[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5687-5688]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-68-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application

January 30, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 22, 2007, Gulf South Pipeline Company
LP (Gulf South), 20 East Greenway, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in
Docket No. CP07-68-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) for permission and approval to abandon, in place,
one compressor unit at the Edna Compressor Station, Jackson County,
Texas and four compressor units at the Refugio Compressor Station,
Refugio County, Texas, all as more fully set forth in the application.
    The application is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and follow the instructions or toll-free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this request may be directed to J. Kyle
Stephens, Director of Certificates, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 20
East Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, by
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Gulf South states that it is required, by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), to reduce its overall NOx
output by 50% in East and South Texas. Gulf South contends that as part
of its strategy to meet TCEQ's requirement, Gulf South has chosen to
permanently abandon four compressor units at Refugio and one compressor
unit at Edna instead of retrofitting the stations with expensive
emissions reducing equipment. Gulf South avers that it would be able to
meet all of its firm transportation obligations without these
facilities and meet TCEQ requirements for the reduction of
NOx emissions in a cost effective manner.
    Gulf South asserts that no interruption, reduction, or termination
of natural gas service would occur as a result of the proposed
abandonment.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of comments,
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: February 20, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1923 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Date: August 23, 2003 Subject: Telephone Conference Summary  EPA and representatives from the taconite industry From: Chris Sarsony, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc To: Docket OAR 2002   0039 I. Purpose The primary purpose of the meeting was to clarify industry's technical comments on the proposed taconite NESHAP.

II. Date May 01, 2003 III. Attendees U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Conrad Chin, OAQPS/ ESD/ MG Steve Fruh, OAQPS/ ESD/ MG Industry Representatives Brad Anderson, EVTAC Dave Crouch, Cleveland Cliffs LaTisha Gietzen, National Steel Gus Josephson, Inland Mining Bill Kubiak, U. S. Steel John Meier, Cleveland Cliffs Leonard Parker, Tilden Mining Nancy Smith, Northshore Alpha Gamma Technologies Chris Sarsony Chuck Zukor OAR 2002 0039 IV E 15 2 IV. Discussion of Industry's Technical Comments on the Proposed Rule A. Fugitives Emissions Control Plan Comment: All provisions related to the fugitives dust plan should be deleted to avoid duplication and potential conflicts with existing Title V permits. Discussion: All plants have a fugitive dust plan in place. Industry's primary concern was duplicative or conflicting requirements. The EPA explained that plants can submit existing plans to satisfy the requirement in the proposed taconite NESHAP. Based on this, the industry representatives acknowledged that no change was necessary.

B. Compliance Testing Comment: Regarding the grouping of similar OCH and PH emission units for initial performance tests, remove the specific criteria defining similar units and refer to criteria established by the state Agency or Title V permit. Discussion: Industry's primary concern is with the criteria that the flow rate of the units be within 10% of the representative unit and that the process throughput of the units be within 10% of the representative unit. Industry believes that these criteria are too restrictive. The EPA will consider the technical merit of their concern.

Comment: The simultaneous testing of multiple stacks is costly, unpractical, and possibly not even feasible. Discussion: Industry representatives explained that some furnaces have up to five stacks and that testing all five simultaneously is impractical and costly. Some facilities have tested two stacks simultaneously. Based on historical tests, stacks are generally tested sequentially over a period of a few days. The EPA will assess the practicality of simultaneously testing multiple furnace stacks. EPA will also consult with in house testing experts on the time period in which all stacks for a furnace should have the tests completed.

Comment: Cleveland Cliffs ( CCI) commented that test frequency should mimic Title V requirements for furnaces. Stack testing for furnaces should only be required when the operation is modified. Discussion: The EPA explained to the industry that testing furnaces twice per permit term is necessary to ensure that the NESHAP is enforceable. The EPA pointed out that about 99 percent of the HAP and PM emissions come from the furnaces. Industry stated that although some plants will have to test their furnaces more frequently they accepted the requirement for testing furnaces twice per permit term. 3 C. Operating Limits Comment: In their written comments some taconite plants objected to using operating limits established during the initial performance test to determine compliance. Discussion: Industry stated that their concern regarding the operating limits is related to their specific technical concerns regarding their ability to: ° maintain a constant pressure drop on venturi rod scrubbers, ° measure a pressure drop on dynamic wet scrubbers, and ° obtain meaningful readings from COMs. To help resolve these technical issues industry will investigate availability of historical operating data ( pressure drop, water flow, etc.) to estimate the lowest ( water flow, pressure drop) or highest ( COM reading) operating limits while still meeting the MACT emission limits. The EPA will investigate approaches used on other similar rulemakings ( i. e. do they allow the use of historical data?).

Comment: Remove the pressure drop requirement and rely on the operation and maintenance plan for compliance. Operators cannot directly control the pressure drop in a rod deck scrubber. In addition, the industry claimed that monitoring pressure drops for rotoclones would be technically infeasible. Discussion: Minntac, Hibbing, and Inland will investigate availability of historical data ( pressure drop, water flow, etc.) to estimate the lowest ( water flow, pressure drop) operating limits while still meeting the MACT emission limits. In addition, correlation between throughput rate and pressure drop will be investigated and the data will be presented. Possible alternative monitoring parameters will also be investigated by the above mentioned three plants and then proposed to EPA. Industry will consult with rotoclone vendors and provide technical justification. The EPA also requested industry to suggest alternative monitoring parameters for rotoclones.

Comment: In addition to pressure drop, allow plants to use water pressure to demonstrate that wet scrubbers are operating properly. Discussion: EPA will investigate the feasibility of using water pressure as a surrogate for water flow rate.

Comment: The requirement that the bag leak detection system not alarm for more than 5% of the time should be deleted from the rule. The same commenter requested that a requirement be added that provides wet scrubbers a 5% allowance for operating in alarm conditions. Discussion: Industry stated that this comment is no longer applicable, since we have removed the requirement of 5% or less of the alarm time limit for the bag leak detection system.

Comment: EPA fails to acknowledge the actual opacity during compliant operations 4 will be much less than 10% and normally close to zero. EPA provides no evidence that COMS can even accurately measure opacity when the actual opacity is less than 10%. Discussion: Industry will investigate and present during the next conference call the typical moisture content of the flue gas and how the moisture content will affect the accuracy of the COM. Industry will also consult with COM vendors on this issue and provide technical justification. Industry will also investigate possible alternative monitoring parameters for dry and wet ESPs. The plant in Michigan will also present technical data and operating experience on its COM operation. Data should include correlation between moisture and fluctuation in COM reading etc.

Comments: CCI suggests the same provisions as are contained in the Portland Cement NESHAP be adopted for opacity monitoring. Discussion: The EPA will investigate whether exceeding operating limits should be considered an exceedance or merely trigger corrective action.

Comments: CCI does not support a case by case, site by site, and stack by stack operating limit as determined by the COMS. Discussion: Refer to above discussions.

Comments: The opacity will be low enough to be outside of the range of error for the test method ( the COMS) and sources could create a reportable deviation without truly exceeding the actual opacity limit. Discussion: Refer to above discussions.

D. Monitoring Comment: The monthly transducer checks, quarterly gauge calibration checks, semiannual flow sensor calibration checks, daily pressure tap pluggage check, and monthly electrical connection continuity checks are overly burdensome and costly. Discussion: The EPA explained that these requirements have been dropped in other rulemakings. To be consistent with these rulemakings, EPA will remove these requirements from the taconite NESHAP.

E. Test Data Comment: U. S. Steel has more recent testing data that can be used to update the emission estimates. Discussion: Both industry and EPA will check with Minntac.

F. Other Question: What is the reason why fabric filters are not used on indurating furnaces? Discussion: High moisture content in flue gas stream. The moisture will cake up the bag filters.