
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30283-30289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12296]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9674-6]


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

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 EPA 
response letter posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 
database system is available on the Internet through the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document 
may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject 
search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria 
Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email 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 EPA response letters and 
memoranda, 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 General Provisions to 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 [which includes Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) standards] and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision providing that 
sources may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds 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 sections 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 Agency-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the web-based Applicability 
Determination Index (ADI) at www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The ADI is an electronic index containing over 
three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the 
applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 
the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations (at 40 CFR part 
82). The letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of 
issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by keywords.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of forty-four such documents 
added to the ADI on April 25, 2012. The subject and header of each 
letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief 
abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these 
documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: 
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 April 25, 2012; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as 
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, 
which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also 
included an abstract of each document identified with its control 
number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert 
the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as 
substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act. For example, this notice does not make an applicability 
determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither 
does it purport to make any document that was previously non-binding 
into a binding document.

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 25, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Control No.                    Categories                Subparts                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A110002............................  Asbestos NESHAP.......  M......................  Demolition of Residential
                                                                                       Structures.

[[Page 30284]]

 
1000027............................  NSPS..................  Da.....................  Utility Boiler Combustion
                                                                                       Determination.
1000028............................  NSPS..................  VVa....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1000029............................  NSPS..................  NNN....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1000030............................  NSPS..................  Ce, Ec.................  Applicability of
                                                                                       Exemptions Under Subpart
                                                                                       Ce.
1000031............................  NSPS..................  WWW....................  Control System Operation
                                                                                       and Monitoring Deadlines.
1000032............................  NSPS..................  VVa....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1000033............................  NSPS..................  AAa....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1000034............................  NSPS..................  NNN....................  Alternative Monitoring and
                                                                                       Performance Test Waiver
                                                                                       Request.
1000035............................  NSPS..................  H......................  Alternative Quality
                                                                                       Assurance Proposal.
1000036............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Opacity Monitoring
                                                                                       Alternative.
1000037............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1000038............................  NSPS..................  WWW....................  Gas Collection and Control
                                                                                       System Design Plan
                                                                                       Change.
1000039............................  NSPS..................  OOO....................  Performance Test Waiver.
1000040............................  NSPS..................  KKKK...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1000041............................  NSPS..................  H......................  Alternative Quality
                                                                                       Assurance Procedure.
1000042............................  NSPS..................  LL, Y..................  Test Waivers and
                                                                                       Reductions in Test
                                                                                       Duration.
1000043............................  NSPS..................  UUU....................  Performance Test Waiver.
1000044............................  NSPS..................  BBBB, Cb, Eb...........  Resource Recovery Facility
                                                                                       Capacity Increase.
M100029............................  MACT..................  RRR....................  Alternative Testing,
                                                                                       Monitoring, and
                                                                                       Recordkeeping
                                                                                       Requirements.
1000045............................  NSPS..................  J......................  Emergency Flare at
                                                                                       Hydrogen Reformer
                                                                                       Facility.
1000047............................  NSPS..................  WWW....................  Effect of Permit on Design
                                                                                       Capacity.
1000048............................  NSPS..................  KKK....................  Alternative Monitoring.
1000049............................  NSPS..................  DD.....................  Single Source
                                                                                       Determination for Grain
                                                                                       Elevators.
M100031............................  MACT..................  T......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Method.
M100032............................  MACT..................  GGG....................  Time Period Adjustment for
                                                                                       Periodic Reports.
1000050............................  NSPS..................  A......................  Rationale for Including
                                                                                       Labor Costs in
                                                                                       Reconstruction under
                                                                                       NSPS.
M110001............................  MACT..................  RRRR...................  Surface Coating of Metal
                                                                                       Furniture.
1100002............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Alternative Testing
                                                                                       Frequency.
M110002............................  MACT..................  JJJJ...................  Restricted HAP Emissions
                                                                                       at Single Coating Line.
1100003............................  NSPS..................  VVV....................  Coating of Paper
                                                                                       Substrate.
1100004............................  NSPS..................  F, GG..................  Alternative Test Frequency
                                                                                       Requirement.
M110003............................  MACT..................  X......................  Recycling of Lead-
                                                                                       Containing Cathode Ray
                                                                                       Tube Glass.
1100006............................  NSPS..................  OOO....................  Performance Test Waiver.
M110005............................  MACT..................  MMMM...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Method.
M110006............................  MACT..................  EEE....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Method.
1100007............................  NSPS..................  KKK....................  Criteria for Natural Gas
                                                                                       Processing Plant.
M110007............................  MACT..................  HHHHHH.................  Spray-Applied Coating
                                                                                       Operations.
M110008............................  MACT..................  EEEE...................  Application of NESHAP
                                                                                       standards to Tanks.
1100008............................  NSPS..................  Dc.....................  Physically Derating
                                                                                       Boilers.
1100009............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Alternative Test Frequency
                                                                                       Requirements.
1100010............................  NSPS..................  Dc.....................  Alternative Recordkeeping
                                                                                       and Reporting.
1100011............................  NSPS..................  J......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
1100012............................  NSPS..................  J......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                       Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [A110002]

    Q: Does the EPA consider the residential structures in Youngstown, 
Ohio to be affected by any part of the Asbestos NESHAP? Additional 
detailed discussion was provided by an enclosure with a copy of a 
recent EPA letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 
available under ADI Control Number A110001.
    A: EPA has consistently interpreted the Asbestos NESHAP, subpart M, 
as applying to the mass demolition of residential structures. While the 
regulation has a residential building exemption provision, EPA has 
interpreted this exemption as being inapplicable when numerous 
residential buildings are being demolished for reasons of public 
health, welfare, and safety, as part of a single project, or if such 
residences meet the definition of an installation.

Abstract for [1000027]

    Q: Is a utility boiler that is capable of combusting more than 250 
mmBtu per hour heat input from natural gas as well as landfill gas 
subject to NSPS subpart Da if it primarily burns landfill gas?
    A: Yes. The utility boiler is subject to NSPS subpart Da since it 
is capable of combusting more than 250 mmBtu per hour heat input of 
fossil fuel and meets the other applicability criteria in section 
60.40Da(a).

Abstract for [1000028]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., visual, 
audible, or olfactory) as an acceptable alternative to the use of EPA 
Method 21 for the identification of leaks from equipment in acetic acid 
and/or acetic anhydride service for equipment subject to 40 CFR part 
60, subpart VVa at the BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. facility in 
Hawkins County, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed alternative is acceptable. 
Monitoring results indicate that leaks from equipment in acetic acid 
and/or acetic anhydride service are more easily identified through 
sensory means than by using Method 21 because of the physical 
properties (i.e., high boiling

[[Page 30285]]

point, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and 
acetic anhydride.

Abstract for [1000029]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring procedure (AMP) that 
consists of monitoring the inlet scrubbing liquid temperature, flow 
rate, and acid content in lieu of the requirements in section 
60.663(e)(1) for an acid scrubber at the Eastman Chemical Company in 
Kingsport, Tennessee subject to NSPS subpart NNN?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP request consisting of 
monitoring the inlet scrubbing liquid temperature and flow rate and 
identifying exceedances of these parameters based on a three-hour 
rolling average period, and acid content for the acid scrubber subject 
to NSPS subpart NNN.

Abstract for [1000030]

    Q: Is guidance that EPA provided to the Department of Health and 
Human Services on the applicability of exemptions in NSPS subpart Ec 
for two types of units, including a unit that combusts both non-
infectious animal waste and waste used in research and, a unit when a 
portion of the medical/infectious waste combusted also meets the 
definition of pathological waste, in an April 15, 1999, letter still 
valid?
    A: Yes. Since the definitions of terms used in the exemptions in 
NSPS subpart Ec did not change when the rule was revised on October 6, 
2009, the guidance on these two units provided in the April 15, 1999, 
letter is still valid.

Abstract for [1000031]

    Q1: Does the Pecan Row Landfill located in Valdosta, Georgia have 
60 days after waste has been in place for 5 years if active, or 2 years 
if closed, or at final grade to begin monitoring and operating each 
early installed well, which is the deadline for installing wells 
pursuant to section 60.7(55(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A1: Yes. The 60 days timeline for installing wells is also the 
deadline for starting operational parameter monitoring for these wells, 
since 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW does not require that monitoring be 
conducted prior to the gas collection well installation deadline.
    Q2: If monitoring of these wells is already being conducted on a 
monthly basis prior to the 5-year/2-year timeline and exceedances of 
the pressure, temperature, and oxygen and/or nitrogen concentration are 
measured, when does the Pecan Row Landfill have to initiate corrective 
action and re-monitoring as prescribed in 40 CFR section 60.755(a)(3) 
and 40 CFR section 60.755(a)(5)?
    A2: Only monitoring results obtained on or after the gas collection 
well installation deadline would trigger the requirement for corrective 
action under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. When exceedances of operating 
parameter limits in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW are detected during the 
monitoring required under 40 CFR section 60.755(a)(3) and 40 CFR 
section 60.755(a)(5), a first attempt at correcting the exceedance must 
be made within five calendar days.

Abstract for [1000032]

    Q: Does EPA approve the proposed sensory means (i.e., visual 
audible, or olfactory) in lieu of EPA Method 21 for the identification 
of leaks from equipment in propionic acid service, acetic acid/acetic 
anhydride service, diketene service, acetic acid service, and methyl 
iodide service for equipment subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa at 
the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposal for equipment in propionic acid 
service, acetic acid/acetic anhydride service, diketene service, and 
acetic acid service, sensory means (i.e., visual, audible, or 
olfactory) to identify equipment leaks where 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VVa requires the use of EPA Method 21, because of their physical 
properties (i.e., high boiling point, high corrosivity, and low odor 
threshold). For indoor equipment in methyl iodide service, the use of a 
system of continuous monitors which was approved by EPA as alternative 
monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV is acceptable as an 
alternative under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa.

Abstract for [1000033]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring proposal 
(AMP) submitted for two electric arc furnaces subject to 40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAa at Nucor Steel, Inc. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP request to adjust 
dampers in the direct-shell evacuation (DEC) system based upon the 
amount of visible flame detected in the DEC ductwork is an alternative 
to using a fixed damper position since emissions are likely to vary 
significantly over each 30 to 40 minute scrap melting batch cycle. 
Since the AMP is likely to improve the performance of the particular 
Matter (PM) control system, it is acceptable provided the optical set 
point for the camera is based upon conditions during a performance test 
where compliance with the applicable PM and opacity limits is 
demonstrated.

Abstract for [1000034]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal (AMP) to use 
monitoring and testing provisions from NSPS subpart RRR at 40 CFR 
section 60.703(c)(1) and (c)(2) as alternative monitoring for the 
provisions of NSPS subpart NNN at 40 CFR section 60.663(c)(1) and 
(c)(2) and an initial performance test waiver requested for three 
distillation columns subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN at the BP 
Amoco Chemical Company facility in Decatur, Alabama?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 60.13(i), EPA approves the AMP 
and PT waiver, which are consistent with previous EPA AMP approvals for 
NSPS subpart NNN facilities.

Abstract for [1000035]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to substitute quarterly cylinder gas 
audits for annual relative accuracy test audits on the sulfur dioxide 
continuous emission monitor (CEMS) installed at the convertor inlet in 
order to address safety concerns at the Lucite sulfuric acid plant in 
Memphis, Tennessee?
    A: EPA cannot make a determination until the necessary information 
listed in the EPA response letter is provided.

Abstract for [1000036]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring proposal 
(AMP) for rental package boilers subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db 
to provide a backup source of steam in the event of a shutdown or 
reduced capacity at other boilers at the Rayoneir Performance Fibers, 
LLC facility in Fernandina Beach, Florida?
    A: EPA conditionally approves the AMP request for use of visible 
emission observations using EPA Method 9 in lieu of opacity monitoring 
for any of the rental package boilers provided they have an annual 
capacity factor of 10 percent or less, which is the criteria for 
infrequent operation.

Abstract for [1000037]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring proposal 
(AMP) for a boiler at a new medium density fiberboard plant to monitor 
control device operating parameters for the scrubber located downstream 
of the boiler, instead of a continuous opacity monitory system (COMS) 
subject to NSPS subpart Db at the Uniboard USA,

[[Page 30286]]

LLC facility located in Moncure, North Carolina?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the AMP request because NSPS subpart Db 
allows a particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring system 
to be used as an alternative to a COMS. Therefore, the proposal to 
monitor scrubber operating parameters in lieu of installing COMS is not 
acceptable.

Abstract for [1000038]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposed gas collection and control system 
(GCCS) design plan change, consisting of three potential control 
options, in order to meet the design considerations in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, for the Sampson County Disposal (SCD) Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfill in Roseboro, North Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed GCCS design plan because it does 
not conflict with any of the design requirements of NSPS subpart WWW. 
The analysis provided by SCD demonstrates that the proposed approach 
for controlling emissions when new waste is placed on top of waste that 
has been in place for five years or more will be more effective than 
the two other potential control options evaluated.

Abstract for [1000039]

    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver request to conduct a particulate 
emission test on the dust collector that controls emissions from the 
new crusher subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO at Industrial 
Materials, Incorporated?
    A: EPA conditionally approves the waiver of particulate 
concentration testing request for the crusher. The proposed waiver 
would be acceptable if no visible emissions are detected during any of 
the 240 individual readings made during the initial opacity performance 
test conducted on the crusher. This determination is based upon the 
opacity test results and the margin of compliance during previous 
testing conducted on the aragonite screening operation that uses the 
same type of control device.

Abstract for [1000040]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to extend a previous custom fuel 
monitoring plan to four new stationary gas turbines subject to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart KKKK at BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC located in 
Spartanburg, South Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposal to use the existing custom fuel 
monitoring schedule for the new turbines based upon the low sulfur 
content found in 63 fuel samples analyzed between January 2003 and July 
2009.

Abstract for [1000041]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to substitute quarterly cylinder gas 
audits for annual relative accuracy test audits (RATA) on the sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) continuous emission monitor system (CEMS) 
installed at the convertor inlet to address concerns regarding the high 
SO2 concentration at the convertor inlet for the Lucite 
sulfuric acid plant in Memphis, Tennessee?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the proposed alternative because it 
does not allow for a comprehensive assessment of the CEMS performance. 
Although the proposed alternative is not acceptable, the response 
provides details regarding another alternative quality assurance 
testing procedure that allows the company to determine the RATA of the 
convertor inlet CEMS without sampling the gas stream at this site, that 
would be acceptable to EPA and addresses Lucite concerns with high 
SO2 concentration at the convertor inlet.

Abstract for [1000042]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation's (TDEC) request for authority to approve shorter visible 
emission observation times for 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL facilities 
when no opacity readings are above the standard and no more than three 
readings are equal to the standard during the first hour of 
observations and for authority to waive visible emission testing 
requirements if no opacity is detected on the exterior of the building 
during a 75-minute observation period for 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL 
facilities located inside buildings?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for authority to approve shorter 
VE observation times and to waive, pursuant to 40 CFR part 60.8(b)(4), 
the requirement to conduct VE testing inside buildings is acceptable 
under the terms outlined in TDEC's June 29, 2009, request letter. This 
response is based on a previous determination for a facility located in 
Tennessee and the similarity between these proposals and provisions in 
NSPS subpart OOO, requiring that future requests be submitted to EPA 
for individual reviews will slow down approval without adding any value 
to the process. Therefore, the TDEC request for authority to process 
such requests in the future is acceptable.

Abstract for [1000043]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposed performance test waiver for two 
spray dryers in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU at the 
Stonepeak Ceramics, Incorporated facility located in Crossville, 
Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the results of particulate 
matter (PM) testing conducted on Spray Dryer No. 1 and opacity 
observations made on Spray Dryers No. 1 through No. 3 provide adequate 
assurance of compliance with the PM limit for Spray Dryers No. 2 and 
No. 3.

Abstract for [1000044]

    Q: What NSPS regulation(s) will the Bay County Resource Recovery 
Facility in Panama City, Florida be subject to after its charging 
capacity is increased from 245 to 255 tons per day?
    A: Based upon the documentation provided, EPA cannot conclusively 
determine which of two potentially NSPS subparts applicable to large 
municipal waste combustors (i.e., subpart Cb applies if constructed on 
or before September 20, 1994, or subpart Eb applies if constructed 
after September 20, 1994, or for which modification or reconstruction 
is commenced after June 19, 1996), the facility will be subject to 
following the throughput increase. In order to determine whether a 
modification has occurred under NSPS and determine rule applicability, 
it will be necessary to determine whether the cost of the changes made 
in order to achieve the throughput increase constitute a capital 
expenditure. The facility would be subject to NSPS subpart Ec if the 
cost of the changes constitutes a capital expenditure, and the facility 
would be subject to NSPS subpart Cb if the cost of the changes does not 
constitute a capital expenditure.

Abstract for [M100029]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Aleris International's request under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart RRR to use the weight into the feed hopper as the 
weight fed into the chip dryer during testing at IMCO Recycling of 
Michigan LLC located in Coldwater, Michigan?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves Aleris International's request for 
determining the chip dryer feed/charge weight during testing for the 
hopper feeder and chip dryer under MACT subpart RRR since their 
existing configuration does not allow separate weighing of the feed/
charge into the chip dryer.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Aleris International's request under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart RRR to maintain records of the chip dryer feed weight 
using shift length recordkeeping at IMCO Recycling of Michigan LLC 
located in Coldwater, Michigan?

[[Page 30287]]

    A2: No. EPA does not approve Aleris International's request under 
MACT subpart RRR for shift length recordkeeping for normal operations 
The recordkeeping method to measure the chip dryer feed/charge weight 
in twelve-hour shift blocks during normal operations is appropriate for 
unblended truckloads only.

Abstract for [1000045]

    Q: Will EPA confirm that Linde's new flare located at the hydrogen 
reformer facility at the Citgo refinery in Romeoville, Illinois is not 
subject to the NSPS subpart J because it is an ``emergency flare?''
    A: No. EPA cannot confirm that Linde's flare is not subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart J. Linde would need to provide additional 
information, as indicated in the EPA response letter, before EPA can 
conclude that the gases released from safety relief valves during 
upsets at the plant are process gas or fuel gas, and if they are fuel 
gas, whether they are limited to extraordinary situations.

Abstract for [1000047]

    Q: How is ``design capacity'' as defined in 40 CFR section 60.751, 
determined for the Marquette County Solid Waste Landfill in Marquette, 
Michigan?
    A: EPA has determined Marquette Landfill's current design capacity 
must include the capacity of Cells 0A, 0B, 1, 2, 3 and 4 designated 
under Marquette's most recent operating and construction permits issued 
by the State, plus any in-place waste not accounted for in these 
permits per 40 CFR section 60.751.

Abstract for [1000048]

    Q: Does EPA approve waivers for the Reference Methods for testing 
flare tip heat content and testing flare tip velocity for the non-
assisted flare in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK at the 
Velma Gas Plant located near Velma, Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. EPA accepts the use of Gas Processors Association Method 
2261 for determining compliance with the 200 BTU/cf standard at 40 CFR 
section 60.18(c)(3)(ii). Based on the engineering analysis provided, 
EPA grants a performance test waiver under 40 CFR section 60.78(b)(4) 
for the determination of exit velocity under 40 CFR section 
60.18(f)(4).

Abstract for [1000049]

    Q1: Should two grain elevators being operated at two different 
locations approximately 2.1 miles apart and owned by DeBruce Grain Inc. 
(DeBruce), in Abilene, Kansas be permitted and regulated as one 
facility under NSPS, and does 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD apply?
    A1: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment may reasonably 
use its discretionary permitting authority to find that these two 
facilities could be treated as one source for purposes of a NSR/PSD and 
Title V permitting. However, EPA concludes that 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
DD does not apply to either of the two DeBruce facilities because 
neither exceeds the 2.5 million bushel storage capacity threshold.

Abstract for [M100031]

    Q: Will EPA approve modifications to the EPA 2009 approved 
alternative monitoring plan in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
T for two continuous web cleaning lines to address changes to the 84 
inches and 60 inches lines at the Alcoa Mill Products Davenport 
facility (Alcoa) in Bettendorf, Iowa?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves revisions to the 2009 
alternative monitoring plan to replace specific monitoring requirements 
on the 84 inches and 60 inches lines, provided the conditions in the 
response letter are met.

Abstract for [M100032]

    Q: Does EPA approve modifications to adjust the semiannual 
reporting periods to coincide with the facilities Title V and 
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP reporting periods for Sigma-Aldrich 
Manufacturing, LLC located in St. Louis, Missouri in accordance with 40 
CFR section 63.9(i)?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve reporting periods to allow for the 
submission of the Title V semi-annual report to be submitted on or 
before the first of April and October for each respective reporting 
period.

Abstract for [1000050]

    Q: What is the rationale of including labor costs in the fixed 
capital cost associated with reconstruction under NSPS?
    A: In order to have a fair comparison of costs between the 
reconstructed facility and the comparable new facility, any labor costs 
associated with refurbishing the old parts and installing the new and 
refurbished parts of the reconstructed existing facility must be 
included with the cost of the reconstructed facility's new components. 
Labor costs, similar to those associated with giving the reconstructed 
facility its new life, would be included in the cost of a comparable 
new facility. Adequate comparison of the costs on both sides of the 
equation is impossible without the inclusion of labor costs on the 
``reconstructed'' side.

Abstract for [M110001]

    Q: Is Connecticut (CT) Acquisitions LLC DBA Danver (Danver) located 
in Wallingford, CT, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR if it uses 
only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain no organic 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP)?
    A: No. EPA determined that the operations at Danver currently meet 
the criteria in 40 CFR section 63.4881(c)(1), i.e., surface coatings 
that use only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain 
no organic HAP, and are currently not subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRRR.

Abstract for [1100002]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request to seek alternative Cylinder Gas 
Audit (CGA) and Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) frequency 
requirements for NOX, CO, and O2 in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F at Dalkia Energy Services (Dalkia) 
located in Cambridge, Massachusetts?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves Dalkia's request to omit a NOX, 
CO, and O2 CGA test during any calendar quarter in which the 
unit is operated less than 168 unit operating hours under 40 CFR 
section 60.13(i)(2). EPA also approves Dalkia's request to conduct a 
RATA once every four quality assurance operating quarters instead of 
once every four calendar quarters (where a quality assurance (QA) 
operating quarter is defined as one in which the unit operates 168 unit 
operating hours or more).
    Q2: Does EPA approve Dalkia's request to extend the annual RATA due 
date?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative frequency requirements for 
RATAs that allow Dalkia to follow the grace period provisions of 40 CFR 
part 75, Appendix B, section 2.2.4 for CGAs and 40 CFR part 75, 
Appendix B, section 2.3.3 for RATAs.

Abstract for [M110002]

    Q: Does EPA consider a single coating line operated at InteliCoat's 
facility in South Hadley, Massachusetts a new facility; and if so, can 
Intelicoat restrict hazardous air pollutant emissions to below major 
source thresholds so it is no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ, NESHAP for paper and other web coating?
    A: No. EPA has determined that InteliCoat's single coating line 
would remain an existing affected source subject to NESHAP subpart JJJJ 
because it did not obtain federally enforceable

[[Page 30288]]

restrictions on its potential to emit hazardous air pollutants by the 
first substantive compliance date of subpart JJJJ, i.e., December 5, 
2005. This determination is consistent with the 1995, ``Once In Always 
In'' EPA policy.

Abstract for [1100003]

    Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV apply to a new coating line at 
Koch Membrane Systems (KMS) located in Wilmington, Massachusetts if the 
line coats a paper substrate?
    A: No. EPA has determined that NSPS subpart VVV will not apply 
because KMS coating line will not meet the definition of polymeric 
coating of supporting substrates. KMS applies polymer to a supporting 
web determined to be ``paper'' due to its characteristics, which is a 
substrate not regulated under this rule.

Abstract for [1100004]

    Q: Will EPA approve alternate Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) 
frequency requirements under 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B for the 
NOX and CO Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) of 
the combined-cycle gas turbine under 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, for 
Pawtucket Power Associates (PPA) located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2, EPA approves PPA's request 
to follow the 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B RATA timing requirements for 
both the NOX and CO CEMS.

Abstract for [M110003]

    Q1: Does EPA consider a facility that recycles lead-containing 
cathode ray tube glass with uncontrolled lead emissions, almost seven 
times below the emission standard, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
X?
    A1: Yes. EPA has determined that this facility is subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart X based on the description of the process and the lead 
emission rate. The process is considered to be recycling of ``scrap 
lead and lead compounds'' which are regulated under this rule.

Abstract for [1100006]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a performance test (PT) waiver for 
installations of new quarry belt conveyors conveying sand with 
sufficient surface moisture, such that particulate matter emissions are 
not generated in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO for 
Unimin's non-metallic mineral processing facility near Kasota, 
Minnesota?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the PT waiver for installations of new quarry 
belt conveyors conveying the saturated material mined from below the 
water table, such that there are no emissions greater than zero percent 
opacity and the sand contains sufficient surface moisture.
    Q2: Can existing Method 9 test results be used in lieu of future 
Method 9 performance test requirements?
    A2: Yes. EPA will allow existing Method 9 test results to be used 
in lieu of future test requirements as long as the moisture content of 
the material on the conveyors remains as stated.

Abstract for [M110005]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan (AMP) to replace 
the requirement for collecting the facial velocity of air through all 
natural draft openings using a flow sensor, with measurement of static 
pressure within the duct from the permanent total enclosure (PTE) to 
the regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) in order to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the PTE requirements under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMM, Miscellaneous Metal Part MACT, at the YUSA Corporation in 
Washington Court House, Ohio?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the AMP allowing continuous measurement of 
static pressure, and the correlation of these measurements with flow 
rate during a Method 204 certification test, in order to demonstrate 
that the average facial velocity through the natural draft openings of 
the PTE remains above 200 feet per minute and to determine continuous 
compliance with subpart MMMM.

Abstract for [M110006]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request to establish 
the ash feed rate operating parameter limit (OPL) equal to the total 
waste feed rate to the incineration system that consists of two kilns, 
a secondary combustion chamber (SCC), and a waste fired boiler (WFB), 
in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at Clean Harbors El 
Dorado, LLC in El Dorado, Arkansas?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the request because the facility needs 
to establish separate ash feed rate limit for each kiln, SCC, and WFB.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver of the minimum combustion temperature 
OPL in the kilns?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the minimum combustion 
temperature OPL in the kiln. It has to establish separate minimum 
combustion temperature OPL for each kiln.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver of the feedrate limits for the liquid 
waste fed to the kilns?
    A3: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the feedrate limits for 
the liquid waste fed to the kilns, as that facility must establish 
limits on the maximum pumpable and total (i.e., pumpable and 
nonpumpable) hazardous waste feedrate for each location where hazardous 
waste is fed.
    Q4: Does EPA approve a waiver of the monitoring requirements for 
the minimum blowdown rate and the liquid level for the High Energy 
Scrubber (HES), given that the gases enter the HES prior to the 
baghouse, which is the primary particulate matter and metals removal 
device?
    A4: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the monitoring 
requirements for the minimum blowdown rate and the liquid level for 
HES, which is required under 40 CFR sections 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B)(1) and 
(n)(3) to ensure that the solids content of the scrubber liquid does 
not exceed levels established during the performance test.
    Q5: Does EPA approve a waiver of the maximum inlet temperature OPL 
for the baghouse that is operated after a wet pollution control system 
required under 40 CFR sections 63.1209(k)(1) and (n)(1)?
    A5: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the maximum inlet 
temperature OPL for the baghouse, which must be determined on a hourly 
rolling average.

Abstract for [1100007]

    Q1: Does the fuel gas treatment unit at Atlas Pipeline Mid-
Continent, LLC Compressor Station have to sell the extracted natural 
gas liquids to be considered a ``natural gas processing plant'' in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK?
    A1: No. EPA has determined that a facility does not have to sell 
liquids to be considered a ``natural gas processing plant.''
    Q2: Does the facility have to operate at a specific temperature to 
be considered ``engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids''?
    A2: No. EPA has determined there is no temperature criteria in the 
rule stating that a facility has to operate at a specific temperature 
to be considered ``engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids''.

Abstract for [M110007]

    Q: Does EPA consider Rocky Mountain Reconditioning (RMR) to be 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH if it performs touch up and 
repairs that only spray-applies coatings with a hand-held device with a 
paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than

[[Page 30289]]

3.0 fluid ounces, and uses hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers?
    A: No. EPA does not consider RMR to be affected by 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHHH because the definition of ``spray-applied coating 
operations'' excludes coatings applied from a hand-held device with a 
paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces, 
according to 40 CFR section 63.11180.

Abstract for [M110008]

    Q: Which tanks are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE at the 
Great Plains Synfuels Plant located in Beulah, North Dakota operated by 
Dakota Gasification Company (DGC), if tar oil produced at the facility 
is sold such that it no longer meets the exclusion to the definition of 
``organic liquid'', according to 40 CFR section 63.2406 for onsite 
fuels?
    A: EPA has determined that tanks in the distribution area where the 
tar oil is shipped would be subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE. EPA was unable to determine whether tanks and separators upstream 
of the distribution area, which produces tar oil, are subject to the 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE without additional information (e.g., tank 
identification, process flow diagrams), as described in the EPA 
response letter.

Abstract for [1100008]

    Q1: Does EPA concur with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
that Children's Health Care's physical changes will result in derating 
the boilers in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A1: Yes. EPA provides concurrence that the derate method proposed 
for the boilers is acceptable, because it will consist of a permanent 
physical change that cannot be easily undone and prevents boilers from 
operating at a capacity greater than the derated value, and would 
require a reduction of their capacity.
    Q2: Does EPA concur with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
that the derated boilers will not be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Dc?
    A2: Yes. EPA provides concurrence that the derated boilers will not 
be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db if the proposed procedures 
specified in the EPA response letter are followed, including 
demonstration of the maximum heat input capacity by operating the 
boiler at maximum capacity for a 24-hour period.

Abstract for [1100009]

    Q: Does EPA approve adopting 40 CFR part 75 quality assurance (QA) 
test schedules and grace periods as opposed to current schedule 
requirements for Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) and Relative Test Accuracy 
Audits (RATAs) under 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F for the NOX, 
CO, and O2 Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at 
Mystic Station in Charlestown, MA?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Mystic Station's request to omit a 
NOX, CO, and O2 CGA during any calendar quarter 
in which the unit is operated less than 168 unit operating hours. EPA 
also approves Mystic's request to conduct a RATA once every four QA 
operating quarters. Regardless of operation, Mystic Station shall 
conduct a CGA for NOX, CO, and O2 at least once 
every four calendar quarters as well as a RATA at least once every 
eight calendar quarters. EPA also allows Mystic to follow the grace 
period provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B, section 2.2.4 for CGAs 
and 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B, section 2.3.3 for RATAs.

Abstract for [1100010]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a plan for Veterans Affairs, Edith Nourse 
Rogers Memorial Hospital in Bedford, Massachusetts (VA Bedford) to 
track monthly natural gas and oil usage for its three dual-fuel 
boilers, as opposed to daily records of fuel consumption under 40 CFR 
section 60.48c(g)(1)?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves a decrease in fuel usage recordkeeping from 
daily records to monthly records for VA Bedford's three boilers 
conditioned on VA Bedford's use of natural gas as the primary fuel and 
distillate oil with sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent.
    Q2: May VA Bedford submit annual reports for its three dual-fueled 
boilers as opposed to semiannual reports required under 40 CFR section 
60.48c(j)?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve a decrease in the reporting frequency 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc because the facility received four 
shipments of diesel fuel in 2007, and two shipments of diesel fuel in 
2009. Therefore, because more than one shipment was received in each of 
those recent years, VA Bedford must continue to submit the required 
semiannual reports.

Abstract for [1100011]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a Cumene 
Depropanizer Off Gas Vent Stream subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J 
at the Citgo Corpus Christi East Refinery located in Corpus Christi, 
Texas?
    A1: No. EPA finds that the alternative monitoring plan from March 
24, 2006, is no longer valid since an exemption provided in the rule 
applies to the stream. The Cumene Depropanizer Off Gas is a fuel gas 
that meets the exemption requirement of 40 CFR section 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). Therefore, the fuel gas combustion device does not 
need to meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR section 
60.105(a)(3) or 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(4).

Abstract for [1100012]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request for Hydrar 
Process Unit Vent Streams subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J for the 
Citgo Corpus Christi East Refinery located in Corpus Christi, Texas?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the alternative monitoring request 
since the specified Hydrar vent stream fuels are fuel gases that meet 
the exemption requirement of 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). 
Therefore, the fuel gas combustion device does not need to meet the 
monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(3) or 40 CFR 
section 60.105(a)(4) for these specified vent streams.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
Lisa C. Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-12296 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


