[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95585-95591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31235]
[[Page 95585]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9956-57-OECA]
Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent
Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/
or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) data
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: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The
letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by date, office of
issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word
searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria
Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at:
[email protected]. For technical questions about individual
applicability determinations, monitoring decisions or regulatory
interpretations, 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. The
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources
may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to
written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Section
111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that 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). The EPA's written responses to these
inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions.
Furthermore, the 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. The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly
referred to as regulatory interpretations.
The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In
addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to
the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The
ADI is a data system on the Internet with over three 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 30 such documents added to
the ADI on December 6, 2016. 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 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: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the control number for each document
posted on the ADI data system on December 6, 2016; 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 section 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 December 6, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Categories Subparts Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1500007.............. NSPS........... Eb............. Waiver of
System
Operational
Limits During
Performance
Test.
1500050.............. MACT, NESHAP, A, Db, JJJJJJ.. Extension
NSPS. Request for
Initial
Performance
Test at Coal-
Fired Boiler.
1500053.............. NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring
Plan for
Flares at a
Petroleum
Refinery.
1500061.............. NSPS........... IIII........... Regulatory
Interpretation
for Bi-fuel
Engine Kits.
1500075.............. NSPS........... KKK, OOOO, VV, Applicability
VVa. Determination
for a Natural
Gas Processing
Plant.
1500076.............. NSPS........... Ja............. Applicability
Determination
for a
Condensate
Splitter
Processing
Facility.
1500077.............. NSPS........... CCCC, DDDD..... Applicability
Determination
for Thermal
Oxidizer.
[[Page 95586]]
1500078.............. NSPS........... OOO............ Applicability
Determination
for Equipment
Replacement at
Salt Recovery
Production
Line.
1500079.............. NSPS........... DD............. Applicability
Determination
for Wire
Screen Column
Dryers.
1500080.............. NSPS........... JJJ............ Applicability
Determination
for Closed
Loop Dry to
Dry Cleaning
Equipment.
1500084.............. NSPS........... KKK, NNN, OOOO, Alternative
RRR. Monitoring for
Vent Streams
Flow
Monitoring and
Pilot Light
Monitoring.
1600001.............. GACT, MACT, CCCC, DDDDD, Applicability
NESHAP, NSPS. JJJJJJ. Determination
for a Stoker
Boiler.
1600002.............. NSPS........... OOO............ Extension
Request for
Performance
Test at Sand
Mine.
1600005.............. NSPS........... LLLL........... Alternative
Monitoring for
Granular
Activated
Carbon and
Fugitive Ash
Monitoring at
Sewage Sludge
Incinerator.
1600006.............. NSPS........... LLLL........... Alternative
Monitoring for
Wet
Electrostatic
Precipitator
at Sewage
Sludge
Incinerator.
1600007.............. NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring of
Hydrogen
Sulfide from
Flares at
Chemical
Plant.
1600008.............. NSPS........... J, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring of
Hydrogen
Sulfide from
Portable
Temporary
Thermal
Oxidizer Units
at Refinery
Degassing
Operations.
M150035.............. MACT, NESHAP... HHHHHHH........ Alternative
Monitoring for
Scrubber at
Polyvinyl
Chloride
Plant.
M150038.............. MACT, NESHAP... N.............. Alternative
Monitoring
Procedures for
Air Pollution
Control Device
at Chrome
Plating
Facility.
M150039.............. MACT, NESHAP... DDDDD.......... Alternative
Monitoring for
Wet Scrubbers
at Pulp and
Paper Mill.
M150040.............. MACT, NESHAP... DDDDD.......... Alternative
Monitoring for
Wet Venturi
Scrubber and
Power Boiler.
M160001.............. MACT, NESHAP... RRR............ Applicability
Determination
for an
Aluminum Chip
Dryer.
M160002.............. MACT, NESHAP... DDDD, DDDDD.... Applicability
Determination
for Drying
Kilns and
Boilers.
M160003.............. MACT, NESHAP... DDDDD.......... Applicability
Determination
for a Biomass
Boiler Sub-
Categorization
.
M160004.............. MACT, NESHAP... BBBBB.......... Applicability
Determination
for
Semiconductor
Facility.
Z150003.............. MACT, NESHAP... BBBBBB......... Alternative
Monitoring for
Internal
Floating Roof
Tanks.
Z150007.............. MACT, NESHAP... ZZZZ........... Regulatory
Interpretation
of Duke Energy
Emergency
Generator
Programs.
Z150008.............. MACT, NESHAP, IIII, JJJJ, Regulatory
NSPS. ZZZZ. Interpretation
on Stack
Testing for
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines.
Z150012.............. GACT, MACT, JJJJJJ......... Regulatory
NESHAP. Interpretation
of Emissions
Test Data for
Wood-Fired
Boilers.
Z160001.............. GACT, MACT, DDDDDDD........ Clarification
NESHAP. of Prepared
Feeds Area
Source Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [1500007]
Q: Will the EPA grant a waiver to the large municipal waste
combustor (MWC) at Covanta Marion, Inc. (CMI) in Brooks, Oregon,
pursuant to its authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2) for the combustor
unit load level limitations, under 40 CFR 60.53b(c)(1) for the
particulate matter control device inlet temperature, and under 40 CFR
60.58b(m)(2)(ii) for the average mass carbon feed rate, for the two
weeks preceding, and during the annual dioxin/furan and mercury
performance tests for the purpose of evaluating system performance?
A: Yes. For the purpose of evaluating system performance, the EPA
agrees to waive the following operational limits imposed to large
municipal waste combustors under the Federal Plan at subpart FFF, part
62, pursuant to its authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2): (1) MWC load
level (steam generation rate), (2) flue gas temperatures at the inlet
to the particulate matter control device, and (3) activated carbon
injection rate (mass carbon feed rate). These requirements are waived
for the two week period preceding, and during the annual dioxin/furan
and mercury performance test which is scheduled to take place during
the week of June 9, 2014 at the CMI MWC. This waiver is limited to the
time frame and operational limits specifically identified above, and
all otherwise applicable requirements continue to be in effect during
this period.
Abstract for [1500050]
Q: May the Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB) in Alaska have an
extension to the required initial performance test deadlines for a
recently constructed Boiler 6A subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Db and
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ under the force majeure provisions in 40
CFR 60.2, 60.8(a)(1) through (4); 63.2, and 60.7(a)(4)(i) through
(iii)?
A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request
does not meet the definition of a ``force majeure event''. The EPA
cannot conclude that the delay in full operation of B6A in sufficient
time to conduct the required initial performance tests was beyond the
control of the EAFB; therefore, the EPA is denying the EAFB's request
to extend the April 26, 2015, deadline for conducting the initial
performance testing of B6A.
Abstract for [1500053]
Q: Will the EPA approve alternatives to the quality assurance
testing requirements, required by 40 CFR 60.107a(e)(1), for the total
reduced sulfur (TRS) flare analyzer at the CHS Inc. refinery in Laurel,
Montana?
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the alternative quality
assurance testing requirements for the high range TRS portion of the
analyzer under 40 CFR 60.l3(i). The conditions for approval of the AMP
request to address safety hazards concerns are established in the EPA
response letter, which include a laboratory demonstration of linearity
for the analyzer.
Abstract for [1500061]
Q1: Does the installation of the bi-fuel kit on new U.S. EPA-
certified units at engines at the USR Corporation in Virginia subject
to NSPS subpart IIII affect the manufacturer's certification?
[[Page 95587]]
In other words, is the unit still a certified unit?
A1: No. The EPA determines that the engine is no longer certified
after the conversion and the owner/operator must follow the
requirements listed under 40 CFR 60.4211(g) to show compliance with
emission standards in NSPS subpart IIII.
Q2: Does the installation and operation of the bi-fuel kit on a
certified engine constitute tampering under the Clean Air Act, or is
this action prohibited by other provisions of the Clean Air Act?
A2: No. The EPA determines this action is not prohibited for
certified stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines
(CI ICE), but after the installation and operation of the kit, the unit
is no longer certified. The owner/operator must show compliance with
emission standards by following requirements listed in 40 CFR
60.4211(g).
Q3: If a manufacturer's certification is affected for an engine,
what specific requirements must be performed to ensure compliance with
emission standards under NSPS subpart IIII? URS requests a
determination as to the testing procedures required for a facility with
a fleet of identical engines which have been installed with bi-fuel
units. The engines are identical in size, horsepower, model year, etc.
The test would determine compliance with NSPS subpart IIII and would
represent compliance for all the identical engines for the client. It
is URS' contention that since the engines are identical in every way,
it would be unnecessary and cost prohibitive to test all of the
engines. Can a representative engine test satisfy the testing
requirements for a fleet of identical engines for the same client?
A3: No. The testing requirements are listed in 40 CFR 60.4211(g).
An initial performance test must be conducted for stationary CI ICE
less than or equal to 500 horsepower (HP). For stationary CI ICE
greater than 500 horsepower, the owner/operator must conduct an initial
test, and subsequent testing every 8,760 hours of operation or every 3
years, whichever comes first. The EPA determines that a representative
engine test cannot satisfy the testing requirements for a fleet of
identical engines for one client, unless the owner/operator has
requested and received approval of a waiver of the performance testing
requirements, listed under 40 CFR 60.8(b).
Abstract for [1500075]
Q1: Does the NSPS subpart OOOO apply to the storage facilities at
the Williams Four Corners LLC Ignacio Gas Plant located near Ignacio,
Colorado?
A1: Yes. Based on the information provided, the EPA understands the
storage facilities referred to are the portion of the plant which
stores final product (propane, butane, etc.) prior to offsite
transport. As such, the storage facilities at the Ignacio Gas Plant are
a process unit and an affected facility under subpart OOOO.
Q2: What value should the Ignacio Gas Plant use for ``B'' in the
equation for determining whether a ``capital expenditure'' has
occurred, and thus a modification under subpart OOOO at the Ignacio Gas
Plant?
A2: For determining whether a modification has occurred at the
Ignacio Gas Plant under subpart OOOO, in the equation for capital
expenditure in 40 CFR 60.481(a), the value to be used for ``B'' is 4.5
and the value to be used for ``X'' is 2011 minus the year of
construction.
Abstract for [1500076]
Q1: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart Ja applies to the
condensate splitter located at the Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate LCC
(KMCC) Facility, a petroleum refinery located in Galena Park, Texas?
A1: Yes. Based upon the information provided, the EPA determines
that the KMCC condensate splitter facility is a refinery under subpart
Ja because it receives and distills a crude oil and condensate
hydrocarbon mixture into various refined petroleum products. Based on
review of the company's information, the EPA concludes that the raw
material feedstock, processes employed, and products generated meet the
definition of a petroleum refinery provided at 40 CFR 60.101a.
Abstract for [1500077]
Q1: Does the EPA determine that the thermal oxidizer at the 3M
Company (3M) facility in Cordova, Illinois is subject to the Standards
of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
(CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC?
A1: No. The EPA determines that the thermal oxidizer is not subject
to subpart CCCC because 3M commenced construction of the thermal
oxidizer before the threshold date for a new CISWI unit.
Q2: Does the EPA determine that a fluorinated liquid organic
chemical byproduct from a chemical manufacturing process unit at the
facility which is atomized in the thermal oxidizer is not a ``solid
waste'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265?
A2: Yes. Based on the information provided, the byproduct liquid
appears to meet the Non Hazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) criteria
and would be considered a non-waste ingredient under the 40 CFR part
241 regulations.
Abstract for [1500078]
Q1: Does the EPA determine that the ``like-for-like'' replacement
exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d) is applicable to the replacement of
affected facilities on production lines that were constructed after
August 31, 1983 at the 3M Company salt recovery production line located
in Elyria, Ohio?
A1: Yes. The EPA determines that the ``like-for-like'' replacement
exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(1) of subpart OOO is applicable to
``affected facilities'' (those constructed after August 31, 1983) with
regards to the subpart OOO amendments promulgated on April 28, 2009
based on 3M's description that the Weigh Conveyors A and B are equal or
smaller in size to and perform the same function as the original
conveyors, and emissions at the conveyors did not increase, and as long
as the remaining affected facilities in the salt recovery production
line have not been replaced since April 22, 2008.
Q2: What emission standards apply to a production line constructed
after August 31, 1983 that includes affected facilities constructed as
a ``like-for-like'' replacement after April 22, 2008, assuming that all
of the affected facilities on the production line have not been
replaced as provided in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(3)?
A2: A production line constructed after August 31, 1983 that
includes affected facilities constructed as a ``like-for-like''
replacement after April 22, 2008 is subject to the original subpart OOO
rule standards promulgated on August 1, 1985, and not the 2009 subpart
OOO rule standards, as long as all affected facilities on the
production line have not been replaced.
Abstract for [1500079]
Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart DD applies to column
dryers constructed of woven wire screen at the Riceland Foods facility
in Stuttgart, Arkansas (Riceland)?
A: No. The EPA determines that although the Riceland facility is a
grain terminal elevator subject to subpart DD, the column dryers in
question are a new subcategory of grain dryers not subject to subpart
DD due to its differences in size, type and class of column dryers. The
EPA has stated this position in the July 9, 2014 proposed rule for
subpart DD and in a new proposed subpart DDa
[[Page 95588]]
rule, which now includes a definition for ``wire screen column
dryers''.
Abstract for [1500080]
Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart JJJ for Petroleum Dry
Cleaners applies to closed loop, dry to dry new hydrocarbon equipment
at Parrot Cleaners facility in Louisville, Kentucky?
A: No. The EPA determines that the dry to dry closed loop machines
installed at Parrot Cleaners do not meet the definition of a
``petroleum dry cleaner,'' in that they do not use solvent in a
``combination of washers, dryers, filters, stills, and settling tanks''
since these are single unit machines. The EPA intent to regulate dry
cleaning machines with separate units (i.e., transfer machines with
separate washers and dryers) in subpart JJJ is evidenced by the
equipment standard requiring separate ``solvent recovery dryers'' in
section 60.622 and in the testing procedures in section 60.624, as well
as in other EPA statements regarding the petroleum solvent drycleaning
industry. Therefore, subpart JJJ does not apply to the dry to dry
machines installed at the facility.
Abstract for [1500084]
Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of a lock and seal configuration
in lieu of flow indicators to monitor VOC containing vent streams
routed from distillation facilities to plant flares at the Aux Sable
Liquid Products (ASLP) facility in Morris, Illinois to demonstrate
compliance with requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart NNN?
A1: Yes. The EPA approves locking or sealing leak-proof bypass
valves in the closed position in lieu of flow indicators. ASLP will
conduct monthly monitoring of the lock or seal valves to ensure that
they function and are kept in the closed position. ASLP will maintain a
log of each lock or seal inspection and comply with the monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2), 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(i), and 40 CFR
60.703 (b)(2)(ii) of NSPS subpart RRR for the purpose of complying with
NSPS NNN. In addition, ASLP will need to comply with the monitoring and
record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 60.705(d)(2) and (s).
Q2: Does the EPA approve the use of infrared cameras to monitor the
continuous presence of a pilot light in lieu of a thermocouple or
ultraviolet beam sensor, in the ASLP Morris, Illinois facility?
A2: No. The EPA does not approve the use of an infrared camera
pilot monitor (PM) to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.663(b), 40 CFR
60.703(b) and 40 CFR 60.18(e)(2) because ASLP is unable to prove that
their pilot monitor can continuously monitor the presence of a pilot
flame. The PM is able to detect the flare flame accurately and
reliability when the vent gas is flowing, but it has not proven to have
sufficient resolution for a situation where the pilot light is not
present and a flare flame is present with vent gas flowing.
Abstract for [1600001]
Q1: Does the EPA determine that the stoker boiler at Fibrominn LLC
(Fibrominn) in Benson, Minnesota is subject to the Standards of
Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
(CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC (CISWI NSPS)?
A1: No. Although the EPA concludes that the boiler is a CISWI unit,
Fibrominn commenced construction of its boiler on or before June 4,
2010 and there is no evidence that it has been modified or
reconstructed after August 7, 2013. Therefore, the EPA concludes that
Fibrominn's boiler is not subject to the CISWI NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR
60.2010 and 60.2015.
Q2: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn's boiler is subject to
the Federal Plan Requirements for CISWI Units That Commenced
Construction On or Before November 30, 1999, 40 CFR part 62 subpart III
(CISWI FIP)?
A2: No. Fibrominn's boiler is not subject to the CISWI FIP because
Fibrominn commenced construction between November 30, 1999, and June 4,
2010. The CISWI NSPS applies to each CISWI unit that commenced
construction after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or
modification after August 7, 2013.
Q3: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn's boiler is exempt from
the requirements in the CISWI FIP?
A3: No. Fibrominn's boiler is not subject to the CISWI FIP.
Therefore, the question of whether Fibrominn's boiler is exempt from
the CISWI FIP is moot.
Q4: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn can avoid being subject
to the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD
(Major Source Boiler MACT) by taking federally enforceable limits on
its potential to emit prior to the compliance date, January 31, 2016?
A4: Yes. The EPA agrees that Fibrominn can take federally
enforceable limits on its potential to emit to avoid being subject to
the Major Source Boiler MACT. By doing so, Fibrominn would become
subject to the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
Boilers Area Sources, 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ (Area Source Boiler
MACT).
Q5: If Fibrominn submits a formal application to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to amend Fibrominn's existing Title V
permit in order to take a synthetic minor limit, and Fibrominn submits
the application to the MPCA prior to January 31, 2016, the compliance
date for the Major Source Boiler MACT, does this constitute Fibrominn's
``taking a synthetic minor limit'' in terms of eligibility to avoid
being subject to the Major Source Boiler MACT?
A5: No. Fibrominn's submittal of its application for modification
of its Title V permit does not constitute taking federally enforceable
limits on its potential to emit.
Q6: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn remain subject to the
case-specific MACT in its 2002 Title V permit after the compliance date
for the Major Source Boiler MACT?
A6: Yes. The EPA notes that more than one MACT standard can apply
to the same equipment or operation. Unless the case specific MACT is
removed from the permit, Fibrominn would remain subject to the case
specific MACT and either the Major Source or Area Source Boiler MACT.
Abstract for [1600002]
Q: Does the EPA approve an extension of time to conduct a
performance test required by NSPS subpart OOO based on a force majeure
event at the Hi-Crush Augusta, LLC industrial sand mine and processing
plant in August, Wisconsin?
A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request
does not meet the definition of a ``force majeure event'' under 40 CFR
60.2.
Abstract for [1600005]
Q1: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for
the granular activated carbon adsorption system used to control mercury
emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60
subpart LLLL at the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control
Facility in Cromwell, Connecticut?
A1: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's AMP for the carbon bed
under 40 CFR 60.13(i) for the granular activated carbon adsorption
system (``carbon bed'') used to control mercury emissions from the
sewage sludge incinerator subject to subpart LLLL. The alternative
monitoring plan that Mattabassett has proposed, combined with the
facilities construction permit, meets the requirement of a similar type
of monitoring application for carbon
[[Page 95589]]
beds used to control mercury under 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.
Q2: Does the EPA approve Mattabassett's site-specific ash handling
monitoring plan to meet the fugitive emission limits specified in 40
CFR part 60 subpart LLLL, considering that the ash at the facility is
collected using an entirely wet system?
A2: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's site-specific plan for
fugitive ash monitoring that consists of daily observations of the ash
lagoons.
Abstract for [1600006]
Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for
the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used to control air emissions
from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart
LLLL located at the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control
Facility (Mattabassett) in Cromwell, Connecticut?
A: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's AMP to monitor the total
water flow rate of the influent to the WESP on an 8 hour block basis
and to set the parameter limit at 90 percent of the 8 hour flow
recorded during the initial performance test.
Abstract for [1600007]
Q: Does the EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan to use the
same high level calibration gas for both the low range and high level
range for two dual range hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitors installed on
two flares subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Shell Chemical
LP plant in Saraland, Alabama?
A: Yes. The EPA responded to the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management that based upon the expectation that the
majority of H2S readings will be made on the lower range of the dual
range monitors, a demonstration that the monitors have a linear
response across their entire range of operation, and the toxicity of
H2S, the proposal is acceptable.
Abstract for [1600008]
Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
monitoring plan (AMP) for portable temporary thermal oxidizer units
(TOUs) that control emissions during tank degassing and vapor control
projects subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J and 40 CFR part 60 subpart
Ja at Tristar Global Energy Solutions (Tristar) petroleum refineries
located in EPA Region 4?
A: Yes. The EPA approves the AMP request since installing and
operating an H2S continuous emission monitoring system would be
impractical due to the short term nature of the degassing operations
performed by Tristar. In addition, Tristar's proposed monitoring
alternative is consistent with previously approved alternatives for
other tank degassing service providers.
Abstract for [M150035]
Q1: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring request (AMR)
for the purpose of monitoring pressure drop under requirements of 40
CFR part 63 subpart HHHHHHH Table 5, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and
Copolymer Production at Major Sources NESHAP at the Oxy Vinyls, LP
Pasadena PVC plant in Pasadena, Texas?
A1: Yes. The EPA approves the AMR to substitute ambient pressure
for the measured outlet pressure of the scrubber. Since the scrubber is
a low pressure scrubber, the outlet of the scrubber system operates at
ambient pressure. Any pressure changes in the scrubber would be
indicated by changes to the inlet pressure, which will be directly
monitored. Therefore, the calculation of pressure drop will be
determined by the difference between inlet pressure and ambient
pressure. The operating limit for pressure drop has been established
using engineering assessments and manufacturer's recommendations, which
is allowed by 40 CFR 63.11935(d)(2). Scrubber pressure drop will be
recorded in accordance with the approved AMR during a performance test,
along with other operating parameters required by Table 5 of subpart
HHHHHHH. The frequency and content of pressure drop monitoring,
recording, and reporting will not change as a result of the approved
AMR.
Abstract for [M150038]
Q: Does the EPA approve of alternative work practice and monitoring
procedures for the three enclosed hard chromium plating tanks to be
installed that will be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart N at the Har-
Conn Chrome Company (Har-Conn) facility in West Hartford, Connecticut?
A: Yes. The EPA approves the Har-Conn alternative monitoring
procedures to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the operation and
maintenance (``O&M'') practices and monitoring specified in Table 1 of
63.342 as they are not feasible for the application to the Palm
Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE) used by the enclosed hard
chromium tanks. Har-Conn will use the operation and maintenance (O&M)
practices and manual recommended by the manufacturer of the Palm
Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE), as well as daily,
weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual compliance monitoring logs for
the EED.
Abstract for [M150039]
Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan to the use
of an alternative control device parameter other than one of the
parameters required at 40 CFR 63.7525(f) and Tables 4, 7, and 8 in
subpart DDDDD for wet scrubbers at the SAPPI Fine Paper North America
(SAPPI) facility in Skowhegan, Maine?
A: Yes. The EPA approves SAPPI's alternative monitoring request for
the wet scrubber to monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure in lieu of
the pressure drop across the wet scrubber used to control emissions
from the Number 2 Power Boiler. Based on the data provided showing
strong correlation between spray tower liquid recirculation pressure
and flow, as well as data that demonstrates a poor correlation between
pressure drop of the scrubber and heat input to the boiler (an
indicator of emissions), EPA agrees that this method may be used in
this situation in lieu of monitoring pressure drop across the scrubber.
In addition, this method is consistent with similar boiler monitoring
applications.
Abstract for [M150040]
Q1: Does the EPA approve separate sets of parameter monitoring
thresholds for the scrubber liquid flow rate and pressure drop of the
wet venturi scrubber subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD at the
Verso Corporation (Verso) facility in Jay, Maine under two operating
scenarios: (1) Periods when the unit burns biomass and combined
biomass/fossil-fuel burning at boiler capacities up to 480 MMBtu, and
(2) periods when the unit burns only fossil fuel at boiler capacities
equal to or less than 240 MMBtu, on a 30-day rolling average and on a
daily block average when burning only fossil fuels?
A1: Yes. The EPA approves Verso's alternative monitoring request
for both operating scenarios.
Q2: Does the EPA approve for Verso when burning exclusively natural
gas to operate without engaging the wet venturi scrubber after startup
and exclude periods when the wet scrubber is not engaged due to burning
gas from the 30-day compliance averages?
A2: Yes. The EPA approves the request to allow the unit to operate
without engaging the wet scrubber and to exclude parameter monitoring
data during periods when only natural gas is fired, provided that Verso
can demonstrate through existing data or emissions testing that the
unit complies
[[Page 95590]]
with the PM, Hg, and HCl emissions standards while firing only natural
gas.
Abstract for [M160001]
Q: Would an aluminum chip drying process at the Remelt Scientific
facility (Remelt) in Port Charlotte, Florida, that is used to remove
water meet the definition of ``thermal chip dryer'' in 40 CFR part 63
subpart RRR?
A: No. Remelt's chip drying process does the not meet the
definition of ``thermal chip dryer'' and is therefore not subject to
subpart RRR. Based on the description that the process operates at
temperatures of 200F and 235F, and the oil that remains on the chips
has an evaporation temperature of over 300F, we believe that the
process would be used solely to remove water from the aluminum chips
since it would not be operating at temperatures sufficient to remove
the machining oil that remains on the chips.
Abstract for [M160002]
Q1: The ArborTech Forest Products, Inc. (ArborTech) facility in
Blackstone, Virginia is planning to increase its lumber production such
that the potential to emit for methanol would be greater than 10 tons
per year. Does the EPA determine that the facility would be
reclassified as a major source for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)?
A1: Yes. The EPA determines that if ArborTech increases the air
permit limit on production and potential methanol emissions would
exceed 10 tons/year that the facility would qualify as a major source
and would need to be reclassified as a major source in the State
permit.
Q2: Does the EPA determine that ArborTech would be subject to 40
CFR part 63 subpart DDDD, Plywood and Composite Wood Products National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (PCWP MACT), and would
the dry kilns be considered an affected source immediately upon
issuance of the revised permit/reclassification to a major source of
HAPs?
A2: Yes. The EPA determines that ArborTech would be subject to the
subpart DDDD rule on the date of issuance of the revised permit when
the facility would be reclassified as a major source of HAPs, and
therefore the dry kilns would be an affected source under the rule.
Q3: Does the EPA determine that if the wood-fired boilers' exhaust
is routed to the lumber kiln(s) and used to dry lumber the boilers
would be an ``affected source'' under the PCWP MACT and subject to the
rule?
A3: The EPA determines that if Arbortech becomes a major source of
HAPs, and if ArborTech sent 100 percent of the exhaust from its wood-
fired boilers to its lumber drying kiln(s) to help dry lumber, then the
boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major
Source Boiler MACT), but would instead be subject to the PCWP MACT.
Q4: When does the EPA determine that Arbortech would become subject
to the Major Source Boiler MACT?
A4: The EPA determines that if ArborTech were to become a major
source of HAPs after the Major Source Boiler MACT initial compliance
date for existing sources of January 31, 2016, then ArborTech would be
required to bring its existing boilers into compliance with the Major
Source Boiler MACT within three years after ArborTech became a major
source, unless ArborTech had previously sent 100% of the exhaust from
its boiler(s) to its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and their
exhaust streams affected sources under the PCWP MACT. If Arbortech were
to become a major source prior to the Major Source Boiler MACT initial
compliance date for existing sources of January 31, 2016, then its
existing boilers would be required to be in compliance as of January
31, 2016, unless ArborTech had previously sent 100% of the exhaust from
its boiler(s) to its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and their
exhaust streams affected sources under the PCWP MACT.
Abstract for [M160003]
Q: Does the EPA approve the re-categorization of Boiler No. 9 at
the Finch Paper, LLC (Finch) integrated pulp and paper manufacturing
facility located in Glen Falls, New York from the wet biomass stoker
subcategory to the hybrid suspension grate boiler subcategory pursuant
to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major Source Boiler MACT)?
A: Yes. Based on the information submitted on the design and
operation of the Boiler No. 9, the EPA determines that it meets the
definition of ``hybrid suspension grate boiler'' found in 40 CFR
63.7575. Therefore, Boiler No. 9 will be subject to the rule as it
pertains to existing hybrid suspension grate boilers.
Abstract for [M160004]
Q: Does the EPA determine that the Truesense Imaging, Inc.
(Truesense) semiconductor fabrication business (Semiconductor Business)
located at its microelectronics wafer fabrication facility (FAB
facility) in Rochester, NY is subject to the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing,
40 CFR part 63 subpart BBBBB (Semiconductor MACT)?
A: Yes. The EPA determines that the FAB facility, currently owned
and operated by Truesense, is and continues to be an existing source
with compliance required as of 2006 and must continue to comply with
the Semiconductor MACT, even after a sale, as long as the source
otherwise continues to meet the definition of an affected facility
(i.e., major source status not withstanding) consistent with the ``Once
In Always In'' policy.
Abstract for [Z150003]
Q: Does the EPA approve Monroe Interstate Pipeline Company (MIPC)
alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service
inspections in lieu of the out-of-service inspection requirements for
specific types of internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks subject to
40 CFR part 63 subpart BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part 60 subpart
Kb, NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels), at the MIPC
Chelsea Tank Farm in Aston, PA?
A: Yes. In accordance with 40 CFR 60.13 and 63.8(f), EPA approves
MIPC alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service
internal inspection methodology for the IFR storage tanks subject to
NSPS Kb and GD GACT specified in the AMP request (tanks that have
geodesic dome roofs equipped with skylights for enhanced natural
lighting and aluminum honeycomb panel decks constructed decks with
mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals liquid surface) to meet the
internal out-of-service inspection required at intervals no greater
than 10 years by the applicable regulations. MIPC will be able to have
visual access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and
secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the
top side of the IFR for the specified storage tanks, as well as
properly inspect and repair the requisite components while these tanks
are still in-service, consistent with the inspection and repair
requirements established under NSPS subpart Kb. In addition, MIPC
internal inspection methodology includes identifying and addressing any
gaps of more than \1/8\ inch between any deck fitting gasket, seal, or
wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal; complying with the
fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time frame
requirement in NSPS subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and
implementing a full top-side and bottom-side out-of-service inspection
of the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for
[[Page 95591]]
any reason, and keep records for at least five years.
Abstract for [Z150007]
Q: Does the EPA determine that the stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) participating in two Duke Energy
Carolinas nonresidential demand response programs meet the definition
of ``emergency stationary RICE'' in the National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines (``RICE NESHAP'')?
A: No. The EPA determines that the terms of Duke's demand response
programs do not meet all of the operational limits on emergency engines
in the RICE NESHAP. The terms of the programs are consistent with the
limitations on emergency demand response. However, an engine must also
comply with the definition of ``emergency stationary RICE'' and all of
the operational restrictions in 40 CFR 63.6640(f) to be considered RICE
NESHAP emergency engines.
Abstract for [Z150008]
Q1: Has EPA Method 1 been removed from the reciprocating internal
combustion engine (RICE) NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, or should the engines at
Farabee Mechanical in Hickman, Nebraska (Farabee) be following Method 1
for test port locations.
A1: No. EPA Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A from the RICE
NESHAP should be followed for test port locations. The EPA response
letter provides guidance for numerous testing scenarios under NESHAP
subpart ZZZZ sources including engines where Method 1 is required but
the testing ports do not meet the minimum criteria of Method 1 and
engines that are not required to use Method 1 procedures.
Q2: Is there any conflict with the RICE NESHAP subpart ZZZZ rule if
utilizing test ports at engines for testing purposes?
A2: No. The Farabee Mechanical facility was approved to use single-
point sampling at NSPS subpart JJJJ sources in lieu of Method 1 for
their engines. Single point sampling without a stratification test for
nitrogen oxide emissions using Alternative Test Method 87 is allowed
under 40 CFR 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ. However, single point sampling
for carbon monoxide at NESHAP subpart ZZZZ sources have not yet been
broadly approved. Therefore, when Method 1 is not met, a stratification
test is to be conducted to show if the site is acceptable to perform
the test.
Abstract for [Z150012]
Q: Does the EPA approve the use of the results of a particulate
matter emission test conducted on December 2014 for two new wood-fired
boilers at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont that are subject
to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ as being
representative of ``initial conditions'' because the first test,
conducted in February 2014, was not conducted under normal operating
conditions?
A: Yes. The EPA approves the use of emissions test data from the
second test as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11220(b) since it
is representative of normal operating conditions, and therefore Norwich
University may avoid the requirement to test particulate matter every
three years.
Abstract for [Z160001]
Q: Does the EPA accept the proposal by Tyson Foods Inc. to use a
louvered door system, where the louvers would only open inward and
would only open when negative pressure is in place, to meet the work
practice requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDDDD, National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources:
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule), to keep
exterior doors in the immediate affected areas shut except during
normal ingress and egress, as practicable?
A: Yes. The EPA determines that the use of the louvered door system
would meet the requirements of subpart DDDDDDD. The louvered door
system described would maintain the function of the closed doors by
only opening the louvers to the interior of the building when the doors
are under negative pressure, drawing air into the building. Under these
conditions the doors would be serving the purpose of minimizing the
release of prepared feed dust emissions to the outside, which is the
intent of the work practice standard in Section 63.11621(a)(1)(iii).
Dated: November 10, 2016.
David A. Hindin,
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2016-31235 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P