[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22176-22186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09242]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9926-65-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, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/
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 Resources and Guidance
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The
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 60.5 and 61.06. Although the
part 63 NESHAP regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) and/or Generally Available Control Technology
(GACT)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
[[Page 22177]]
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 56 such documents added to
the ADI on April 7, 2015. 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 April 7, 2015; 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 April 7, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Number Categories Subparts Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M110015............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, CC, G, Kb............. Rule Interpretation on Raw
NSPS. Data Definition and
Retention for Storage
Vessels.
1400038............................ NSPS.................. OOO................... Applicability of Rule to
Gypsum Handling Equipment
at a Power Plant with Fuel
Gas Desulfurization Units.
1100018............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Low Sulfur Bearing
Fuel Gas Stream.
Z140006............................ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.. YYYYY................. Performance Test Waiver
Request for EAF Secondary
Dust Collection System.
M120012............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. FFFF.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan
For Grab Sampling in Lieu
of Continuous Monitoring
of Caustic Scrubbers.
Z120001............................ Part 61 NESHAP........ J, V.................. Applicability Determination
for NESHAP Subparts J and
V Benzene Fugitive
Equipment Leaks.
M120015............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, J, UUU................ Alternate Work Practice--
NSPS. SRU Sulfur Pit Bypass
Lines.
Z140005............................ Part 63 NESHAP........ WWWWWW................ Applicability Determination
for Research and
Development Unit under
NESHAP Subpart WWWWWW.
M120018............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring in
NSPS. Lieu of COMS for
Regenerators.
M120020............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. NNNNN................. Alternative Monitoring for
Caustic Scrubber
Parametric Monitoring.
1200038............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Stack COMS Relocation
Determined By Equivalency
Testing.
M120021............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. G, H.................. Approval of a Common Report
Schedule--MACT Subparts G
and H.
1200039............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring for
Hydrocracker Feed Surge
Drum Vent Stream.
1200040............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring for
NHT Feed Surge Drum Off--
Gas Vent Stream.
1200041............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Hydrogen
Sulfide Monitoring for
Oleflex Reactor Vent
Stream.
1200042............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Hydrogen
Sulfide Monitoring for
Truck Loading, Storage
Tank and Well Vent Gas
Streams.
1200046............................ NSPS.................. JJJJ.................. Single-Point Testing In
Place of Method 1 or 1A--
Engine Emission Testing.
1200062............................ NSPS.................. KKK, Kb............... Applicability of NSPS
Subparts Kb and KKK for a
Vapor Recovery Unit and
Storage Tanks.
M120027............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. JJJ................... Timing Issues in
Determining MACT and Title
V Applicability.
M120029............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. S..................... Approval of an Alternative
Monitoring Frequency under
the Pulp and Paper MACT.
1200087............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Revision to NSPS Method of
Determining Compliance for
Combined Effluent NOX
CEMS.
Z140004............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. ZZZZ.................. Exemption for Emergency
Engines at Commercial Area
Sources from RICE NESHAP--
Regulatory Interpretation.
1400016............................ NSPS.................. EEEE, FFFF............ Applicability Determination
for Commercially Operated
Contraband Incinerator.
1400019............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Guidance on Alternative
Compliance Timeline
Requests for Landfill.
A140003............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Applicability of the
Asbestos NESHAP as it
Applies to Concrete
Bridges.
M140006............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. A, MMMM............... Continuing Requirements
when Surface Coating
Operations no Longer Meets
Affected Source Criteria.
M140008............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. CC, G................. Interpretation of Required
Tank Inspection Frequency.
1400021............................ NSPS.................. Dc, Ja................ NOx Requirements for
Boilers.
M140009............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. ZZZZ.................. Disapproval of an Engine De-
Rate Proposal.
M140010............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. ZZZZ.................. Approval of an Engine De-
rate Proposal.
[[Page 22178]]
M140011............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, IIII, ZZZZ............ Applicability to a Non-
NSPS. stationary Engine
Relocated For Use as a
Stationary Engine.
M140012............................ PART 63 NESHAP........ A, JJJJJJ............. Determination of Force
Majeure.
M140013............................ PART 63 NESHAP........ JJJJJJ................ Regulatory Interpretation
of Tune-up Requirements
for Spreader Stoker
Boiler.
M140014............................ PART 63 NESHAP........ JJJJJJ................ Compliance Extension for
Replacement Energy Source.
Z140007............................ Part 63 NESHAP........ BBBBBBB, VVVVVV....... Rule Applicability to HAP-
Containing Mixing
Operations to Produce
Acrylic-Based Stucco.
A140004............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Small Residence Exemption.
A140005............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Interim Method of
Determination of Asbestos
in Bulk Insulation Samples
and Transmission Electron
Microscopy.
M140016............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. DDDDD................. Categorization and
applicability of a Boiler
using natural gas and tire
derived fuel.
1400022............................ NSPS.................. J..................... NSPS Fuel Gas Definition
and Alternative Monitoring
of Marine Vessel Loading
Vapors.
1400023............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Conditional CEMS Exemption
Approval for Low Sulfur
Combustion of Off-gas Vent
Stream.
1400024............................ NSPS.................. J..................... CEMS Exemption in Lieu of
Alternative Monitoring for
Combustion of Commercial
Grade Natural Gas and
Refinery Fuel Gas.
1400025............................ NSPS.................. KKK................... Regulatory Interpretation
for Gas Plant Propane
Refrigeration System.
1400026............................ NSPS.................. OOOO.................. Applicability Determination
for Reciprocating
Compressors.
1400027............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring Plan
NSPS. for Wet Gas Scrubber on a
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit.
1400028............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring and
Waiver of Testing Request
for Distillation Vent Gas
to Process Heaters.
1400029............................ NSPS.................. Ja.................... Request for Alternative
Monitoring of Condensate
Splitter Flare.
1400030............................ NSPS.................. Ja.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Oxygen in Boiler Stack
Emissions.
1400031............................ NSPS.................. J, Ja................. Alternative Hydrogen
Sulfide Monitoring in Tank
Degassing Vapors Combusted
in Portable Thermal
Oxidizers.
1400032............................ NSPS.................. OOOO.................. Regulatory Interpretation--
Submission of Photographs
For Natural Gas Well
Completion Annual Reports.
1400033............................ NSPS.................. J, Ja................. Alternative Hydrogen
Sulfide Monitoring in Tank
Degassing Vapors Combusted
in Portable Thermal
Oxidizers.
1400034............................ NSPS.................. A, D.................. Regulatory Interpretation--
Demonstrating Continuous
Compliance and Reporting
Excess Emissions for NSPS
and Title V.
1400035............................ NSPS.................. Ec.................... Alternative Operating
Parameters for a Wet Gas
Scrubber Followed By
Carbon Adsorber and
Cartridge Filter at an
HMIWI.
1400036............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Fuel Analysis from
Subpart Db Boiler.
1400037............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Conditional CEMS Exemption
Approval for Low Sulfur
Combustion of Off-gas Vent
Stream.
1100017............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Opacity for a Wet Gas
Scrubber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [M110015]
Q1: What is EPA interpretation of raw data, in reference to 40 CFR
63.654 and 40 CFR 60.115b and the storage vessel recordkeeping
provisions in NSPS subpart Kb, and Part 63 NESHAP subparts G and CC?
A1: EPA indicated to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Region 14 that although the phrase ``raw data'' does not have a
regulatory definition, EPA has issued guidance on this subject to deal
with air pollution measurement systems and the quality assurance
procedures associated with such systems. In general, raw data is data
that is captured and recorded on field data sheets during a measurement
of some sort, such as sampling of emissions or testing of control
equipment.
Q2: May a source, after transferring data from field data sheets
into an electronic database, dispose of the field data sheets?
A2: No. Original field data sheets must be preserved whenever any
sort of emissions sampling or equipment testing, such as measuring seal
gaps in a storage tank, is performed. Transferring raw data into a
database can introduce additional error in data transcription and
entry.
Abstract for [1400038]
Q1: Is gypsum handling equipment at the Dominion Chesterfield Power
Station in Chester, Virginia, subject to NSPS subpart OOO for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants? Dominion acknowledges that a
limestone crushing process at Chesterfield is subject to subpart OOO.
A1: Yes. The gypsum handling equipment is also subject to NSPS
subpart OOO. The facility meets the definition of a nonmetallic mineral
processing plant, and each affected facility at Chesterfield is subject
to subpart OOO, including the belt conveyors used to transfer gypsum to
storage sheds or loading docks.
Q2: Must the crushing or grinding of gypsum take place in the
``production line'' to be subject to subpart OOO?
A2: No. The definition of production line does not require that
every affected facility be part of a production line with crushing or
grinding. If crushing or grinding of a nonmetallic mineral occurs
anywhere at the facility, then each affected facility is subject
regardless of its location within the plant.
Q3: Are there other power plants with flue gas desulfurization
units where the gypsum handling equipment is subject to subpart OOO?
A3: Yes. Based on a brief review of similar permits, EPA found at
least three such power plants with permits where subpart OOO was
applied to the gypsum handling equipment.
[[Page 22179]]
Abstract for [1100018]
Q: Does EPA approve the ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas Refinery
Alternate Monitoring Plan (AMP) under NSPS subpart J? Conoco claims an
exemption per 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv) because Flare #7 receives fuel
gas waste from catalytic reforming units.
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves ConocoPhillips's AMP.
Conditional approval of alternative monitoring parameters is granted
based on a requirement that the flare receive low sulfur/sulfide
bearing streams waste fuel gas only from catalytic reformers. Any
significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide concentration detected in
the stream would initiate continuous monitoring under 40 CFR
60.105(a)(3) or (4). Introduction of other streams that are not from
catalytic reformers require application of another AMP.
Abstract for [Z140006]
Q1: Does EPA approve of a waiver in the number of performance test
sampling locations required to comply with particulate stack sampling
requirements under 40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY for the electric arc
furnace at ArcelorMittal's LaPlace, Louisiana facility?
A1: No. Based on the information provided, EPA could not approve
the request to sample only three of the six emission points. Without
the results of a previous performance test which included results for
all six emission points, EPA could not confirm that emissions from
three of the emission points might be representative of all six.
Additionally, EPA reserves the right to determine which emission points
should be sampled.
Q2: Can the 60-day testing notification requirement be waived,
allowing ArcelorMittal a 30-day notification period?
A2: Yes. Based on the timing of ArcelorMittal's testing waiver
request and the testing schedule, EPA is allowing a reduced testing
notification timeframe. EPA asked that ArcelorMittal provide the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a written notice at
least ten (10) days prior to the intended testing dates in order that
DEQ be afforded the opportunity to observe the testing.
Abstract for [M120012]
Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
monitoring the caustic strength of scrubber effluent by a grab sample
monitoring system, in lieu of continuously measuring caustic strength,
under MACT subpart FFFF for the miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing process units and caustic scrubbers controlling Group 1
Process Vents at the Dow Chemical plant in La Porte, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP based on the information provided. The
plan to monitor scrubber caustic strength by grab sampling, in lieu of
continuously measuring caustic strength, is technically acceptable.
Subpart FFFF requires that the scrubbers be monitored continuously
either via continuous pH measurement and recording as specified in 40
CFR 63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), or via continuously
monitoring and recording the caustic strength of the effluent. Use of a
continuous pH meter or caustic strength analyzer may be unreliable due
to fouling. The AMP includes frequent grab sampling to monitor caustic
strength based on a worst case loading scenario.
Abstract for [Z120001]
Q: Is an inter-plant pipeline which transports liquids that are at
least 10 percent benzene by weight between two major source facilities,
each belonging to Equistar Chemicals in Alvin, Texas, subject to part
61 NESHAP subparts J and V?
A: Yes. An inter-plant pipeline that transports benzene liquids is
an emission source that is in benzene service according to 40 CFR
61.110 and 61.111, regardless of whether or not the pipeline is defined
as a discrete process unit. 40 CFR 61.110(a) includes valves,
connectors or systems in benzene service, regardless of their location,
and subpart V applies as the leak detection provision for subpart J,
per 40 CFR 61.111.
Abstract for [M120015]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternate work practice for monitoring
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) at bypass lines associated with
sulfur recovery unit (SRU) sulfur pits, which are subject to both MACT
subpart UUU and NSPS subpart J, and the terms of a Consent Decree (CD),
at the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, Texas East and West
refineries?
A: No. EPA does not approve the alternate work practice because it
would be in direct conflict with both the rule and the intent of the
CD, and would result in non-compliance. The SRUs and sulfur pits are
subject to a CD that requires sulfur pit emissions to be continuously
monitored and counted toward SRU total emissions for compliance
demonstration with the NSPS subpart J limit for sulfur dioxide
(SO2). Since the alternative work practice proposed by Flint
Hills did not include continuous monitoring per 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2),
the data necessary to comply with the portion of the CD requiring
aggregation of sulfur pit emissions for compliance demonstration with
the NSPS subpart J SO2 limit would not be collected.
Abstract for [Z140005]
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from NESHAP subpart WWWWWW under
the definition of research and development for the electroplating and
surface finishing facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
Mexico?
A: Yes. Based on a review of 40 CFR 63.11505(d)(2) and the
definition of a research and development process unit at 40 CFR
63.11511, EPA determines that the facility meets the definition and is
not subject to NESHAP subpart WWWWWW.
Abstract for [M120018]
Q: Will EPA approve Motiva Enterprises' (Motiva) Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.8 and 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), due
to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack, to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2)
and requirements of MACT subpart UUU at Motiva's Port Arthur, Texas
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Motiva's AMP. A performance test
is necessary to establish Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) and other
operating and monitoring conditions required for demonstrating
compliance with NSPS subpart J, MACT subpart UUU and the Consent Decree
for each WGS. The EPA response letter specifies the operating
conditions, operating parameters, test notice deadlines, and
notification content that are conditions of the approval. Interim OPLs
are provided.
Abstract for [M120020]
Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
parametric monitoring on caustic scrubbers used to control hydrochloric
acid emissions from storage tanks, loading, and process vents under 40
CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN at the Rubicon facility in Geismar,
Louisiana?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided in Rubicon's request, EPA
conditionally approves the AMP. A minimum pH operating parameter limit
(OPL), and a minimum recirculating liquid flow rate, pursuant to 40 CFR
63.9020(e)(1)(i), must be established during a performance test
conducted
[[Page 22180]]
under worst case emissions operating scenario. The scrubbers'
effectiveness in meeting subpart NNNNN emission standards during normal
operations will be ensured by continuous monitoring of the two OPLs.
Abstract for [1200038]
Q1: Can equivalency testing be approved to relocate the flue gas
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) on the stack outlet of a
wet gas scrubber (WGS) covered under NSPS subpart D at the Texas
Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Gibbons Creek Electric Steam Generating
Station Unit 1?
A1: Yes. 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B Performance Specification 1 (PS
1) Section 8.1 (2)(i) and (ii) specify measurement location and light
beam path requirements for COMS. If the proposed alternate COMS
locations do not meet these requirements, equivalency testing must be
conducted in accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 (2)(iii) for each
possible alternative location. Based on the test proposal, EPA approves
the request for conducting preliminary equivalency testing only, with a
60-day notification provided to the State authority.
Q2: What if there are separate ducts that split the vent stream gas
flow?
A2: Relocation and the preliminary equivalency testing must include
the use of two COMS units in order to provide opacity readings
representative of total emissions.
Q3: What must the facility do to obtain subsequent approval for
permanent relocation of the stack COMS?
A3: TMPA must provide the data and operating information from the
preliminary equivalency testing for the alternative location ultimately
selected, in accordance with the applicable performance test reporting
requirements of NSPS subparts A and D. In accordance with PS 1 Section
8.1 (2)(iii), the average opacity value measured at each temporary COMS
at the selected alternate location must be within +/- 10 percent of the
average opacity value measured at the existing flue gas stack COMS, and
the difference between any two average opacity values must be less than
2 percent opacity (absolute value).
Abstract for [M120021]
Q: Does EPA approve a common schedule for submitting periodic
reports under the Hazardous Organic part 63 NESHAP, subparts G and H,
at the Union Carbide Texas City, Texas facility?
A: Yes. EPA approves the common schedule provided the reporting
requirement of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1) is satisfied, which only allows a
60-day lag between the end of the reporting period and the due date of
a periodic report. EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(a)(6)
and 63.9(i), and concurred that the proposed reporting schedule
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1).
Abstract for [1200039]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery
hydrocracker feed surge drum off-gas vent stream combusted at four
hydrocracker heaters at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the
process vent streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the
H2S monitoring data furnished. The approval specifies
operating parameter limits for total sulfur and temperature. Valero
must follow the seven step process detailed in the Valero consent
decree appendix on Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J
Refinery Fuel Gas.
Abstract for [1200040]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery process
feed surge drum off-gas vent stream combusted at a charge heater under
NSPS subpart J at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the
process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the
H2S monitoring data furnished. The approval specifies
operating parameter limits for total sulfur and temperature. Valero
must follow the seven step process detailed in the Valero consent
decree appendix on Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J
Refinery Fuel Gas.
Abstract for [1200041]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request for
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) the No. 4 vent stream at
the Valero Refining West Plant in Corpus Christi, Texas? The request
involves vent streams from the Oleflex Reactor Lock Hopper Engager off-
gas vent stream combusted at the Oleflex Interheater.
A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's alternative monitoring request based
on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent
gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. There
will be no points where sour gas can be introduced into the vent gas
stream. The effluent is to be sampled and tested daily. Valero must
follow the seven step process (Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS
subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas) in the consent decree for the No. 4 vent
stream.
Abstract for [1200042]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) of vent gases from the
control of diesel and jet fuel truck loading, toluene and reformate
storage tanks, and groundwater recovery wells at the Valero Refining
Corpus Christi, Texas East refinery? The vent streams are combusted at
the truck rack thermal oxidizer enclosed vapor combustor.
A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the
process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the
H2S monitoring data furnished. Valero must follow the seven
step process detailed in the Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS
subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas appendix of Valero's consent decree. The
approval specifies an H2S operating limit from each of the
emission sources (e.g., loading, tanks, wells) covered by the AMP.
Abstract for [1200046]
Q: Does EPA approve single-point testing in place of Method 1 or 1A
for required testing of engine emissions under 40 CFR part 60 subpart
JJJJ, for the ConocoPhillips Lake Pelto Compressor Barge, located
offshore in southern Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips' single-point testing, since
the engines are located over water, and are difficult to test due to
limited space.
Abstract for [1200062]
Q1: Is the installation of a backup vapor recovery unit (BU-VRU) to
capture emissions from a glycol dehydrator unit, which includes a
compressor, at the Marathon Petroleum Indian Basin Gas Plant near
Carlsbad, New Mexico, considered a modification of an affected facility
and thus subject to NSPS subpart KKK?
A1: Based on the information provided by the Air Quality Bureau of
the New Mexico Environment Department (AQB-NMED), EPA determines that
the installation of the BU-VRU compressor at the Indian Basin Gas Plant
is subject to NSPS subpart KKK. The compressor is an affected facility
under NSPS subpart KKK that was constructed after the applicability
date and is presumed to be in VOC or wet gas service. The pollution
control device exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) of
[[Page 22181]]
the General Provisions is superseded by 40 CFR 60.630 and therefore
does not apply. In addition, the NSPS subpart KKK does not include
exemptions for compressor emergency operations or operating less than
500 hours per year. With respect to whether the other affected
facility, which includes all other equipment (except compressors), that
are part of the glycol dehydrator process unit, EPA cannot make a
modification determination since there is no information on emission
increases or decreases available.
Q2: Are the two storage tanks at the Indian Basin Gas Plant subject
to NSPS subpart Kb, or are they exempt under the custody transfer
exemption in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4)?
A2: Based on the information provided by AQB-NMED, EPA determines
that the storage tanks are subject to NSPS subpart Kb. The Indian Basin
Gas Plant is not part of the producing operation and its tanks are
after the point of custody transfer as defined at 40 CFR 60.111(b).
Therefore, the tanks do not qualify for the ``prior to custody
transfer'' exemption in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4).
Abstract for [M120027]
Q1: Does EPA agree with the determinations of the Portsmouth Local
Air Agency and the Southeast District Office of the Ohio EPA that the
America Styrenics Hanging Rock and Marietta, Ohio facilities are
subject to the MACT if they changed processes after the compliance date
such that their potential emissions are well below the HAP major source
thresholds?
A1: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Portsmouth Local
Air Agency, EPA determines that the facilities are still subject to the
major source MACT standard because it is EPA's position that any source
that is a major source of HAP on the first substantive compliance date
of an applicable NESHAP will remain subject to that NESHAP regardless
of the level of the source's subsequent emissions.
Q2: Are these facilities still subject to Title V if their HAP
emissions potential was the only criteria that made them subject to
Title V requirements?
A2: Yes. Because the facilities are subject to a major source MACT
standard, they are also subject to Title V permitting requirements
under Section 502(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a).
Abstract for [M120029]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring frequency for
inspections of once per month rather than every 30 days under the Pulp
and Paper MACT for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in Coshocton,
Ohio?
A: Yes. EPA approves this minor modification to the monitoring
frequency under 40 CFR 63.8(b)(i) provided that the monitoring events
are at least 21 days apart.
Abstract for [1200087]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a subtractive method for the
NOx compliance determination and use of a temporary Continuous Emission
Monitoring System (CEMs) for the initial performance test for a NSPS
subpart Db affected facility at Valero Refining's Ethanol Plant in
Bloomingburg, Ohio? The proposed method uses combined emissions from
this subpart Db facility and another affected facility as determined by
a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), and subtracts the
emissions from the other facility as read by a separate CEMS.
A: Yes. EPA approves the subtractive compliance determination
approach under 40 CFR 60.8(b) authority for the initial performance
testing. This request was necessary because, while the NSPS allows for
the location of a CEMS in a stack serving multiple affected sources for
the purpose of demonstration of continuous compliance, no such
allowance is made for the initial performance testing requirement.
Abstract for [Z140004]
Q1: Are emergency engines located at commercial sources that are
used for telecommunications purposes exempt from the Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part
63, subpart ZZZZ?
A1: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR part 63.6590(b)(3) state that
emergency engines located at area sources that are classified as
commercial, institutional or residential emergency stationary RICE are
not subject to the requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.
Q2: Are emergency engines used by telecommunication facilities that
are installed and located on industrial property also exempt?
A2: The applicability of the RICE NESHAP is dependent on whether
the commercial or industrial operation has common control over the
emergency engine. If the industrial facility has control, the engine
could be subject to the RICE NESHAP.
Abstract for [1400016]
Q1: Is Kippur Corporation's (Kippur) dual chamber, commercial
incinerator which thermally destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and
Border Protection in El Paso, Texas subject to regulation as an ``other
solid waste incineration'' (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 subparts
EEEE and FFFF?
A1: Yes. Based on the information submitted by Kippur, EPA
determines that the contraband incinerator is an OSWI unit subject to
either NSPS subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF. In addition, the incinerator
would not be subject to subpart EEEE because an air pollution abatement
equipment is not considered part of an OSWI unit. Therefore, the
increased feed rate caused by the higher air flow volume resulting from
the addition of a second baghouse on the OSWI unit does not constitute
a modification of the incinerator under NSPS subpart EEEE. Based on
this and additional supplemental information Kippur provided, the OSWI
Unit is therefore subject to NSPS subpart FFFF since subpart EEEE
applicability was not trigger with the OSWI unit changes consistent
with 40 CFR 60.2992.
Q2: Does EPA approve a petition for approval of operating parameter
limits (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet scrubber to comply with
emission limitations?
A2: No. In a separate September 12, 2012 letter, EPA disapproved
the petition because specific information was lacking for final
approval. Therefore, Kippur must comply with the appropriate NSPS
subpart FFFF requirements.
Abstract for [1400019]
Q1: The Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC. on behalf of American
Disposal Services of Illinois, which owns the Livingston Landfill,
requests a clarification as to whether the Alternative Compliance
Timeline (ACT) requests are due 15 days after an initial exceedance is
identified through required monitoring activities, pursuant to the
requirements in 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3) and (a)(s).
A1: EPA indicates that 40 CFR 60.755 requires landfill owner/
operators to repair the cause of an exceedance within 15 days, or
expand the gas collection system within 120 days. In the event that the
landfill owner or operator, despite its best efforts, is unable to make
the necessary repairs to resolve the exceedance within 15 days, and it
believes that an expansion of gas collection is unwarranted, the
landfill owner or operator may submit for approval an ACT request for
correcting the as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as it knows that it
will not be able to correct the exceedance in 15 days and it is
unwarranted to expand the gas collection system) to avoid being in
[[Page 22182]]
violation of the rule and communicate the reasons for the exceedance,
results of the investigation, and schedule for corrective action.
Q2: Are ACT requests necessary if the owner/operator chooses to
expand the gas collection system and is unable to complete the
expansion project within 120 days?
A2: Yes. The landfill owner or operator may submit an ACT request
as soon as it determines that it cannot meet the 120 day deadline to
avoid being in violation of the rule. See above response under A1.
Q3: What information is included in an ACT request?
A3: EPA's response describes a number of items that should be
included, at a minimum. The request must promptly identify the problem,
be very detailed, and contain substantial reasons beyond the control of
the facility owner or operator why the exceedances could not and cannot
be completed within the prescribed time frame allowed in the rule.
Q4: If a facility makes repairs to a well to restore the well field
to its original designed capacity, or replaces the well in-kind, does
that constitute an expansion of the gas collection system (thereby
causing the 120-day deadline to be applicable)?
A4: No. An expansion of the gas collection system consists of an
increase beyond the original design capacity.
Abstract for [A140003]
Q1: Are bridges considered regulated structures under the asbestos
NESHAP?
A1: Yes. In a response to the California Air Resource Board, EPA
indicated that a bridge is a structure within the definition of a
facility. As discussed in the October 1990 Background Information
Document for Asbestos, it is prudent not to exclude structures such as
bridges.
Q2: Is a thorough inspection of a bridge for the presence of
asbestos, including Category I and Category II, required under the
asbestos NESHAP?
A2: Yes. Under 40 CFR 61.145(a), a thorough inspection of any
facility is required before demolition or renovation to identify
friable asbestos, Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos-
containing material (ACM) and Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM
that are not friable at the time of the inspection but will be made
friable due to the demolition or renovation.
Q3: Is bridge concrete Category I, or is it Category II nonfriable
ACM?
A3: Bridge concrete is not listed as Category I nonfriable ACM.
According to 40 CFR 61.141, Bridge concrete is considered Category II
nonfriable ACM if it contains more than 1 percent asbestos that, when
dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand
pressure.
Q4: Must bridge concrete be sampled for the presence of asbestos
before demolition?
A4: The bridge concrete must be thoroughly inspected. See 40 CFR
61.145(a). Sampling is done to determine whether the material is ACM or
not. The amount of ACM that is or will be made friable during the
demolition factors into whether asbestos NESHAP requirements apply.
Q5: If the bridge concrete was never tested for the presence of
asbestos before demolition and now the concrete is going to be crushed
and recycled, must the concrete be tested for asbestos before crushing
and recycling?
A5: The concrete at a demolition operation regulated by 40 CFR
61.145 must be thoroughly inspected before the demolition operation to
determine whether the material is ACM. The recycling could be
considered part of the demolition operation and require the owner/
operator to sample to determine whether the concrete is ACM. The
results will determine whether the concrete can continue to be recycled
or must be managed and disposed of as regulated ACM.
Abstract for [M140006]
Q: Does K&K Ironworks in Chicago, Illinois remain subject to 40 CFR
part 63 subpart MMMM given that they no longer use the quantity of
coatings required by 40 CFR 63.3881(b) for an affected source to be
covered by Subpart MMMM, and they meet the criteria established at 40
CFR 63.3881(c)(1) to be excluded from coverage of subpart MMMM?
A: Although K&K Ironworks of Chicago operations no longer fall
under the types of activities subject to Subpart MMMM, there may be
requirements of subpart MMMM and 40 CFR part 63 subpart A that did not
immediately terminate when the company discontinued the use of coatings
that contain HAPs. For example, the records retention and recordkeeping
requirements at 40 CFR 63.3931(b) and 63.10(b)(3) are continuing
obligations, that were triggered when the company used xylene.
Abstract for [M140008]
Q: Frontier Refining requested an applicability determination
regarding the timing of tank inspections to meet the annual tank
inspection requirements under NESHAP subpart G for the Holly Frontier
facility in Wyoming. Can the annual inspection requirement be
accomplished within an 11-13 month window from the prior inspection?
A: Yes. If a regulation does not specifically state what is meant
by the ``once per'' (timeframe), the EPA interprets the timeframe to
mean at some point within the timeframe and at a reasonable interval
between events. See, for example, 40 CFR 63.100(k)(9)(iii). A once per
month obligation means sometime within the month, but not the last day
of one month and the first day of the next month, because that is not a
reasonable time interval. For annual requirements, a reasonable
interval between events would be between 11 and 13 months.
Abstract for [1400021]
Q: Does EPA agree that Calumet Superior's two steam generating
boilers located at its petroleum refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, and
which are fuel gas combustion devices (FGCDs) affected facilities under
NSPS subpart Ja, do not meet the definition of a process heaters under
NSPS subpart Ja, and therefore are not subject to the emission limits,
performance testing, monitoring and excess emission reporting
requirements for NOx located at 40 CFR 60.102a(g)(2), 60.104a(i),
60.107a(c), 60.107a(d) and 60.102a(i)?
A: Yes. EPA agrees that Calumet Superior's boilers meet the
definition of FGCDs and do not meet the definition of process heaters
under NSPS subpart Ja. Therefore, the boilers are not subject to any
NOx requirements under NSPS subpart Ja. However, to the extent that the
boilers are affected facilities under the Standards of Performance for
Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, NSPS
subpart Dc, they may be subject to NOx requirements.
Abstract for [M140009]
Q: May Benson Woodworking in Walpole, New Hampshire de-rate its
Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set from its current capacity of greater
than 300 brake horsepower hour (bhp) to less than 300 bhp by cutting
the existing factory governor seal, resetting the loading screws to the
lower output specification, and then resealing the governor with wire
and a dealer specific lead stamp, to comply with the Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part
63, subpart ZZZZ?
A: No. The de-rate method proposal is not approvable by EPA. The
proposed method of de-rating the engine is not permanent in nature.
[[Page 22183]]
Abstract for [M140010]
Q: Can the following physical changes to Benson Woodworking's
Walpole, New Hampshire Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set, including:
removal of the current 400 amp circuit breaker and associated frame;
destruction of the 400 amp frame; and, fabrication and installation of
a new frame to hold a smaller 250 amp circuit that would prevent the
engine output from exceeding 299 bhp, result in a de-rating of engine's
capacity to less than 300 bhp?
A: Yes. Based on the physical changes that Benson has proposed, EPA
approves the de-rating of the unit to less than 300 bhp given the
permanent nature of the physical changes to the unit.
Abstract for [M140011]
Q: Does the NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines, subpart IIII apply to an existing marine propulsion
engine manufactured March 22, 1999 (EU ID#4) that the Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning to relocate as a non-stationary
engine at its existing power plant in Emmonak, Alaska?
A: No. The EU ID#4 engine is not subject to NSPS subpart IIII
because it was manufactured prior to April 1, 2006, and commenced
construction prior to July 11, 2005. The conversion of an existing non-
stationary engine to use as an engine at a stationary source is not
``commencement of construction'' that would trigger new source status
under this rule. However, the EU ID#4 existing engine would be subject
to the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(RICE), 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ when it is operated as a stationary
source.
Abstract for [M140012]
Q1: Did a force majeure event, as defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart
A, occur at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska?
A1: Yes. EPA determines that on April 28, 2014, a force majeure
event occurred at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska, when a
mechanical failure of one of the facility's turbine generator rendered
it inoperable.
Q2: Is a 60 day extension of the performance test deadline under
NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ appropriate?
A2: Yes. The turbine generator, which is subject to a testing
deadline, is needed for representative operation of the boiler when the
load from winter district heating is not there to draw steam from the
boiler. In 60 days (November 17, 2014) the load from winter district
heating will be sufficient. Considering the time estimated to repair
the turbine generator, it is reasonable to extend the deadline for the
boiler compliance testing by 60 days.
Abstract for [M140013]
Q: Can EPA provide further guidance on how to conduct tune-ups
under 40 CFR 63.11223(b), which is Condition 4 of the previously EPA
approved one-year compliance deadline extension for the Eielson Air
Force Base's Central Heat and Power Plant in Alaska? The four existing
coal fired boilers subject to the compliance extension are of the
spreader stoker/traveling grate design and do not have burners.
A: Yes. EPA amends the previous approval of the compliance
extension to provide further guidance on Condition 4 of the approval,
as detailed in the EPA response letter. EPA provides guidance on how to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11223(b) when burners are not
present. Some requirements of 40 CFR 63.11223(b) do not apply, while
others requirements, such as adjusting the air-to-fuel ratio, and
measurement of oxygen and carbon monoxide are still required to be
performed.
Abstract for [M140014]
Q: Does EPA approve a one-year compliance extension to meet the
NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
Boilers, subpart JJJJJJ, for three existing coal-fired boilers (that
operate as back-ups) located at the Brigham Young University in Idaho
(BYU-Idaho)? The coal-fired boilers will be demolished and replaced
with a new energy plant that will be fueled with natural gas.
A: EPA conditionally approves an extension until December 31, 2014,
to operate three coal-fired boilers in their backup capacity without
the installation of controls that would otherwise be required to meet
the NESHAP subpart JJJJJ. The compliance deadline is extended because
BYU-Idaho is constructing a natural gas source of energy generation as
a replacement source of energy to meet requirements of the CAA
standard. The approval is conditional on BYU-Idaho implementing: (1)
interim compliance deadlines for the construction of the natural gas
replacement energy; and (2) tune-ups specified in 40 CFR 63.11214 for
existing coal-fired boilers with a heat input capacity of less than 10
MM BTU/hr that do not meet the definition of limited-use boiler, or an
oxygen trim system that maintains an optimum air-to-fuel ratio.
Abstract for [Z140007]
Q: Which area source NESHAP regulation applies to the operations at
the BASF Corporation Facility in Lancaster, Texas (Lancaster site)? The
NESHAP regulations to evaluate include: NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB
applicable to Chemical Preparations Industry area source category;
NESHAP subpart VVVVVV applicable to the Chemical Manufacturing Source
Category; and NESHAP subpart CCCCCCC applicable to Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing.
A: EPA finds that the NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB is applicable because
the operations at the Lancaster site are mixing-type processes, which
are typical of the Chemical Preparations Source Category. EPA
understands the Lancaster Site produces architectural coatings,
primarily acrylic latex-based stucco that contains aggregate, primarily
sand. The Lancaster Site mixes latex dispersions produced off-site with
aggregate and other additives to produce acrylic-based stucco.
Abstract for [A140004]
Q: Does EPA agree with the City of Sarasota, Florida that the
demolition of a single-family residential building acquired by the city
is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP subpart M due to the small
residence exemption?
A: Yes. Based on facts presented in the Memorandum of Law from
Sarasota and the definition of facility in the asbestos NESHAP, EPA
determines the building meets the conditions of a small residential
building (a building containing four or fewer dwelling units) and is
not subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulation. The house was not used
for any institutional, commercial, public, or industrial purpose prior
to the demolition. It is not part of an installation, nor part of any
public or private project.
Abstract for [A140005]
Q: Does EPA approve the Transmission Electron Microscopy test
procedure in place of the point counting procedure used to make a
determination of the presence of asbestos in bulk materials, as
required under the asbestos NESHAP?
A: In a response to Masek Consulting Services, EPA indicates that
the current asbestos regulation requires point counting after
evaluating the sample by Polarized Light Microscopy. The owner/operator
may choose to use Transmission Electron Microscopy only after analyzing
the sample by Polarized Light Microscopy and point counting.
[[Page 22184]]
Abstract for [M140016]
Q: Does EPA agree that the Boise DeRidder Mill No. l Bark Boiler in
DeRidder, Louisiana is a biomass hybrid suspension grate boiler under
NESHAP subpart DDDDD?
A: Yes. EPA agrees that the boiler is subject to NESHAP subpart
DDDDD. The Bark Boiler has characteristics that are consistent with the
definition of hybrid suspension grate boiler at 40 CFR 63.7575.
However, natural gas and tire derived fuel are also present as
potential fuels in the boiler. Therefore, the facility must keep
records to demonstrate that the annual average moisture content is at
or above the 40 percent moisture limit, as required in the rule.
Abstract for [1400022]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for
product vapors from marine vessel loading operations which are
inherently low in sulfur content, and are combusted in the Marine Vapor
Recovery (MVR) Flare No.3, under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart J for the
Chalmette Refining's Chalmette, Louisiana refinery?
A: EPA determines that the AMP is no longer necessary since the
definition of fuel gas has been modified under the September 12, 2012
amendment to subpart J (77 Federal Register 56463). The marine vessel
loading vapor stream does not meet the definition of a fuel gas, as
defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). Therefore, MVR Flare No.3 does not need to
meet the continuous monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR
60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4).
Abstract for [1400023]
Q: Can an exemption from monitoring be approved for a fuel gas
stream that is low in sulfur content under NSPS subpart J, for the off-
gas vent stream from the Gasoline Desulfurization Unit Selective
Hydrogenation Unit Surge Drum Vent that is routed to the North Flare at
the Marathon Oil facility in Garyville, Louisiana?
A: Yes. Based on Marathon's description of the process vent
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S
monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption.
EPA finds that, when controlled as delineated in the response letter,
the vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur, according to
40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), and does not need to meet the continuous
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). EPA
included the facility's proposed operating parameter limits, which the
facility must continue to monitor, as part of the conditional approval.
Abstract for [1400024]
Q: Can an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plan be
approved for a fuel gas stream that is low in sulfur under NSPS 40 CFR
60 subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, Texas? The refinery
proposes to combust commercial grade natural gas as a supplemental
fuel, in combination with refinery fuel gas vent streams.
A: Yes. Based on ExxonMobil's description of the process vent
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S
monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption.
EPA finds that the mixture of non-monitored commercial natural gas and
refinery fuel vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur,
according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), when used and controlled as
described in the EPA response letter. EPA included the facility's
proposed operating parameter limits, which the facility must continue
to monitor, as part of the conditional approval. Therefore, the fuel
gas combustion devices listed in the request do not need to meet the
continuous monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or
60.105(a)(4).
Abstract for [1400025]
Q: Is the propane refrigeration system used at the Enbridge Nine
Mile Gas Plant in Dewey County, Oklahoma subject to the requirements of
NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart KKK?
A: Yes. EPA determines that propane system is subject to NSPS KKK
based upon the information the company provided. The propane
refrigeration system is a process unit that can also operate
independently if supplied with sufficient feed. The propane
refrigeration system is ``equipment'' under 40 CFR 60.631 because it
consists of valves, connectors, and compressors in VOC service. These
components are in light liquid VOC service because they contain or
contact propane, which constitutes at least 97 percent by weight of
content of the refrigeration system, and the propane is a liquid within
the operating conditions of the refrigeration system.
Abstract for [1400026]
Q: Are two natural gas reciprocating compressors which were
transferred from a ``laydown'' yard to the Fayetteville Gathering
Hattieville Compressor Station, located in Hattieville, Arkansas,
affected facilities subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart OOOO?
A: No. Relocation, by itself, does not trigger NSPS applicability
through modification. Based upon the fact that the company commenced
construction of the two compressors on a continuous basis prior to the
effective date of NSPS subpart OOOO, nor were they modified, these
units are not affected facilities under the subpart. EPA clarified in
final rule preamble to NSPS OOOO that relocation does not subject a
source to new source standards. Additionally, the General Provisions to
Part 60 contain similar language, that relocation or change in
ownership, by itself, is not a modification.
Abstract for [1400027]
Q1: Does EPA provide final approval of an Alternative Monitoring
Plan (AMP) for parametric monitoring in lieu of a continuous opacity
monitor for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking
Unit (FCCU) at Holly Refining & Marketing in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Holly)
under NSPS 40 CFR 60, subpart J, and NESHAP 40 CFR 63, subpart UUU,
based on submittal of test results?
A1: Yes. EPA grants final approval of Holly's AMP request. Holly
conducted a performance test and submitted additional data pertaining
to a prior, conditionally approved AMP. EPA reviewed the performance
test results and found the data supportive for establishing final OPLs
for the WGS, which included minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratios, based on 3-
hour, hourly rolling averages, for operation of the WGS with one or two
nozzles.
Abstract for [1400028]
Q: May the Ineos Chocolate Bayou facility in Alvin, Texas, which is
subject to both 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations (NSPS subpart
NNN) and Reactor Processes (NSPS subpart RRR) use the monitoring and
testing provisions in NSPS subpart RRR in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN for
the process heaters?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request for meeting Subpart RRR in lieu of
NSPS subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and
recordkeeping for use of process heaters as control devices for
compliance with the standards of both subparts. This would require
monitoring of small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance
events during maintenance in accordance with NSPS subpart RRR since
they act as bypass valves. In addition, the schematic required by 40
CFR 60.705(s) is required with the initial report and must be
maintained on site to ensure that the
[[Page 22185]]
affected vent streams are being routed to appropriate control devices
without bypass.
Abstract for [1400029]
Q1: Does EPA agree with Kinder Morgan that the Condensate Splitter
Flare located at the Galena Park Condensate Processing Facility in
Harris County, Texas is subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
A1: No. EPA is unable to verify applicability of NSPS subpart Ja
because sufficient information about the facility or the operations and
processes vented to the flare were not provided.
Q2: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request
for the Condensate Splitter Flare?
A2: No. Kinder Morgan did not furnish sufficient detail about vent
streams routed to the flare, or adequately describe the specific
refinery process that would produce low sulfur content vent streams.
Assuming the vent streams are fuel gas streams subject to NSPS subpart
Ja, we cannot approve any AMP that seeks to circumvent a specific
emissions monitoring requirement for affected facility operations.
Under NSPS, new facilities must be constructed in such a manner that
monitors are installed to demonstrate initial compliance and ensure
ongoing compliance until such time that an exemption can be met.
Furthermore, applications for exemptions to a rule must provide
sufficient data at the time of the request in order to be evaluated for
approval.
Abstract for [1400030]
Q1: Does EPA approve the HollyFrontier Companies' request for
approval of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring oxygen
in the stack, in lieu of parametric monitoring to substitute for a
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, for the hydrocracker reboiler
at Navajo Refining's Artesia, New Mexico refinery (Navajo), to comply
with the NOX and oxygen standards in NSPS, 40 CFR part 60
subpart Ja?
A1: Yes. EPA determines that Navajo's AMP that combines monitoring
oxygen in the stack along with other specific process monitoring
parameters is acceptable based on the limited usage of refinery fuel
gas and the information submitted, including the performance test
results. Navajo sampled the fuel gas at the reboiler to demonstrate
that the stream is 100 percent purchased natural gas. Also, to improve
the efficiency of the heater, Navajo installed new burner tips to
better combust the purchased natural gas. As a result, NOX
and O2 emissions were reduced, as verified by a performance
test.
Abstract for [1400031]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for PSC
Industrial to conduct monitoring of H2S emissions at various
locations in EPA Region 6, in lieu of installing a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other
similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers,
at refineries that are subject to NSPS 40 CFR 60 subparts J or Ja?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves PSC Industrial's AMP request.
Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the
design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data
furnished, EPA finds that it is impractical to require monitoring via
an H2S CEMS as specified by NSPS subparts J and Ja for the specific
portable and temporary combustion device use. EPA included operating
parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must furnish as
part of the conditional approval. This conditional approval applies to
this company's refineries in EPA Region 6 only. EPA's conditional
approval should also be referenced and appropriately incorporated into
PSC Industrial's new source review permit in each state where degassing
operations at refineries will occur, to ensure federal enforceability.
Abstract for [1400032]
Q: Can Samson Exploration, Houston, Texas submit hard copy
photographs with the required GIS and date stamp data printed below
each photograph in streamlined annual reports required under 40 CFR
60.5420(b)(2) of NSPS subpart OOOO?
A: Yes. The inclusion of such types of submissions in annual
reports is acceptable. There is no regulatory prohibition against
submitting hard copies which have the date and GIS coordinates printed
beneath each photograph, provided that the proximity of each photograph
and its associated data ensures clear correlation. EPA further
clarified that, in conjunction with the self-certification statement
required under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(1)(iv), a statement should be included
that digital images of the photographs for each well completion are
retained, such that the digital image files contain embedded date
stamps and geographic coordinate stamps to link the photographs with
the specific well completion operations.
Abstract for [1400033]
Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Tristar
Global Energy Solutions Company (Tristar) to conduct monitoring of
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in lieu of installing a
continuous emission monitoring system, when performing tank degassing
and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal
oxidizers, at refineries at various locations that are subject to NSPS
subparts J or Ja?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S
monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request.
EPA included operating parameter limits and data which the refineries
must furnish as part of the conditional approval. This conditional
approval applies to Tristar's degreasing operations at refineries in
EPA Region 6 only.
Abstract for [1400034]
Q1: Does EPA agree with Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC)
that excess emission for the Hugo Generating Station, Choctaw County,
Oklahoma coal-fired boiler, an ``affected facility'' under NSPS for
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators, subpart D, would only be reported
for certain periods of operational status such as when the boiler is
firing fuel for the purpose of generating electricity?
A1: No. EPA disagreed that reporting of excess emissions should be
limited to certain periods of boiler operational status. EPA reiterated
that the NSPS requires reporting of all periods of excess emissions,
including those temporary occurrences that may result in a particular
emission standard being exceeded. Required recordkeeping and reporting
should be viewed, along with O&M and SSM protocols, as a company's
substantiation of acting in good faith to demonstrate compliance with
emission limitations, standards, and work practice standards at all
times. EPA believes that WFEC has misinterpreted certain monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the NSPS and MACT standards
that a combustion source must meet for continuous compliance
demonstration, which we explained in the Regulatory Interpretation
enclosure of the EPA response.
Abstract for [1400035]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring Operating Parameter
Limits (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec, for a pollution control system on
a new
[[Page 22186]]
medical waste incinerator which consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS)
followed by a carbon adsorber and cartridge filter, located at the
University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMBG) in Galveston, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Hydro-Environmental Technologies
petition on behalf UTMBG for an AMP. As part of the conditional
approval, performance testing must be conducted to demonstrate
compliance and establish OPL values for the WGS, carbon adsorber and
cartridge filter. Final approval of the AMP will be based on the OPLs
established and other provisions that may be deemed necessary from our
evaluation of the test results.
Abstract for [1400036]
Q: Will EPA approve the Fuel Analysis Plan for monitoring total
sulfur content of fuels in lieu of SO2 emissions monitoring
under NSPS subpart Db for Industrial-Commercial Institutional Steam
Generating Units for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after June 19, 1984, at the No. 6 Power Boiler
in Westvaco, Texas L.P. facility (Westvaco)?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Westvaco's Fuel Analysis Plan,
as delineated within the response letter. 40 CFR 60.45b(k) allows
compliance to be demonstrated by a fuel based compliance alternative.
The plan ensures that data will be collected to demonstrate that the
average percentage sulfur concentration in the wood fuel, plus three
standard deviations, will not result in a combined fuel mixture that
will exceed the sulfur emission limit. Westvaco will continue to obtain
and maintain fuel receipts for the other combusted fuels.
Abstract for [1400037]
Q: Can an exemption from monitoring be approved for a fuel gas
stream that is low in sulfur content, under NSPS subpart J, for the
off-gas vent stream from the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot in the Alky
Stripper Reboiler Heater, at the Valero Refining Meraux facility in
Meraux, Louisiana?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the process vent streams, the
design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data
furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption in light of changes
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 Federal Register 35866).
EPA finds that, when used and controlled as described in the response
letter, the vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur
according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D) and therefore, the fuel gas
combustion device does not need to meet the continuous monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4) for the Merox Off-
gas Knockout Pot fuel gas stream. Valero Meraux is required to monitor
and control the relevant process parameters, as summarized in the
Enclosure, as a condition of this exemption approval.
Abstract for [1100017]
Q: Can alternative monitoring be approved in lieu of a Continuous
Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) since the moisture in the Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Unit exhaust from the wet gas scrubber (WGS) will
interfere with the ability of the COMS to take accurate opacity
readings due to water interference for the Conoco Phillips Sweeny,
Texas Refinery?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring based on
information provided by Conoco, including a stack test report and three
proposed operating parameters limits (OPLs) for the wet gas scrubber.
The OPLs address nozzle pressure, pressure drop, and liquid to gas
ratio.
Dated: April 13, 2015.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-09242 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P