement for a second process vent, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, at the Arkema facility in Riverview, Michigan? A: Yes. EPA waives the Method 5 test because information submitted by the facility shows that it is impractical to test the second vent due to short operating time, low flow rate, and low pressure drop. Dust emissions will be drawn through the first vent which will be tested, and any remaining dust will be trapped in the vent collection tank or in the mineral oil scrubbers. Abstract for [M060002] Q: Does EPA find that a coating being applied at the Cooper Tire & Rubber facility in Findlay, Ohio, that uses the same methodology, composition, and function as a rubber-to-metal coating, but that is bonded during a heating process not involving the vulcanization of rubber, is a rubber-to-metal coating under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM? A: No. EPA finds that because the bonding process is not performed during the vulcanization process, it is not considered a rubber-to-metal coating and should not be included in that category. Instead, the coating is subject to the general use coating subcategory emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890(b)(1). Abstract for [M060003] Q1: Can the required emission tests, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, be conducted in the common duct for boilers 1, 2, and 3 at the Dairyland Power Cooperative Alma Station in LaCrosse, Wisconsin? A1: No. 40 CFR 63.7510 requires that each unit be tested, and the language in Section II.F of the September 13, 2004 Preamble to the Final Rule reinforces this requirement. The facility is required to submit an alternative test procedure request with appropriate technical justification, if it wants to conduct common duct testing. However, testing in a common duct is considered a minor change to a test method; thus, EPA Regions and delegated States may approve such a request. Q2: Does EPA find that boilers 1, 2, and 3 would be exempt from the boiler MACT, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, if they opt into the Acid Rain Program? A2: No. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.7491 includes no such exemption. A source cannot avoid controlling mercury emissions by agreeing to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70385 Abstract for [M060004] Q: Does EPA find that the two 250horsepower firetube boilers planned for installation at Green Bay Packaging in Green Bay, Wisconsin, should be regulated within the ‘‘small gaseous fuel subcategory’’ as defined in MACT subpart DDDDD, 40 CFR 63.7575, even if each boiler’s heat input rating at 100 percent efficiency may reach 10.5 million BTU per hour? A: Yes. EPA finds that these boilers are regulated within the ‘‘small gaseous fuel subcategory’’ as that term is defined in MACT subpart DDDDD, 40 CFR 63.7575. In response to comments, the Agency agreed to add firetube boilers to the definition of small liquid fuel and gaseous fuel subcategories in the final rule. Abstract for [M060005] Q: Does EPA approve a request from Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (3M), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, to establish a high energy wet scrubber’s hydrogen chloride/ chlorine liquid-to-gas ratio operating parameter limit for a hazardous waste incinerator unit that is equal to 20.4 gallons per 1,000 dry standard cubic feet based upon the data from 3M’s September 1 and 2, 2004, comprehensive performance test and not upon the data from 3M’s July 2001, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Trial Burn? A: No. EPA does not approve the request because the company has not demonstrated that the proposed hydrogen chloride/chlorine liquid-togas ratio operating parameter limit also corresponds to compliance with the particulate matter, semi-volatile metal, and low volatile metals emission standards. Abstract for [M060006] Q: Does EPA approve at the General Motors (GM) Orion Assembly Plant in Orion, Michigan, the use of the results of a transfer efficiency test conducted in December 2004 for the primer surfacer and topcoat operations in lieu of performing another transfer efficiency test, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII? A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the December 2004 test results for the primer surfacer and the topcoat operations in lieu of performing an initial test to determine transfer efficiency. The test meets the requirements of MACT subpart IIII, 40 CFR 63.3160(c). There have been no process or equipment changes since the test that would trigger retesting, and the required operating parameters and transfer efficiency were established during the test. E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 70386 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices Q: Does EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amps and total scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the scrubber monitoring parameters required by NSPS Subpart BB and NESHAP Subpart MM, at the Weyerhaeuser Company facility in Bennettsville, South Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative continuous monitoring plan under MACT subpart MM and NSPS subpart BB because the dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric pressure and the proposed monitoring is an acceptable alternative. Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.864, fan amps and scrubber liquid flow rate must be monitored at least once each successive 15-minute period, and continuous compliance must be determined based on a 3-hour average. alternative for the coal mill baghouse only. Q3: Does EPA also approve the request for an alternative to calculate the minimum combustion chamber temperature limit as required by 40 CFR 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2)? A3: No. EPA does not approve the request to set the minimum combustion chamber temperature as the average of the highest hourly rolling averages measured in each trial run burn. However, EPA finds the source could establish a minimum combustion chamber temperature by matching the combustion chamber temperature profile during the comprehensive performance test using the specific procedures described in EPA’s response as an alternative to establishing the minimum combustion chamber temperature. Abstract for [M060008] Abstract for [M060009] Q1: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative monitoring location to continuously monitor total hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the Ash Grove Cement Company facility in Overland Park, Kansas? A1: Yes. EPA approves the request to monitor hydrocarbons in the by-pass and between stages numbers 2 and 3 of the preheater instead of in the main stack, pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f). Both the bypass and preheater gas streams must have a hydrocarbon limit of 10 ppmv on an hourly rolling average basis as defined in MACT subpart EEE. The location of the hydrocarbon monitors must be as specified in the Comprehensive Performance Test Plan, downstream of the bypass baghouse, while the preheater monitor shall be located in the gas stream between stages numbers 2 and 3 of the pre-heater in a manner that ensures a representative sample of gas will be monitored. Q2: Does EPA also approve the request for an alternative method to calculate the maximum gas temperature at the inlet to the facility’s particulate matter control device, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? A2: Yes. EPA approves this request for an alternative calculation pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f) due to the potential danger associated with operating the coal mill baghouse at an elevated temperature. The facility will establish that the maximum gas temperature at the inlet of the coal mill baghouse does not exceed 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Establishing the maximum gas temperature at the inlet is an Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request to continuously monitor oxygen and temperature instead of carbon monoxide or total hydrocarbons, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the Holcim facility in Clarksville, Montana? A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f), provided the facility meets the conditions established for the performance test for destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) that demonstrates compliance with the DRE standard found in 40 CFR 63.1204(c), and carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon standards found in 40 CFR 63.1204(a)(5), as indicated in EPA’s response. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstract for [M060007] VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 Abstract for [M060010] Q: Could EPA clarify the relationship between ownership and co-location in regards to the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH, to the Mocane Cryogenic/Compressor Station located near Forgan, Oklahoma, and owned by Regency Gas Services and Colorado Interstate Gas? A: EPA finds that all the facility operations are located at a single site, as defined in 40 CFR 63.761 of MACT subpart HH, and, because the transmission and storage source category begins where natural gas enters the transmission pipeline, the site is subject to MACT subpart HH. EPA also finds the equipment qualifies as a single Title V source with all equipment subject to Title V permitting. Because of separate ownership, individual Title V permits will be issued to the owner of the specific equipment. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Abstract for [M060011] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, apply to the metal building insulation produced at CertainTeed’s facility in Kansas City, Kansas? A: Yes. EPA finds that metal building insulation meets the definition of building insulation for purposes of MACT subpart NNN, and that production of this insulation at the CertainTeed facility is subject to MACT subpart NNN. Abstract for [M060012] Q: Does EPA find that an autoclave should be included in the rubber-tometal or general use subcategory, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, if a partial vulcanization occurs in the first heating step and the part is submitted fully vulcanized in the autoclave, as is the case of the Cooper Standard Automotive facility in Michigan? A: EPA finds that the autoclave should be included in the rubber-tometal subcategory under MACT subpart MMMM. EPA has determined that the second coating step of a metal insert bonded to rubber does involve vulcanization based on the stress test results done on two metal parts coated with the same adhesive, and should be included in such subcategory. Abstract for [M060013] Q: Does EPA find that the substantive control, testing, and monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, apply to the 3M process using tetrahydrofuran (THF) as a raw material at the Specialty Material Manufacturing facility in Cottage Grove, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that the language at 40 CFR 63.1420(d)(3) only exempts those processes which produce polyether polyols from epoxide polymerization, and, by its terms, does not extend the exemption under MACT subpart PPP to processes which produce polyether polyols from THF. The facility did not provide the Agency sufficient information to determine whether only the recordkeeping or demonstration requirements at 40 CFR 63.1420(b)(1) would apply to the process. Abstract for [M060014] Q1: Does EPA find that the nitrile stripper column (NSC) system at the INVISTA S.a.r.l. (INVISTA) Victoria plant should be classified as a waste management unit or a recovery device, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, or can it be subject to two sets of requirements at the same time because it may qualify both as a waste management and a recovery device under the Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Pollutants (HON) rule, 40 CFR part 63, subpart F? A1: EPA finds that the NSC system cannot be subject to two sets of standards under the HON rule and that it should be classified as a waste management unit under that rule. Based on the concept of ‘‘discarded’’ within the terms ‘‘point of determination’’ and ‘‘wastewater’’ in the HON rule, the NSC system must either be a recovery device within the CMPU or a waste management unit outside of the CMPU. The fact that the NSC system is receiving the stormwater stream from the Victoria plant, in addition to the stream from the ADN unit for which it was originally designed, clarifies for the Agency that the NSC system is outside of the CMPU. The liquid stream transferred from the ADN process to the NSC system is, therefore, ‘‘discharged’’ to the NSC system. This makes the NSC system a ‘‘waste management unit’’ and the ADN stream ‘‘wastewater’’, subject to the performance standards of 40 CFR 63.138 of the HON rule. Q2: What is the appropriate classification for the NSC system if the stormwater runoff is no longer routed to the ADN unit? A2: When the stormwater runoff is removed from the NSC system, the NSC system should be evaluated as a recovery device because the NSC system potentially serves the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value, use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse. Abstract for [M060015] Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (MON rule) and the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP (MCM rule), under 40 CFR part 63, subparts FFFF and HHHHH respectively, to nondedicated mixing vessels which support coatings manufacturing in three different areas at the Cytec Industries facility in Havre de Grace, Maryland? A: EPA determines that in area one the non-dedicated HAP mixing vessels are used in the production of ‘‘prereact’’ isolated intermediates which are stored below ambient temperature until further processing to produce a coating occurs, and therefore, are subject to the MON. The pre-react is similar to a synthesis operation producing a MON chemical described by SIC code 289, rather than a coating. EPA agrees that since the ‘‘pre-react’’ meets all of the criteria specified in EPA’s response, it is a MON product and therefore the mixing vessel that produces it is subject to the MON. In area two, the MON chemical is mixed with curing systems, VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 fillers, and other additives, and a coating is produced. Since the non dedicated HAP mixing vessels in area two are associated with the production of a coating, they are part of the miscellaneous coating manufacturing subject to the MCM rule. Area three consists of the application of the coating produced in area two. Neither the MON nor the MCM apply to the application of coatings. Abstract for [M060016] Q: Does MACT subpart G, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.100(b)(4), provide minor source status to International Specialty Products’ butanediol facility in Lima, Ohio, given that the facility is no longer part of the BP Amoco Chemical Company (BP) major source; has actual emissions of less than 2 tpy of individual hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and less than 4 tpy of total HAP; shares no common control or ownership with BP; and is a discrete facility that is not contiguous with any BP property or any of the remaining sources listed on the current BP Title V permit? A: No. EPA finds that the facility is not eligible for minor source status under MACT subpart G. It was constructed and permitted as a major source on the compliance date for new sources in the HON. Thus, according to the ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy, it remains subject to the HON rule, even if it subsequently reduces its emissions below major source thresholds. Abstract for [M060017] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, apply to the spandex production equipment at the Invista facility in Waynesboro, Virginia, where the equipment is part of one or more dry spinning spandex production process units? A: No. EPA finds that the spandex production equipment is not subject to MACT subpart YY. 40 CFR 63.1103(h)(1)(ii) defines emission points, listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C), that are associated with a dry spinning spandex production process unit that are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1103(h)(3) even though the process is part of the spandex production source category. Abstract for [M060018] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, apply to a spray booth at the PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) facility in Springdale, Pennsylvania, that would be used to prepare painted sample panels to be tested at a laboratory? A: No. EPA determines that PPG’s proposed new spray booth would not be subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM, the PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70387 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products rule, since the spray booth would not be used to apply surface coating of ‘‘miscellaneous metal parts or products,’’ which include certain various ‘‘industrial, household, and consumer products,’’ or their ‘‘metal components,’’ i.e., parts, as defined in 40 CFR 63.3881. The sample panels that PPG plans to prepare in its new spray booth do not qualify as ‘‘industrial, household, and consumer products’’ because they will be prepared solely to allow coatings to be tested in a laboratory, will not be sold in commerce, and will eventually be recycled as scrap metal. The sample panels also do not qualify as ‘‘metal components’’ of ‘‘industrial, household, and consumer products’’ because the panels will never become part of an industrial, household, or consumer product. Abstract for [M060019] Q: Does EPA approve continuous monitoring of fan amperage and scrubbing liquid flow rate in lieu of scrubber pressure drop under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, for the smelt dissolving tank scrubber at the SmurfitStone Container Hopewell Mill in Hopewell, Virginia? A: Yes. EPA finds that pressure drop is not the best indicator of control device performance for low-energy entrainment scrubbers. Compliance with MACT subpart MM could be demonstrated by verifying ID fan operation, maintaining a scrubber liquid flow rate, and maintaining a scrubbing liquid supply pressure based on established parameters from the facility’s performance test. Abstract for [M060020] Q: Does EPA agree that the Point of Determination (POD) for the predominant use ratio (e.g., 90 percent/ 10 percent) which, according to 40 CFR 63.4281(e), would determine whether part 63, subpart OOOO (‘‘Fabric NESHAP’’) or subpart JJJJ (‘‘Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, POWC NESHAP’’) would apply, can be located at the entry point to the common control device for the Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. facility in Havre de Grace, Maryland? A: No. EPA does not approve Cytec’s request to consider the entry point to the common control device for the four coaters/dryers as a POD for purposes of establishing the MACT subpart OOOO predominant use ratio. 40 CFR 63.4281(e) states that ‘‘any web coating line must comply with the subpart of this part that applies to the predominant use activity conducted at the affected E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 70388 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices source.’’ This indicates that a predominant use determination under the Fabric NESHAP can be made only with respect to a single coating line, not groups of coating lines. Therefore, Cytec, Inc. must assure ensure that its three coaters/dryers subject to POWC NESHAP comply with all of the POWC NESHAP’s requirements, and that its one coater/dryer subject to the Fabric NESHAP complies with all of the Fabric NESHAP’s requirements. Abstract for [M060021] Q: Does EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN, the monitoring of alternative operating limit parameters (scrubber base temperature and indicators of proper liquid flow) at the DuPont Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia? A: Yes. EPA finds that DuPont has demonstrated that the scrubber monitoring specified under MACT subpart NNNNN is not appropriate for its process, and that the proposed alternative monitoring meets the requirements for approval in 40 CFR 63.9025(b) and 63.8(f). in EPA’s response. The data would be generally considered creditable if it demonstrates that such emission reductions resulted from efficiency improvements to a control device that can be verified; are clearly from additional improvements in technology; and are not otherwise needed to meet regulatory requirements. Abstract for [M060024] Q: Does EPA find that the White Liquor Oxidation (WLOx) system portion of a pulp and paper mill’s oxygen delignification system subject to the requirements of the Pulp and Paper MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, at the Palatka Mill in Palatka, Florida? A: No. EPA finds that the WLOx system is not named as one of the pieces of process equipment in the regulatory definition of an oxygen delignification system and therefore is not subject to the MACT subpart S requirements in 40 CFR 63.443. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstract for [M060022] Q: Does EPA approve monitoring the secondary power from the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) as an alternative monitoring parameter to monitoring pressure drop on the scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, for a dualcontrol device consisting of an ESP followed by a packed tower scrubber at the International Paper Georgetown Mill, in Georgetown, South Carolina? A: No. EPA does not approve monitoring secondary power from the ESP in-lieu-of monitoring the pressure drop on the scrubber because there is no demonstration to show that the negative electric charge on particles exiting the ESP will have anything more than negligible effects on the efficiency of the scrubber. Abstract for [M060025] Q: Does EPA find that mold and core making lines that use the ‘‘Expandable Pattern Casting’’ (or ‘‘Lost Foam’’) process at the Mueller Company’s facility in Albertville, Alabama subject to the MACT requirements for Iron and Steel Foundries under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE? A: Yes. The pouring, cooling, and shakeout operations of Mueller’s Expendable Pattern Casting process are not significantly different than a conventional sand casting operation, and therefore should be considered as such for 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE purposes. In addition, Mueller’s pouring operations would be classified as pouring stations, not pouring areas. The main distinctions between a pouring station and a pouring area are that pouring stations are automated and that the pouring can reasonably be assumed to occur at distinct points. Abstract for [M060023] Q: Does EPA approve that emission reductions achieved as a result of upgrades to a wastewater lagoon at the Buckeye facility in Perry, Florida, are creditable to demonstrate compliance with the condensate collection requirements in 40 CFR 63.446(c) of the Pulp and Paper MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S? A: EPA determines that the reductions may be creditable provided that Buckeye can provide the necessary data to satisfactorily demonstrate continuous compliance with the lb/ODTP compliance option for condensate collection and treatment, beginning at the initial compliance date, as described Abstract for [M060026] Q: Does EPA approve that emission reductions resulting from improvements to the pulp washer line fans, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, creditable for the Pulp & Paper MACT Clean Condensate Alternative (CCA) at the Smurfit-Stone facility in Fernandina Beach, Florida? A: No. Generally, a mill can make efficiency improvements to a control device and then use the incremental improvements for CCA credit if the emission changes are verifiable and clearly from additional improvements in technology. The modifications described for this facility are not additional improvements in technology, VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 but rather equipment upgrades to meet proper operating levels and result in HAP reductions from emissions that should never have been emitted. Abstract for [Z060001] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for pressure/vacuum relief valves, under 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, for the wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator at the Flint Hills Resources refinery in Saint Paul, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings. Further, the Agency recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) do not account for this dichotomy, and it approves the proposed alternative monitoring plan under NESHAP subpart FF to resolve the conflicting requirements. Abstract for [0600001] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan altering the required daily monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, 40 CFR 60.48c(g), to a monthly monitoring schedule for natural gas fuel usage at the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring request to record natural gas usage for two new boilers on a monthly, rather than a daily basis. EPA finds that compliance with NSPS Subpart Dc can be adequately verified by keeping fuel usage records on a monthly basis if only natural gas is burned. The facility must also specify how the total fuel usage will be apportioned to individual boilers. Abstract for [0600002] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from the Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) standard in NSPS subpart BB, 40 CFR 60.283(a)(1)(iv), for the brown stock washer (BSW) system at the Buckeye Florida Limited Partnership facility in Perry, Florida? A: Yes. Based on cost information supplied and recent cost estimates from other facilities, EPA finds that the BSW system qualifies for a temporary exemption under NSPS subpart BB. Should future changes make the control of TRS emissions from the Number 2 Mill BSW system cost effective, this exemption will no longer apply, and it will be necessary for Buckeye to control TRS emissions. Abstract for [0600003] Q: Does EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amps and the total E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the scrubber monitoring parameters required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubber at the Weyerhaeuser Company facility in Bennettsville, South Carolina? A: Yes. EPA approves these alternative monitoring parameters. The dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric pressure and thus the proposed monitoring, in combination with monitoring of scrubber liquid flow rate, is an acceptable alternative to the NESHAP subpart MM requirement to monitor the pressure loss of the gas stream and the scrubbing liquid flow rate. In addition, EPA approves the request to monitor scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the NSPS subpart BB requirement to monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure. Abstract for [0600004] Q: Does EPA exempt facilities which use very low sulfur oil from the requirement to obtain certifications of sulfur content for each shipment of fuel oil delivered, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and Dc, and permit them to provide only receipts indicating the type of fuel delivered? A: No. EPA does not exempt facilities from the requirement to obtain certifications of sulfur content for shipments of fuel oil. The requirements of NSPS subparts Db and Dc regarding certification of fuel sulfur content must be met. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstract for [0600006] Q: Does EPA approve a request for an exemption from the requirement in NSPS subpart J, 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii), to install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a carbon monoxide continuous emission monitor with a 1,000-ppmv span gas for a fluid catalytic cracking unit at the Flint Hills Resources facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that the facility qualifies for the exemption set forth in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii) because the company has met the following requirements: calibrated a CO CEM with a span value of 100 parts per million by volume, dry basis (PPMVD); demonstrated that the relative accuracy is 10 percent of the average CO emissions or 5 PPM CO, whichever is greater; and demonstrated that the average CO emissions during a 30-day period are less than 50 PPMVD with the CO CEM. The facility still must comply with a state air permit requirement to install and maintain a CO CEM with a 100 PPMV span. VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 Abstract for [0600007] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a zinc thermal oxidizer flare used during periods of maintenance or malfunction of a vapor recovery unit at a gasoline loading rack, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Flint Hills Resources facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA finds that the company has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas meets the criteria in EPA’s guidance for refinery fuel gas stream alternative monitoring plans and approves the alternative monitoring plan. Abstract for [0600008] Q1: Does EPA find that the alterations made in 1985 to electric arc furnace (EAF) number 2 at Oregon Steel Mill’s facility in Portland, Oregon, meet the definition of ‘‘modification’’ under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa? A1: No. Based on the information provided, EPA finds that the alterations made in 1985 to EAF number 2 do not constitute a modification under NSPS subpart AAa. Although the alterations increased the production rate of steel from 25 tons per hour to 50 tons per hour, they did not increase particulate matter emissions. Q2: Does EPA find that the alterations meet the definition of ‘‘reconstruction’’ under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa? A2: No. Based on the information provided, EPA finds that the changes made in 1985 to EAF number 2 do not constitute a reconstruction under NSPS subpart AAa. Reconstruction is based on a comparison of the fixed capital cost of the new components and a comparable entirely new facility, that is, a new eccentric bottom tap EAF capable of producing 50 tons of steel per hour. The EAF consists of the furnace shell and roof and the transformer. The cost of the 1985 alterations was 31.8 percent of the cost of the comparable entirely new facility, which is less than the 50 percent reconstruction cost threshold. Q3: Does EPA find that the other changes made to the EAF number that resulted in an increase on the potential emission rate was accomplished with a ‘‘capital expenditure’’ as defined under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa? A3: No. EPA finds that the changes made in 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1997 and 1998 to EAF number 2 did not require capital expenditures as defined in 40 CFR 60.2. The annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage for an EAF is 18 percent. The changes that enabled increases in production rate included the purchase of a transformer and the installation of oxyfuel burners, a post combustion system, PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70389 aluminum current arms, and other changes, all of which did not cost more than 18 percent of the basis for an EAF. Abstract for [0600009] Q: Does EPA find that the gas processing system at the Bethel Landfill in Hampton, Virginia, qualifies as treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in eight reciprocating internal combustion engines to be treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Abstract for [0600010] Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system that includes the three turbines at the Grand Central Landfill in Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Also, Pennsylvania may include state enforceable requirements in any permit it issues, based on its review of state laws and regulations. Abstract for [0600011] Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system at Keystone Potato Products’ facility in Hegins, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR Part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 70390 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Also, Pennsylvania may include state enforceable requirements in any permit it issues, based on its review of state laws and regulations. Abstract for [0600012] Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system at the Lake View Landfill in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR Part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Abstract for [0600013] Q: Does EPA consider gas processing system to be treatment as specified under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW at the Modern Landfill facility in York, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR Part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstract for [0600014] Q: Does EPA approve the use of postcombustion chamber temperature monitors as an alternative to combustion chamber temperature monitors in turbines at the Pottstown Landfill facility in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: Yes. EPA has determined that the location of the temperature monitors on these turbines is acceptable as an alternative to being located in the combustion zone of the turbines. Abstract for [0600015] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, apply to liquid urea manufacturing operations? A: EPA has not provided a sitespecific determination in this case VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 because the source has not been identified. Additionally, EPA is not prepared to issue a blanket exemption for liquid urea manufacturing operations as none was issued during the rulemaking process. In addition, a liquid urea facility must look to the same criteria in 40 CFR 60.480(a) and (b) as other manufacturers of listed chemicals to determine whether it is subject to NSPS subpart VV. The facility must then consider whether it might be exempted under 40 CFR 60.480(d). Abstract for [0600016] Q: Will plant changes to increase production capacity result in a modification of the C–1 Nitric Acid Plant located at the PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer facility in Augusta, Georgia? Is the use of pre-change and post-change emission testing the appropriate means of determining whether the change results in an increase in the NOX emission rate that will trigger the finding of a modification? A: Yes. EPA finds that the plant changes do constitute a modification under the NSPS, and the unit would become subject to NSPS subpart G. EPA also finds that the manner in which the Masar emission control system has been operated in the past and its improper maintenance makes it impossible to establish rational pre-change test conditions for purposes of determining whether the plant changes will cause an increase in NOX emission rate. In this case, emission factors are the most appropriate method to determine if an emission increase occurs, and the appropriate factors show that the increase in nitric acid production capacity will result in an emission increase. Thus, the plan will be subject to NSPS subpart G requirements following the proposed production rate increase. Abstract for [0600017] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to a tile dryer at the Florim USA facility in Clarksville, Tennessee, that dries formed tiles by convection? A: No. EPA finds that the tile dryer operates in a manner that is typical of tunnel dryers, which are exempt from NSPS subpart UUU. Abstract for [0600018] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart SS, apply to surface coating operations at the Nestaway facility in McKenzie, Tennessee, which fabricates and coats wire racks that are sold for use in new dishwashers of various manufacturers and as aftermarket replacements? A: No. EPA finds that because the facility is not part of a large appliance PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 assembly plant, NSPS subpart SS does not apply to its surface coating operation. Abstract for [0600019] Q: What requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, would apply to a simple cycle combustion turbine to be operated at the Stock Island Power Plant in Key West, Florida, since the Florida Municipal Power Agency and GE Packaged Power entered into a contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine on February 18, 2005, the final date by which a unit must have commenced construction to be treated as an existing unit not subject to NSPS subpart KKKK? A: EPA finds that additional documentation must be submitted to make a determination. Without adequate documentation that the February 18, 2005 contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine will result in a continuous program of construction, the combustion turbine in question would be considered subject to NSPS subpart KKKK requirements for new affected facilities. Refer to ADI determination 0600021. Abstract for [0600020] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from opacity monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, for a flash dryer that uses baghouses to control emissions as it dries product at the DuPont DeLisle titanium dioxide production facility in Pass Christian, Mississippi? A: Yes. EPA finds that because the dryer has a particulate matter emission rate of less than 11 tons/year, an exemption from the opacity monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart UUU is appropriate. Abstract for [0600021] Q: What requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, would apply to a simple cycle combustion turbine to be operated at the Stock Island Power Plant in Key West, Florida, since the Florida Municipal Power Agency and GE Packaged Power entered into a contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine on February 18, 2005, the final date by which a unit must have commenced construction to be treated as an existing unit not subject to NSPS subpart KKKK. The facility has provided follow-up information in response to EPA’s request for more information. Refer to ADI determination 0600019. A: Based on the information submitted, EPA concludes that the combustion turbine, construction of which commenced on February 18, E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices 2005, will not be subject to NSPS subpart KKKK, provided that a continuous program of construction is maintained and construction is completed within a reasonable time. Abstract for [0600022] Q: Does EPA allow the owners or operators of certain affected facilities under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc to submit reports annually instead of each six-month period, as required by 40 CFR 60.48(c)(j), if a facility is not required to obtain a Title V permit? A: No. EPA finds that the reporting frequency in NSPS subpart Dc is intended to apply to owners and operators of affected facilities regardless of whether they are required to obtain a Title V permit. Abstract for [0600023] Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, apply to air classifiers at nonmetallic mineral processing plants? A: EPA finds that air classifiers are regulated by NSPS subpart OOO if they are part of a grinding mill. A grinding mill is the only affected facility under NSPS subpart OOO that includes air classifiers. If air classifiers are not part of a grinding mill, then they are not regulated by the standard since these are not identified as a separate category in the rule. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Abstract for [0600024] Q: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, applies to the Line 2 ore dryer and product dryer at the DuPont DeLisle Plant in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where the facility uses a chlorination-oxidation process to manufacture titanium dioxide pigment? A: Yes. EPA finds that although the chlorination-oxidation process is exempt from NSPS subpart UUU, the ore dryer and product dryer at the DuPont plant are not part of the chlorination-oxidation process. Thus, the dryers are subject to NSPS subpart UUU. Abstract for [0600025] Q: Does EPA find that the requirements of the 25 Pennsylvania (PA) Code Chapter 139 and the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Continuous Source Monitoring Manual can be applied in lieu of the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and D, and 40 CFR part 60.13, for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions for two power boilers at Weyerhaeuser’s Johnsonburg Mill in Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA finds that the requirements of 25 PA Code Chapter 139 and PADEP’s Continuous Source VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 Monitoring Manual can be applied in lieu of corresponding NSPS requirements in CFR part 60, subparts A and D and 40 CFR part 60.13, provided that SO2 emissions from the two power boilers remain less than 0.20 lbs/mmBtu and provided that, for validating hourly averages, the source computes one hour averages from 6 or more data points equally spaced over the one-hour period. Abstract for [0600026] Q: Does EPA approve EPA Method 9 visible emissions observations as an alternative to installing and certifying a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) when oil is burned in a boiler subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Penreco plant in Karns City, Pennsylvania? A: Yes. EPA finds that the alternative opacity monitoring can be performed in lieu of installing and certifying a COMS. However, specific procedures outlined in EPA’s response must be followed to ensure compliance with this approval under NSPS subpart Dc. The procedures are consistent with those that EPA has approved for other Subpart Dc boilers that burn gas as a primary fuel and that have an annual capacity factor of 10 percent or less for oil when used as a backup fuel. Abstract for [0600027] Q: Do the changes at the glass melting furnace, Furnace 52, cause an emissions increase at the Flat River Glass facility in Park Hills, Missouri, and if so, was the increase accomplished through a capital expenditure such that it would be considered a modification pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and CC? Refer to ADI Control No. 0600028. A: Yes. EPA finds that the changes at the furnace constitute a capital expenditure and therefore, the furnace has been modified for purposes of NSPS subparts A and CC. This determination provides further detail on the equipment considered in the calculations, the estimated cost of the changes, and the results of the calculation that show a capital expenditure. Abstract for [0600028] Q1: Do the physical or operational changes to Furnace 52 at the Flat River Glass facility in Park Hills, Missouri, result in an emissions increase pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and C? Refer to ADI determination 0600027. A1: Yes. Based on evaluation of the AP–42 factors, historical test data, and 40 CFR part 60, Appendix C calculations, EPA has determined that Furnace 52 has been modified since a PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70391 kilogram per hour emission increase did occur as a result of the change, and that such modification was accomplished with a capital expenditure. Q2: Was the emissions increase accomplished through a capital expenditure pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14(e) at the Flat River Glass facility in Park Hills, Missouri? A2: Yes. EPA finds that there was a capital expenditure made for purposes of NSPS subpart CC. Based on the information submitted, EPA has determined that the cost of the changes made to the furnace exceeded 12 percent of the facility’s basis, the threshold for a capital expenditure. Because the company did not include any cost data for the initial installation of the glass furnace, the existing facility’s basis was calculated by using the current cost of a new glass furnace and back-calculating the cost to the year of installation. Abstract for [0600029] Q: Does EPA find that a source’s intent in incurring costs of component replacement as a result of SIP control requirements should be a factor in determining whether a source has exceeded the 50 percent cost threshold of the NSPS reconstruction provisions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A? A: EPA finds that replacement costs may not be disregarded based on the owner’s intent in incurring them. Creating an intent-based exemption for owners whose SIP-related expenditures pass the 50 percent threshold in Section 60.15 would be inconsistent with Section 111. However, EPA could conclude in the future that only certain facilities should be considered new once the 50 percent threshold for reconstruction is surpassed. Alternatively, EPA could determine that it is appropriate to exempt sources in individual cases or to exempt identifiable groups of sources where NSPS compliance is not ‘‘technologically or economically feasible,’’ which is consistent with section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Abstract for [Z060003] and [M060035] Q: Does EPA find that benzene emissions that occur from heat exchanger leaks at a facility, located in Texas and represented by Baker Botts, are to be included in the calculation of the Total Annual Benzene (TAB) quantity from facility waste water under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF? A: Yes. EPA finds that neither benzene emissions occurring from noncontact heat exchanger leaks into cooling tower water nor benzene E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 70392 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices quantities from ‘‘contact heat exchangers’’ qualify for the exemption or exclusion from the required benzene calculation (TAB) under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. Therefore, waste in the form of gases or vapors that is emitted from process fluids is required to be part of the calculation of the total annual benzene quantity in facility waste generation. This determination is based on the fact that the benzene emissions are directly generated by the respective process, and are neither the result of leakage nor of process offgas. Abstract for [0600082] Q: Does EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan for a hydrogen production facility to allow grab sampling of refinery fuel gas combusted in the two reformer furnaces on a staggered schedule, as opposed to installing a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facility at the Exxon Mobil refinery in Joliet, Illinois? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request for an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J, provided the facility meets the conditions and terms of approval specified in EPA’s response. This AMP approval is consistent with the EPA guidance entitled ‘‘Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas: Conditions for Approval of the Alternative Monitoring Plan for Miscellaneous Refinery Fuel Gas Streams.’’ Dated: November 22, 2006. Lisa C. Lund, Acting Director, Office of Compliance. [FR Doc. E6–20440 Filed 12–1–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System SUMMARY: Background On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 11:51 Dec 01, 2006 Jkt 211001 conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board–approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB’s public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Request for comment on information collection proposal The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve’s functions; including whether the information has practical utility; b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve’s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FR 4004 (OMB No. 7100– 0112), by any of the following methods: • Agency Web Site: http:// www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/ generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E–mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include the OMB control number in the subject line of the message. • FAX: 202–452–3819 or 202–452– 3102. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board’s web site at www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/ foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP–500 of the Board’s Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB’s public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Michelle Long, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202–452–3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202–263– 4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report: Report title: Written Security Program for State Member Banks Agency form number: FR 4004 OMB control number: 7100–0112 Frequency: On occasion Reporters: State member banks Annual reporting hours: 35 hours Estimated average hours per response: 0.5 hours Number of respondents: 70 General description of report: This recordkeeping requirement is mandatory pursuant to section 3 of the Bank Protection Act [12 U.S.C. § 1882(a)] and Regulation H [12 CFR § 208.61]. Because written security programs are maintained at state member banks, no issue of confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act normally arises. However, copies of such documents included in examination work papers would, in such form, be confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8)]. Abstract: Each state member bank must develop and implement a written security program and maintain it in the E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1
[Pages 70383-70392]
[FR Doc No: E6-20440]
[FRL-8250-5]
located by date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions
about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at:
(202) 564-7027, or by e-mail at: malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical
questions about the individual applicability determinations or
monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the
The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP
in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability
determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 40 CFR part 63
NESHAP 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 40 CFR part 63 and section 111(d) of
the CAA programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from
the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g),
inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions.
monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the
regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly
termed regulatory interpretations.
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination
Index (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 63 such documents added to
the ADI on November 10, 2006. The subject, author, recipient, date 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.
document posted on the ADI database system on November 10, 2006; 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.
Control                      Category                     Subpart                      Title
0600001....................  NSPS.......................  Dc........................  Alternative Fuel
0600002....................  NSPS.......................  BB........................  Exemption from TRS
Standard for Brown Stock
0600003....................  NSPS.......................  BB........................  Alternative Monitoring for
0600004....................  NSPS.......................  Db, Dc....................  Fuel Supplier
0600006....................  NSPS.......................  J.........................  Alternative Monitoring
Plan for a Catalytic
0600007....................  NSPS.......................  J.........................  Alternative Monitoring
Plan for a Flare.
0600008....................  NSPS.......................  AAa.......................  Alterations to an Electric
0600082....................  NSPS.......................  A, J......................  Alternative Monitoring
M060001....................  MACT.......................  MMM.......................  Compliance Test Waiver
M060002....................  MACT.......................  MMMM......................  Post Vulcanized Rubber-to-
Metal Parts Bonding.
[[Page 70384]]
M060003....................  MACT.......................  DDDDD.....................  Common Duct Testing and
Acid Rain Program Opt-in.
M060004....................  MACT.......................  DDDDD.....................  Firetube Boilers.
M060005....................  MACT.......................  EEE.......................  Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
M060006....................  MACT.......................  IIII......................  Use of Previously
Conducted Transfer
M060007....................  MACT.......................  MM........................  Alternative Monitoring for
M060008....................  MACT.......................  A, EEE....................  Alternative Monitoring
Locations and Parameters.
M060009....................  MACT.......................  A, EEE....................  Alternative Monitoring
Plan for Hazardous Waste
Z060001....................  NESHAP.....................  FF, V.....................  Alternative Monitoring
Plan for Dual Purpose
0600009....................  NSPS.......................  WWW.......................  Landfill Gas Processing
System as Treatment.
0600010....................  NSPS.......................  WWW.......................  Landfill Gas Processing
0600011....................  NSPS.......................  WWW.......................  Landfill Gas Processing
0600012....................  NSPS.......................  WWW.......................  Landfill Gas Processing
0600013....................  NSPS.......................  WWW.......................  Landfill Gas Processing
0600014....................  NSPS.......................  WWW.......................  Temperature Monitors in
0600015....................  NSPS.......................  VV........................  Liquid Urea Manufacturing
A060001....................  Asbestos...................  M.........................  Demolition under Control
of Same Owner or
A060002....................  Asbestos...................  M.........................  Removal of Floor Mastic
A060003....................  Asbestos...................  M.........................  Applicability of 260
Linear Feet Requirement.
A060004....................  Asbestos...................  M.........................  Test Method for Spray-
applied Acoustical
A060005....................  Asbestos...................  M.........................  Regulated Asbestos
A060006....................  Asbestos...................  M.........................  Meaning of Preclude Access
M060010....................  MACT.......................  HH, HHH...................  Clarification of Ownership
and Co-location.
M060011....................  MACT.......................  NNN.......................  Metal Building Insulation.
M060012....................  MACT.......................  MMMM......................  Post Vulcanized Rubber-to-
M060013....................  MACT.......................  PPP.......................  Use of Tetrahydrofuran
(THF) as Raw Material.
M060014....................  MACT.......................  H.........................  Nitrile Stripper Column
M060015....................  MACT.......................  FFFF, HHHHH...............  Non-Dedicated Mixing
0600016....................  NSPS.......................  A, G......................  Modification of Nitric
0600017....................  NSPS.......................  UUU.......................  Tile Dryers.
0600018....................  NSPS.......................  SS........................  Coating of Dishwasher
0600019....................  NSPS.......................  A, KKKK...................  Commencement of
0600020....................  NSPS.......................  UUU.......................  Opacity Monitoring
0600021....................  NSPS.......................  A, KKKK...................  Commencement of
0600022....................  NSPS.......................  Dc........................  Reporting Frequency
0600023....................  NSPS.......................  OOO.......................  Air Classifiers.
0600024....................  NSPS.......................  UUU.......................  Titanium Dioxide Ore
Dryers and Product
0600025....................  NSPS.......................  A, D......................  State Monitoring
Requirements in Lieu of
0600026....................  NSPS.......................  Dc........................  Alternative Opacity
0600027....................  NSPS.......................  A, CC.....................  Modification and Capital
Expenditure Calculations.
0600028....................  NSPS.......................  A, CC.....................  Modification and Capital
0600029....................  NSPS.......................  A.........................  SIP-mandated Expenditures
M060016....................  MACT.......................  G.........................  Once In/Always In Rule.
M060017....................  MACT.......................  YY........................  Dry Spinning Spandex
Production Process Units.
M060018....................  MACT.......................  HHHHH, MMMM...............  Coating of Test Panels Not
Used in Final Product.
M060019....................  MACT.......................  MM........................  Alternative Monitoring of
M060020....................  MACT.......................  JJJJ, OOOO................  Point of Determination for
Group of Coating Lines.
M060021....................  MACT.......................  NNNNN.....................  Alternative Monitoring
Plan for HCL Scrubber.
M060022....................  MACT.......................  S.........................  Alternative Monitoring
Parameters for a Dual
M060023....................  MACT.......................  S.........................  Clean Condensate
Alternative & Creditable
M060024....................  MACT.......................  S.........................  Applicability of White
Liquor Oxidation System.
M060025....................  MACT.......................  EEEEE.....................  Molding and Core Making.
M060026....................  MACT.......................  S.........................  Clean Condensate
Z060003....................  NESH.......................  FF........................  Benzene Emissions from
Exchange Leaks.
Abstract for [A060001]
Q: Are residential structures that are demolished as part of a
larger project, such as highway expansion, subject to the asbestos
requirements under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A: Yes. EPA finds, pursuant to 40 CFR 61.145, that if two or more
residences under the control of the same owner or operator are part of
a larger demolition project, such as highway expansion, they are
subject to the asbestos regulation, NESHAP subpart M.
Abstract for [A060002]
Q1: Is floor mastic a Category 1 asbestos-containing material under
40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A1: No. EPA finds that floor mastic is not a Category 1 asbestos-
containing material under the Asbestos NESHAP. However, pursuant to 40
CFR 61.141, it is a Category II asbestos-containing material.
Q2: Does the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad on
floor mastic cause the floor mastic to become friable, and thus a
Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM) under 40 CFR part 61,
subpart M?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that pursuant to 40 CFR 61.141, the use of a
mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad causes floor mastic to become
friable and, thus, it is considered a RACM under the asbestos NESHAP.
Abstract for [A060003]
Q: Does the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet on pipes apply
to caulking and roof flashing materials that qualify as regulated
asbestos-containing material (RACM) under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A: No. EPA finds the 260 linear feet threshold is applicable only
under the asbestos NESHAP. Other materials, such as caulking or roof
flashing, are subject to the 160 square foot standard as specified in
40 CFR 61.145.
Abstract for [A060004]
Q1: Has EPA issued guidance specifically about spray-applied
acoustical materials under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A1: No. EPA has not issued guidance under the asbestos NESHAP
specifically about spray-applied acoustical materials.
Q2: Does EPA recommend that the public assure spray-applied
acoustical materials to contain asbestos without testing, and, what
method(s) should be used to test these materials under 40 CFR part 61,
A2: No. EPA is not recommending that the public assure spray-
applied acoustical materials to contain asbestos without testing. In
regards to testing spray-applied acoustical materials, Polarized Light
Microscopy (PLM) is specified in 40 CFR part 63 as the approved testing
method; however, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TLM) is also an
Abstract for [A060005]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, require that all asbestos-
containing materials be removed before the demolition of a facility?
A: No. The asbestos NESHAP does not require all asbestos-containing
materials to be removed before demolition. However, all Regulated
Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) must be removed from a facility
being demolished or renovated before any activity begins that would
break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the material or preclude
access to the material for subsequent removal.
Abstract for [A060006]
Q: Could EPA clarify the meaning of the words ``preclude access''
and ``dropping'' in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) and 61.145(c)(6) of the
asbestos NESHAP, subpart M?
A: EPA finds that the use of the term ``preclude access'' in 40 CFR
61.145(c)(1) of the asbestos NESHAP is intended to ensure that all
Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) expected to be disturbed
during the demolition or renovation is removed from the facility before
any action is taken that could prevent safe removal of the RACM during
a later phase of the project. The use of the term ``dropping'' is
intended to prevent RACM from falling (instead of being ``placed'') on
the floor and to ensure that RACM is moved in a careful way to minimize
asbestos fiber release.
Abstract for [M060001]
Q: Does EPA waive the Method 5 test requirement for a second
process vent, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM, at the Arkema facility
in Riverview, Michigan?
A: Yes. EPA waives the Method 5 test because information submitted
by the facility shows that it is impractical to test the second vent
due to short operating time, low flow rate, and low pressure drop. Dust
emissions will be drawn through the first vent which will be tested,
and any remaining dust will be trapped in the vent collection tank or
in the mineral oil scrubbers.
Abstract for [M060002]
Q: Does EPA find that a coating being applied at the Cooper Tire &
Rubber facility in Findlay, Ohio, that uses the same methodology,
composition, and function as a rubber-to-metal coating, but that is
bonded during a heating process not involving the vulcanization of
rubber, is a rubber-to-metal coating under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A: No. EPA finds that because the bonding process is not performed
during the vulcanization process, it is not considered a rubber-to-
metal coating and should not be included in that category. Instead, the
coating is subject to the general use coating subcategory emission
limit in 40 CFR 63.3890(b)(1).
Abstract for [M060003]
Q1: Can the required emission tests, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
DDDDD, be conducted in the common duct for boilers 1, 2, and 3 at the
Dairyland Power Cooperative Alma Station in LaCrosse, Wisconsin?
A1: No. 40 CFR 63.7510 requires that each unit be tested, and the
language in Section II.F of the September 13, 2004 Preamble to the
Final Rule reinforces this requirement. The facility is required to
submit an alternative test procedure request with appropriate technical
justification, if it wants to conduct common duct testing. However,
testing in a common duct is considered a minor change to a test method;
thus, EPA Regions and delegated States may approve such a request.
Q2: Does EPA find that boilers 1, 2, and 3 would be exempt from the
boiler MACT, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, if they opt into the
Acid Rain Program?
A2: No. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.7491 includes no such exemption. A
source cannot avoid controlling mercury emissions by agreeing to
control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Abstract for [M060004]
Q: Does EPA find that the two 250-horsepower firetube boilers
planned for installation at Green Bay Packaging in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, should be regulated within the ``small gaseous fuel
subcategory'' as defined in MACT subpart DDDDD, 40 CFR 63.7575, even if
each boiler's heat input rating at 100 percent efficiency may reach
10.5 million BTU per hour?
A: Yes. EPA finds that these boilers are regulated within the
``small gaseous fuel subcategory'' as that term is defined in MACT
subpart DDDDD, 40 CFR 63.7575. In response to comments, the Agency
agreed to add firetube boilers to the definition of small liquid fuel
and gaseous fuel subcategories in the final rule.
Abstract for [M060005]
Q: Does EPA approve a request from Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
Company (3M), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, to establish a high
energy wet scrubber's hydrogen chloride/chlorine liquid-to-gas ratio
operating parameter limit for a hazardous waste incinerator unit that
is equal to 20.4 gallons per 1,000 dry standard cubic feet based upon
the data from 3M's September 1 and 2, 2004, comprehensive performance
test and not upon the data from 3M's July 2001, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Trial Burn?
A: No. EPA does not approve the request because the company has not
demonstrated that the proposed hydrogen chloride/chlorine liquid-to-gas
ratio operating parameter limit also corresponds to compliance with the
particulate matter, semi-volatile metal, and low volatile metals
Abstract for [M060006]
Q: Does EPA approve at the General Motors (GM) Orion Assembly Plant
in Orion, Michigan, the use of the results of a transfer efficiency
test conducted in December 2004 for the primer surfacer and topcoat
operations in lieu of performing another transfer efficiency test,
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the December 2004 test results for
the primer surfacer and the topcoat operations in lieu of performing an
initial test to determine transfer efficiency. The test meets the
requirements of MACT subpart IIII, 40 CFR 63.3160(c). There have been
no process or equipment changes since the test that would trigger
retesting, and the required operating parameters and transfer
efficiency were established during the test.
Abstract for [M060007]
Q: Does EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amps and total
scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the scrubber monitoring
parameters required by NSPS Subpart BB and NESHAP Subpart MM, at the
Weyerhaeuser Company facility in Bennettsville, South Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative continuous monitoring plan
under MACT subpart MM and NSPS subpart BB because the dynamic scrubber
operates near atmospheric pressure and the proposed monitoring is an
acceptable alternative. Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
63.864, fan amps and scrubber liquid flow rate must be monitored at
least once each successive 15-minute period, and continuous compliance
must be determined based on a 3-hour average.
Abstract for [M060008]
Q1: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative monitoring
location to continuously monitor total hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the Ash Grove Cement
Company facility in Overland Park, Kansas?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the request to monitor hydrocarbons in the
by-pass and between stages numbers 2 and 3 of the preheater instead of
in the main stack, pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1)
and 63.8(f). Both the bypass and preheater gas streams must have a
hydrocarbon limit of 10 ppmv on an hourly rolling average basis as
defined in MACT subpart EEE. The location of the hydrocarbon monitors
must be as specified in the Comprehensive Performance Test Plan,
downstream of the bypass baghouse, while the preheater monitor shall be
located in the gas stream between stages numbers 2 and 3 of the pre-
heater in a manner that ensures a representative sample of gas will be
Q2: Does EPA also approve the request for an alternative method to
calculate the maximum gas temperature at the inlet to the facility's
particulate matter control device, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A2: Yes. EPA approves this request for an alternative calculation
pursuant to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f) due to
the potential danger associated with operating the coal mill baghouse
at an elevated temperature. The facility will establish that the
maximum gas temperature at the inlet of the coal mill baghouse does not
exceed 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Establishing the maximum gas temperature
at the inlet is an alternative for the coal mill baghouse only.
Q3: Does EPA also approve the request for an alternative to
calculate the minimum combustion chamber temperature limit as required
by 40 CFR 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2)?
A3: No. EPA does not approve the request to set the minimum
combustion chamber temperature as the average of the highest hourly
rolling averages measured in each trial run burn. However, EPA finds
the source could establish a minimum combustion chamber temperature by
matching the combustion chamber temperature profile during the
comprehensive performance test using the specific procedures described
in EPA's response as an alternative to establishing the minimum
combustion chamber temperature.
Abstract for [M060009]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request to
continuously monitor oxygen and temperature instead of carbon monoxide
or total hydrocarbons, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the Holcim
facility in Clarksville, Montana?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request pursuant
to MACT subpart EEE, 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) and 63.8(f), provided the
facility meets the conditions established for the performance test for
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) that demonstrates compliance
with the DRE standard found in 40 CFR 63.1204(c), and carbon monoxide
and total hydrocarbon standards found in 40 CFR 63.1204(a)(5), as
indicated in EPA's response.
Abstract for [M060010]
Q: Could EPA clarify the relationship between ownership and co-
location in regards to the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH,
to the Mocane Cryogenic/Compressor Station located near Forgan,
Oklahoma, and owned by Regency Gas Services and Colorado Interstate
A: EPA finds that all the facility operations are located at a
single site, as defined in 40 CFR 63.761 of MACT subpart HH, and,
because the transmission and storage source category begins where
natural gas enters the transmission pipeline, the site is subject to
MACT subpart HH. EPA also finds the equipment qualifies as a single
Title V source with all equipment subject to Title V permitting.
Because of separate ownership, individual Title V permits will be
issued to the owner of the specific equipment.
Abstract for [M060011]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, apply to the metal building
insulation produced at CertainTeed's facility in Kansas City, Kansas?
A: Yes. EPA finds that metal building insulation meets the
definition of building insulation for purposes of MACT subpart NNN, and
that production of this insulation at the CertainTeed facility is
subject to MACT subpart NNN.
Abstract for [M060012]
Q: Does EPA find that an autoclave should be included in the
rubber-to-metal or general use subcategory, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM, if a partial vulcanization occurs in the first heating
step and the part is submitted fully vulcanized in the autoclave, as is
the case of the Cooper Standard Automotive facility in Michigan?
A: EPA finds that the autoclave should be included in the rubber-
to-metal subcategory under MACT subpart MMMM. EPA has determined that
the second coating step of a metal insert bonded to rubber does involve
vulcanization based on the stress test results done on two metal parts
coated with the same adhesive, and should be included in such
Abstract for [M060013]
Q: Does EPA find that the substantive control, testing, and
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, apply to the 3M
process using tetrahydrofuran (THF) as a raw material at the Specialty
Material Manufacturing facility in Cottage Grove, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the language at 40 CFR 63.1420(d)(3) only
exempts those processes which produce polyether polyols from epoxide
polymerization, and, by its terms, does not extend the exemption under
MACT subpart PPP to processes which produce polyether polyols from THF.
The facility did not provide the Agency sufficient information to
determine whether only the recordkeeping or demonstration requirements
at 40 CFR 63.1420(b)(1) would apply to the process.
Abstract for [M060014]
Q1: Does EPA find that the nitrile stripper column (NSC) system at
the INVISTA S.a.r.l. (INVISTA) Victoria plant should be classified as a
waste management unit or a recovery device, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPP, or can it be subject to two sets of requirements at the
same time because it may qualify both as a waste management and a
recovery device under the Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standard
for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HON) rule, 40 CFR part 63, subpart F?
A1: EPA finds that the NSC system cannot be subject to two sets of
standards under the HON rule and that it should be classified as a
waste management unit under that rule. Based on the concept of
``discarded'' within the terms ``point of determination'' and
``wastewater'' in the HON rule, the NSC system must either be a
recovery device within the CMPU or a waste management unit outside of
the CMPU. The fact that the NSC system is receiving the stormwater
stream from the Victoria plant, in addition to the stream from the ADN
unit for which it was originally designed, clarifies for the Agency
that the NSC system is outside of the CMPU. The liquid stream
transferred from the ADN process to the NSC system is, therefore,
``discharged'' to the NSC system. This makes the NSC system a ``waste
management unit'' and the ADN stream ``wastewater'', subject to the
performance standards of 40 CFR 63.138 of the HON rule.
Q2: What is the appropriate classification for the NSC system if
the stormwater runoff is no longer routed to the ADN unit?
A2: When the stormwater runoff is removed from the NSC system, the
NSC system should be evaluated as a recovery device because the NSC
system potentially serves the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value, use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse.
Abstract for [M060015]
Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (MON rule) and the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing NESHAP (MCM rule), under 40 CFR part 63, subparts FFFF
and HHHHH respectively, to non-dedicated mixing vessels which support
coatings manufacturing in three different areas at the Cytec Industries
facility in Havre de Grace, Maryland?
A: EPA determines that in area one the non-dedicated HAP mixing
vessels are used in the production of ``pre-react'' isolated
intermediates which are stored below ambient temperature until further
processing to produce a coating occurs, and therefore, are subject to
the MON. The pre-react is similar to a synthesis operation producing a
MON chemical described by SIC code 289, rather than a coating. EPA
agrees that since the ``pre-react'' meets all of the criteria specified
in EPA's response, it is a MON product and therefore the mixing vessel
that produces it is subject to the MON. In area two, the MON chemical
is mixed with curing systems, fillers, and other additives, and a
coating is produced. Since the non dedicated HAP mixing vessels in area
two are associated with the production of a coating, they are part of
the miscellaneous coating manufacturing subject to the MCM rule. Area
three consists of the application of the coating produced in area two.
Neither the MON nor the MCM apply to the application of coatings.
Abstract for [M060016]
Q: Does MACT subpart G, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.100(b)(4), provide
minor source status to International Specialty Products' butanediol
facility in Lima, Ohio, given that the facility is no longer part of
the BP Amoco Chemical Company (BP) major source; has actual emissions
of less than 2 tpy of individual hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and
less than 4 tpy of total HAP; shares no common control or ownership
with BP; and is a discrete facility that is not contiguous with any BP
property or any of the remaining sources listed on the current BP Title
V permit?
A: No. EPA finds that the facility is not eligible for minor source
status under MACT subpart G. It was constructed and permitted as a
major source on the compliance date for new sources in the HON. Thus,
according to the ``once in, always in'' policy, it remains subject to
the HON rule, even if it subsequently reduces its emissions below major
source thresholds.
Abstract for [M060017]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, apply to the spandex production
equipment at the Invista facility in Waynesboro, Virginia, where the
equipment is part of one or more dry spinning spandex production
process units?
A: No. EPA finds that the spandex production equipment is not
subject to MACT subpart YY. 40 CFR 63.1103(h)(1)(ii) defines emission
points, listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C), that are
associated with a dry spinning spandex production process unit that are
not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1103(h)(3) even though the
process is part of the spandex production source category.
Abstract for [M060018]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, apply to a spray booth at the
PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) facility in Springdale, Pennsylvania, that
would be used to prepare painted sample panels to be tested at a
A: No. EPA determines that PPG's proposed new spray booth would not
be subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM, the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products rule, since the spray booth would not be used
to apply surface coating of ``miscellaneous metal parts or products,''
which include certain various ``industrial, household, and consumer
products,'' or their ``metal components,'' i.e., parts, as defined in
40 CFR 63.3881. The sample panels that PPG plans to prepare in its new
spray booth do not qualify as ``industrial, household, and consumer
products'' because they will be prepared solely to allow coatings to be
tested in a laboratory, will not be sold in commerce, and will
eventually be recycled as scrap metal. The sample panels also do not
qualify as ``metal components'' of ``industrial, household, and
consumer products'' because the panels will never become part of an
industrial, household, or consumer product.
Abstract for [M060019]
Q: Does EPA approve continuous monitoring of fan amperage and
scrubbing liquid flow rate in lieu of scrubber pressure drop under 40
CFR part 63, subpart MM, for the smelt dissolving tank scrubber at the
Smurfit-Stone Container Hopewell Mill in Hopewell, Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA finds that pressure drop is not the best indicator of
control device performance for low-energy entrainment scrubbers.
Compliance with MACT subpart MM could be demonstrated by verifying ID
fan operation, maintaining a scrubber liquid flow rate, and maintaining
a scrubbing liquid supply pressure based on established parameters from
the facility's performance test.
Abstract for [M060020]
Q: Does EPA agree that the Point of Determination (POD) for the
predominant use ratio (e.g., 90 percent/10 percent) which, according to
40 CFR 63.4281(e), would determine whether part 63, subpart OOOO
(``Fabric NESHAP'') or subpart JJJJ (``Paper and Other Web Coating
NESHAP, POWC NESHAP'') would apply, can be located at the entry point
to the common control device for the Cytec Engineered Materials Inc.
A: No. EPA does not approve Cytec's request to consider the entry
point to the common control device for the four coaters/dryers as a POD
for purposes of establishing the MACT subpart OOOO predominant use
ratio. 40 CFR 63.4281(e) states that ``any web coating line must comply
with the subpart of this part that applies to the predominant use
activity conducted at the affected
source.'' This indicates that a predominant use determination under the
Fabric NESHAP can be made only with respect to a single coating line,
not groups of coating lines. Therefore, Cytec, Inc. must assure ensure
that its three coaters/dryers subject to POWC NESHAP comply with all of
the POWC NESHAP's requirements, and that its one coater/dryer subject
to the Fabric NESHAP complies with all of the Fabric NESHAP's
Abstract for [M060021]
Q: Does EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN, the
monitoring of alternative operating limit parameters (scrubber base
temperature and indicators of proper liquid flow) at the DuPont
Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA finds that DuPont has demonstrated that the scrubber
monitoring specified under MACT subpart NNNNN is not appropriate for
its process, and that the proposed alternative monitoring meets the
requirements for approval in 40 CFR 63.9025(b) and 63.8(f).
Abstract for [M060022]
Q: Does EPA approve monitoring the secondary power from the
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) as an alternative monitoring parameter
to monitoring pressure drop on the scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S, for a dual-control device consisting of an ESP followed by a
packed tower scrubber at the International Paper Georgetown Mill, in
Georgetown, South Carolina?
A: No. EPA does not approve monitoring secondary power from the ESP
in-lieu-of monitoring the pressure drop on the scrubber because there
is no demonstration to show that the negative electric charge on
particles exiting the ESP will have anything more than negligible
effects on the efficiency of the scrubber.
Abstract for [M060023]
Q: Does EPA approve that emission reductions achieved as a result
of upgrades to a wastewater lagoon at the Buckeye facility in Perry,
Florida, are creditable to demonstrate compliance with the condensate
collection requirements in 40 CFR 63.446(c) of the Pulp and Paper MACT,
40 CFR part 63, subpart S?
A: EPA determines that the reductions may be creditable provided
that Buckeye can provide the necessary data to satisfactorily
demonstrate continuous compliance with the lb/ODTP compliance option
for condensate collection and treatment, beginning at the initial
compliance date, as described in EPA's response. The data would be
generally considered creditable if it demonstrates that such emission
reductions resulted from efficiency improvements to a control device
that can be verified; are clearly from additional improvements in
technology; and are not otherwise needed to meet regulatory
Abstract for [M060024]
Q: Does EPA find that the White Liquor Oxidation (WLOx)
system portion of a pulp and paper mill's oxygen delignification system
subject to the requirements of the Pulp and Paper MACT, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S, at the Palatka Mill in Palatka, Florida?
A: No. EPA finds that the WLOx system is not named as
one of the pieces of process equipment in the regulatory definition of
an oxygen delignification system and therefore is not subject to the
MACT subpart S requirements in 40 CFR 63.443.
Abstract for [M060025]
Q: Does EPA find that mold and core making lines that use the
``Expandable Pattern Casting'' (or ``Lost Foam'') process at the
Mueller Company's facility in Albertville, Alabama subject to the MACT
requirements for Iron and Steel Foundries under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A: Yes. The pouring, cooling, and shakeout operations of Mueller's
Expendable Pattern Casting process are not significantly different than
a conventional sand casting operation, and therefore should be
considered as such for 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE purposes. In
addition, Mueller's pouring operations would be classified as pouring
stations, not pouring areas. The main distinctions between a pouring
station and a pouring area are that pouring stations are automated and
that the pouring can reasonably be assumed to occur at distinct points.
Abstract for [M060026]
Q: Does EPA approve that emission reductions resulting from
improvements to the pulp washer line fans, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S, creditable for the Pulp & Paper MACT Clean Condensate
Alternative (CCA) at the Smurfit-Stone facility in Fernandina Beach,
A: No. Generally, a mill can make efficiency improvements to a
control device and then use the incremental improvements for CCA credit
if the emission changes are verifiable and clearly from additional
improvements in technology. The modifications described for this
facility are not additional improvements in technology, but rather
equipment upgrades to meet proper operating levels and result in HAP
reductions from emissions that should never have been emitted.
Abstract for [Z060001]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for pressure/
vacuum relief valves, under 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, for the
wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator at the Flint
Hills Resources refinery in Saint Paul, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves
function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings.
Further, the Agency recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR
61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) do not account for this dichotomy, and it
approves the proposed alternative monitoring plan under NESHAP subpart
FF to resolve the conflicting requirements.
Abstract for [0600001]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan altering the
required daily monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, 40 CFR
60.48c(g), to a monthly monitoring schedule for natural gas fuel usage
at the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority facility in Ypsilanti,
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring
request to record natural gas usage for two new boilers on a monthly,
rather than a daily basis. EPA finds that compliance with NSPS Subpart
Dc can be adequately verified by keeping fuel usage records on a
monthly basis if only natural gas is burned. The facility must also
specify how the total fuel usage will be apportioned to individual
Abstract for [0600002]
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from the Total Reduced Sulfur
(TRS) standard in NSPS subpart BB, 40 CFR 60.283(a)(1)(iv), for the
brown stock washer (BSW) system at the Buckeye Florida Limited
Partnership facility in Perry, Florida?
A: Yes. Based on cost information supplied and recent cost
estimates from other facilities, EPA finds that the BSW system
qualifies for a temporary exemption under NSPS subpart BB. Should
future changes make the control of TRS emissions from the Number 2 Mill
BSW system cost effective, this exemption will no longer apply, and it
will be necessary for Buckeye to control TRS emissions.
Abstract for [0600003]
Q: Does EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amps and the
parameters required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB, and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MM, for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubber at the
A: Yes. EPA approves these alternative monitoring parameters. The
dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric pressure and thus the
proposed monitoring, in combination with monitoring of scrubber liquid
flow rate, is an acceptable alternative to the NESHAP subpart MM
requirement to monitor the pressure loss of the gas stream and the
scrubbing liquid flow rate. In addition, EPA approves the request to
monitor scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the NSPS
subpart BB requirement to monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure.
Abstract for [0600004]
Q: Does EPA exempt facilities which use very low sulfur oil from
the requirement to obtain certifications of sulfur content for each
shipment of fuel oil delivered, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and
Dc, and permit them to provide only receipts indicating the type of
fuel delivered?
A: No. EPA does not exempt facilities from the requirement to
obtain certifications of sulfur content for shipments of fuel oil. The
requirements of NSPS subparts Db and Dc regarding certification of fuel
sulfur content must be met.
Abstract for [0600006]
Q: Does EPA approve a request for an exemption from the requirement
in NSPS subpart J, 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii), to install, calibrate,
operate, and maintain a carbon monoxide continuous emission monitor
with a 1,000-ppmv span gas for a fluid catalytic cracking unit at the
Flint Hills Resources facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the facility qualifies for the exemption set
forth in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii) because the company has met the
following requirements: calibrated a CO CEM with a span value of 100
parts per million by volume, dry basis (PPMVD); demonstrated that the
relative accuracy is 10 percent of the average CO emissions or 5 PPM
CO, whichever is greater; and demonstrated that the average CO
emissions during a 30-day period are less than 50 PPMVD with the CO
CEM. The facility still must comply with a state air permit requirement
to install and maintain a CO CEM with a 100 PPMV span.
Abstract for [0600007]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a zinc
thermal oxidizer flare used during periods of maintenance or
malfunction of a vapor recovery unit at a gasoline loading rack, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Flint Hills Resources facility in
Saint Paul, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the company has demonstrated that this
refinery fuel gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance for refinery
fuel gas stream alternative monitoring plans and approves the
alternative monitoring plan.
Abstract for [0600008]
Q1: Does EPA find that the alterations made in 1985 to electric arc
furnace (EAF) number 2 at Oregon Steel Mill's facility in Portland,
Oregon, meet the definition of ``modification'' under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart AAa?
A1: No. Based on the information provided, EPA finds that the
alterations made in 1985 to EAF number 2 do not constitute a
modification under NSPS subpart AAa. Although the alterations increased
the production rate of steel from 25 tons per hour to 50 tons per hour,
they did not increase particulate matter emissions.
Q2: Does EPA find that the alterations meet the definition of
``reconstruction'' under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa?
A2: No. Based on the information provided, EPA finds that the
changes made in 1985 to EAF number 2 do not constitute a reconstruction
under NSPS subpart AAa. Reconstruction is based on a comparison of the
fixed capital cost of the new components and a comparable entirely new
facility, that is, a new eccentric bottom tap EAF capable of producing
50 tons of steel per hour. The EAF consists of the furnace shell and
roof and the transformer. The cost of the 1985 alterations was 31.8
percent of the cost of the comparable entirely new facility, which is
less than the 50 percent reconstruction cost threshold.
Q3: Does EPA find that the other changes made to the EAF number
that resulted in an increase on the potential emission rate was
accomplished with a ``capital expenditure'' as defined under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart AAa?
A3: No. EPA finds that the changes made in 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993,
1997 and 1998 to EAF number 2 did not require capital expenditures as
defined in 40 CFR 60.2. The annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage for an EAF is 18 percent. The changes that enabled increases
in production rate included the purchase of a transformer and the
installation of oxy-fuel burners, a post combustion system, aluminum
current arms, and other changes, all of which did not cost more than 18
percent of the basis for an EAF.
Abstract for [0600009]
Q: Does EPA find that the gas processing system at the Bethel
Landfill in Hampton, Virginia, qualifies as treatment under NSPS
subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
A: Yes. EPA considers compression, filtration, and moisture removal
from a landfill gas for use in eight reciprocating internal combustion
engines to be treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C).
Because the engines will be exempt from monitoring, they do not have to
be included in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan)
required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, the treatment system
supplying gas to the turbines will have to be included in the SSM Plan.
Abstract for [0600010]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system that includes the
three turbines at the Grand Central Landfill in Pen Argyl,
Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
from a landfill gas for use in an energy recovery device to be
treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction Plan (SSM Plan) required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will
have to be included in the SSM Plan. Also, Pennsylvania may include
state enforceable requirements in any permit it issues, based on its
review of state laws and regulations.
Abstract for [0600011]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system at Keystone Potato
Products' facility in Hegins, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40
AAAA. However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines
will have to be included in the SSM Plan. Also, Pennsylvania may
include state enforceable requirements in any permit it issues, based
on its review of state laws and regulations.
Abstract for [0600012]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system at the Lake View
Landfill in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to be treatment under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart WWW?
have to be included in the SSM Plan.
Abstract for [0600013]
Q: Does EPA consider gas processing system to be treatment as
specified under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW at the Modern Landfill
facility in York, Pennsylvania?
Abstract for [0600014]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of post-combustion chamber temperature
monitors as an alternative to combustion chamber temperature monitors
in turbines at the Pottstown Landfill facility in Pottstown,
Pennsylvania, required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A: Yes. EPA has determined that the location of the temperature
monitors on these turbines is acceptable as an alternative to being
located in the combustion zone of the turbines.
Abstract for [0600015]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, apply to liquid urea
A: EPA has not provided a site-specific determination in this case
because the source has not been identified. Additionally, EPA is not
prepared to issue a blanket exemption for liquid urea manufacturing
operations as none was issued during the rulemaking process. In
addition, a liquid urea facility must look to the same criteria in 40
CFR 60.480(a) and (b) as other manufacturers of listed chemicals to
determine whether it is subject to NSPS subpart VV. The facility must
then consider whether it might be exempted under 40 CFR 60.480(d).
Abstract for [0600016]
Q: Will plant changes to increase production capacity result in a
modification of the C-1 Nitric Acid Plant located at the PCS Nitrogen
Fertilizer facility in Augusta, Georgia? Is the use of pre-change and
post-change emission testing the appropriate means of determining
whether the change results in an increase in the NOX
emission rate that will trigger the finding of a modification?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the plant changes do constitute a
modification under the NSPS, and the unit would become subject to NSPS
subpart G. EPA also finds that the manner in which the Masar emission
control system has been operated in the past and its improper
maintenance makes it impossible to establish rational pre-change test
conditions for purposes of determining whether the plant changes will
cause an increase in NOX emission rate. In this case,
emission factors are the most appropriate method to determine if an
emission increase occurs, and the appropriate factors show that the
increase in nitric acid production capacity will result in an emission
increase. Thus, the plan will be subject to NSPS subpart G requirements
following the proposed production rate increase.
Abstract for [0600017]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to a tile dryer at the
Florim USA facility in Clarksville, Tennessee, that dries formed tiles
by convection?
A: No. EPA finds that the tile dryer operates in a manner that is
typical of tunnel dryers, which are exempt from NSPS subpart UUU.
Abstract for [0600018]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart SS, apply to surface coating
operations at the Nestaway facility in McKenzie, Tennessee, which
fabricates and coats wire racks that are sold for use in new
dishwashers of various manufacturers and as aftermarket replacements?
A: No. EPA finds that because the facility is not part of a large
appliance assembly plant, NSPS subpart SS does not apply to its surface
Abstract for [0600019]
Q: What requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, would
apply to a simple cycle combustion turbine to be operated at the Stock
Island Power Plant in Key West, Florida, since the Florida Municipal
Power Agency and GE Packaged Power entered into a contract for the
fabrication and construction of the turbine on February 18, 2005, the
final date by which a unit must have commenced construction to be
treated as an existing unit not subject to NSPS subpart KKKK?
A: EPA finds that additional documentation must be submitted to
make a determination. Without adequate documentation that the February
18, 2005 contract for the fabrication and construction of the turbine
will result in a continuous program of construction, the combustion
turbine in question would be considered subject to NSPS subpart KKKK
requirements for new affected facilities. Refer to ADI determination
0600021.
Abstract for [0600020]
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from opacity monitoring under 40
CFR part 60, subpart UUU, for a flash dryer that uses baghouses to
control emissions as it dries product at the DuPont DeLisle titanium
dioxide production facility in Pass Christian, Mississippi?
A: Yes. EPA finds that because the dryer has a particulate matter
emission rate of less than 11 tons/year, an exemption from the opacity
monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart UUU is appropriate.
Abstract for [0600021]
treated as an existing unit not subject to NSPS subpart KKKK. The
facility has provided follow-up information in response to EPA's
request for more information. Refer to ADI determination 0600019.
A: Based on the information submitted, EPA concludes that the
combustion turbine, construction of which commenced on February 18,
2005, will not be subject to NSPS subpart KKKK, provided that a
continuous program of construction is maintained and construction is
Abstract for [0600022]
Q: Does EPA allow the owners or operators of certain affected
facilities under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc to submit reports annually
instead of each six-month period, as required by 40 CFR 60.48(c)(j), if
a facility is not required to obtain a Title V permit?
A: No. EPA finds that the reporting frequency in NSPS subpart Dc is
intended to apply to owners and operators of affected facilities
regardless of whether they are required to obtain a Title V permit.
Abstract for [0600023]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, apply to air classifiers at
nonmetallic mineral processing plants?
A: EPA finds that air classifiers are regulated by NSPS subpa