[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68432-68439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27287]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9902-92-OECA]
Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent
Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, Etc.
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/
or 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
[[Page 68433]]
letters and memoranda on the ADI 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: [email protected]. For technical questions
about 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 of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of 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 Sec. Sec. 60.5 and 61.06.
Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] and Sec. 111(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) 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 Sec. 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to
seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different
from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g),
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these
inquiries are 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 to the ADI. 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, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone
regulations. Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office
of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word
searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 32 such documents added to
the ADI on October 30, 2013. This notice lists the subject and header
of each letter and memorandum, 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 October 30, 2013; the
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in 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 CAA Sec. 307(b)(1). For
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport
to make a previously non-binding document binding.
ADI Determinations Uploaded on October 30, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Categories Subparts Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1100013............................ NSPS.................. A, OOO, UUU........... Request to Extend Required
Initial Performance Test
due to Force Majeure.
1100014............................ NSPS.................. A, KKK, Kb............ Applicability to Condensate
Storage Tanks and a Backup
Vapor Recovery Unit.
1100015............................ MACT, NSPS............ J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Opacity Monitoring--
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit Wet Gas
Scrubber.
1100016............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Approval of Operating
Parameters on an
ExxonMobil Low Energy Jet
Ejector Venturi (JEV) Wet
Gas Scrubber for a
Compliance Alternative.
1100019............................ MACT, NSPS............ J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Low Energy Jet Ejector
Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas
Scrubber.
1100020............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Low Energy Jet Ejector
Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas
Scrubber.
1100021............................ NSPS.................. Ja.................... Request for Exemption in
lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for Low
Sulfur Bearing Fuel Gas
Stream.
1100023............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for a Wet Gas
Scrubber on a Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Unit.
1100024............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for Hydrogen
Sulfide Vent Stream
Monitoring.
1100025............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request Exemption in lieu
of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for Low
Sulfur Vent Stream
Combustion from a
Catalytic
Hydrodesulfurization Unit.
1100026............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request Exemption in lieu
of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for Low
Sulfur Vent Stream from a
Catalytic Platinum
Reformer Unit.
[[Page 68434]]
1200001............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for Vent Stream
Flow Monitoring for a
Distillation Column and
Associated Flare.
1200002............................ NSPS.................. EEEE.................. Request for Clarification
of Other Solid Waste
Incinerators Exclusion For
Prescription Drugs
Returned through Voluntary
Program.
1200003............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Monitoring of Multiple Low
Sulfur Vent Streams from a
Coker Disulfide Separator
and Reformer.
1200007............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Request for Use of
Alternate Span Value for
NOX CEMS on a Boiler.
1200008............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for Monitoring a
Wet Gas Scrubber on a
Refinery Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit.
1200010............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring Plan
and Test Waiver Request
for Vent Stream Flow
Monitoring.
1200011............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request Exemption in lieu
of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Monitoring Three Low
Sulfur Vent Streams from
Combustion a Catalytic
Hydrodesulfurization Unit.
1200012............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request Exemption in lieu
of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for Low
Sulfur Vent Stream
Combustion from a Cumene
Depropanizer Unit.
1200013............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for Wet Gas
Scrubbers on a Refinery
Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Unit.
1200014............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request Exemption in lieu
of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for Vent
Stream Combustion from a
Catalytic Reformer Unit in
a Flare.
1200015............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for the Use of Car
Seals on Closed Bypass
Valves.
1200022............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Clarification
of Marine Vessel Loading
Vapors as Fuel Gas.
1200025............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Use of
Alternate Span Value for
O2 CEMS.
1200028............................ NSPS.................. EEEE, FFFF............ Alternative Emission
Control Request to use
Operating Parameter Limits
(OPLs) in Lieu of using a
Wet Scrubber.
1200032............................ MACT, NSPS............ JJJJ, ZZZZ............ Determination of
Applicability for
Stationary Spark Ignition
Internal Combustion
Engines.
A130001............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Determination of the Use of
Foam to Meet the
Adequately Wet
Requirement.
A130002............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Removal of Buried Pipe
Wrapped with Asbestos-
Containing Material.
A130003............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Encapsulating Wall Board
with Spray Foam.
M130001............................ MACT.................. CC.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Request for use of a Video
Camera for Verification of
Flare Pilot Light.
M130002............................ MACT.................. FFFF, YY.............. Determination of
Applicability of NESHAP to
Propane Dehydrogenation
Plant.
Z130001............................ NESHAP................ E..................... Determination of
Applicability of NESHAP to
an Integrated Biosolids
Management System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [1100013]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100013.pdf.
Q: Will EPA consider as force majeure certain contract disputes
between a company and its contractor over production testing and plant
operation at a facility that prevented stack tests from being conducted
before the compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and
UUU, at the Cadre Material Products crusher and calciner facility in
Voca, Texas?
A: No. EPA disagreed that the events described in the request
letter met the criteria of force majeure under 40 CFR 60.8(a), because
the contract dispute was not beyond the company's ability to control.
EPA disapproved the request for an eight week extension to conduct
required performance testing and submit the necessary reports; however,
EPA granted a one-week extension for adverse weather conditions that
occurred and did meet force majeure criteria.
Abstract for [1100014]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100014.pdf.
Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and KKK apply to a backup vapor
recovery unit (BU-VRU) compressor at the Marathon Petroleum (Marathon)
Indian Basin Gas Plant (IBGP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico?
A1: Yes. EPA determined that the BU-VRU compressor unit is
considered to be in VOC service. Even though the compressor is
associated with pollution control equipment, the pollution control
exemption of 40 CFR 60.14(e) of the General Provisions cannot apply
because of a direct conflict with the applicability provisions of NSPS
subpart KKK. The provisions of 40 CFR 60.630 supersede any exemptions
in 40 CFR 60.14.
Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and Kb apply to two stabilized
condensate storage tanks at the Marathon IBGP near Carlsbad, New
Mexico?
A2: Yes. EPA determined that the two storage tanks are located
after the point of custody transfer since these are located in the
natural gas processing plant, which is upstream of the IBGP. Therefore,
both tanks are subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart Kb because
the custody transfer exemption of 40 CFR Sec. 60.110b(d)(4) does not
apply.
[[Page 68435]]
Abstract for [1100015]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100015.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP)
under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) and 63.8(4)(i) for monitoring a wet gas
scrubber (WGS) on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 2,
in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits under 40 CFR
60.102(a)(2) and parameter monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Sec.
63.1564(b)(1) at ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas refinery (ExxonMobil)?
A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ExxonMobil's AMP based on its
approval of the two scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs)
established under performance testing at representative operating
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the two OPLs
and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval.
Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ExxonMobil's AMP request
since moisture in the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the
ability of the COMS to take accurate readings, due to excessive water
at the point of measurement, and flow meters were not reliable for
measuring WGS scrubber liquid recirculation rates. In the response
letter, EPA also clarified that ongoing compliance demonstration for
each approved OPL is to be based on a three hour rolling average
period.
Abstract for [1100016]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100016.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips' Alternative Monitoring Plan
(AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS)
on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 4, in lieu of a
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance
with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips'
Ponca City, Oklahoma refinery?
A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ConocoPhillips' AMP request
established under performance testing at representative operating
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the two OPLs
and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval.
Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ConocoPhillips' AMP request
because moisture in the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the
ability of the COMS to take accurate readings, due to excessive water
at the point of measurement. As described in the response letter, EPA
also required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs for ongoing
compliance demonstration beyond the termination of the existing Consent
Decree.
Abstract for [1100019]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100019.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips' Alternative Monitoring Plan
(AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS)
on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 5, in lieu of a
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance
with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips'
Ponca City, Oklahoma refinery?
A: Yes. EPA granted final approval to ConocoPhillips' AMP request
established under performance testing at representative operating
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the OPLs and
their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously,
EPA had conditionally approved ConocoPhillips' AMP request since
moisture in the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the ability
of the COMS to take accurate readings due to excessive water at the
point of measurement. As described in the response letter, EPA also
required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs for ongoing
compliance demonstration.
Abstract for [1100020]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100020.pdf.
Q: Will EPA approve Motiva's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP)
under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on a
refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu of a Continuous
Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance with the
opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at Motiva's Convent, Louisiana
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Motiva's AMP since moisture in
the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the ability of the COMS
to take accurate readings due to excessive water at the point of
measurement. The conditions for approval require that Motiva establish
three Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) under performance testing at
representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS, whereby
worst-case emissions are anticipated. EPA identified the three OPLs to
ensure that the WGSs function as intended and emissions from the FCCU
will meet the regulatory requirements for particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide and opacity.
Abstract for [1100021]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100021.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of a previously submitted
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request for combusting a vent stream
from an alkylation unit in a dedicated process flare as an inherently
low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja, at Valero Refining's
Ardmore, Oklahoma refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the Alkylation Unit vent stream, and voided the AMP request. Based
upon review of the information provided, EPA agreed that the dedicated
process flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
60.105a(g) because the vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently
low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to
sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption
criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR
60.107a(a)(3)(iii). The effective date of the exemption is the
effective date of the reissued final rule and lift of stay, November
13, 2012. EPA also clarified that the exemption determination should be
referenced and attached to the facility's new source review and Title V
permit for federal enforceability.
Abstract for [1100023]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100023.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve Marathon Petroleum's (Marathon) Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas
scrubber (WGS) on a refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in
lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at
Marathon's Texas City, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of Marathon's AMP request based
on the approval of the three scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs)
established under performance testing at representative operating
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the OPLs and
their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously,
EPA had conditionally approved Marathon's AMP request since moisture in
the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the ability of the COMS
to take accurate readings due to excessive water at the point of
measurement. In the response letter, EPA also clarified that compliance
demonstration for each OPL was to be based on a three hour rolling
average period, and required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs
for ongoing compliance demonstration.
[[Page 68436]]
Abstract for [1100024]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100024.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve Motiva's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP)
under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) vent stream combusted in a crude charge heater, in
lieu of a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), to demonstrate
compliance with the sulfur dioxide (H2S) monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4) under NSPS subpart J, at
Motiva's Convent, Louisiana refinery?
A: No. EPA determined that Motiva's AMP request is not acceptable
because it has not submitted sufficient information to justify it. EPA
requires that at least two critical independent Operating Limit
Parameters (OPLs) be proposed for the caustic pre-wash tower to be able
to obtain EPA's approval for using a daily ``doctor test'' (ASTM Method
D4952-09) to monitor total sulfur and sulfides in the tower outlet
effluent, in lieu of installing a H2S CEMS. Therefore, the
requirement to install a CEMS for monitoring H2S in the vent
stream combusted in the Crude Charge Heater under 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)
shall continue to apply.
Abstract for [1100025]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100025.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of a previously approved
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the vent stream from a
catalytic Hydrodesulfurization unit (CHD No. 1) at a process heater as
an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the
ExxonMobil's Beaumont, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring exemption for the catalytic
hydrodesulfurization vent stream, and voided ExxonMobil's AMP request
based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted
by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24,
2008 (73 FR 35866). The vent stream combusted in the heater meets the
conditions and exemption criteria of 40 CFR 60.105(b)(1)(i)-(v), and
therefore has been demonstrated to be inherently low in sulfur since it
meets the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5
parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA agreed that the
process heater is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
60.105(a)(3) and (4). If refinery operations change from
representations made for this exemption determination, then ExxonMobil
must document the change(s) and follow the appropriate steps outlined
in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).
Abstract for [1100026]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100026.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the combined vent stream from a
catalytic platinum reformer unit (PtR-4) in two heaters or a low
pressure flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60
subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the combined vent stream, and voided the AMP request based on the
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the
company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73
FR 35866). EPA agreed that the heaters and flare that burn the vent
stream are exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3)
and (4). The combined vent stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur
because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur
contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption criteria of
sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C).
If refinery operations change such that the sulfur content of the off-
gas vent stream changes from representations made for this exemption
determination, then ExxonMobil must document the change(s) and follow
the appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).
Abstract for [1200001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200001.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent
stream flow monitoring for a distillation column and associated flare
to implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS
subpart NNN, with the exception of small vent and drain valves utilized
for maintenance events, for the Advanced Aromatics facility in Baytown,
Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves Advanced Aromatics' AMP request to implement
NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions
in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN
for a distillation column vent stream routed to a flare without any by-
pass lines. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to
appropriate control devices, Advanced Aromatics is required to maintain
a schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s),
fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems as part of the
initial report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b). EPA noted
that small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance events are
not exempt under NSPS subpart NNN or subpart RRR. Therefore, flow must
be monitored during maintenance events at these locations in accordance
with NSPS subpart RRR, because such components act as bypass valves
during such events (i.e., flow is diverted away from the control
device).
Abstract for [1200002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200002.pdf.
Q: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality requests
guidance from EPA on whether prescription drugs collected by the police
department during community voluntary take back programs in Arkansas
meet the definition of confiscated contraband under 40 CFR 60.2887(p),
in order to claim an exclusion from NSPS subpart EEEE requirements for
other solid waste incinerators (OSWI)?
A: No. EPA does not consider prescription drugs collected from
households during a community take back program to be illegal or
prohibited drugs; therefore, they are not ``contraband.'' As described
in the preamble to the OSWI final rule (69 FR 71483), such drugs are
clearly not confiscated, since they are voluntarily collected.
Abstract for [1200003]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200003.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve exemptions in lieu of Alternative Monitoring
Plans (AMP) for combusting multiple vent streams from a coker,
disulfide separator, and reformer in various combustion devices as
inherently low-sulfur streams under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the
Valero Refining Texas City, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA approves a monitoring exemption for the vent streams,
and voided the original AMP request based on review of the information
provided by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on
June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the combustion devices are
exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The
two vent streams combusted are inherently low in sulfur because they
are produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and
thus, meet the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content of
below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If
[[Page 68437]]
refinery operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then
Valero must document the change and determine if the stream remains
exempt.
Abstract for [1200007]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200007.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to use a
lower alternate span value for a nitrogen oxide (NOX)
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) than what is required in
40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) on a boiler required to meet more stringent
NOX emission limit under Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and subject to NSPS subpart Db, at ConocoPhillips' Westlake,
Louisiana facility?
A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhilip's AMP to lower the Boiler
NOX CEMS span setting from 500 ppm to 100 ppm for the
existing facility operations. The use of BACT may lower stack gas
concentrations such that the span value of 500 ppm for NOX
CEMS specified by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) may be too high to ensure
accurate and reliable reporting of compliance with a more stringent
NOX emission limit. The proposed lower span setting should
ensure accuracy in measuring actual NOX concentrations in
the boiler stack gases so that compliance can be demonstrated with
adequate confidence levels.
Abstract for [1200008]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200008.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips' Alternative Monitoring Plan
(AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS)
on a refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu of a
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance
with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips'
Sweeny, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ConocoPhillips' AMP request
based on approval of the three scrubber operating parameter limits
(OPLs) CHD No. 1 established under performance testing at
representative operating conditions. The establishment of the three
OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval.
Previously, EPA had conditionally approved the AMP since moisture in
the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the ability of the COMS
to take accurate readings, due to excessive water at the point of
measurement.
Abstract for [1200010]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200010.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request
and a performance test waiver for two ethylene distillation columns
vent streams being introduced with the primary fuel into associated
boilers and process heaters without any bypass lines, in accordance
with 40 CFR 60.8(b), and as provided by 40 CFR 60.704(b)(5), to
implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS
subpart NNN, at the Chevron Phillips facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves Chevron Phillips' AMP request to implement the
NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions,
in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN.
To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to the appropriate
control devices, Chevron Phillips facility is required to maintain a
schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s),
fuel systems, and control devices as part of the initial report
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b).
Abstract for [1200011]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200011.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting three vent streams from a
catalytic hydrodesulfurization unit as inherently low-sulfur streams
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus Christi,
Texas East refinery (Citgo)?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the specified Hydrar vent streams, and voided the original AMP
request in light of the changes of the revised rule dated June 24,
2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that
combustion devices which burn the streams are exempt from the
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent
streams combusted are inherently low in sulfur because they are
produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and
thus, meet the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content
below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery
operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then Citgo must
document the change and determine if the stream remains exempt. If it
is determined that the streams are no longer exempt, continuous
monitoring at each combustion device must begin within 15 days of the
change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).
Abstract for [1200012]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200012.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a cumene
depropanizer unit as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part
60 subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus Christi, Texas East
refinery (Citgo)?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the vent stream from a cumene depropanizer unit, and voided the
original Citgo's AMP in the light of the changes of the revised rule
dated June 24, 2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA
agreed that combustion devices that burn the vent stream are exempt
from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent
stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in
a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the
exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations cause a change in an
exempt stream status, then Citgo must document the change and determine
if the stream remains exempt. If it is determined that the stream is no
longer exempt, continuous monitoring at each combustion device must
begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR
60.105(a)(4)(iv).
Abstract for [1200013]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200013.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40
CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu of a Continuous Opacity
Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance with the opacity
limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at Citgo Petroleum's (Citgo) Lake
Charles, Louisiana refinery?
A: EPA conditionally approves Citgo's AMP request. The AMP approval
is conditioned on Citgo conducting another performance test (PT) to
properly evaluate under representative operating conditions and
establish the three operating parameter limits (OPLs) for each WGS to
ensure these scrubbers function as intended, and that the PT results
indicate that emissions from the FCCU meet the particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide and opacity standards.
Abstract for [1200014]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200014.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a catalytic
reformer unit in a flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream
[[Page 68438]]
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the catalytic reformer unit vent stream, and voided the original
AMP in light of the changes made in the revised rule dated June 24,
2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that
the flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is
inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and
exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If other sulfur/sulfide bearing streams not
from catalytic reformers enter the stripper and become part of the
waste fuel gas stream, ConocoPhillips must apply for an AMP on the
stripper, and propose at least three independent process parameters to
ensure a low sulfur/sulfide stream going to the flare. EPA clarify that
any significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide concentration detected
in the stream would initiate continuous monitoring under 40 CFR 60.1
05(a)(3) or (4).
Abstract for [1200015]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200015.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement under NSPS subpart
NNN at 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2), and to implement the alternative monitoring
requirements of NSPS subpart RRR at 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, at
the ConocoPhillips East Vacuum Liquid Recovery/CO2 Plant in Lea County,
New Mexico?
A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips' AMP request for a waiver of
the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2) to implement the
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, which will
allow for the use of car seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow
indicators. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to
appropriate control devices, ConocoPhillips is required to maintain a
schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s),
fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems as part of the
initial report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b).
Abstract for [1200022]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200022.pdf.
Q: Are marine vessel loading vapors that are inherently low in
sulfur, collected by a Marine Vapor Recovery (MVR) system and routed to
an air-assisted marine flare vapor combustor, at the ExxonMobil
Beaumont, Texas refinery, subject to MACT subpart Y requirements under
40 CFR 63.562, also subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for Refineries, part 60, subpart J?
A: No. EPA determines that if the vent stream is collected to
comply with the provisions for marine tank vessel loading under 40 CFR
63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651, it does not meet the definition of a fuel gas,
as defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). EPA evaluated ExxonMobil's request in
light of changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008, which
modified the definition of fuel gas to specifically exclude vapors
collected and combusted to comply with provisions of 40 CFR 63.562 or
40 CFR 63.651.
Abstract for [1200025]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200025.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for an
alternate lower span setting of 10 percent for the oxygen (O2)
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) on sulfur recovery units
(SRU) subject to NSPS subpart J at the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) East
and West Refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP request for the proposed lower span
setting of 10 percent for the specified CEMS since it satisfied
criteria established in Performance Specification 2 of subpart 60,
Appendix B. Based on the information provided in your AMP request, the
lower span setting on specified CEMS should ensure accuracy in
measuring actual pollutant concentrations in stack gases so that
compliance can be demonstrated with adequate confidence levels.
Abstract for [1200028]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200028.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve a petition to use Operating Parameter Limits
(OPLs) to limit emissions in lieu of using a wet scrubber for a dual
chamber commercial other solid waste incinerator (OSWI) unit, which
destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and other law enforcement
agencies, under NSPS subpart FFFF, located at Kippur Corporation's
(Kippur) El Paso, Texas facility?
A: No. EPA denies Kippur's petition due to a lack of information
pertaining to the recent modification made to increase the design
capacity of the OWSI unit, as well as a lack of information pertaining
to both the proper characterization of material fired to the OSWI Unit
and the proper operation, performance testing established under
representative operating conditions, and subsequent monitoring of the
OSWI unit proposed OPLs to demonstrate compliance with the rule. As
described in the EPA response letter, this information is needed to be
able to evaluate the petition under the appropriate rule that applies
to the modified OSWI unit. If a modification occurred, then according
to 40 CFR 60.2992, the OSWI unit becomes subject to 40 CFR part 60
subpart EEEE and 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF no longer applies.
Abstract for [1200032]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200032.pdf.
Q1: The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
requests guidance from EPA on whether engines with: (1) A maximum
engine power equal to or greater than 75 KW (100 HP), except gasoline
and rich burn engines that use liquid petroleum gas, which were
manufactured between 06/12/2006 and 07/01/2007, and for which the owner
or operator commenced construction after 06/12/2006; and (2) lean-
burning maximum engine power equal to or greater than 500 HP but less
than 1,350 HP, manufactured between 06/12/2006 and 01/01/2008, and for
which the owner or operator commenced construction after 06/12/2006;
are subject to requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ for
reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE MACT) and 40 CFR part
60 subpart JJJJ for stationary spark ignition internal combustion
engines (SSIICE)?
A1: No. EPA concurs with ODEQ that the specified engines do not
meet the criteria of 40 CFR 60.4230(a), and consequently have no
applicable requirements under the SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT rules.
Q2: What are the streamlined compliance requirements for various
categories of engines in relation to the SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT?
A2: EPA notes that if an engine specifically identified in 40 CFR
63.6590(c) is not subject to any requirements in the NSPS SSIICE, then
no further action is necessary for the specified engine under the RICE
MACT. However, all other engines must meet additional requirements if
so delineated in the RICE MACT.
Q3: What are the key factors in determining whether an owner/
operator has any additional requirements to meet under the RICE MACT
when the engine is not subject to NSPS SSIICE?
A3: The key factors in determining if there are additional
requirements to meet under the RICE MACT, when the engine is not
subject to the SSIICE NSPS, are engine size and whether or
[[Page 68439]]
not the engine is located at a major source or area source.
Abstract for [A130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130001.pdf.
Q: The Asbestos Institute request clarification from EPA on whether
the use of foam meet the ``adequately wet'' standard, as stated in the
Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A: EPA determines that as long as the foam is applied as a liquid
and sufficiently mixes with or penetrates the asbestos-containing
material and prevents visible emissions, the use of such foam is
acceptable in meeting the adequately wet requirement under the Asbestos
NEHSAP M. The response is limited to this question regarding foam as a
wetting agent. It is the responsibility of the owner or operator to
meet other asbestos emission control requirements (also known as ``work
practice standards'') during the demolition or renovation operation, as
described in the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [A130002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130002.pdf.
Q1: Cantey Hanger LLP request a determination for a client on
whether only removing a 1500 foot section of the asbestos-containing
material (ACM)-wrapped pipeline in a pipeline renovation project, while
leaving the remainder of the non-friable ACM-wrapped pipeline in the
ground, transform the site into a waste disposal site under 40 CFR
61.154 of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP)?
A1: No. The Asbestos NESHAP does not apply to undisturbed pipelines
coated with ACM that remain in the ground following a renovation
project, which is the described scenario in your request, as long as no
asbestos-containing waste material is deposited in the recently
renovated area. This is consistent with a previously EPA issued
applicability determination, ADI Control Number A030001 dated March 6,
2003.
Q2: If no additional ACM is deposited at the site for a year, would
the site become an inactive waste disposal site per 40 CFR 61.154(g)?
A2: Yes. If the renovated area does not receive asbestos-containing
waste material, the site is not subject to the active waste disposal
regulation at 40 CFR 61.154, in general and 40 CFR 61.154(g),
specifically. Therefore, the inactive waste disposal requirement at 40
CFR 61.151 of the Asbestos NESHAP does not apply.
Abstract for [A130003]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130003.pdf.
Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP) apply to
encapsulating wall board with spray foam insulation if the surface of
the wall board will not be disturbed?
A: EPA is unable to comment on whether encapsulating wall board
with spray foam insulation would be compliant with the Asbestos NESHAP
based on the limited on site-specific information provided in the
request. However, if the work you are contemplating does not involve
wrecking or taking out load-bearing structures (demolition) or altering
one or more facility components, including stripping or removing
regulated asbestos-containing material (renovation), then the Asbestos
NESHAP for demolition and renovation operations does not apply to the
proposed action.
Abstract for [M130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130001.pdf.
Q: Does EPA approve Valero Refinery's (Valero) Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for using a video camera to monitor a flare pilot
flame in a control room and record the observation, in lieu of having
an ultraviolet (UV) flame detector, as required by 40 CFR part 63
subpart CC, at Valero's Three Rivers refinery in Texas?
A: No. EPA does not approve Valero's AMP since it determined that
the equivalence of using a video camera that must be monitored by
operations personnel in lieu of a continuous recording thermocouple or
equivalent device was not demonstrated under 40 CFR 60.18(1)(2). 40 CFR
63.644(a)(2) requires that a device that continuously detects the
presence of a pilot flame must be used when the controlling device is a
flare. 40 CFR 63.11(b)(5) requires that the monitoring device must be a
thermocouple or equivalent device. A thermocouple has a continuous
recording mechanism that is not dependent on operation or monitoring by
personnel.
Abstract for [M130002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130002.pdf.
Q: Is the propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plant located at the Dow
Chemical Company, Texas Operations (Dow) site subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart YY (MON NESHAP) or subpart FFFF (GMACT and Ethylene MACT)?
A: EPA determines that Dow's process is subject to the MON NESHAP,
as it did not meet the criteria of an ethylene production process as
defined by the Ethylene MACT due to the natural gas liquid feed stream
and process conditions including temperature.
Abstract for [Z130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local
Settings\Temp\wzc696\Z130001.pdf.
Q: Is the integrated biosolids management system (IBMS), which uses
dried biosolids as a feedstock in the gasifier to produce syngas for
heat energy to be transferred to the indirect sludge dryer, located at
the MaxWest South Sanford Water Resources Center (MaxWest) in Sanford,
Florida, subject to 40 CFR part 61 subpart E?
A: EPA determines that Subpart E is applicable to sludge gasifier
and integrated thermal oxidizer portions and not to the sludge dryer
portion of MaxWest's IBMS system. 40 CFR part 61 subpart E does not
apply to MaxWest's IBMS sludge dryer portion because it does not meet
the definition of ``sludge'' dryer in 40 CFR part 61 subpart E since it
being indirectly heated by thermal transfer fluid with no contact with
combustion gases. 40 CFR part 61 subpart E applies to MaxWest's
combination of the gasifier and thermal oxidizer as together they
comprise a sewage sludge incinerator of a two-steps process, one that
produces the gases through the heating of sewage sludge, and a follow
up unit in which the gases are combusted and emissions vented to the
atmosphere.
Dated: October 24, 2013.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-27287 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P