[Federal Register: July 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 44726-44743]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy08-45]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8699-2]
Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI)
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining To
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The letters and memoranda
may be searched on the ADI by date, office of issuance, subpart,
citation, control number or by string word searches. 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:
Background:
The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (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 commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See
40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d)
of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory
provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA
does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part
63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources
to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that are
different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i),
61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to
these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring
decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the
broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain
to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example,
to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained
in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are
commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations.
EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them on the ADI on a quarterly basis. In
addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to
the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The
ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA
letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 84 such documents added to the
ADI on July 11, 2008. 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:
www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on July 11, 2008; the
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document,
which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
We have also included an abstract of each document identified with
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport to make any document that was
previously non-binding into a binding document.
ADI Determinations Uploaded on July 11, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Category Subparts Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
700029 NSPS Db, Dc Boiler Derating.
700030 NSPS Db Initial Startup for Boiler.
700031 NSPS Dc Applicability to Snowmelters.
700032 NSPS CCCC Municipal Waste Combustion
Exemption.
700033 NSPS CCCC Incineration of Untreated
Toilet Wastes.
700034 NSPS D Final Boiler Derating.
700035 NSPS CCCC Municipal Waste Combustion
Unit Exemption.
700036 NSPS Db Boiler Derating.
700037 NSPS GG Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700038 NSPS Dc Reporting Reduction.
700039 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Use
Recordkeeping.
700040 NSPS Dc Boiler Refiring.
700041 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
[[Page 44727]]
700042 NSPS A, D Boiler Derating.
700043 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700044 NSPS O Multiple Hearth Sludge
Furnace.
700045 NSPS A Waiver of 30-Day Notification
of Performance Evaluation.
700046 NSPS CCCC Municipal Waste Combustion
Unit Exemption.
700047 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Emissions
Reporting.
700048 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700049 NSPS GG Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700050 NSPS D Boiler Derating.
700051 NSPS Ec Waste Weight Surrogate.
700052 NSPS DD Standards of Performance for
Grain Elevators.
700053 NSPS Ec Incineration of
Pharmaceutical Wastes.
700054 NSPS J Wet Gas Scrubber Opacity
Alternative Monitoring.
700055 NSPS A, GG Alternate Performance Test
Method.
700056 NSPS III, JJJ Work Camp Incinerator.
700057 NSPS Y Coal Transloader
Applicability.
700058 NSPS FFF Rotogravure Coating Line
Applicability.
700059 NSPS A, Dc Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Boilers.
700060 NSPS Ce, Ec Request for Regulatory
Deviation.
700061 NSPS A, Db Alternative Opacity
Monitoring Procedure.
700062 NSPS A, Db Amendment to Alternative
Opacity Monitoring
Procedure.
700064 NSPS H Monitoring Frequency
Reduction.
700065 NSPS Db Boiler Derating.
700066 NSPS PPP Alternative Excess Emissions
Criteria.
700067 NSPS QQQ Emission Offset Calculations.
700068 NSPS XX Test Method for Loading Rail
Cars at Gasoline Load.
700069 NSPS XX Classification of Vapor
Combustor.
700070 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Gasoline Loading Racks.
700071 NSPS UUU Synthetic Alumina from
Calcining Oven.
700073 NSPS WWW Definition of Treatment for
Landfill Gas Processing.
700074 NSPS WWW Definition of Treatment for
Landfill Gas Processing.
700075 NSPS CCCC Request for Applicability
Determination--Thermal
Desorber.
700076 NSPS A, TTT Adjustment of Deadline for
Compliance Statements.
700077 NSPS IIII Petition to Use Non-Compliant
Fuel.
700078 NSPS Ce Request for Regulatory
Deviation/Alternative
Determination for Control of
Dioxins/Furans (CDD/CDF).
700079 NSPS Ce Request for Regulatory
Deviation/Alternative
Determination for Control of
Dioxins/Furans (CDD/CDF).
700080 NSPS Db Alternate Opacity Monitoring
During Construction.
800001 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Usage
Recordkeeping Proposal.
800002 NSPS OOO Test Waiver Proposal.
800003 NSPS J Alternative H2S Monitoring
Frequency.
800004 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring
Proposals.
800005 NSPS WWW Definition of Treatment.
800006 NSPS H Appendix F (CEM QA)
Applicability.
800007 NSPS UUU Method 9 Test Waiver.
800008 NSPS OOO Test Waiver Request.
800009 NSPS J Alternative H2S Monitoring
Proposal.
800010 NSPS WWW Operational and Monitoring
Alternatives.
800011 NSPS Cb Alternative Monitoring
Location.
800012 NSPS WWW Applicability of Well
Monitoring Requirements.
800013 NSPS Db Proposal to Shorten Test
Duration.
800014 NSPS GG Alternative Quality Assurance
Procedures.
800015 NSPS Db Predictive Emission
Monitoring System.
800016 NSPS Db Applicability to Wood Burner/
Thermal Oil Heater/Rotary
Dryer System.
M070016 MACT EEE Hydrogen Chloride Continuous
Emissions Monitor (CEM).
M070017 MACT UUU Wet Gas Scrubber Opacity
Alternative Monitoring.
M070018 MACT EEE Monitoring of Scrubber System
Solid Content.
M070019 MACT EEE Alternative Measure to
Control Combustion Gas
Leaks.
M070020 MACT G Alternative Monitoring Plan.
M070021 MACT EEE Monitoring Procedure System
and Time Delay for AWFCO.
M070022 MACT R Test Method for Loading Rail
Cars at Gasoline Loading
Facility.
M070023 MACT ZZZZ Request for Alternative
Monitoring and Testing.
M070024 MACT EEE Responses to Comprehensive
Performance Test Plan
Addendum and Alternative
Monitoring Application.
M070025 MACT EEE Response to Alternative
Monitoring Application
Requests.
M070026 MACT EEE Response to Alternative
Monitoring Application
Requests.
M070027 MACT EEE Response to Alternative
Monitoring Application
Requests.
M070028 MACT EEE Response to Alternative
Monitoring Application
Requests.
M070029 MACT EEE Response to Alternative
Monitoring Application
Requests.
M070030 MACT EEE Response to Alternative
Monitoring Application
Requests.
M080004 MACT FFFF Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical
Manufacturing.
[[Page 44728]]
Z070002 NESHAP E Incineration of Untreated
Toilet Wastes.
Z080001 NESHAP WWW Definition of Treatment for
Landfill Gas Processing.
Z080002 NESHAP WWW Definition of Treatment for
Landfill Gas Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract for [0700029]
Q: Is Blaine Larsen Farms' (BLF) boiler, located at the Dehydration
Division potato processing plant in Dubois, Idaho, derated and
therefore subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc,
rather than 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
A: Yes. EPA determines that BLF's boiler has been derated and is
now subject to NSPS subpart Dc, because the burner has been replaced
with one that will limit the boiler capacity to less than 100 mmBtu/hr,
as verified by testing, and it meets the four derate criteria, as
specified in the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [0700030]
Q: Has initial startup occurred for a boiler at the Warm Springs
Forest Products Industries' facility in Warm Springs, Oregon, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Db? The facility has conducted boil-out and
curing.
A: No. Because the ``Instruction Manual for Clarification of
Startup in Source Categories Affected by New Source Performance
Standards'' (EPA-68-01-4143) states that startup is defined as the
first time steam is produced by the boiler and used to provide heat or
hot water to run process equipment or to produce electricity, EPA finds
that the boil-out and curing of the refractory is therefore a pre-
startup activity.
Abstract for [0700031]
Q: Is a snowmelter with a rated capacity between 10 and 100 MMBtu/
hr that is operated by the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: No. EPA determines that NSPS subpart Dc does not apply to
snowmelters. Although a snowmelter is a device that combusts fuel and
melts ice resulting in the heating of water, the heated water is not
being used for transferring heat from one point to another for any
useful purpose such as heating a building or creating steam to drive a
process. Therefore, the heated water would not qualify as a heat
transfer medium.
Abstract for [0700032]
Q: Is the Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Incorporated (PNRA)
incineration unit located at its Oooguruk Development Project Offshore
Drill Site camp on the North Slope, Alaska, exempted from the
requirements of the NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units at 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
A: Yes. Based on the information submitted in the notification
required to claim the exemption under 40 CFR Sec. 60.2020(c)(2), EPA
finds that this incinerator would meet the exemption criteria in 40 CFR
60.2020(c)(2), and is therefore required to meet the applicable
recordkeeping requirements established by this provision. The
incinerator would meet the criteria of burning greater than 30 percent
municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel (as defined in NSPS
subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB) in its fuel feed stream. This
incinerator will primarily burn waste generated by a housing camp
associated with the PNRA facility, along with some industrial packing
and other non-hazardous waste materials from drilling support
activities on site.
Abstract for [0700033]
Q1: Is Anadarko's double-chamber cyclonator forced-air solid waste
incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons per day, constructed after
November 1999, that has been seasonally located and intermittently
operated at remote oil and gas exploration sites on the North Slope of
Alaska since January 2003, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
A1: Yes, EPA concludes that a waste incinerator with a capacity of
2.4 tons per day, constructed after November 1999, that has been
seasonally located and intermittently operated at remote oil and gas
exploration sites, is subject to NSPS subpart CCCC. EPA considers this
incinerator to be located at an industrial facility, and even though
the incinerator may be moved from one location to the next, it will be
a distinct operating unit of an industrial facility.
Q2: Is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, the Mercury NESHAP, applicable to
an incineration unit that incinerates untreated sanitary waste (solids)
collected from Pacto toilets at Anadarko's remote oil and gas
exploration sites on the North Slope of Alaska?
A2: No. The practice of incinerating sanitary waste composed of
untreated solids from Pacto toilets does not meet the description of
incinerating sludge under the Mercury NESHAP. 40 CFR 61.50 states that
the rule applies to ``those stationary sources which * * * incinerate
or dry wastewater treatment plant sludge.'' Under 40 CFR 61.51, sludge
is defined as ``sludge produced by a treatment plant that processes
municipal or industrial waste waters.'' Thus, the Mercury NESHAP would
not apply.
Abstract for [0700034]
Q1: Does EPA approve the proposal of Roseburg Forest Products (RFP)
of Roseburg, Oregon, to derate two boilers, regulated under 40 CFR part
60, subpart D, by eliminating the capacity of both boilers to burn oil
and replacing the burners with burners that are limited to burning less
than 250 MMBtu/hr of natural gas, provided that the natural gas
pressure delivered to the boilers is monitored?
A1: Yes. EPA believes that the changes made by RFP meet the derate
criteria because installation of a new burner is a permanent change to
the boiler, which requires a system shutdown, cannot be easily undone,
and is not just a change to the fuel feed system. Based on the
performance test data submitted, EPA has concluded that the capacity of
the boilers does not exceed the 250 MMBtu/hr applicability threshold,
provided the pressures are maintained below 9.16 psig for Boiler No. 2
and 7.33 psig for Boiler No. 6 (calculated using a three-hour average).
Therefore, Boilers No. 2 and No. 6 are no longer subject to NSPS
subpart D, if the limits on gas pressure are monitored and maintained
below the threshold values per the Title V permit.
Abstract for [0700035]
Q: Is FEX L.P.'s incineration unit located at FEX L.P.'s Artic Wolf
Camp for housing associated with its Northwest National Petroleum
Reserve Exploration Drilling Project on the North Slope, Alaska,
exempted from the requirements of the NSPS for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCCC?
A: Yes. Based on the information submitted in the notification
required to claim the exemption under 40 CFR
[[Page 44729]]
Sec. 60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this incinerator would meet the
exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), and is therefore required
to meet the recordkeeping requirements established in this provision.
The incinerator would meet the exemption criteria of burning greater
than 30 percent municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel (as
defined in NSPS subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB) in its fuel feed
stream. This incinerator will burn primarily residential-type waste
generated by a housing camp and cafeteria facilities that are
associated with the FEX facility, along with industrial packing and
other non-hazardous waste materials from drilling support activities on
site.
Abstract for [0700036]
Q1: May Blaine Larsen Farms (BLF) derate its 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db boiler at the Dehydration Division potato processing plant
in Dubois, Idaho, by restricting the fuel-metering valves? This would
be accomplished with an adjustment to the valve, and the adjustment
screws would either be locked into place with a locking device that
requires a special tool to undo or be sealed with epoxy.
A1: No. EPA determines that this approach would not be valid to
derate a boiler under NSPS subpart Db for several reasons. Neither
proposed method for locking the screws would be considered permanent. A
derate must reduce the capacity of the boiler without the installation
of a feed rate governor. Changes that are made only to fuel feed
systems are not acceptable for a derate.
Q2: May Blaine Larsen Farms derate its 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db
boiler by replacing the burner?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that the replacement of the burner is an
acceptable method to derate a burner under NSPS subpart Db since it
meets the deration criteria, including: (1) It is a change that cannot
be easily undone, (2) requires a system shutdown to accomplish or
reverse, and (3) it is not just a change to the fuel feed system.
Q3: May the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Performance
Test, Code 4-1998, be used as the verification test method to
demonstrate a derate has been accomplished under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db?
A3: Yes. EPA finds that this method has been used before to
successfully demonstrate that a derate has been accomplished under NSPS
subpart Db.
Q4: Is Blaine Larsen Farms test protocol verification method
acceptable to demonstrate that a derate has been accomplished under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Db?
A4: Yes. EPA determines that the results of the protocol
verification method would be acceptable under NSPS subpart Db if BLF
continuously monitors fuel feed rates and maintains information
regarding the fuel heat content in order to ensure that the unit does
not exceed 100 mmBtu/hr of heat input.
Abstract for [0700037]
Q1: Does EPA approve the use of a certified nitrogen oxide
continuous emission monitoring system (NOX CEMS) to document
compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG NOX limit in lieu
of a performance test for compliance analysis after the new fuel is
introduced for stationary gas turbines operated by Klamath Energy, LLC
of Portland, Oregon?
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of a certified
NOX CEMS because it finds that as long as the provisions of
40 CFR Sec. 60.334(b) are followed, CEMS are enough to satisfy
compliance with the emission limit for NOX. 40 CFR Sec.
60.334(g) states that a performance test is required only when
equipment parameters need to be established.
Q2: Does EPA waive fuel nitrogen content monitoring of 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, if part 75 NOX CEMS are used for the Klamath
Energy plant?
A2: EPA finds that whether or not the turbine is also subject to
part 75, the fuel nitrogen content monitoring is waived only if the
NOX emission allowance in the equations used to determine
the NSPS subpart GG NOX emission standards in 40 CFR Sec.
60.332 is not claimed.
Q3: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG requirement for
water-to-fuel injection ratio monitoring because of the use of the part
75 certified CEMS for the Klamath Energy plant?
A3: Yes. EPA finds that under 40 CFR Sec. 60.334(b) the owner or
operator may, as an alternative to water-to-fuel injection monitoring,
install, certify, maintain, operate, and quality assure a CEMS if the
provisions of 40 CFR Sec. 60.334(b) are followed.
Q4: Does EPA approve the use of vendor analyses under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, for monitoring sulfur content of the fuel oil burned
for the Klamath Energy plant?
A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of vendor analyses
since it finds that under 40 CFR 60.334(i)(1), the fuel oil sampling
for total sulfur content can be done at each delivery. Oil sampling may
be performed by a fuel supplier, provided that the sampling is
performed according to either the single tank composite sampling
procedure or the all-levels sampling procedure in ASTM D4057-88.
Abstract for [0700038]
Q: Does EPA approve the request from the St. Luke's Meridian
Medical Center (SLMMC) facility in Meridian, Idaho, for a reduction in
the submittal frequency of the fuel emission reports from semiannually
to annually, for two boilers (Boilers No. 1 and No. 2) at the facility
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a reduction in the submittal
frequency of the fuel emission reports from semiannually to annually on
the basis that SLMMC receives only one shipment of distillate oil per
year. SLMMC shall submit all fuel supplier certifications as described
in 40 CFR 60.48(f)(1), postmarked by the last day of January of each
year. If any additional shipments of fuel are received during the year,
the fuel supplier certification will be submitted to the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality within 30 days. Each annual report
shall include a certified statement signed by the owner or operator of
SLMMC's facility that the fuel supplier certifications attached to the
report represent all of the distillate oil received by SLMMC for the
purposes of fueling the above-referenced boilers during the reporting
period.
Abstract for [0700039]
Q1: Does EPA approve a request from Gossner Foods (Gossner) for a
reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c
from daily to monthly for Gossner's two boilers in Heyburn, Idaho,
which fire natural gas as the primary fuel and propane as a backup
fuel?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request based on a memorandum dated
February 20, 1992, from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, which states that there is little value in requiring daily
recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel combusted for an affected unit
that fires only natural gas under NSPS subpart Dc. This is because
subpart Dc does not have any emission limitations for units that fire
only natural gas. Therefore, the purpose of this recordkeeping is to
verify that only natural gas is fired. Propane is considered to be a
type of natural gas.
Q2. Does EPA approve a request from Gossner to use one gas meter to
record monthly natural gas and/or propane usage for Gossner's two
boilers?
A2: Yes. EPA approves this request. EPA finds that the Gossner
proposal to divide each boiler design heat input capacity by the total
of the design heat
[[Page 44730]]
input capacities of each boiler, and use this to prorate the natural
gas and/or propane usage of each boiler on a monthly basis, when more
than one boiler is firing natural gas and/or propane simultaneously,
will adequately determine the natural gas and/or propane usage by each
boiler.
Abstract for [0700040]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative plan for monitoring opacity at
the Basic American Foods (BAF) facility in Blackfoot, Idaho, in lieu of
a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc, where the COMS will not provide accurate measurements due
to water vapor from a proposed wet scrubber?
A: Yes. According to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.13(h)(i)(1), a
written application for alternative opacity monitoring requirements can
be submitted when ``installation of a continuous emission monitoring
system or monitoring device specified by this part would not provide
accurate measurement due to liquid water or other interferences caused
by substances with the effluent gasses.'' EPA has previously approved
similar requests, which are posted on EPA's applicability determination
index. (See EPA Determination Control Numbers 0000010 and 0300073.) In
previous requests, EPA has determined that the continuous monitoring of
the scrubbing liquid flow rate and the pressure drop of the gas stream
across the scrubber is acceptable as an alternative monitoring to the
COMS. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan that the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality has recommended and BAF has agreed
to.
Abstract for [0700041]
Q1: Does EPA approve monthly instead of daily monitoring of
exclusive use of low-sulfur distillate oil in a 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Dc affected boiler operated by Hampton Lumber Mill at a facility in
Darrington, Washington?
A1: Yes. EPA approves monthly instead of daily monitoring of
exclusive use of low-sulfur distillate oil in an NSPS subpart Dc
affected boiler.
Q2: For this same facility, does EPA approve the use of fuel
receipts from a low-sulfur distillate oil supplier as a monthly
monitoring method under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel receipts from a low-sulfur
distillate oil supplier as a monthly monitoring method under NSPS
subpart Dc.
Q3: Does EPA find that the amount of low-sulfur distillate oil used
at that facility can be divided evenly between two similar boilers
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A3: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of low-sulfur distillate oil
used at a facility can be divided evenly between two similar boilers
under NSPS subpart Dc, as long as they have the same rated capacity and
operate in a way that emissions from either boiler are substantially
similar if based on the same amount of fuel.
Abstract for [0700042]
Q: Do changes proposed by Roseburg Forest Products (RFP) to two
large boilers in Dillard, Oregon, result in the boilers being derated
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D? RFP has eliminated the capacity of
both boilers to burn oil and made changes to the boilers that reduce
the total heat input capacity for both boilers to less than 245.7
MMBtu/hr for natural gas. RFP proposed to conduct additional monitoring
and performance testing to verify that the capacity of the boilers has
been reduced.
A: Although the changes RFP has made to its boilers appear to meet
many of the criteria for derating boilers, EPA requires submission of
source test data verifying that the capacity of the boilers has been
reduced before EPA will determine that the RFP boilers have been
derated. Any such verification testing should be conducted while each
boiler is operating at its maximum capacity for a 24-hour period for
each fossil fuel that the boiler has the capability of burning. EPA
expects RFP to monitor the gas pressure during the performance test to
verify the correlation of gas pressure to heat input. In addition, to
ensure reliability of the performance test results, RFP should submit a
performance test plan to EPA for approval prior to the test and follow
the general provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, for performance
tests, such as notifying EPA in advance of the test.
Abstract for [0700043]
Q1: Does EPA approve monthly instead of daily monitoring of natural
gas usage in a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc affected boiler at the
proposed J. R. Simplot Company facility near Mountain Home, Idaho?
A1: Yes. EPA approves monthly instead of daily monitoring of
natural gas usage in this NSPS subpart Dc affected boiler.
Q2: Does EPA approve the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier
to serve as a monthly monitoring method under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Dc, for an affected boiler at the proposed J. R. Simplot Company
facility near Mountain Home, Idaho?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier
to serve as monthly monitoring method under NSPS subpart Dc.
Q3: Does EPA find that all of the natural gas used at a facility
can be attributed to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc affected boilers,
if there is some gas used by a unit that is a facility not covered by
any other regulation, as proposed by the J. R. Simplot Company facility
near Mountain Home, Idaho?
A3: Yes. EPA finds that all of the natural gas used at a facility
can be attributed to the NSPS subpart Dc affected boilers, even if
there is some gas used by another unit, as long as that other unit is a
facility not covered by any other regulation.
Q4: Does EPA find that the amount of natural gas used at a facility
can be divided evenly between two similar boilers under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc, as proposed by the J. R. Simplot Company facility near
Mountain Home, Idaho?
A4: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of natural gas used at a
facility can be divided evenly between two similar boilers under NSPS
subpart Dc, as long as they have the same rated capacity and operate in
a way that emissions from either boiler are substantially similar if
based on the same amount of fuel.
Abstract for [0700044]
Q: Is the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU) subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart O, based on changes and upgrades that are
planned for the emission control system on AWWU's multiple hearth
sludge furnace (MHF) at the Asplund Wastewater Treatment Facility?
A: EPA determines that the MHF continues to be subject to NSPS
subpart O. The MHF was constructed in 1986 and is subject to NSPS
subpart O, which is applicable to a facility constructed after June 11,
1973. The upgrades to AWWU's facility do not affect applicability
status because the facility is already subject to NSPS subpart O based
on the date of construction.
Abstract for [0700045]
Q: Does EPA grant a waiver to Flint Hills Resources Alaska of the
30-day notification of performance evaluation for recently installed
sulfur dioxide (SO2) Continuous Emission Monitoring System
according to 40 CFR 60.7(a)(5) and 60.8(d)?
A: Yes. EPA grants a waiver of the 30-day notification of
performance evaluation, under 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3), because of the need
to meet deadlines
[[Page 44731]]
that have been laid out in a Compliance Order by Consent.
Abstract for [0700046]
Q: Is Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's incineration unit at the
Jacobs Ladder Exploration Drilling Project on the North Slope, Alaska,
exempted from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
A: Based on the information submitted in the notification required
to claim the exemption under 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this
incinerator would meet the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2),
and is therefore required to meet the recordkeeping requirements
established in this provision. Under 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), an exemption
is provided for units that burn greater than 30 percent municipal solid
waste or refuse-derived fuel (as defined in NSPS subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA,
and BBBB) in their fuel feed stream. This incinerator will burn
primarily residential-type waste generated by a housing camp and
cafeteria facilities that is associated with the Anadarko facility,
along with some industrial packing and other non-hazardous waste
materials from drilling support activities on site.
Abstract for [0700047]
Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the submittal frequency of the
fuel emission reports to annually for two boilers using natural gas,
except for approximately eight hours per month when diesel fuel is used
as a backup, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the St. Luke's
Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho?
A: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in the submittal frequency of the
fuel emission reports to annually. For a boiler that only fires natural
gas and distillate oil with sulfur content of less than 0.5 percent,
these reports consist only of fuel oil suppliers' certifications and a
certified statement of the owner or operator. Because this facility
receives only one shipment of distillate oil per year, it would be
redundant to require more than annual submittal of this information. As
long as the facility receives only one shipment of distillate oil a
year, it shall submit all fuel supplier certifications as described in
40 CFR 60.48(f)(1), postmarked by the last day of January of each year.
Abstract for [0700048]
Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping
requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, from daily to monthly when
only pipeline quality natural gas is and will be fired in two boilers
operated by Boise Paper Solutions of Boise Cascade Corporation?
A1: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping
requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from daily to monthly when only pipeline
quality natural gas is and will be fired in the boilers.
Q2: Does EPA approve the use of monthly natural gas bills to
fulfill the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc as
proposed by Boise Paper Solutions of Boise Cascade Corporation?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of monthly natural gas bills to
fulfill the recordkeeping requirement of 40 CFR 60.48c, provided that
all natural gas on the fuel receipt is attributed to use in the two
boilers, regardless of the small amount that may be used for other
purposes, such as space heating, and that the amount of natural gas
used in each boiler is apportioned in equal proportions.
Abstract for [0700049]
Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the monitoring schedule for fuel
gas sulfur content from quarterly to semiannually under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, at Calpine Hermiston Power Plant in Oregon, based upon
demonstrated compliance and low variability for six quarters?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative fuel monitoring request. In
addition, based on amendments to NSPS subpart GG, promulgated on July
8, 2004, the requirement to monitor the sulfur content of natural gas
may be waived.
Abstract for [0700050]
Q: Does EPA approve a source test protocol for determinations of
the maximum heat input for use in a boiler derate demonstration, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart D, at the Roseburg Forest Products facility in
Roseburg, Oregon?
A: Yes. Based upon a review of the source test protocol and the
Piping and Instrument Diagram for the natural gas systems for both
boilers, EPA concludes that, under NSPS subpart D, if the source test
is conducted according to the protocol, it should provide the
information required to verify the maximum heat input, namely, gas flow
rate, calorific value, and supply pressure.
Abstract for [0700051]
Q: May a ``bag counting'' surrogate method for determining the
weight of incinerated waste be used to determine whether the co-fired
combustor exemption of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, applies to a BP
Exploration Alaska Incorporated waste incinerator located at the
Northstar Development Facility in the Beaufort Sea?
A: No. EPA finds that the surrogate method described will not
provide the accuracy required by the recordkeeping requirements of NSPS
subpart Ec. It is not clear from the request whether a distinction is
made between the differences in the weight of a typical bag of hospital
and medical/infectious waste and the weight of a typical bag of other
waste. Also, if an average weight of a bag of hospital and medical/
infectious waste is used, this may underestimate the actual amount of
hospital and medical/infectious waste that is being burned. Thus, EPA
has determined that the proposed surrogate method cannot be used for
the determination of whether the co-fired combustor exemption in 40 CFR
60.50c(c) is met. EPA will consider a different weight surrogate method
that adequately ensures that the exemption is met with a margin for
error.
Abstract for [0700052]
Q1: Does the addition of storage capacity, which did not increase
the hourly grain handling capacity, trigger applicability of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart DD, for the Busch Agricultural Resources, Incorporated
(BARI) Malt Plant Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho?
A1: Yes. EPA determines that the increase in storage capacity
triggers NSPS subpart DD applicability. The grain storage capacity
exceeded 2.5 million bushels in 2002 when the permanent storage
capacity was increased to 4 million bushels. Because the permanent
storage capacity for this facility exceeds 2.5 million bushels, the
facility meets the definition of a grain terminal elevator, as defined
in NSPS subpart DD, and is subject to the NSPS. In addition,
60.304(b)(4) of subpart DD, which states that ``the installation of
permanent storage capacity without an increase in hourly grain handling
capacity by itself would not be considered a modification of an
existing facility'', does not apply to BARI. Section 60.304(b)(4) of
subpart DD does not apply to those affected facilities that are
constructed at the time applicability was triggered or subsequent to
that time.
Q2: Is 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, applicable to the following
activities and equipment at the BARI Idaho Falls Malt Plant Facility in
Idaho Falls, Idaho:
(1) Malt load out operations;
(2) Residual/byproduct storage and load out operations;
(3) Conveyors located inside the malt house that are used to move
barley and off-kiln malt through the malt house operation; and
[[Page 44732]]
(4) A baghouse filter that is dedicated solely to controlling dust
emissions from grain and malt handling within the malt house operation.
A2: EPA determines the applicability for each of the specific
activities and equipment at BARI, as follows:
(1) NSPS subpart DD is not applicable to malt load out operations.
(2) NSPS subpart DD is not applicable to the storage and load out
operations of residuals or byproducts provided it is not possible for
these operations to handle grain. Reject hulls, grain fragments or dirt
that is handled and stored separately, as well as malted barley and
malting by-products, are not considered grain.
(3) Equipment being used is subject to NSPS subpart DD if it
handles unmalted barley part of the time, and malted and unmalted
barley at the same time because it is handling some amount of grain, as
well as conveyors located inside the malt house that are used to move
unmalted barley. However, conveyors located inside the malt house that
are used to move off-kiln malt are not subject to NSPS subpart DD.
(4) Emissions from a baghouse that is controlling dust from grain
and malt handling within the malt house operation are subject to NSPS
subpart DD, because the commingled emissions include grain handling
emissions that are subject to NSPS subpart DD.
Abstract for [0700053]
Q: Does the incineration of pharmaceutical wastes disposed of by
Providence Alaska Medical Center, a hospital in Alaska, require an
incineration facility, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, or 40 CFR part
62, subpart HHH, to demonstrate compliance with Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) rules?
A: Yes. EPA finds the HMIWI regulation applies to the incineration
of hospital, medical, and infectious wastes. EPA defines ``hospital
waste'' broadly, and it includes any waste or discarded materials
generated at a hospital, except unused items returned to the
manufacturer. Thus, pharmaceutical wastes generated at a hospital and
disposed of by the hospital are considered ``hospital waste'' under the
rules, and a facility that incinerates such waste is subject to HMIWI.
Abstract for [0700054]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan in lieu of the
continuous opacity monitoring (COMS) requirements of 40 CFR
60.105(a)(1) and corresponding requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUU, where a wet scrubber is to be installed on Puget Sound Refining's
(PSR's) fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) in Anacortes,
Washington?
A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring of the liquid flow rate and gas
flow rate for the wet gas scrubber, which is a jet-ejector design.
Calculation of the liquid-to-gas ratio must be done as outlined in
Tables 2 and 3 of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart
UUU, except that for purposes of determining and reporting excess
emissions for the FCCU, a 3-hour rolling average of the liquid-to-gas
ration will be used.
Abstract for [0700055]
Q: Does EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method
for stationary gas turbines, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at
ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated's Alpine Development Project in
North Slope Alaska?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of an alternate performance test
method, under NSPS subpart GG, only if the probe is designed and
conforms to the tests specified in EPA Guidance Document CG-031.
Abstract for [0700056]
Q1: Should an incinerator used to dispose of camp wastes at a
remote, temporary work camp in Nuiqsut, Alaska, and operated by Alaska
Interstate Construction, LLC (AIC), be subject to 40 CFR part 62,
subpart III, the Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI)?
A1: Yes. EPA determines that the work camp is an integral part of a
commercial operation, the AIC facility, and would not be there but for
generating profit as a commercial operation under 40 CFR part 62,
subpart III. The term ``commercial facility'' is not defined in the
CISWI regulation, but the American Heritage Dictionary defines
commercial as ``having profit, success, or immediate results as [a]
chief aim.'' Thus, the work camp incinerator would be considered to be
located at a ``commercial or industrial facility'' and would be subject
to CISWI.
Q2: Should AIC's work camp incinerator, which burns primarily
municipal solid waste, be regulated under 40 CFR part 62, subpart III?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that the incinerator should be regulated under
CISWI. The fact that the waste incinerated is considered to be
municipal solid waste does not mean that the incinerator would not be
considered to be a CISWI unit. This is apparent because of the
exemption that is provided for CISWI units under 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2)
for units that burn greater than 30 percent municipal solid waste.
AIC's work camp incinerator is considered to be a CISWI, but because it
burns greater than 30 percent municipal solid waste, it has an
exemption under NSPS subpart III.
Abstract for [0700057]
Q: Does EPA find that a coal transloader located in Port Wentworth,
Georgia, next to Georgia Power's Plant Kraft Steam-Electric Generating
Plant, and a coal preparation plant, which provides coal to the Plant
Kraft units, are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y?
A: No. EPA has determined that the transloader is not part of the
coal preparation plant on the property since it not connected to any of
its breaking, crushing, screening, wet or dry cleaning, or thermal
drying equipment, and thus is not subject to NSPS subpart Y. Since the
coal preparation plant was constructed prior to the applicability date
of October 24, 1974, it is not subject to NSPS subpart Y.
Abstract for [0700058]
Q: Is the installation of three solvent-based laminators at the
Catalyst International's rotogravure urethane coating line and printing
operations, located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart FFF?
A: Yes. EPA has determined that because the two new laminators to
be installed at Catalyst's Pennsylvania facility will coat a urethane
web, on a continuous basis, with an adhesive that meets the definition
of ink given in the NSPS subpart FFF rule using a gravure cylinder,
these laminators are subject to NSPS subpart FFF.
Abstract for [0700059]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for boilers 1
and 2 that fire fuels with low sulfur content at the Hercules'
Franklin, Virginia plant under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: EPA approves the alternative fuel sampling methodology for
Hercules' boiler 2. Hercules may use fuel supplier certifications in
lieu of a continuous opacity monitor (COM) to prove that very low
sulfur fuels are being combusted, and get relief from particulate
emission monitoring pursuant to 40 CFR 60.47c(a). EPA disapproved the
alternative monitoring proposal for Hercules' boiler 1 to use scrubber
parametric monitoring in lieu of installing a COM. Hercules will need
to install a particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring
system
[[Page 44733]]
(CEMS) unless it can show that this is not a viable alternative to a
COM.
Abstract for [0700060]
Q1. Does EPA approve a request to deviate from the assumption that
a violation of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission occurs if the
Curtis Bay Energy facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, operate their
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) above the
maximum charge rate and below the minimum HCl sorbent flow rate
simultaneously, as stated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at Sec.
60.56c(e)(3)? The facilities have actual hydrogen chloride (HCl)
emissions data from an EPA compliant continuous HCl emissions monitor
on a real-time basis.
A1. Yes. EPA agrees that the actual data, obtained from an EPA
compliant continuous HCl monitor on a real-time basis, that shows HCl
emissions are within the allowable limit of either 100 parts per
million by volume adjusted to 7 percent oxygen measured on a dry basis
at standard conditions or 93 percent reduction, is superior to using
surrogate parameter of HCl sorbent flow rate. An EPA compliant
continuous HCl monitor must meet Performance Specification 2 in 40 CFR
part 60, specifically the Specifications and Test Procedures for
SO2 and NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems in Stationary Sources in Appendix B, and the quality assurance
procedures specified in Appendix F, including the revised Relative
Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) calculation procedures in Enclosure 1 of the
response letter. In addition, a CEMS for oxygen must be installed,
calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with the
requirements of Appendices B and F of part 60. EPA describes additional
requirements applicable for CEMS in the EPA response letter and its
Enclosure 1.
Q2. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate as specified in Sec.
60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay
Energy Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) located
in Baltimore, Maryland?
A2. No. EPA finds that the maximum charge rate is an operating
parameter used to determine compliance with other applicable emission
limits in addition to HCl emission limits. The definition for maximum
charge rate given in Sec. 60.51c of 40 CFR for a continuous and
intermittent HMIWI is ``* * * 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average
charge rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.'' By
definition, the maximum charge rate is linked to compliance with all
applicable emission limits which include particulate matter (PM),
carbon monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd),
mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant approval to eliminate
monitoring of the maximum charge rate as an operating parameter since
it is linked to all emission limits and not linked only to HCl
emissions.
Q3. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for minimum hydrogen chloride (HCl) sorbent
flow rate as specified in Sec. 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part
60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy Hospital/Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) located in Baltimore, Maryland?
A3. Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to eliminate
monitoring the minimum HCl sorbent flow rate as an operating parameter
when the HCl emissions are measured using an EPA compliant continuous
HCl monitor, as described in the EPA response letter.
Q4. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights and hourly
charge rates as specified in Sec. 60.58c(b)(2)(iii) in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy HMIWIs, located in Baltimore,
Maryland?
A4. No. EPA finds that, as previously stated in the answer to
question 2 of this determination, the maximum charge rate parameters
are linked to other emission limits besides HCl emission limits.
Q5. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping
requirements for the amount and type of HCl sorbent used during each
hour of operation as specified in Sec. 60.58c(b)(2)(vii) in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy HMIWIs located in
Baltimore, Maryland?
A5. Yes. EPA agrees that actual data from an EPA compliant
continuous HCl monitor, as described in the EPA response letter, will
provide HCl emissions information better than using surrogate
parameters such as amount and type of HCl sorbent.
Abstract for [0700061]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for an auxiliary boiler at the
Cardinal Power Plant, located in Brilliant, Ohio, that has a design
heat input capacity of 652.58 million British Thermal Units per hour
and that combusts only number 2 fuel oil?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this alternative opacity
monitoring procedure under NSPS subpart Db, and states the conditions
and requirements of the approval in the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [0700062]
Q: Does EPA find that condition three of the March 15, 2006,
Approval, related to visible emission readings by a certified observer
using Method 9 at the auxiliary boiler stack, apply to four hours of
continuous operation or cumulative operation under CFR part 60,
Appendix A, at the Cardinal Operating Company's facility in Brilliant,
Ohio?
A: Yes. EPA finds that condition three applies to four hours of
continuous operation under NSPS subpart A.
Abstract for [0700064]
Q: Is the proposed reduction in the monitoring frequency for the
321-M machining room at the Savannah River Company's facility in Aiken,
South Carolina, acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart H?
A: Yes. EPA finds that replacing continuous monitoring with
quarterly confirmatory sampling to verify low emissions is acceptable
under NSPS subpart H, based upon review of data submitted with the
proposal.
Abstract for [0700065]
Q: Is the procedure that United Distillers proposed for derating a
boiler at its plant in Louisville, Kentucky in order to avoid
applicability under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db acceptable?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the boiler derate since the
proposal meets the criteria that a derate must be permanent and cannot
be reversed with shutting down the boiler. For this unit, a derate that
involves replacing a natural gas control valve with a smaller valve and
changing the internal components in the fuel oil control valve to
restrict the oil firing rate are acceptable under NSPS subpart Db
because they cannot be reversed without shutting the unit down. As a
condition for approval for this derate, United Distillers must monitor
fuel usage in order to verify that the actual heat input for the unit
never exceeds 100 million British thermal units per hour.
Abstract for [0700066]
Q1: Are the alternative parameter operating limits that Knauf
Fiberglass has proposed to use for defining excess emissions at its
Lanett, Alabama, plant
[[Page 44734]]
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP?
A1: Yes. Based upon information provided by the manufacturer of the
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) installed on Knauf's wool fiberglass
insulation line, EPA finds that the requirement to monitor ESP primary
current, primary voltage, and secondary current can be waived since
monitoring secondary voltage, inlet water flow, and inlet water solids
content will provide adequate information about ESP performance under
NSPS subpart PPP.
Q2. Would EPA approve the Knauf Fiberglass request to use an
alternative definition of excess emissions with respect to the certain
operating parameters for which monitoring is required under subpart
PPP. Specifically, Knauf Fiberglass requests that scrubber pressure
drops, scrubber water flows, ESP secondary voltages, and ESP inlet
water flows greater than 130 percent of baseline levels during a
successful performance test and ESP inlet water solids content less
than 70 percent of the baseline during a successful performance test
not be considered periods of excess emissions. The term, excess
emissions, is defined under NSPS subpart PPP as any monitoring data
that is less than 70 percent of the lowest value or more than 130
percent of the highest value of each operating parameter recorded
during the most recent performance test.
A2. Yes. Knauf Fiberglass request is acceptable. EPA agrees that
control device efficiency should improve when operating in these
ranges.
Abstract for [0700067]
Q: Does EPA allow emissions reductions that occurred at the Ashland
Oil facility in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, when installing controls in
order to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, be used as emission
offsets to avoid applicability under 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ, by
offsetting emission increases resulting from the installation of new
drains to an existing aggregate system?
A: No. EPA finds that emission reductions achieved through
activities which are for the purpose of attaining compliance with
another rule cannot be used as emission offsets to avoid applicability
under this rule. This position has been stated in a previous EPA
determination issued by Region 10 under NSPS subpart 60. [SEE ADI
Control Number 9700065.]
Abstract for [0700068]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method and operating limit,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, for the
Philtex/Ryton Complex (Philtex) in Borger, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative testing and operating limits
specified in Sec. 60.502(h) of subpart XX and Sec. 63.425(e) of
subpart R on the basis of specific stipulations, which address: The
maximum flow of vapors from loading operations; the heat content of
vapors routed to the flare during loading operations; the leak
tightness of rail cars; detecting leaks and repairing the vapor
manifold system; verifying that excess emissions will not occur from
storage tanks at the maximum pressures during loading; ensuring
gasoline is loaded into only rail cars which pass the leak test; and
monitoring the pressure continuously in the vapor collection manifold
system.
Abstract for [0700069]
Q: Should vapor combustors be considered incineration devices or
process flares under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX?
A: EPA determines that the vapor combustor is an incinerator and
thus should be tested as such. Vapor combustors do not meet the design
criteria of any one of the three flare types listed in Sec. 60.18 of
the General Provisions. Additionally, vapor combustors can be emission
tested using EPA reference methods.
Abstract for [0700070]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for gasoline
loading racks and a hydrogen plant, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J,
located at TPI Petroleum's Ardmore petroleum refinery? TPI wants to
install a continuous monitoring system for periodic fuel gas sampling,
instead of a continuous emission monitoring system.
A: EPA Headquarters is reviewing the applicability of NSPS part 60,
subpart J to refinery generated gas streams that are combusted in
refinery combustion devices, such as in product loading rack systems
and hydrogen production facilities. That review is currently on-going
at a national level. These nationally significant NSPS part 60, staff
in EPA Headquarters office in Washington, D.C. EPA Region 6 office does
not have the authority to process this request until a national
determination has been made.
Abstract for [0700071]
Q1: Does EPA find that any materials used as a feedstock on the
Spherical Catalyst Manufacturing (SCM) Line 1 at UOP's Shreveport,
Louisiana plant meet the 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU usage of the term
``mineral'' (such as ``alumina'')?
A1: No. EPA finds none of the feed materials used on SCM Line 1
(pure aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and/or aluminum hydroxychloride
solution) are a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in the definition of
``mineral processing plant,'' located in NSPS subpart UUU at Sec.
60.731.
Q2: Is synthetic alumina produced on the SCM Line 1 at UOP's
Shreveport, Louisiana plant, using a combination of pure aluminum,
hydrochloric acid, and/or aluminum hydroxychloride solution, a process
that meets that applicability criteria in Sec. 60.730 of 40 CFR part
60, subpart UUU?
A2: No. EPA finds that the synthetic alumina produced on SCM Line 1
does not meet the applicability criteria in Sec. 60.730 of 40 CFR part
60, subpart UUU.
Q3: Is SCM Line 1, located at UOP's Shreveport, Louisiana plant,
not processing a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart UUU, and not producing a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in
the definition of the affected facility (each calciner and dryer at a
``mineral processing plant'') in subpart UUU, potentially subject to
NSPS subpart UUU?
A3: No. EPA determines SCM Line 1 cannot be subject to NSPS subpart
UUU, because it neither processes a ``mineral,'' nor does it produce a
``mineral,'' and, therefore, it does not meet the NSPS subpart UUU
definition of a ``mineral processing plant''.
Abstract for [0700073]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes two
turbines at the DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility in Lewisville,
Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, pursuant to
40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and
moisture removal from the 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 turbines will be exempt from
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction (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 [0700074]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes
reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines at the Austin Community
Landfill in Austin, Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart
[[Page 44735]]
WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and
moisture removal from the 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 (SSM) Plan required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA.
However, the treatment system supplying gas to the IC engines will have
to be included in the SSM Plan.
Abstract for [0700075]
Q: Does EPA consider the thermal desorber and pollution control
system which treats diesel-contaminated drilling cuttings, under
construction by Pollution Management, Incorporated in Beebe, Arkansas,
to be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
A: No. EPA does not consider the specified treatment of this
material, diesel-contaminated drilling cuttings, by low temperature
thermal desorption followed by a pollution control system, to be
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC.
Abstract for [0700076]
Q: Morton Custom Plastics Company in Harrisburg, North Carolina is
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT and requests a change in the due
dates for its semiannual compliance statements. Does EPA allow an
adjustment in the due dates?
A: No. The NSPS General Provisions at Sec. 60.19 allow an
adjustment in the postmark deadline for semiannual compliance
statements when information is provided which indicates that an
adjustment is warranted. Since Morton Custom Plastics has provided no
information to support a change in the deadline, EPA does not approve
the company's request.
Abstract for [0700077]
Q: The City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, operates an emergency
generator which is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII and is
required by Sec. 60.4207(a) to use diesel fuel meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(a), beginning October 1, 2007. Does EPA
approve the request that the City use the remaining non-compliant fuel
in its inventory for six months following October 1, 2007, pursuant to
Sec. 60.4207(c)?
A: Yes. EPA approves the City of Winston-Salem's request under NSPS
subpart IIII. Based on EPA's review of the information provided, the
City's petition is approved pursuant to Sec. 60.4207, and the City may
use the remaining non-compliant fuel in the emergency generator for a
period of six months past the deadline of October 1, 2007.
Abstract for [0700078]
Q1: Does EPA approve a request to deviate from the assumption that
a violation of the dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) emission occurs if the Curtis
Bay Energy (CBE) facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, operate their
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) above the maximum
fabric filter inlet temperature, above the maximum charge rate, and
below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate simultaneously as
stated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at Sec. 60.56c(e)(2)?
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under NSPS subpart
Ec to deviate from the assumption that a violation of the CDD/CDF
emission limit occurs, if the facility simultaneously operates above
the maximum fabric filter inlet temperature, above the maximum charge
rate, and below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate, provided
five conditions are met pertaining to fabric inlet temperature,
incinerator carbon monoxide emissions, opacity limits, the feed rate
for the powdered activated carbon system, and the compliance
characteristics of the incinerator's operation.
Q2: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate, as specified in Sec.
60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE
facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
A2: No. EPA finds the maximum charge rate is an operating parameter
used to determine compliance with other applicable emission limits in
addition to dioxin/furan emission limits. EPA's rationale for this
determination is explained in its August 7, 2006 letter to CBE
regarding this matter. A brief explanation is that the definition for
maximum charge rate given in Sec. 60.51c of 40 CFR for a continuous
and intermittent HMIWI is ``* * * 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour
average charge rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.'' By
definition, the maximum charge rate is linked to compliance with all
applicable emission limits which includes particulate matter (PM),
carbon monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd),
mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant approval under NSPS
subpart Ec to eliminate monitoring the maximum charge rate as an
operating parameter since it is linked to all emission limits and not
linked only to dioxin/furan emissions.
Q3: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for maximum fabric filter inlet temperature as
specified in Sec. 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec,
at the CBE facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under NSPS subpart
Ec, provided that requirements are met pertaining to inlet fabric
filter temperature, carbon monoxide emissions, and COMS operation.
Q4: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate minimum dioxin/furan
sorbent flow rate as specified in Sec. 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under NSPS subpart
Ec, provided that the facilities install, calibrate, and maintain the
powdered activated carbon (PAC) flow rate at a rate of at least 90
percent of the highest sorbent feed rate based on a 3-hour rolling
average (readings taken at least once every hour) measured during the
most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with mercury
emission limit.
Q5: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weight and hourly
charge rates, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE facilities
in Baltimore, Maryland?
A5: No. EPA does not approve CBE's request to eliminate the
recordkeeping requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights
and hourly charge rates under NSPS subpart Ec. This determination is
consistent with EPA's previous determination letters of July 13 and
August 7, 2006 to CBE regarding this matter.
Q6: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping
requirements for the amount and type of dioxin/furan and sorbent used
during each hour of operation under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the
CBE facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
A6: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to eliminate the
sorbent flow rate recordkeeping requirements for the primary control
system for CDD/CDF emissions provided CBE maintains records of the date
and time of identified bag failures including the date and time that
failed bags were replaced. In addition, CBE shall
[[Page 44736]]
maintain hourly records of PAC flow rate as required by Maryland's
111(d)/129 Plan (COMAR 26.11.08.08-1) provision relating to the main
operating parameter for controlling mercury emissions. For the CBE
incinerator units, the PAC system provides incidental or secondary
control of CDD/CDF. Also, as a final condition, EPA is requiring that
the approved CBE alternative monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
(including an approved SOP under Item 1) in this letter and in the
other two (2) approval letters (to date July 13, 2006 and August 7,
2006) be included in a revised CBE Title V Operating Permit Application
and be submitted in a timely manner to the Maryland Department of the
Environment for incorporation into the Title V Operating Permit.
Summary tables are in letter.
Abstract for [0700079]
Q1: Does EPA approve Curtis Bay Energy (CBE) alternative monitoring
request to deviate from the assumption that a violation of the dioxin/
furan (CDD/CDF) emission occurs if the facility operates their
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) above the maximum
fabric filter inlet temperature, above the maximum charge rate, and
below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate simultaneously as
stated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec Sec. 60.56c(e)(2), for its two
existing, large-sized, continuous HMIWI Operations located in
Baltimore, Maryland?
A1: Yes, EPA conditionally approves the request to deviate from the
assumption that a violation of the CDD/CDF emission limit occurs, if
the facility simultaneously operates above the maximum fabric filter
inlet temperature, above the maximum charge rate, and below the minimum
dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate provided CBE meets the five conditions
described in the EPA response letter. The five conditions were
established based on EPA's review of the Remedia Catalytic Filter
System performance guarantee conditions of W. L. Gore and Associates,
Incorporated; the CBE standard operating procedure for Baghouse
Operations; and summaries of five consecutive annual CDD/CDF stack
tests (15 stack test run summaries) conducted during the period from
February 2002 through February 2006.
Q2: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate as specified in 40 CFR
60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
A2: No. As indicated in a previous EPA response dated August 7,
2006 to CBE, the maximum charge rate is an operating parameter used to
determine compliance with other applicable emission limits in addition
to dioxin/furan emission limits. The definition for maximum charge rate
given in 40 CFR 60.51c for a continuous and intermittent HMIWI is ``* *
* 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average charge rate measured during
the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all
applicable emission limits.'' By definition, the maximum charge rate is
linked to compliance with all applicable emission limits which includes
particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl,
lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant
approval to eliminate monitoring the maximum charge rate as an
operating parameter since it is linked to all emission limits and not
linked only to dioxin/furan emissions. This determination is consistent
with a previous EPA response to CBE dated August 7, 2006.
Q3: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for maximum fabric filter inlet temperature as
specified in Sec. 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
A3: Yes, EPA conditionally approves the request provided that the
requirements described in the EPA response letter are met. This
determination is consistent with two previous EPA responses to CBE
dated July 13, 2006 and August 7, 2006.
Q4: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate minimum dioxin/furan
sorbent flow rate as specified in Sec. 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Ec?
A4: Yes, EPA conditionally approves the request provided that the
requirement described in the EPA response letter is met.
Q5: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weight and hourly
charge rates?
A5: No. EPA will not approve the request to eliminate the
recordkeeping requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights
and hourly charge rates since these records are needed to demonstrate
continuous compliance. This determination is consistent with two
previous EPA responses to CBE dated July 13, 2006 and August 7, 2006.
Q6: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping
requirements for the amount and type of dioxin/furan and sorbent used
during each hour of operation of the control equipment?
A6: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to eliminate the
sorbent flow rate recordkeeping requirements for the primary control
system for CDD/CDF emissions, as specified in Sec. 60.57c(a) and Table
3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, provided CBE meets the conditions for
alternative monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, and submits a
timely revised Title V Operating Permit Application incorporating such
conditions, as specified in the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [0700080]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a limited time period due to
construction of new boilers and having to bypass the existing
continuous opacity monitors at the University of Virginia's main
heating plant in Charlottesville, Virginia?
A: Yes. Under the circumstances, EPA approves the use of Method 9
procedures, under NSPS subpart Db, for the short period that the
existing continuous opacity monitor must be bypassed to tie in two new
boilers.
Abstract for [0800001]
Q: Is a proposal to monitor fuel usage on a monthly basis, rather
than a daily basis, acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for
seven natural gas fired boilers at the Department of the Army's base in
Fort Benning, Georgia?
A: Yes. Since there are no applicable emission limits under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Dc for boilers that combust natural gas, EPA
determines compliance for these affected facilities can be adequately
verified with monthly fuel usage records. NSPS subpart Dc contains
emissions limits for sulfur dioxide and particulate, but these limits
are only applicable to units that combust coal, oil, and/or wood.
Abstract for [0800002]
Q: Is the initial performance particulate testing requirement at a
baghouse that controls emissions from a crusher, which runs for
approximately 15 to 20 minutes per day, waived under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOO (Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants) for the Carbo Ceramics Company in McIntyre, Georgia?
A: EPA conditionally approves waiving the initial performance test
for particulate matter testing requirement under Sec. 60.11(b). Carbo
Ceramics Company must conduct the visible emission observation testing,
required
[[Page 44737]]
under Sec. 60.11(b), for a period of at least one hour (10 six-minute
averages) at the exit of the baghouse, which is approved by EPA under
Sec. 60.8(b)(5) due to the intermittent use of the crusher.
Abstract for [0800003]
Q: Is the reduced hydrogen sulfide monitoring frequency that Shell
Chemical proposed for a fuel gas stream generated in No. 1 Naphtha
Splitter at their Mobile, Alabama refinery acceptable for 40 CFR part
60, subpart J?
A: Yes. EPA determines that Shell's proposal to reduce the
monitoring frequency from four times per day to once per quarter is
acceptable, based on the review of historical monitoring data submitted
with the request which confirms that hydrogen sulfide is not present in
the fuel gas stream.
Abstract for [0800004]
Q1: Are alternative hydrogen sulfide monitoring procedures and
frequencies proposed for three fuel gas streams subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart J, at the Hunt Refining Company facility in Tuscaloosa,
Alabama acceptable?
A1: Yes. EPA finds all three of the proposed alternatives are
acceptable because the hydrogen sulfide content of these streams is
inherently low.
Q2: Is the alternative monitoring proposal to monitor the
continuous presence of a pilot flame at an enclosed flare, subject to
NESHAP subpart R, in lieu of temperature monitoring at the firebox,
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the Hunt Refining
Company facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?
A2: No. EPA denies the alternative monitoring proposal since
monitoring the pilot flame at an enclosed flare alone is not adequate
to demonstrate continuous compliance. This conclusion is based upon
several previous EPA determinations and the revisions to NESHAP subpart
R, promulgated by EPA in 2003.
Abstract for [0800005]
Q: Do the natural gas processing steps for gas collected for
combustion in internal combustion engines to produce electricity at
three landfills located in Florida including Trail Ridge Landfill
(Baldwin), Brevard County Landfill (Cocoa), and Seminole County
Landfill (Geneva), constitute ``treatment'' under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW?
A: Yes. EPA finds that this combination of processing steps
constitutes treatment, as stated in several previous EPA
determinations. In addition, the treated gas would not be subject to
control requirements under subpart WWW since the gas from all three
landfills is filtered to one micron, dewatered, and compressed.
Abstract for [0800006]
Q: What is the required frequency for relative accuracy test audits
(RATAs) on sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems
installed on sulfuric acid plants subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart H
as referred to in the letter from Koogler and Associates?
A: EPA finds that the only RATA that part 60 specifically requires
for sulfur dioxide monitors installed under subpart H is the one
conducted during the initial performance test on the facility. It would
also be appropriate to require an additional RATA when existing
monitors are being recertified. In addition, state and local agencies
may require more frequent RATAs on a case-by-case basis.
Abstract for [0800007]
Q: Does EPA approve the use an alternative performance test method,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, to verify compliance with the
applicable opacity limit for rotary sand dryers located inside of
buildings at two Triangle Brick Company plants in Moncure, North
Carolina and Wadesboro, North Carolina, if no visible emissions are
detected during a 75-minute EPA Method 22 observation period on the
exterior of the buildings?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed performance testing procedures,
consisting of Method 22 observations made on the exterior of the
buildings where they are located, would be acceptable in lieu of EPA
Method 9 for rotary sand dryers located inside of buildings. The EPA
Method 22 procedures are similar to a compliance option under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOO (Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants), allow for affected facilities located inside
buildings. 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) allows for the requirement for an initial
performance test to be waived when an owner or operator demonstrates
through other means that an affected facility is in compliance.
Abstract for [0800008]
Q: Does EPA approve the Duke Energy Corporation request for a
waiver of the requirement to conduct Method 5 testing on forced air
mechanical vents on limestone transfer towers and reagent preparation
buildings at three power plants at the Marshall, Belews Creek, Allen,
and Cliffside Stations in North Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO?
A: Yes. EPA finds that, based upon the design and operation of the
affected facilities within the transfer towers and reagent preparation
buildings, particulate emissions should be extremely low. Due to the
low potential for emissions, waiving the Method 5 testing requirement
for any forced air mechanical vent where no visible emissions are
detected over the course of a one-hour Method 9 observation period
would be acceptable to EPA.
Abstract for [0800009]
Q: Is monitoring the strength of the solution in the caustic
scrubber for a fuel gas stream at the Chevron Products Company refinery
in Pascagoula, Mississippi an acceptable alternative to continuously
monitoring the hydrogen sulfide content of the fuel gas stream?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan with the
condition that Chevron amends it to specify what steps the company will
take if monitoring data indicates that the caustic solution is more
than 80 percent spent, the maximum allowable strength.
Abstract for [0800010]
Q1: Is a proposal to delay the installation of gas collection wells
in active areas that have held waste for five years or more at the
Three Rivers Landfill in Aiken County, South Carolina, acceptable under
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A1: No. EPA finds that the proposal is not acceptable under NSPS
subpart WWW since the collection system would be less effective than
that required under provisions in 40 CFR 60.753. The use of the
leachate collection system only to extract gas from active areas that
have held waste for five years or more will result in a less effective
system than one that incorporates both the leachate system components
and properly located extraction wells.
Q2: Does EPA allow quarterly methane surface concentration
monitoring to be waived for roads, active areas, truck traffic areas,
and areas with slopes greater than 3:1, at the Three Rivers Landfill
located in Aiken County, South Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW?
A2: EPA waives the monitoring for roads, but not for the other
areas covered by the request under NSPS subpart WWW. Based upon
previous EPA determinations, surface methane monitoring requirements
cannot be waived for active areas, truck traffic areas, or areas with
slopes less than 4:1.
Q3: Does EPA find that a probe may be placed near the tops of
vegetation as an alternative to placing the methane
[[Page 44738]]
surface concentration monitoring probe within five to ten centimeters
of the landfill surface, at the Three Rivers Landfill in Aiken County,
South Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A3: No. EPA finds this proposal is not acceptable under NSPS
subpart WWW because dilution of the sample will result in the methane
concentration being lower at the top of vegetation than it is at the
landfill surface.
Q4: Does EPA waive the requirement to monitor the temperature of
internal combustion engines used as control devices at the Three Rivers
Landfill be waived under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A4: No. Although EPA finds that the combustion temperature
monitoring requirement cannot be waived under NSPS subpart WWW, EPA has
approved temperature monitoring alternatives in the past. Therefore,
Three Rivers Landfill may want to consider approval of a similar
alternative for its site.
Q5: Does EPA approve the use of an orifice plate for measuring the
flow rate to the flare that serves as backup control device at the
Three Rivers Landfill under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A5: Yes. The use of orifice plates are commonly used for measuring
process flow rates, therefore, such practice is appropriate and does
not require prior EPA approval for use at the Three Rivers Landfill.
Q6: Does EPA approve the use of a continuous relighter as an
alternative to a heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam
sensor or thermocouple at the pilot light or in the flame, for a backup
flare expected to operate for 120 days or less per year at the Three
Rivers Landfill under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A6: No. EPA determines that a continuous relighter is not an
acceptable substitute for a heat sensing device under NSPS subpart WWW,
as stated in a previous EPA determination.
Abstract for [0800011]
Q: Are the alternative locations that Montenay Charleston proposed
for installing the carbon monoxide (CO) continuous emission monitoring
systems on its municipal waste combustor units in Charleston, South
Carolina acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb?
A: Yes. Based upon information supplied with the request, EPA finds
that the CO concentration at the proposed alternative monitoring sites
is representative of the concentration at the monitoring site specified
in NSPS subpart Cb.
Abstract for [0800012]
Q: Does EPA approve delaying implementation of the pressure,
temperature, and oxygen monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW until September 2010, for seven wells that are located in
an active area that first received waste in September 2005, at the
Chestnut Ridge Landfill in Heiskell, Tennessee?
A: EPA finds that the proposal to delay monitoring for these wells
would be consistent with the intent of Sec. 60.753 in NSPS subpart WWW
provided that the area of the landfill where the wells are located is
not closed or does not reach final grade prior to September 2010.
Abstract for [0800013]
Q1: Is the shortened test duration that the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) proposed for the initial nitrogen oxides performance
test on two auxiliary boilers at the Cumberland Fossil Plant in
Cumberland, Tennessee acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that the TVA proposal to shorten the initial
performance test to three hours is acceptable under NSPS subpart Db
because of the high cost of conducting a 24-hour test outweighs any
benefit associated with a test of this duration.
Q2: Is the TVA proposal to conduct future performance tests every
400 hours of operation instead of conducting annual performance tests
at the Cumberland Fossil Plant in Cumberland, Tennessee acceptable
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
A2: No. EPA finds that the proposal to base the schedule for future
performance testing only on hours of operation is not acceptable under
NSPS subpart Db due to the lack of historical information regarding the
frequency of operation and the margin of compliance for the units in
question. Since burning fuel in order to operate the auxiliary boilers
only for testing purposes would be a waste of resources, the
requirement to conduct annual tests may be waived during any year when
the auxiliary units are not used for starting up the power boilers at
the Cumberland Fossil Plant.
Abstract for [0800014]
Q: Is the Duke Energy proposal to use quality assurance (QA)
procedures and schedules from 40 CFR part 75 to satisfy QA requirements
for the combustion turbines at its electric power peaking plant in
Brownsville, Tennessee acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request because the turbines in question
operate intermittently, and the proposed alternative procedures reduce
the likelihood that Duke will need to operate the turbines only for
testing purposes during some calendar quarters under NSPS subpart GG.
EPA has approved similar proposals in the past.
Abstract for [0800015]
Q: Is the proposal to use a predictive emission monitoring system
(PEMS) as a substitute for a nitrogen oxides continuous emission
monitoring system on Boiler No. 6 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) acceptable?
A: No. EPA does not approve using a PEMS to measure nitrogen oxides
emissions for Boiler No. 6 at this time. EPA would be willing to
consider this proposal if ORNL submits additional information for the
PEMS based on a relative accuracy test and provides a description of
the quality assurance program for the PEMS.
Abstract for [0800016]
Q1: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db applies to a wood
burner/thermal oil heater/rotary dryer system at the Norbord Georgia
Incorporated (Norbord) oriented strand board manufacturing facility in
Cordele, Georgia?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that the wood burner/thermal oil heater/rotary
dryer system is a steam generating unit, and is therefore subject to
NSPS subpart Db.
Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure
for the wood burner/thermal oil heater/rotary dryer system for Norbord
facility located in Cordele, Georgia, since the formation of condensate
may interfere with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Db? Norbord proposes that the exhaust from the
system be ducted through a wet electrostatic precipitator and then
through two regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs).
A2: No. EPA finds that Norbord has not provided information to
justify an alternative monitoring procedure under NSPS subpart Db. The
temperature of the exhaust exiting the RTOs should exceed the dew point
of the steam, therefore, there is no reason to assume that water
droplets will interfere with a COMS.
Abstract for [M070016]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEE, for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. of
Sauget, Illinois, to use an extractive hydrogen chloride (HCl)
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance
with the hydrogen chloride/
[[Page 44739]]
chlorine gas emission standard and waive the monitoring requirements
pertaining to spray dryer scrubbers set forth in 40 CFR
63.1209(o)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii)?
A: No. EPA finds the request does not include any data or
information to demonstrate the HCl CEMS initial accuracy, precision,
and reliability under MACT subpart EEE. Further, the request does not
document periodic (daily, quarterly, and annually) quality assurance
and quality control procedures for each HCl CEMS.
Abstract for [M070017]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan in lieu of the
continuous opacity monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(1) and
corresponding requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, where a wet
scrubber is to be installed on Puget Sound Refining's fluidized
catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) in Anacortes, Washington?
A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring of the liquid flow rate and gas
flow rate for the wet gas scrubber, which is a jet-ejector design.
Calculation of the liquid-to-gas ratio must be done as outlined in
Tables 2 and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, except that for purposes
of determining and reporting excess emissions for the FCCU, a 3-hour
rolling average of the liquid-to-gas ration will be used.
Abstract for [M070018]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring application (AMA),
submitted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT)
plan, for the Celanese Clear Lake Plant (Celanese) located in Pasadena,
Texas, consisting of the use of minimum liquid levels in the condenser/
absorber and entrainment separator in conjunction with minimum blowdown
rate from the quench receiver to monitor solids content of the scrubber
liquid under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMA under MACT subpart EEE
if Celanese incorporates specific conditions into the CPT and
automatically controls the flow of demineralized water, as specified in
the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [M070019]
Q1: Does EPA find that Train I and Train II Rotary Kiln
Incinerators (RKI) at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas,
with shrouds constructed at both ends, can be used as an alternative
measure to control combustion gas leaks under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE?
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring
request for RKI at the Clean Harbors facility, under MACT subpart EEE.
The additional requirements that RKI would need to meet are set out in
the EPA response letter.
Q2: Does EPA find that Train I and Train II RKIs at the Clean
Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas, which monitor stack gas flow
rate, can be used instead of flue gas flow rate under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE?
A2: Yes. EPA determines that stack gas flow rate can be used
instead of flue gas flow rate under MACT subpart EEE.
Q3: Does EPA approve that a measurement of pressure drop across the
low energy wet scrubber be waived under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE for
Train I and Train II RKIs at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park,
Texas?
A3: Yes. EPA approves waiving a measurement of pressure drop across
the wet scrubber, under MACT subpart EEE, provided that a minimum
liquid to gas ratio is established and a scrubber is operated in
accordance with design specifications set out in the EPA response
letter.
Q4: Does EPA find that the liquid flow rate may be monitored in
lieu of liquid feed pressure for a wet scrubber under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE, at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas?
A4: EPA determines that liquid flow rate may be monitored in lieu
of liquid feed pressure under MACT subpart EEE, provided that the
conditions specified in response A3, above are met, as specified in the
EPA response letter.
Q5: Does EPA approve a 10-second delay if the pressure in the
combustion zone remain positive for 30 continuous seconds to indicate a
combustion system leak before an Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO)
is engaged under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE for Train I and Train II
RKIs at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas?
A5: No. EPA does not approve the 10-second delay since the
justification provided is not acceptable. EPA determines that for
purposes of MACT subpart EEE, an AWFCO must be engaged any time the
pressure in the combustion system is positive for more than one second.
Abstract for [M070020]
Q: Does EPA approve a revision to the alternative monitoring plan
that the Agency previously approved on December 12, 2003 for the
Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana, to allow the facility the
options under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G to reduce hazardous air
pollutant emissions either by greater than 98 weight-percent or to a
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less
stringent?
A: Yes. EPA approves the revision to the alternative monitoring
plan under NSPS subpart G, providing the facility both options offered
by the regulations. The original conditions in the December 12, 2003
letter for application to EPA to reduce the frequency of monitoring
still apply.
Abstract for [M070021]
Q1: The Dow Freeport Plant (Dow) Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI)
located in Freeport, Texas has an IP.21 (data historian system) to
calculate the hourly rolling average (HRA) and 12-hour rolling average.
Is it allowed to continue burning hazardous waste while IP.21 is down,
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that the RKI can continue burning hazardous
waste while IP.21 is down if the Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO)
is initiated based on an instantaneous data, as indicated in the EPA
response letter.
Q2: Can the DOW RKI have positive pressure in the combustion zone
for 30 seconds to indicate a combustion system leak and before the
AWFCO is engaged, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A2: No. EPA denies the request for any time delay before triggering
an AWFCO since pressure in the combustion chamber is higher than
ambient pressure.
Q3: Can a freshwater make-up rate to the scrubber system be used as
an alternative to measure blowdown rate and tank level to control and
monitor solids content of the scrubber liquid at the Dow RKI, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A3: Yes. EPA finds that the freshwater make-up rate to the scrubber
system can be used as an alternative to blowdown rate and tank level
with requirements to establish and monitor the liquid to gas (L/
G)ratio, as specified in the EPA response letter.
Q4: For a scrubber, along with minimum liquid and maximum flue gas
flow, a minimum liquid feed pressure and minimum scrubber pump amperage
are monitored. Can hazardous waste be allowed to burn if one of the
three parameters is out of control at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE?
A4: Yes. However, EPA finds that the AWFCO will be instituted if
any two of the parameters exceed the operating parameter limits (OPL)
established during the Comprehensive Performance Testing (CPT).
[[Page 44740]]
Q5: Can an AWFCO be instituted when there is a loss in any two
states of Ionizing Wet Scrubber (IWS) at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE?
A5: EPA will evaluate the results of the initial CPT with any three
of the four IWS units operating shows, and if these are acceptable,
then Dow will be allowed to set an AWFCO for power loss when more than
one IWS units is `shut-down', as specified in the EPA response letter.
Q6: Can a requirement to establish an OPL for the temperature in
the secondary combustion chamber (SCC) be waived at the Dow RKI, under
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A6: No. EPA finds that the requirement to establish an OPL for the
temperature cannot be waived since the AWFCO must be triggered anytime
the pressure in the SCC is higher than the ambient pressure.
Q7: Can a manufacturer's specification be used to establish a limit
on the carbon bed's inlet temperature at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE?
A7: EPA finds that the manufacturer's specification can be used if
the facility operates the carbon bed in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications.
Q8: Can a requirement to monitor pH be waived for the acid absorber
at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A8: A requirement to monitor pH can be waived if the absorber is
operated within the HRA limits on L/G ration, minimum freshwater makeup
flow rate, and total pressure drop across the scrubber.
Q9: Can pH be monitored on scrubber system comprising of an
ionizing wet scrubber and a pre-scrubber and set it as AWFCO at the Dow
RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A9: Yes. EPA finds that the pH can be monitored on scrubber system
and set it as AWFCO.
Q10: Can the Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) be based on
liquid feed pressure for individual scrubbers on the scrubber system at
the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A10: Yes. EPA finds that the AWFCO can be based on liquid feed
pressure for individual scrubbers.
Abstract for [M070022]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method and operating limit,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, for the
Philtex/Ryton Complex in Borger, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative testing and operating limits
specified in Sec. 60.502(h) of MACT subpart XX and Sec. 63.425(e) of
subpart R on the basis of specific stipulations, which address: The
maximum flow of vapors from loading operations; the heat content of
vapors routed to the flare during loading operations; the leak
tightness of rail cars; detecting leaks and repairing the vapor
manifold system; verifying that excess emissions will not occur from
storage tanks at the maximum pressures during loading; ensuring
gasoline is loaded into only rail cars which pass the leak test; and
monitoring the pressure continuously in the vapor collection manifold
system.
Abstract for [M070023]
Q1: Should ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), which owns and operates
reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) at a pipeline
compressor station be required, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, to
start up the RICE for the sole purpose of recording the pressure drop
across the catalyst as required by 40 CFR 63.6640(a) if it is not
operating during a particular month? Does EPA approve ANR request to
not start up the RICE under the condition described above for three
compressor stations: The Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City
Compressor Stations in Michigan, and the Saint John Compressor Station
in Indiana.
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this request. ANR must document
periods when the RICE is not operating, as required under Sec. 63.6650
of MACT subpart ZZZZ.
Q2: ANR requests that EPA clarify the requirements at 40 CFR
63.6640(a) as they relate to its three compressor stations, the
Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City Compressor Stations in Michigan,
and the St. John Compressor Station in Indiana. Specifically, ANR asks
whether a RICE that is operated during a given month below the target
window for percent load is required, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ, to increase the load for the sole purpose of measuring the
pressure drop?
A2: No. ANR is not required to increase the load for the sole
purpose of measuring pressure drop across the compressor stations.
However, the ANR will be required to measure the pressure drop once the
load is increased to the target window, or when operations exceed 30
days (regardless of load), and to document the time periods when the
RICE is operated below the target window in its semi-annual report, as
required under MACT subpart ZZZZ.
Q3: Does EPA approve that RICE, which does not have the ability to
operate at full load due to restrictive operating parameters associated
with the gas service that they support, be tested at a reduced load to
establish the target window for measuring pressure drop across the
catalyst, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, at ANR facilities? ANR
requests clarification in regards to three compressor stations, the
Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City Compressor Stations in Michigan,
and the St. John Compressor Station in Indiana.
A3: EPA approves the alternative testing procedures for setting the
target window for measuring pressure drop, under MACT subpart ZZZZ,
provided that ANR establishes a lower maximum load rate and appropriate
differential pressure ranges for the reduced load.
Q4: For a RICE that can never be operated at the target window,
should ANR monitor the pressure drop when an established lower-load
baseline is achieved in any given month, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ? ANR requests clarification in regards to three compressor
stations, the Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City Compressor Stations
in Michigan, and the St. John Compressor Station in Indiana.
A4: Yes. EPA recommends that ANR measure monthly pressure drop when
the units are operating to assure catalyst performance, even if the
units are operating at a reduced load below the target window.
Abstract for [M070024]
Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE to establish operating parameter limits for waste
viscosity, waste fuel delivery pressure, atomization pressure, etc.,
which ensure good operation of the firing system for a fluidized bed
incinerator (FBI) with waste feeding through simple lances at the
Eastman Chemical Company in Longview, Texas?
A1: EPA conditionally approves this waiver, with the condition that
Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) be instituted on minimum stack gas
flow to ensure proper operation of fluidized bed, and amend the
Comprehensive Performance Test plan, as detailed in the EPA response
letter.
Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE, to monitor the liquid feed pressure for a hydrochloric
acid and chlorine gas scrubber?
A2: EPA approves this waiver with the conditions that a minimum
liquid to gas ratio for the scrubber must be established during the CPT
and the scrubber must be operated in accordance with the manufacturer's
design specifications.
[[Page 44741]]
Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver to establish a maximum combustion
chamber pressure in an FBI?
A3: EPA approves this waiver with a condition to establish an upper
limit for the pressure at the inlet end of the heat exchanger as an
AWFCO operating parameter limit, based on historical data.
Abstract for [M070025]
Q1: Does EPA approve hourly rolling average (HRA) feed rate
limitations in lieu of calculating 12-hour rolling average limits for
ash, mercury, total chlorine, chlorides, and metals at Reynolds Metals
Company Gum Springs Plant (Reynolds) in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of HRA based upon
Reynolds establishing maximum feed rates during the Comprehensive
Performance Test (CPT) for the pot liner mix, mercury, semi-volatile
metals, low-volatile metals, and chlorine/chlorides, under MACT subpart
EEE.
Q2: Can Reynolds use maximum inlet temperature at the baghouse
inlet based on operating practice and engineering judgment instead of
actual temperature measurement during CPT, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE?
A2: Yes. EPA approves that Reynolds use maximum inlet temperature
under MACT subpart EEE based on an operating practice and an
engineering judgment instead of actual temperature during CPT.
Q3: Does EPA approve that Reynolds use instantaneous pressure
limitations of minimum baghouse differential pressure (dp) along with
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) reading of 15 percent to
trigger an alarm and alert the operators for potential bag leak events
at its facility, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of minimum dp, but with
a 10 percent, rather than the requested 15 percent, COMS opacity
reading on a 6-minute rolling average basis. Reynolds is required to
maintain a minimum dip across the baghouse of 0.5 inches of water
column on an instantaneous basis, as specified in the EPA response
letter.
Q4: Does Reynolds get a waiver of the requirement to select
operating parameter limits for the cyclones and instead use an existing
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for inspecting, maintenance, and
performing corrective measures under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A4: Yes. EPA approves the use of the existing O&M plan until proper
OPLs are identified by EPA or the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality, and limits are established under MACT subpart EEE.
Q5: Does EPA approve a request to waive the requirements to select
parameters to ensure good operation of the waste firing system in the
case where liquid waste is not atomized or injected into a flame zone
at the Reynolds Metals Company Gum Springs Plant in Arkadelphia,
Arkansas, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A5: EPA finds that a waiver under MACT subpart EEE is not needed
because combustible liquid waste is not atomized or injected into a
flame zone, so the requirement to establish parameter limits to ensure
good operation of the liquid waste firing system is not applicable.
Abstract for [M070026]
Q1: Does EPA approve the use of data from Kiln 1, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE, to show compliance and set operating parameter limits
for Kiln 2 at the Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman Arkansas Plant (Ash
Grove)? Note that Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 are identical in design,
construction, and process operations. Kilns burn the same waste feed
streams.
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request under MACT subpart EEE, because
Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 are identical in every respect, including design,
construction, and process operations. Both Kilns burn the same waste
feed streams.
Q2: Does EPA approve that the Ash Grove use stack test data from
mode 1 (hazardous waste in combustion chamber) to establish operating
parameter limits (OPLs) for mode 2 (hazardous waste not in combustion
chamber), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to use stack test
data from mode 1 to establish OPLs for mode 2 under MACT subpart EEE.
The OPLs developed using mode 1 should be based upon a worst case
scenario, as mentioned in the EPA response letter.
Q3: Does EPA approve that the Ash Grove show destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) compliance for Kiln 3 (larger capacity unit)
based on DRE test results from Kiln 1 (smaller capacity unit), under 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A3: Yes. EPA approves this request under MACT subpart EEE. Since
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit temperature
requirements have been found to ensure compliance with the standard,
stack testing of Kiln 1 will validate that no changes in the systems
have occurred that will impact this proven relationship. The request to
base minimum temperature OPLs on prior RCRA permit provisions will be
determined following submittal and review of the Ash Grove's
Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) data results.
Q4: Does EPA approve extrapolation of metal feed rates under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEE, for Kiln 2 based on results from a stack test
conducted on Kiln 1 at the Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman Arkansas
Plant?
A4: EPA is not able to make a determination under MACT subpart EEE
until it has reviewed and accepted the CPT data results.
Q5: Does EPA find that the Ash Grove can compute the hourly rolling
average based on the available clock minutes of data rather than
lengthening the period of time over which an average is calculated when
there are missing minutes within the clock period hour, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEE?
A5: Yes. EPA approves the alternative calculation method, which is
specified in the current RCRA permit, under MACT subpart EEE. The
proposed calculation method will provide equivalent performance to the
method specified in the hazardous waste combustors (HWC) MACT rule
since it is the same as the method used to establish OPLs. As required
by the HWC MACT, the continuous monitoring system (CMS) must have 95
percent data availability to continue feeding hazardous waste. An
Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off will take place should less than 95
percent data availability occur, or should the CMS fail to operate.
Abstract for [M070027]
Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of combustion air and vent gas flow
rates in lieu of stack gas flow rate as a measure of residence time,
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the BASF facility located in
Geismar, Louisiana?
A1: No. EPA finds that the information provided is insufficient to
make any determination. The facility must provide mass balance and
calculation of residence time for the three units as well as provide a
variety of Piping and Instrument Diagrams.
Q2: Does EPA waive a requirement to monitor pH of the scrubber
liquid as an operating parameter limit, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE, at the BASF facility located in Geismar, Louisiana?
A2: No. EPA finds that the information provided is insufficient to
make any determination. The facility must provide analysis of all feed
streams including the process vents, and show the Maximum Theoretical
Emission Concentration (MTEC)
[[Page 44742]]
approach for chlorine/chloride (MTEC) calculations.
Abstract for [M070028]
Q1: Does EPA approve a request to waive the requirement under 40
CFR part 63 subpart 1209(l)(2) and 1209(o)(3)(iii) to monitor liquid
feed pressure for the low energy wet scrubber on the Toluene
Diisocyanate (TDI) Unit at the Lyondell Chemical Company in Lake
Charles, Louisiana?
A1: No. EPA does not approve the waiver request. If the combustor
is equipped with a low energy wet scrubber, Lyondell must establish a
limit on minimum liquid feed pressure to the wet scrubber based on
manufacturer's specifications and comply with the limit on an hourly
rolling average.
Q2: Does EPA approve the facility's proposal to use hourly rolling
average in lieu of 12-hour rolling average for ash, chloride, and
metals, as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart 1209(c)(4) Analysis of
Feedstreams?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the request because Lyondell treats only a
limited number of on-site generated waste streams in the TDI Process
Incinerator. The waste streams generated from the on-site processes are
of a relatively consistent composition.
Q3: Does EPA approve use of fail-safe system with a local pressure
indicator gauge (non-CMS) to ensure proper atomizing air pressure and
institute waste feed cutoff when pressure falls below 30 psig, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 1209(j)(4), destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE)?
A3: Yes. EPA approves the request because although this fail-safe
system is not part of the continuous monitoring system or the Automatic
Waste Feed Cut-off system, it provides equivalent compliance.
Q4: Does EPA approve pump speed/pump curves (extrapolation) as a
backup feed rate measurement methodology to the mass flow rate to meet
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 1209(j)(3) and 1209(k)(4),
destruction and removal efficiency DRE?
A4: Yes. EPA approves the request because with either method, the
TDI residue feed rate data is displayed in the control room and
recorded by the production unit's data historian.
Abstract for [M070029]
Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of total freshwater makeup rate in
lieu of blowdown rate and tank level to control and monitor solids
content of the scrubber liquid, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE,
concerning the Thermal Treatment Unit (TTU) at the Dow plant located in
Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring
request under MACT subpart EEE, subject to conditions about freshwater
make-up rate, minimum liquid levels, and scrubber characteristics and
performance, as specified in the EPA response letter.
Q2: Does EPA approve the request to waive the requirement to
monitor the liquid feed pressure for the scrubbers, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE, concerning the TTU at the Dow plant located in
Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the waiver request to not
monitor the liquid feed pressure for the scrubbers at TTU, under MACT
subpart EEE since the liquid feed pressure limit is not a critical
parameter for the performance of the `low energy' scrubbers for the
TTU. However, EPA requires further evaluation of mercury data and
scrubber performance to make a final determination about the waiver
request and to determine the need for a freshwater distributor in the
caustic scrubber.
Q3: Does EPA grant a waiver to the TTU at the Dow plant located in
Plaquemine, Louisiana, to measure the flue gas as a measure of
residence time during Comprehensive Performance Testing, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEE?
A3: No. EPA finds that the information provided is insufficient to
make a determination.
Q4: Does EPA find that the TTU at the Dow plant located in
Plaquemine, Louisiana, can continue to burn waste while date historian
system (IP.21) is down, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? IP.21 is
used to calculate the Hourly Rolling Average (HRA) and 12-Hour Rolling
Average.
A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under MACT subpart
EEE, which would require that the facility manually calculates HRA,
submits this information to EPA, and complies with all applicable
monitoring and reporting requirements, specified in the EPA response
letter.
Abstract for [M070030]
Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of total freshwater makeup rate in
lieu of blowdown rate along with tank level to control and monitor
solids content of the scrubber liquid, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE, for the Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI) at the Dow plant located in
Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under MACT subpart
EEE, as described in the EPA response letter. EPA finds that
measurement of freshwater make-up, maintaining minimum sump level, and
maintaining liquid to gas ratio in the scrubbers will ensure proper
operation of the scrubber system. It will also ensure a maximum limit
for the solids in the scrubber liquid.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to monitor the liquid pressure
drop across the scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, for the
RKI at the Dow plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A2: No. EPA finds that the provided information is insufficient to
make a determination.
Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver to monitor the liquid feed pressure
for the scrubbers, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, for the RKI at
the Dow plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under MACT subpart
EEE, as specified in the EPA response letter. An effective performance
of a wet scrubber requires proper distribution, and mixing of both
liquid and gas in the scrubber. The packed-bed scrubbers in the RKI
system are cross-current flow. The scrubber liquid is fed via pumps,
through strainers, and into a header system that uses spray nozzles to
distribute the liquid across packing. The liquid flow is currently
measured and monitored using flow meters and transmitters. A loss of
liquid flow and/or interference with the spray nozzle distribution can
be detected by a change in flow to the header.
Q4: Does EPA approve instituting an Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off
(AWFCO) after pressure remaining positive for 30 seconds as an
indicative of combustion system leak, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE, for the RKI at the Dow plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A4: No. EPA does not approve a time delay of 30 seconds for
instituting AWFCO. The information provided for justification is
insufficient.
Q5: Does EPA approve that the Dow facility located in Plaquemine,
Louisiana, burns waste while the date historian system (IP.21) is down,
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? IP.21 is used to calculate the
Hourly Rolling Average (HRA) and 12-Hour rolling average.
A5: EPA approves this request under MACT subpart EEE, provided that
the facility manually calculates HRA, submits this information to EPA,
and complies with all applicable monitoring and reporting requirements
as mentioned in the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [M080004]
Q: Is Spartech's process in Stamford, Connecticut, which
manufactures poly
[[Page 44743]]
methyl methacrylate (PMMA) acrylic sheet subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF?
A: Yes. EPA determines Spartech's operations produce a material
(PMMA) classified using the United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 282 or North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code 325, and its operations meet all the other criteria
for applicability under 40 CFR 63.2435.
Abstract for [Z070002]
Q1: Is Anadarko's double-chamber cyclonator forced-air solid waste
incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons per day, constructed after
November 1999, that has been seasonally located and intermittently
operated at remote oil and gas exploration sites on the North Slope of
Alaska since January 2003, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
A1: Yes, EPA concludes that a waste incinerator with a capacity of
2.4 tons per day, constructed after November 1999, that has been
seasonally located and intermittently operated at remote oil and gas
exploration sites on the North Slope of Alaska is subject to NSPS
subpart CCCC. EPA considers this incinerator to be located at an
industrial facility, and regardless of the fact that the incinerator
may be moved from one location to the next, it will be a distinct
operating unit of an industrial facility.
Q2: Is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, applicable to an incineration
unit that incinerates untreated sanitary waste (solids) collected from
Pacto toilets?
A2: No. EPA considers the Mercury NESHAP to apply to ``those
stationary sources which * * * incinerate or dry wastewater treatment
plant sludge.'' Under 40 CFR 61.51, sludge is defined as ``sludge
produced by a treatment plant that processes municipal or industrial
waste waters.'' The practice of incinerating sanitary waste composed of
untreated solids from Pacto toilets does not meet the description of
incinerating sludge under the Mercury NESHAP. Thus, the Mercury NESHAP
would not apply.
Abstract for [Z080001]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes
reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines at the Austin Community
Landfill in Austin, Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and
moisture removal from the 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 (SSM) Plan required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA.
However, the treatment system supplying gas to the IC engines will have
to be included in the SSM Plan.
Abstract for [Z080002]
Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes two
turbines at the DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility in Lewisville,
Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, pursuant to
40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and
moisture removal from the 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 turbines will be exempt from
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction (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.
Lisa C. Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-17489 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P