[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10671-10686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03754]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-10005-70-OECA]
Applicability Determination Index Data System Posting: EPA Formal
Responses to Inquiries Concerning Compliance With Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made with regard to the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP); the Emission Guidelines and Federal Plan Requirements for
existing sources; 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 website 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 author, date, office
of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word
searches. For questions about the ADI or this document, contact Maria
Malave, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division 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. 40 CFR
60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions in 40 CFR part 60 also apply to
Federal and EPA-approved state plans for existing sources in 40 CFR
part 62. See 40 CFR 62.02(b)(2). The EPA's written responses to source
or facility-specific inquiries on provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and
62 are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. Although
the NESHAP 40 CFR part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control
Technology (GACT) standards] contain no specific regulatory provision
providing that sources may request applicability determinations, the
EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the
40 CFR part 63 regulations. In addition, the General Provisions in 40
CFR parts 60 and 63 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
[[Page 10672]]
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA responds to
written inquiries about the broad range of regulatory requirements in
40 CFR parts 60 through 63 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 accessed via the internet, with over three
thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS,
NESHAP, emission guidelines and Federal Plans for existing sources, and
stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and
memoranda by author, date, office of issuance, subpart, citation,
control number, or by string word searches.
Today's document comprises a summary of 78 such documents added to
the ADI on February 7, 2020. This document lists the subject and header
of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the
content. 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
website under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on February 7, 2020 to the ADI data system; the
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR parts
60, 61, 62, 63 and 82 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and
the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the
subject matter.
Also included in this document, is an abstract of each document
identified with its control number. These abstracts are being provided
to the public as possible items of interest and are not intended as
substitutes for the contents of the original documents. This document
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 document 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 February 7, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Categories Subparts Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1600003......... NSPS........... IIII........... Diesel Engine
Certification and
Applicability of
Testing Provisions
for Proposed Diesel
Engines.
1800004......... NSPS........... J, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Hydrogen Sulfide
Monitoring of Tank
Degassing
Operations at
Refineries.
1800010......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, Ja, UUU..... Alternative
Monitoring Plan
Modifications for
Two Wet Gas
Scrubbers at a
Refinery.
1800011......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, Ja, UUU..... Alternative
Monitoring Plan
Modifications for
Two Wet Gas
Scrubbers at a
Refinery.
1800012......... NSPS........... EEEE........... Performance Test
Waiver for Opacity
at a Portable Air
Curtain
Incinerator.
1800014......... NSPS........... WWW............ Alternative
Compliance Timeline
for Landfill Gas
Extraction Well.
1800015......... NSPS........... OOO............ Applicability
Determination for
Crushers and
Downstream
Equipment at
Mineral Processing
Plants.
1800016......... NSPS........... DDDD, FFFF..... Applicability
Determination of
the Emission
Guidelines and
Compliance Times
for Commercial and
Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration
Units.
1800017......... NSPS........... J, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Portable Flares and
Fuel Gas Combustion
Devices for
Degassing
Operations at a
Refinery.
1800018......... NSPS........... LLLL........... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for a Nitrogen
Oxides Emissions
Control Device at a
Sewage Sludge
Incinerator.
1800019......... NSPS........... A, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Hydrogen Sulfide
from a Flare at a
Refinery.
1800020......... NSPS........... A, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Hydrogen Sulfide
from a Flare at a
Refinery.
1800021......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, UUU......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
a Wet Gas Scrubber
at a Refinery.
1800022......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, UUU......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
a Wet Gas Scrubber
at a Refinery.
1800023......... NSPS........... Ja............. Monitoring Exemption
Request for
Hydrogen Sulfide
Monitoring of Low-
Sulfur Fuel Gas
Streams at a
Refinery.
1800024......... NSPS........... J.............. Monitoring Exemption
Request for
Monitoring of Low
Sulfur Vent Gas
Stream at a
Refinery.
1800025......... NESHAP, NSPS... HH, OOOO....... Applicability
Determination for
Flow-Through
Transfer Sumps at
Natural Gas Booster
Station.
1800026......... NSPS........... KKKK........... Regulatory
Interpretation of
Monitoring
Requirements for a
Combustion Turbine
Firing Emergency
Fuel.
1800027......... NSPS........... D, Db.......... Alternative Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions
Limitations for
Cogeneration
Boilers at a Wet
Milling Facility.
[[Page 10673]]
1800028......... Federal Plan, DDDD, III, G... Operating Parameter
MACT, NSPS. Limits and Oxygen
Monitoring Waiver
for Three Energy
Recovery Units.
1800029......... NESHAP, NSPS... A, JJJJ, ZZZZ.. Applicability
Determination for
Three Stationary
Spark Ignition
Engines at a
Landfill.
1800030......... NSPS........... A, UUU......... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Continuous
Opacity Monitoring
Requirements at a
Mineral Processing
Facility.
1800031......... NESHAP, NSPS... Kb, WW......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Internal Floating
Roof Storage Tanks.
1800032......... NSPS........... UUU............ Applicability
Determination for
Autoclaves.
1800033......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Coker Flare at a
Refinery.
1800034......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
a Refinery Flare.
1800035......... NSPS........... KKKK........... Waiver Request of
the Frequency of
NOX Emission Rate
Testing for
Emergency Fuels on
Combustion Turbine.
1800036......... NESHAP, NSPS... JJJJ, ZZZZ..... Applicability
Determination for a
Non-Emergency Spark
Ignition Internal
Combustion Engine
Burning Natural Gas
and Landfill/
Digester Gas.
1800037......... NSPS........... GG............. Regulatory
Interpretation for
Nitrogen Oxide
Limit for
Stationary Gas
Turbine.
1800038......... MACT, NSPS..... IIII, JJJJ, Applicability
ZZZZ. Determination for
Three Internal
Combustion Engines
at a Compressor
Station.
1800039......... NSPS........... Ja............. Monitoring Exemption
Request for Low-
Sulfur Fuel Gas
Streams at a
Refinery.
1800040......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Hydrogen Sulfide in
Low-Sulfur Fuel Gas
Stream at a
Petroleum Refinery.
1800041......... NSPS........... A, Ec.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
a Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste
Incinerator.
1800042......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, UUU......... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Wet Gas
Scrubber on a
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit at a
Petroleum Refinery.
1800043......... NSPS........... J.............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Sulfur Dioxide
Using Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring System
and Flue Gas
Calculation at a
Refinery.
1800044......... NSPS........... Ec............. Alternative
Monitoring
Operating Parameter
Limits for Two
Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste
Incinerators.
1800045......... NSPS........... A, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Mass Spectrometer
Analyzer on Flare
System at a
Refinery.
1800046......... NSPS........... A, Ja.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Mass Spectrometer
Analyzer on Flare
at a Refinery.
1800047......... NSPS........... Db............. Boiler De-rate
Request at a
Central Heating
Plant.
1900001......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Hydrogen
Sulfide in Flare at
a Refinery.
1900002......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Hydrogen
Sulfide in Flares
at a Petroleum
Refinery.
1900003......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Span Gas
Concentration for
Total Reduced
Sulfur Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring System
at a Petroleum
Refinery.
1900004......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, UUU......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Wet Gas Scrubber on
a Fluidized
Catalytic Cracking
Unit at a Refinery.
1900005......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, Ja, UUU..... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Wet Gas
Scrubber on a
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit at a
Refinery.
1900006......... NESHAP, NSPS... J, UUU......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Wet Gas Scrubber on
a Fluidized
Catalytic Cracking
Unit at a Refinery.
1900007......... NSPS........... Ja............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Hydrogen
Sulfide and Sulfur
at Four Refinery
Flares.
1900008......... NSPS........... J.............. Monitoring Exemption
Request for
Hydrogen Sulfide in
Low-Sulfur Fuel Gas
Stream at a
Refinery.
1900009......... NSPS........... JJJJ........... Performance Test
Waiver for
Stationary Spark
Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines
at a Landfill.
1900010......... NSPS........... J.............. Monitoring Exemption
Request for
Hydrogen Sulfide in
Low-Sulfur Fuel Gas
Stream at a
Refinery.
1900011......... NSPS........... Ja............. Monitoring Exemption
for Hydrogen
Sulfide on Low-
Sulfur Fuel Gas
Stream at a
Refinery.
1900012......... NSPS........... Ec............. Alternative
Monitoring
Operating Parameter
Limits and
Performance Testing
Plan at a Hospital/
Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerator.
1900013......... NSPS........... BB............. Economic Feasibility
Exemption
Determination for
Brown Stock Washers
at Pulp Mill.
1900014......... NESHAP, NSPS... DDDD, EEE...... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Hydrogen
Chloride from Solid
Waste Incineration
Units.
1900015......... NSPS........... Kb............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Floating Roof
on Ethanol Storage
Tank.
1900016......... NSPS........... D.............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Nitrogen Oxides
in Sulfite Recovery
Boiler at a Pulp
Mill.
[[Page 10674]]
1900017......... NSPS........... BBa............ Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Total Reduced
Sulfur in
Brownstock Washer
System at a Pulp
Mill.
1900018......... NSPS........... BBa............ Monitoring Waiver
Request for
Brownstock Washer
System at a Pulp
Mill.
1900019......... NESHAP, NSPS... DDDD, EEE...... Performance Test
Waiver for Dioxin/
Furan on Seven
Boilers at a
Chemical Plant.
1900021......... NSPS........... DDDD........... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Scrubber on a
Waste Heat Boiler.
1900022......... NSPS........... DDDD........... Performance Test
Waiver for Hydrogen
Chloride at Solid
Waste Incineration
Units.
1900023......... NSPS........... A.............. Withdrawal of
Regulatory
Interpretation for
NSPS Part 60
Subpart A
Notification,
Recordkeeping, and
Monitoring
Requirements.
A160003......... Asbestos....... M.............. Regulatory
Clarification of
Documentation to
Identify Building
Materials as Non-
Asbestos Containing
Material.
FP00007......... Federal Plan... HHH............ Alternative
Operating Parameter
Request for
Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste
Incinerator.
M100091......... MACT........... A, DDDDD....... Regulatory
Interpretation
Regarding Use of
Electronic
Reporting Tool.
M150022......... MACT........... DDDDD.......... Applicability
Determination for
Two Boilers at a
Pulp and Paper
Mill.
M180003......... MACT........... EEE............ Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Flue Gas Flow
Rate at Three
Hazardous Waste
Combustion
Incinerators.
M180006......... MACT........... ZZZZ........... Additional Non-
Emergency Run-Time
Hours Request for
Emergency Diesel
Generator.
M180007......... MACT........... HHHHH.......... Alternative
Operating
Parameters Request
for Carbon
Adsorption System
at Coating
Manufacturing
Facility.
M180008......... MACT........... EEE............ Waiver Request for
Maximum Ash Feed
Rate Operating
Parameter Limit for
Three Hazardous
Waste Incinerators.
M180009......... MACT........... HH............. Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Ethylene Glycol
Cooling Jacket Leak
Detection at Six
Gas Processing
Plants.
M180010......... MACT........... HH, DDDDD...... Applicability
Determination for
Glycol Dehydration
Reboiler at a
Compressor Station.
M180012......... MACT........... CC............. Temporary
Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Flare Pilot
Flame at a
Refinery.
M180013......... MACT........... ZZZZ........... Applicability
Determination for
Five Stationary
Combustion Engines
at a Booster
Station.
M190001......... MACT........... ZZZZ........... Monitoring Waiver
Request for
Catalyst Inlet
Temperature for Non-
emergency
Generators.
M190002......... MACT........... FFFF........... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Pilot Flame on
Hydrogen Flare.
M190003......... MACT........... MM............. Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Lime Kiln
Scrubber.
Z180003......... NESHAP......... ZZZZ........... Alternative
Monitoring Request
for Two Internal
Combustion Engines
at a Nuclear Power
Station.
Z180004......... NESHAP......... LLLLL.......... Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Asphalt Storage
Tanks During Annual
Regenerative
Thermal Oxidizer
Shutdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [1600003]
Q1: Does EPA determine that four new proposed diesel engines at
Taunton Municipal Light Plant's (TMLP's) West Water Street facility in
Taunton, Massachusetts, subject New Source Performance Standards for
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart IIII, would maintain their EPA NSPS Tier 4
certification with the addition of supplemental controls?
A1: Yes. Based on the statement provided by the vendor that the
add-on DeNOx system will not affect the certification or the
operation of the factory emissions controls of the engines, and as long
as the engines are certified, operated and maintained according to the
applicable provisions for manufacturers and owners of certified
engines, EPA finds the addition of the supplemental DeNOx
system controls will not affect the certification of the engine.
Q2: Does EPA determine that the provisions in 40 CFR 60.4211(g)
requiring engine testing apply to these engines?
A2: No. EPA has determined that as long as TMLP installs,
configures, operates, and maintains the proposed Tier 4 certified
engines and control devices according to the manufacturers emission-
related instructions, and TMLP does not change the engine emission-
related settings in a way that is not permitted by the manufacturer,
the provisions of 40 CFR 60.4211(g) would not apply to the proposed
engines.
Abstract for [1800004]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
Diversified Vapor Technologies (DVT) to conduct monitoring of hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) emissions, 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 various refineries located within Region 6 states 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 since it
[[Page 10675]]
is impractical to require monitoring via an H2S CEMS. As part of the
conditional approval, EPA is including proposed operating parameter
limits and data which the refineries must furnish to DVT. The approved
AMP is only for degassing operations conducted at refineries in EPA
Region 6.
Abstract for [1800010]
Q: Does EPA approve modifications to previously issued Alternative
Monitoring Plans (AMPs) for Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi (JEV) type
Wet Gas Scrubbers (WGS) on two Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Units
(FCCU) at the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery, located in Baytown, Texas,
subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja, and also to requirements of NESHAP
subpart UUU, for parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGSs in lieu
of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), due to changes in
operating conditions at the units when moisture levels are high in the
stacks?
A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS units and the process
specific supplemental information provided, EPA approves the AMP
modifications to use parametric monitoring in lieu of COMS. EPA
reviewed the recent performance test results and found the data
supportive for the revised final operating parameter limits (OPLs). The
OPLs that EPA approves for demonstrating compliance with the AMP
include minimum L/G, maximum effluent stack gas temperature, and the
updated liquid flow calculation using the inlet JEV pressure and the
JEV nozzle size as the restriction orifice variable.
Abstract for [1800011]
Q: Does EPA approve modifications to previously issued Alternative
Monitoring Plans (AMPs) for Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi (JEV) type
Wet Gas Scrubbers (WGSs) on two Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Units
(FCCUs) at the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery, located in Beaumont,
Texas, subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja, and also to requirements of
NESHAP subpart UUU, for parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGSs in
lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System, due to changes in
operating conditions at the units when moisture levels are high in the
stacks?
A: Yes. Based on evaluation of results from three one-hour test
runs, consistent with the FCCU operating conditions during the
performance test, EPA approves the AMP modifications to use parametric
monitoring in lieu of COMS, including the minimum L/G and a new maximum
coke burn-off rate for the FCCU.
Abstract for [1800012]
Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement to conduct Method
9 annual opacity tests under NSPS EEEE, applicable to Other Solid Waste
Incinerators (OSWI), for a portable air curtain incinerator (ACI) owned
by Hidden Lake Property Owners Association (HLPO) in Angel Fire, New
Mexico?
A1: No. EPA does not grant the waiver for annual opacity testing
using Method 9. This test is required to demonstrate compliance with
startup and operating requirements of the ACI under the OSWI NSPS EEEE
rule. OSWI NSPS rule at 40 CFR 60.2972(d) allows annual testing to
occur upon startup of the unit, if periods longer than 12 months have
passed since the prior annual test was conducted. If the unit is only
operated a few months of the year, there is no requirement to maintain
Method 9 opacity reader certification all year long, but only to obtain
certification for those periods in which the ACI is operated and must
be tested.
Abstract for [1800014]
Q1: Does EPA approve Environtech's request for an alternative
timeline of 120 days from the date of initial exceedance to correct
oxygen exceedances at several wells at its Morris, Illinois landfill
subject to NSPS subpart WWW, applicable to municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills, if the design plan was amended to add some wells and remove
other wells including the wells with the oxygen exceedances?
A1: No. EPA does not approve an alternative timeline of 120 days
for the landfill to exceed the oxygen standard at several wells while
landfill construction is underway. While NSPS subpart WWW allows an
owner or operator to expand the landfill to correct an exceedance, the
proposed design plan changes in this situation do not increase capacity
and are not an expansion. In addition, the changes to the well system
are not directly related to correcting the exceedances at the wells in
question (other than to remove them).
Q2: Does EPA approve Environtech's request for an alternative
timeline of 120 days from the date of initial exceedance to correct
oxygen exceedances at a well that may have excess liquids?
A2: No. EPA does not approve the alternative timeline. While the
NSPS subpart WWW allows an owner or operator to expand the landfill to
correct an exceedance, that is not what is occurring in this situation.
Rather, Environtech has determined that there may be liquids in this
well and wants 120 days to complete the investigation and make repairs.
EPA considers a period of 120 days an excessive amount of time to
determine whether excess liquids are present and repair a well. EPA
does not give alternative timelines to diagnose the causes of
exceedances.
Abstract for [1800015]
Q1: Does EPA determine that certain processes at the Hi-Crush
Proppants LLC (Hi-Crush) facilities located in Augusta, Blair, and
Whitehall, Wisconsin meet the definitions of crush and nonmetallic
mineral processing plants subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO,
applicable to nonmetallic mineral processing plants?
A1: Yes. EPA determines that the Hi-Crush facilities meet the
definition of nonmetallic mineral processing plants because they
operate crushers that crush nonmetallic mineral material.
Q2: Does EPA determine that the processes downstream of the surge
pile of washed sand stockpile are considered part of the nonmetallic
mineral processing plant?
A2: The processes downstream of the surge pile at all three
facilities and the processes downstream of the washed sand stockpile at
the Blair facility are part of the ``production line'' of the
nonmetallic mineral processing plant and subject to subpart OOO. While
the processes downstream of the washed sand stockpile at the August and
Whitehall facilities are not considered part of the nonmetallic mineral
processing plant because these do not convey materials downstream
within the nonmetallic mineral processing plant.
Abstract for [1800016]
Q: Does EPA determine that an incinerator owned by Covance
Laboratories, Inc. (Covance), located in Greenfield, Indiana, in which
67 percent of the burned waste was municipal solid waste is subject to
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD?
A: No. EPA determines that Covance's incinerator is not a CISWI
unit subject to Indiana's federally-approved state plan for CISWI
units. However, subpart DDDD does not directly establish enforceable
emission standards and other requirements applicable to the owner or
operator of a CISWI unit. Further, Covance's incinerator would not be
subject to an approved state plan that is based on and consistent with
the current subpart DDDD.
[[Page 10676]]
Abstract for [1800017]
Q1: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request from St.
Paul Park Refining Co. LLC (SPP) to use an alternative monitoring plan
(AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions from portable flares and fuel gas combustion
devices (FGCDs) used to control emissions from storage tank, process
unit vessel and piping degassing for maintenance and cleaning events at
the St. Paul Park, Minnesota refinery subject to NSPS subparts J and
Ja?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan since it is
impractical to continuously monitor the H2S in and SO2
emissions from gases going to portable FGCDs during the infrequent and
temporary events when storage tanks, process unit vessels and piping
are degassed for maintenance and cleaning operations.
Q2: Does EPA approve SPP's request, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b), to
waive the performance testing requirements under NSPS subparts J and Ja
when performing storage tank degassing and cleaning operations and
using a flare or FGCD for VOC emission control?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the performance testing waiver request for
portable FGCSs because the provisions of the AMP will demonstrate SPP's
compliance with the NSPS subpart J or Ja standard.
Abstract for [1800018]
Q: Does EPA approve Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District's
request to use site specific operating parameters, operating limits,
and averaging periods of a nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions
control device at a new fluid bed sewage sludge incinerator (FBI)
subject to 40 CFR subpart LLLL, at its wastewater treatment plant in
Green Bay, Wisconsin?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed parametric monitoring for used
of the selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology to control
NOX emissions from the FBI is sufficient to ensure
compliance with the NOX emission limit at 40 CFR 60.4845.
Under 40 CFR 60.4855(b), an affected source that does not use a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection to comply with an emission limit can petition the
Administrator for specific operating parameters, operating limits, and
averaging periods to be established during the initial performance test
and to be monitored continuously thereafter.
Abstract for [1800019]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan for alternate
span gas concentration values for hydrogen sulfide on total reduced
sulfur (TRS) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for six
flares at the CITGO Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex (CITGO)
petroleum refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana covered under NSPS
subparts A and Ja?
A: Yes. Based on the process data and analyzer information
submitted, EPA conditionally approves the request with specified
concentration ranges. Additionally, CITGO must conduct linearity
analysis on the TRS CEMS once every three years to determine each
detector's linearity across the entire range of expected sulfur
concentrations. A report of each completed linearity analysis shall be
submitted to EPA Region 6 and the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality and maintained in each facility's on-site records.
Abstract for [1800020]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan for alternate
span gas concentration values for hydrogen sulfide on total reduced
sulfur (TRS) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for a
refinery flare at the Placid Refining Company LLC (Placid) refinery in
Port Allen, Louisiana covered under NSPS subparts A and Ja?
A: Yes. Based on the process data and analyzer information
submitted, EPA conditionally approves the request with specified
concentration ranges. Additionally, Placid must conduct linearity
analysis on the TRS CEMS once every three years to determine each
detector's linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations
of acid gas vent streams. A report of each completed linearity analysis
shall be submitted to EPA Region 6 and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality and maintained in each facility's on-site
records.
Abstract for [1800021]
Q: Does EPA approve a modification to a previously issued
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a
Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit at a Phillips 66 Company refinery, in
Sweeny, Texas, subject to NSPS part 60 subpart J, and also new
requirements of NESHAP part 63 subpart UUU, for parametric monitoring
of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring
System, due to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack?
A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process
specific supplemental information provided, EPA approves the AMP
modification. EPA reviewed the recent performance test results and
found the data supportive for retaining the establishing final OPLs.
The OPLs approved for demonstrating compliance with the AMP included
minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio, minimum water pressure to the quench/spray
tower nozzles, and minimum pressure drop across filter modules/
cyclolabs.
Abstract for [1800022]
Q: Does EPA approve a modification to a previously issued
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a
Regenerative Catalytic Cracking Unit (RCCU) at the Shell Oil Products
US refinery located in Norco, Louisiana, subject to NSPS part 60
subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP part 63 subpart UUU, for
parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a Continuous
Opacity Monitoring System, due to moisture interference on opacity
readings in the stack?
A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process
specific supplemental information provided, EPA approves the AMP
modification. EPA reviewed the recent performance test results and
found the data supportive for retaining the established final operating
parameter limits (OPLs). The OPLs approved for demonstrating compliance
with the AMP were minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Venturi Inlet
Differential Pressure, defined as the flue gas inlet pressure to the
four venturis, measured in inches water.
Abstract for [1800023]
Q: Does EPA approve a monitoring exemption in lieu of an
Alternative Monitoring Plan for combusting an off-gas vent stream from
a lean amine tank as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under NSPS
for Refineries part 60 subpart Ja at the Wynnewood Refining Company,
LLC (WRC) refinery located in Wynnewood, Oklahoma?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the monitoring exemption for the
off-gas vent stream. Based on the process operating parameters and
monitoring data submitted by WRC, EPA determines that the vent gas
stream is inherently low in sulfur according to 40 CFR
60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur content or process operating
parameters for the off-gas vent stream change from representations made
for the monitoring exemption, WRC must document the changes, re-
evaluate the vent stream characteristics, and follow the appropriate
steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.107a(b)(3). The monitoring exemption should
also be referenced
[[Page 10677]]
and attached to the facility's new source review and Title V permit for
federal enforceability.
Abstract for [1800024]
Q: Does EPA approve a monitoring exemption in lieu of Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring process parameters that affect
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations in a vent gas stream, instead of
installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) under NSPS
subpart J, for a refinery to combust the off-gas vent stream from a
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Merox Oxidizer Vent identified as inherently
low in sulfur content and that is routed to Shell-Claus Off-Gas
Treatment Unit Tail Gas Incinerator, at the Valero Corpus Christi West
Refinery located in Corpus Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the vent gas stream, the
process parameters to be monitored, the design of the vent gas
controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally
approves the monitoring exemption. EPA is including the facility's
proposed operating parameter limits, which the facility must continue
to monitor, as part of the conditional approval. If refinery operations
change such that the sulfur content of the off-gas stream changes from
representations delineated in the AMP, then Valero must document the
change(s) and follow the appropriate steps at 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-
(iii).
Abstract for [1800025]
Q: Do the flow-through transfer sumps used at DCP Midstream's
(DCP's) natural gas booster stations in Oklahoma meet the definition of
affected storage vessels under NSPS subpart OOOO, applicable to crude
oil and natural gas production, transmission and distribution?
A: No. Based on the design and operation data that DCP furnished,
and EPA's review of the additional information submitted by the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, EPA determines that the
transfer sumps function as knockout vessels, and do not meet the
definition and criteria to be an affected storage vessel under NSPS
OOOO. EPA considered certain characteristics of the transfer sumps,
including that there is a physical separation process operation that
occurs, and the purpose of the sump is to provide for that physical
separation. Additionally, collection of materials in the sumps is
dependent on upstream process variables, not downstream operator
discretion. In consideration of the process variables that may affect
physical separation, transfer of collected separated materials to other
vessels is accomplished by an automatic flow controller or other device
with defined set points that trigger transfer, independent of operator
action.
Abstract for [1800026]
Q1: Does EPA confirm that when firing an emergency fuel from a
combustion turbine as defined in 40 CFR parts 72 and 75, that in
accordance with appendix E, section 2.5.2.3, Marshfield Utilities
(Marshfield), located in Marshfield, Wisconsin, may continue to use the
nitrogen oxides (NOX) correlation curve derived from the
most recent stack test for monitoring and reporting the NOX
emission rate?
A1: Yes. EPA confirms that Marshfield may use the most recently
derived NOX correlation curve for monitoring and reporting
of NOX emissions, but, according to appendix E paragraph
2.2, Marshfield may not use the most recently derived NOX
correlation curve if that curve is over 5 years old.
Q2: Does EPA determine that Marshfield may continue to use the
NOX correlation curve derived from the most recent stack
test for monitoring and reporting the NOX emission rate even
if the data is more than 5 years old?
A2: No. Paragraph 2.2 of appendix E clearly states that a
correlation curve cannot be used for more than 20 calendar quarters.
Q3: Since appendix E does not require testing of emergency fuels
and EPA's 2012 waiver determination requires Marshfield to follow the
testing requirements of appendix E only, does EPA determine that the
waiver could also waive NOX performance testing for
distillate fuel oil when it is designated as an emergency fuel?
A3: Under paragraph 2.1.4 of appendix E, Marshfield is permitted to
claim an exemption from the testing requirements for emergency fuels,
but, if it does so, it must rely on the NOX Maximum Emission
Rate (MER) for distillate fuel oil (200 ppm) for monitoring and
reporting NOX emissions from combustion of the emergency
fuel. Although paragraph 2.5.2.3 allows for use of a NOX
correlation curve for monitoring and reporting combustion of emergency
fuels, a NOX correlation curve cannot be used after it is
over 5 years old. In such an instance, the NOX MER must be
used. Because appendix E's NOX MER for distillate fuel oil
(200 ppm) is greater than the NSPS KKKK NOX emission limit
for fuel oil (74 ppm), NOX emission rate testing for
distillate fuel oil must be conducted (and must show emission results
at or below the limit in NSPS KKKK) to remain in compliance with NSPS
KKKK when firing distillate fuel oil, whether or not as an emergency
fuel.
Abstract for [1800027]
Q: Does EPA approve Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC's (Tate &
Lyle's) request that the two Riley Stoker circulating fluid beds (CFB)
boilers at its Decatur, Illinois corn wet milling facility be allowed
to use the alternative rate and emission limit for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) set forth in 40 CFR 60.42b(k)(4) of subpart Db, rather
than the current applicable rate and emission limit set forth in 40 CFR
60.43(a)(2) of subpart D?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided and as allowed under 40
CFR 60.43(d), EPA approves the Tate & Lyle's request with the
assumption that all versions of the ASTM D2234 used by Tate & Lyle
(e.g., ASTM methods for analysis of sulfur in the coal and the gross
calorific value) are specifically allowed under EPA Method 19.
Abstract for [1800028]
Q1: Does EPA approve site-specific operating parameter limits
(OPLs) under NSPS subpart DDDD for three separate Energy Recovery Units
(ERUs) located at the Americas Styrenics LLC facility in St. James,
Louisiana?
A1: Yes. Upon review of the site-specific information provided, EPA
conditionally approves the request for site-specific OPLs. Because the
residue oil burned in all three ERUs is a non-hazardous secondary
material that meets the definition of a solid waste per 40 CFR 241.3,
all three ERUs must meet requirements specified in subpart DDDD,
including performance testing. Each ERU must be performance tested to
demonstrate compliance with emission limitations at four different test
conditions that represent the overall operational range of the units.
EPA categorized and evaluated the type of operating parameters to be
established, based upon the type of monitoring to be conducted
following the initial performance testing.
Q2: Does EPA also approve a waiver related to the monitoring of
oxygen levels during startup and shutdown of the ERUs under subpart
DDDD, based upon the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units (CISWI) rule?
A2: No. EPA does not approve the monitoring waiver because the
startup and shutdown provisions specific to ERUs in the 2016 final
CISWI rule apply.
[[Page 10678]]
Abstract for [1800029]
Q: Does EPA determine that a fuel change from landfill gas (LFG) to
natural gas (NG) at the Milam Recycling & Disposal Facility in East St.
Louis, Illinois is a modification under the NSPS subpart JJJJ if the
engines were originally designed to combust NG, then combusted LFG, and
now combust NG? Changes to the fuel regulator and air-to-fuel ratio
were needed to change from NG to LFG and then back again.
A: No. EPA determines that the use of NG as a fuel source in the
three engines does not constitute a modification under the NSPS. The
Caterpillar 3516 engines were designed to combust NG. The relatively
minor changes made to the fuel regulator and to the air-to-fuel ratio
did not change the fact that the engines themselves were and are
capable of accommodating NG. In addition, the Title V permit in effect
at the time of the request allowed the use of both LFG and NG.
Abstract for [1800030]
Q1: Does the EPA determine that gypsum dryer units at the Calcium
Products facility in Fort Dodge, Iowa, subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart UUU with a Potential to Emit less than 11 tons per year of
particulate matter (PM) are exempt from monitoring requirements?
A1: Yes. EPA determines that the facility has successfully
demonstrated via stack test to have potential PM emissions less than 11
tons per year and is exempt from the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR
60.743. The exemption is under the condition that Calcium Products will
operate and maintain the control devices in a manner consistent with
good engineering control practices anytime the dryers are in operation,
this would include ensuring that fabric bags are in good working order
at all times.
Q2: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request to use a
Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS) in lieu of the Continuous Opacity
Monitors at the facility?
A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring
request to use BLDS. Calcium Products is required to immediately
document any BLDS alarms and take corrective actions to reduce or
eliminate the cause of the alarms. The failure to immediately
investigate, document the root cause, and implement corrective actions
to minimize or eliminate the cause of the alarm will be considered a
violation of the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.734. The AMP
conditions are specified in the EPA response letter.
Abstract for [1800031]
Q: Does EPA approve the Phillips 66 request to conduct a top-side
in-service inspection to meet the internal out-of-service inspection
requirements for internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb at multiple facilities?
A: Yes. Based on the tank data and the inspection procedures
described in Phillips 66's AMP request, EPA has determined under 40 CFR
60.13(i) that the specified IFR storage tanks can be properly inspected
and repaired with the proposed top-side internal inspection
methodology. Phillips 66 agrees to use the inspection requirements in
40 CFR 63.1063(d) of NESHAP subpart WWW, which require the facility to
identify and address any gaps of more than 0.32 centimeters (\1/8\
inch) between any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper and any surface
that it is intended to seal, instead of complying with the less
rigorous visual inspection requirements under NSPS subpart Kb for which
a measurement criterion is not established. EPA's approval of this AMP
is contingent upon Phillips 66 continuing to have visual access to all
deck components specified in paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 63.1063.
Abstract for [1800032]
Q: Does EPA determine that autoclaves operated by GP Industrial
Plasters LLC (GP), located in Blue Rapids, Kansas, are classified as
calciners and subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU?
A: No. EPA determines that the autoclaves operated by GP release no
particulate matter to the environment during the processing of gypsum
since these are used to remove water from gypsum rock. However, the pan
dryers, where the gypsum is discharged to, are still subject to UUU.
Abstract for [1800033]
Q: Does EPA approve HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining LLC's (HFCR's)
alternative monitoring plan request to use data from low range hydrogen
sulfide validations and daily and quarterly cylinder gas audits as an
alternative to the total reduced sulfur quality assurance procedure
described in 40 CFR 60.107a(e)(1)(iii) for the Coker flare at the HFCR
refinery in Cheyenne, Wyoming subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the HFCR's request and is
requiring higher concentration calibrations for the high span portion
of the analyzer. The approval is conditioned on HFCR's agreement that
it will not challenge any of the high range values measured by the
analyzer even though higher concentration calibration gases will not be
used for daily and periodic calibrations.
Abstract for [1800034]
Q: Does EPA approve Sinclair Casper Refining Company's (SCRC's)
alternative monitoring plan (AMP) request to use the lower
concentration of hydrogen sulfide as an alternative to the total
reduced sulfur quality assurance procedure described in 40 CFR
60.107a(e)(1)(iii) for a refinery flare at the SCRC refinery in Casper,
Wyoming subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP request and is requiring
higher concentration calibrations for the high span portion of the
analyzer. The approval is conditioned on SCRC's agreement that it will
not challenge any of the high range values measured by the analyzer
even though higher concentration calibration gases will not be used for
daily and periodic calibrations.
Abstract for [1800035]
Q: Does EPA approve Marshfield Utilities' (Marshfield) waiver of
the frequency of nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission rate testing
for emergency fuels on combustion turbine that is subject to the
statutes of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK (NSPS KKKK) and 40 CFR part
75, appendix E (appendix E)?
A: EPA determines that Marshfield Utilities may rely upon the
exemption in appendix E, at section 2.1.4, to forgo appendix E's
NOX performance testing requirements for distillate fuel oil
as an emergency fuel but only after it has received all appropriate
modifications to its permit(s) necessary to designate distillate fuel
oil as an emergency fuel under 40 CFR part 75. All emissions reported
pursuant to appendix E, must use the NOX maximum emission
rate (MER) for distillate fuel oil. Since the distillate fuel oil
NOX MER of appendix E is greater than the NOX
compliance limit established by NSPS KKKK, performance testing for
emergency fuel under NSPS KKKK is required. Therefore, the
NOX emission rate testing for distillate fuel oil, as an
emergency fuel, may be conducted every 5 years in accordance with the
testing requirements of NSPS KKKK.
Abstract for [1800036]
Q1: Does EPA determine that 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ applies to
a 1,550 bhp, non-emergency spark ignition internal combustion engine
(SI ICE) that will use a blend of digester gas/natural gas?
[[Page 10679]]
A1: Yes. EPA determines that 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ does
apply to a non-emergency SI ICE constructed after June 12, 2006, and
manufactured on or after July 1, 2007, that will use a blend of
digester gas/natural gas.
Q2: If subpart JJJJ applies, which of the emission standards in
Table 1 to subpart JJJJ apply to the engine?
A2: When the engine burns a blend of natural gas and landfill/
digester gas, it must comply with both emission standards of Table 1 to
subpart JJJJ (the standards for natural gas engines and the standards
for landfill/digester gas engines). Therefore, an engine in question
must meet the more stringent standards that apply, which are for
engines that burn natural gas.
Abstract for [1800037]
Q: Does EPA agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality's (ODEQ's) determination that a Solar MARS 90 turbine located
in Oklahoma does not need to comply with the NOX standard of
NSPS subpart GG?
A: No. EPA indicated to ODEQ that the turbine must comply with the
NOX standard as required by 40 CFR 60.332(d). EPA agreed
that 40 CFR 60.332(b) applies to only electric utility stationary gas
turbines, and that 40 CFR 60.332(c) is not applicable because the Solar
MARS 90 turbine is rated at 114 MMBtu/hour and has a heat input at peak
load greater than 100 MMBtu/hour. EPA did not agree with ODEQ's
interpretation that 40 CFR 60.332(d) is only applicable to electric
utility stationary gas turbines.
Abstract for [1800038]
Q: Does EPA determine that three newly installed engines at the
Enable Midstream Partners, LP F&H compressor station located in Latimer
County, Oklahoma are subject to area source requirements under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart ZZZZ (RICE NESHAP)?
A: Yes. EPA determines that the engines would be subject to area
source requirements under the RICE NESHAP and would only need to
demonstrate compliance by meeting requirements of NSPS subpart JJJJ. On
January 25, 2018, EPA issued a new guidance memorandum that superseded
previous OIAI policy. Under the new guidance, a major source that takes
an enforceable limit on its potential to emit and brings its HAP
emissions below the applicable threshold becomes an area source,
irrespective of when the source limits its potential to emit. Enable
took steps to reduce the facility-wide potential to emit to below major
HAP source levels prior to removing four existing engines and
installing three new engines. Since the new engines were installed
after the facility status changed to an area source for HAP emissions,
the new engines are subject to the area source requirements under 40
CFR 63.6590(c), which specifies that a new or reconstructed stationary
engine located at an area source must meet RICE NESHAP requirements by
complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, for
compression ignition engines, or 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, for
spark ignition engines.
Abstract for [1800039]
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from continuous monitoring
requirements for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations in a vent gas
stream under NSPS subpart Ja for fuel gas streams low in sulfur content
at the Holly Refining Tulsa East Loading Terminal in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
which combusts off-gas vent streams from gasoline and diesel product
loading?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the vent gas streams, the
product specifications and parameters that were monitored, the design
of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA
conditionally approves three exemptions under NSPS subpart Ja. EPA
included requirements for evaluating future additional products for
sulfur content prior to loading as part of the conditional approval.
Abstract for [1800040]
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
monitoring process parameters that affect hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
concentrations in a vent gas stream subject to NSPS subpart Ja at the
Marathon Petroleum refinery in Garyville, Louisiana, which combusts the
off-gas vent stream from a light naphtha Merox Oxidizer unit at a
refinery crude heater?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the vent gas stream, the key
process parameter to be monitored, the design of the vent gas controls,
and the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the
AMP since it meets the exemption criteria of 40 CFR 60.107a(a)(3)(iv),
for fuel gas streams that are low-sulfur and the Unit 210 Crude Heater
does not need to meet the continuous monitoring requirements of either
40 CFR 60.107a(a)(l) or (2) under the NSPS Ja. EPA included the
facility's proposed operating parameter limit which the facility must
continue to monitor as part of the conditional approval.
Abstract for [1800041]
Q: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative monitoring plan
(AMP) for the Monarch Waste Technologies, LLC (MWT) Pyromed Pyrolysis
System to be operated at the Nambe Pueblo near Santa Fe, New Mexico as
a hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) under NSPS Ec?
A: No. EPA determines that the petition does not provide specific
information about the control equipment installed, nor does it provide
sufficient other required information for a petition under 40 CFR
60.56c(j). Due to this lack of information, EPA cannot evaluate the AMP
request. EPA previously provided information and guidance to the
company related to implementation requirements under NSPS Ec after an
on-site meeting and tour of the facility. However, the AMP petition
submitted did not incorporate EPA's information. EPA's response
outlines the areas of the petition that are in conflict with federal
rule interpretations and requirements.
Abstract for [1800042]
Q1: Does EPA conditionally approve Motiva Enterprises, LLC's
(Motiva's) request to modify a previously issued Alternative Monitoring
Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit (FCCU) subject to NSPS subpart J, and also new
requirements of NESHAP subpart UUU, for parametric monitoring of
opacity at the WGS in lieu of a continuous opacity monitoring system,
due to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack at the
Motiva refinery located in Port Arthur, Texas?
A1: Yes. Based upon the site-specific information and performance
test data submitted, EPA approves operating parameter limits (OPLs) for
the FCCU No. 3 WGS unit, taking into consideration all data from past
test events where compliance was demonstrated with the 1 lb PM/1000 lbs
of coke bum-off emission limitation. The OPLs approved for
demonstrating compliance with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio, minimum water pressure to the quench/spray tower nozzles, and
minimum pressure drop across filter modules/cyclolabs.
Q2: What alternative monitoring conditions were not approved?
A2: Although Motiva did not request a change in the type of
operating parameters already approved, they proposed that the OPLs be
established on a three-hour hourly rolling average basis rather than an
a one-hour basis, using a 20 percent downward extrapolation to
establish the minimum limits for each OPL from those values actually
demonstrated during the most recent performance test. EPA will not
[[Page 10680]]
approve a downward extrapolation of data for operation from results of
one performance test. Operating parameters to be established are
minimum value limits, and test results should be representative of
typical operating conditions under test conditions designed to
demonstrate compliance in consideration of potentially worst-case
emissions over the full range of operating scenarios.
Abstract for [1800043]
Q: Does EPA approve Phillips 66 Sweeny Refinery's (PSR's) request
to use a sulfur dioxide (SO2) Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (CEMS), and calculation of the flue gas flow rate and
coke burn-off rate as an alternative for determining compliance with
the emission limitation for sulfur oxides (SOX) at a
fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) subject to NSPS subpart J at
its refinery located in Sweeny, Texas?
A: Yes. Based on the test results and information submitted, EPA
conditionally approves the request to use the FCCU SO2 CEMS
data with a correction factor to account for non-SO2
SOX, and calculations for flue gas flow rate and coke burn-
off rate to generate SOX continuous data in lieu of daily
Method 8 testing. In addition, PSR will conduct Method 8 compliance
testing at the FCCU once every five years.
Abstract for [1800044]
Q: Does EPA approve site-specific alternative monitoring operating
parameter limits (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec for the alternate control
scenario during start up and shut down of two hospital/medical/
infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI) at the Stericycle, Inc.
Springhill facility located in Sarepta, Louisiana?
A: No. Based upon the information provided, EPA denied the petition
and testing waiver request because there is no need to distinguish a
separate operational mode and control scenario specific only to startup
and shutdown of each HMIWI, nor to establish separate requirements for
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that would be specific only to
startup and shutdown periods for each HMIWI. The rule intent is clear
that a minimum combustion chamber temperature must be achieved prior to
operations and at all times when waste is combusted, and for controls
to be operated at all times without bypass.
Abstract for [1800045]
Q: Does EPA approve HollyFrontier El Dorado Refining LLC's
(HFEDR's) request to use an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for a
mass spectrometer (MS) analyzer for the NSPS subpart Ja sulfur
monitoring requirements for the flare system at its refinery in El
Dorado, Kansas to allow for reduced concentrations of calibration gases
to perform daily validations and quarterly cylinder gas audits (CGA) as
required by 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 40 CFR part 60, appendix F?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP using a lower portion of
the MS analyzer due to safety concerns associated with handling gases
with high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, and given that total
reduce sulfur monitoring is used for determining a work practice
threshold contained in the regulation (i.e. the root cause analysis/
corrective action) as opposed to monitoring an emission limit for
compliance. The conditions are specified in the EPA response letter,
which includes that the analyzer detector is linear across the span of
the analyzer and HFEDR submits the CGA quarterly audit results to EPA
Region 7, on a frequency of no less than semi-annually.
Abstract for [1800046]
Q: Does EPA approve CHS McPherson Refinery, Inc.'s (CHS's) request
to use an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for a mass spectrometer
(MS) analyzer for the NSPS subpart Ja sulfur monitoring requirements
for the main flare at its refinery in McPherson, Kansas to allow for
reduced concentrations of calibration gases to perform daily
validations and quarterly cylinder gas audits (CGA) as required by 40
CFR 60.13(d) and 40 CFR part 60, appendix F?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP for using a lower
portion of the MS analyzer due to safety concerns associated with
handling gases with high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, and given
that total reduce sulfur monitoring is used for determining a work
practice threshold contained in the regulation (i.e. the root cause
analysis/corrective action) as opposed to monitoring an emission limit
for compliance. The with conditions are specified in the EPA response
letter, which includes that the analyzer detector is linear across the
span of the analyzer and CHS submits the CGA quarterly audit results to
EPA Region 7, on a frequency of no less than semi-annually.
Abstract for [1800047]
Q: Does EPA approve Dartmouth College's request to de-rate Boiler
#1, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, to a heat input rating of 98
MMBtu/hour at its central heating plant located in Hanover, New
Hampshire?
A: Yes. EPA determines that the de-rating criteria for an
acceptable project physical changes proposed by Dartmouth College in
its February 27, 2018 letter are acceptable and approves the request
with conditions. This approval of Dartmouth's de-rate proposal will
become void if the unit exceeds an average of 100 MMBtu of heat input
in any hour of operation.
Abstract for [1900001]
Q: Due to safety concerns with conducting a relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) for a flare subject to NSPS subpart Ja which is normally
recovering flare gases, does EPA approve the BP Products North America,
Inc. (BP) request to conduct a cylinder gas audit rather than a RATA
for the hydrogen sulfide continuous emission monitoring systems at its
Whiting, Indiana refinery?
A: Yes. Due to the flare specific configuration and gas
composition, EPA approves BP's requested alternative for a period of
one year to develop procedures or implement other changes as it
determines are necessary in order to safely conduct the required RATA,
after which BP must conduct the annual RATA as required.
Abstract for [1900002]
Q: Does EPA approve alternate span gas concentration values for
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on total reduced sulfur (TRS) continuous
emissions monitoring systems for ten flares at the Blanchard Refining
Company, LLC (Blanchard) Galveston Bay Refinery in Texas City, Texas
covered under NSPS subpart Ja?
A: Based on the process data and analyzer information submitted,
EPA conditionally approves the request to reduce the concentrations of
the calibration gas to specified ranges and validation standards on the
CEMS for the 10 flares. Blanchard must conduct linearity analysis on
the H2S gas chromatographs once every three years to determine each
detector's linearity across the entire range of expected sulfur
concentrations. The analysis must include four test gases in specified
ranges. A report of each completed linearity analysis shall be
submitted to EPA Region 6 and the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality and maintained in each facility's on-site records.
Abstract for [1900003]
Q: Does EPA approve alternate span gas concentration values for
hydrogen sulfide on the total reduced sulfur (TRS) continuous emissions
monitoring system for a flare at the HollyFrontier
[[Page 10681]]
Navajo Refining LLC (HFNR) petroleum refinery in Artesia, New Mexico
covered under NSPS subpart Ja?
A: Yes. Based on the process data and analyzer information
submitted, EPA conditionally approves the request to reduce the
concentrations of the calibration gas to specified ranges and
validation standards on the CEMS for the flare. HFNR must conduct
linearity analysis on the Extrel MAX300-IG once every three years to
determine the detector's linearity across the entire range of expected
sulfur concentrations. The analysis must include four test gases in
specified ranges. A report of each completed linearity analysis shall
be submitted to EPA Region 6 and the New Mexico Environment Department
and maintained in each facility's on-site records.
Abstract for [1900004]
Q: Does EPA approve Blanchard Refining Company, LLC's request to
modify a previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet
Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit subject to
NSPS subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP subpart UUU, for
parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a continuous
opacity monitoring system, due to moisture interference on opacity
readings in the stack located at the Galveston Bay Refinery in Texas
City, Texas?
A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process
specific supplemental information provided, EPA approves the AMP
modification. EPA reviewed the recent performance test results and
found the data supportive for establishing the final operating
parameter limits (OPLs). The OPLs approved for demonstrating compliance
with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio for the filter
module, minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio for the absorber section, and
minimum pressure drop across filter modules/cyclolabs.
Abstract for [1900005]
Q: Does EPA approve the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) request to
modify a previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet
Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit subject to
NSPS subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP subpart UUU, for
parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a continuous
opacity monitoring system, due to moisture interference on opacity
readings in the stack at the Corpus Christi East Refinery located in
Corpus Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process
specific supplemental information provided, EPA approves the AMP
modification. EPA reviewed the recent performance test results and
found the data supportive for establishing final operating parameter
limits (OPLs). The OPLs approved for demonstrating compliance with the
AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and the throat velocity ratio.
Abstract for [1900006]
Q: Does EPA approve Phillips 66 Company's request to modify a
previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas
Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit, located at the
Alliance Refinery in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, subject to NSPS subpart
J, and also new requirements of NESHAP subpart UUU, for parametric
monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a continuous opacity
monitoring system, due to moisture interference on opacity readings in
the stack?
A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process
specific supplemental information provided, EPA approves the AMP
modification. EPA reviewed the recent performance test results and
found the data supportive for establishing the final operating
parameter limits (OPLs). The OPLs approved for demonstrating compliance
with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and minimum slurry
liquid circulation pump discharge pressure.
Abstract for [1900007]
Q: Does EPA approve alternate span gas concentration values for
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on total reduced sulfur (TRS) continuous
emissions monitoring systems for four flares at the Phillips 66 Ponca
City Refinery in Ponca City, Oklahoma covered under NSPS subpart Ja?
A: Based on the process data and analyzer information submitted,
EPA conditionally approves the request to reduce the concentrations of
the calibration gas to specified ranges and validation standards on the
CEMS for the four flares. Phillips 66 must conduct linearity analysis
on the H2S and TRS analyzers once every three years to determine each
detector's linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations
of acid gas vent streams. A report of each completed linearity analysis
shall be submitted to EPA Region 6 and the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality and maintained in each facility's on-site
records.
Abstract for [1900008]
Q: Does EPA approve a monitoring exemption for an inherently low-
sulfur fuel gas stream subject to NSPS subpart J to combust the off-gas
vent stream from the delayed coking unit 843 disulfide oxidation tower
T-6750 that is routed to Flare No.23, at the Valero Port Arthur
Refinery (Valero) located in Port Arthur, Texas?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the vent gas stream, the
process parameters to be monitored, the design of the vent gas
controls, and the hydrogen sulfide monitoring data furnished, EPA
agrees that the fuel gas is inherently low in sulfur, and conditionally
approves the exemption. Valero must meet other applicable NSPS
requirements to maintain and operate affected facilities and associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, and, may not use
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with the NSPS subpart J emission
standard.
Abstract for [1900009]
Q: Does EPA grant the Chautauqua County Landfill, located in
Jamestown, New York, a test waiver and agree that any future stack
testing be conducted on one representative engine annually, in a
staggered schedule such that each engine is tested once every 3 years
to establish compliance with the performance testing requirements of 40
CFR 60.8 and subpart JJJJ?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA approves the request
to conduct a performance test every 8,760 hours or 3 years, whichever
comes first, for all five identical engines burning the same landfill
gas fuel, and which are operated and maintained in the same manner,
that were constructed after July 1, 2007 in a staggered schedule, to
establish compliance with the performance testing requirements of 40
CFR 60.8 and subpart JJJJ.
Abstract for [1900010]
Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring
Plan (AMP) for an inherently low-sulfur fuel gas stream, instead of
installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) under NSPS
subpart J, for a refinery to combust the off-gas vent stream from the
Unit 126 Butane Merox Disulfide Separator at the Marathon Petroleum
Company LP (MPC) refinery located in Garyville, Louisiana?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the vent gas stream, the
process parameters to be monitored, the design
[[Page 10682]]
of the vent gas controls, and the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitoring
data furnished, EPA agrees that the fuel gas is inherently low in
sulfur, and approves the exemption. MPC must meet other applicable NSPS
requirements to maintain and operate affected facilities and associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, and, may not use
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with the NSPS subpart J emission
standard.
Abstract for [1900011]
Q: Does EPA approve a monitoring exemption for an inherently low-
sulfur fuel gas stream subject to NSPS subpart Ja to combust the off-
gas vent stream from the Light Naphtha Merox Unit Disulfide Separator
that is routed to Crude Topper Heater 17H01, at the Valero Refining
Houston, Texas Refinery (Valero Houston)?
A: Yes. Based on the description of the vent gas stream, the
process parameters to be monitored, the design of the vent gas
controls, and the hydrogen sulfide monitoring data furnished, EPA
agrees that the fuel gas is inherently low in sulfur and approves the
exemption. Valero Houston must meet other applicable NSPS requirements
to maintain and operate affected facilities and associated air
pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, and, may not use
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with the NSPS subpart Ja
emission standard.
Abstract for [1900012]
Q: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative monitoring plan
with site-specific operating parameters for the Monarch Waste
Technologies, LLC (MWT) Pyromed Pyrolysis System to be operated at the
Nambe Pueblo near Santa Fe, New Mexico as a hospital/medical/infectious
waste incinerator (HMIWI) under NSPS Ec?
A: Based on technical review of the information submitted, EPA
conditionally approves the interim operating parameters but does not
approve the proposed testing plan. EPA approves the daily loading rate
of sorbent and the pressure drop across the ceramic filters. MWT must
also monitor both the inlet and outlet temperatures of gases routed to
and exiting the pollution control system because vent gas temperature
may be an indicator of potential dioxin formation. To obtain approval
of an initial performance testing plan, MWT must further develop a
performance test plan that aligns with requirements of 40 CFR 60.8 and
40 CFR 60.56c and submit the plan for EPA to review and approve.
Abstract for [1900013]
Q: Does EPA approve Georgia Pacific, LLC's request for an
exemption, based on economic feasibility, from the total reduced sulfur
(TRS) standard in 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB to incinerate the exhaust
gases from a brown stock washer (BSW) system for control of TRS
emissions at its pulp mill in Crossett, Arkansas?
A: Yes. EPA determines that additional controls would be
economically unfeasible; therefore, conditionally approves an exemption
from the subpart BB standard for TRS for this BSW system. The
determination is consistent with previous determinations EPA has made
regarding economic feasibility of controlling TRS emissions from other
BSW systems. This approval is conditional based on the implementation
and maintenance of the 2016 GP Washer Proposal to route BSW exhaust
gases to the incinerator. This determination is only the TRS limit in
subpart BB and does not alter the applicability of TRS limits imposed
under the state implementation plan, new source review requirements, or
any other regulations. If installation of controls becomes economically
feasible, then the exemption for TRS controls will no longer apply.
Abstract for [1900014]
Q: Does EPA approve the material balance proposed by the Eastman
Chemical Company for monitoring the concentration of hydrogen chloride
(HCl) in the flue gas from Boilers 18--24 at the company's Kingsport,
Tennessee facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the site-specific monitoring
approach since it is acceptable for demonstrating continuous compliance
with the HCl emission limit. The proposed approach is based upon the
conservative assumption that all of the chlorine contained in the fuel
and waste streams burned in the boilers is emitted as HCl. In addition,
the proposed equations for converting HCl results into terms of the
applicable standard are technically sound.
Abstract for [1900015]
Q: Does EPA determine that the Magellan Midstream Partner L.P.
(Magellan) proposal to conduct in-service inspections on an ethanol
storage tank subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb at the company's
Charlotte, North Carolina storage terminal is acceptable?
A: Yes. The EPA responded to the Mecklenburg County Land Use and
Environmental Services Agency (Agency) that conducting in-service
inspections on Tank 14 at the Charlotte terminal will be acceptable
provided that inspection procedures in 40 CFR 63.1063(d) are followed
since facility does not have alternate storage capacity for ethanol.
This determination is consistent with previous EPA Region 7 approvals
of in-service inspections for similar storage tanks located at three
other Magellan storage terminals located in Missouri.
Abstract for [1900016]
Q: Does EPA determine that an alternative nitrogen oxides
(NOX) monitoring proposal for the sulfite recovery boiler
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart D and located at the Rayonier
Advanced Materials pulp mill in Fernandina Beach, Florida is
acceptable?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Resource Management, EPA
determines that since the NOx limit in subpart D does not apply to the
combustion of red liquid, an alternative to a continuous emission
monitoring system must be used when red liquor and natural gas are co-
fired in the boiler. NOX emissions from the natural gas
burners installed on the boiler are controlled with steam injection,
and excess emission during periods when red liquor and natural gas are
co-fired will be defined in terms of the steam pressure or steam flow
to the burners.
Abstract for [1900017]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) in lieu of
a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for total reduced sulfur
(TRS) monitoring for the D-line Brownstock Washer System at the
WestRock pulp mill (WestRock) in Fernandina Beach, Florida subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa?
A: No. EPA determines that the proposed alternative AMP cannot be
approved because it defines TRS excess emissions in terms of scrubber
operating parameters (liquid flow and hypochlorite addition rates),
which will provide a lower level of compliance than the CEMS. The AMP
will not generate results in terms of the 5-ppm emission limit
promulgated at Sec. 60.283a(a)(l)(v). Because of this, it is possible
that some periods of excess emissions detected with a CEMS would
[[Page 10683]]
not be detected using the procedures outlined in the AMP.
Abstract for [1900018]
Q: Does EPA approve the proposed waiver of the requirement to
include an oxygen monitor in the total reduced sulfur (TRS) scrubber
continuous emission monitoring system (CEM) that will be installed
downstream of the D-line Brownstock Washer System at the WestRock pulp
mill in Fernandina Beach, Florida subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa?
A: EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal. Since the
applicable TRS for the D-line Brownstock Washer System is not corrected
to ten percent oxygen, ongoing compliance with subpart BBa can be
determined without monitoring the oxygen concentration at the outlet of
the scrubber that controls emissions from the affected facility.
Abstract for [1900019]
Q: Does EPA approve the proposed waiver for dioxin/furan (D/F)
testing required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD on Boilers 18
through 24 at the Eastman Chemical Company facility in Kingsport,
Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the waiver request of the D/F
testing for five of the seven boilers since testing demonstrates that
the D/F concentration in the flue gas from two representative units is
less than or equal to 50 percent of the applicable standard. Under this
approval, the maximum duration between D/F testing for any individual
boiler shall not exceed 72 months.
Abstract for [1900021]
Q: Does EPA approve the proposed alternative to pressure drop
monitoring for a scrubber that controls emissions from a waste heat
boiler (WHB), a Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators
(CISWI) unit, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD (Emissions
Guidelines and Compliance Times for CISWI Units)? at the Solvay
Specialty Polymers USA, LLC facility in Augusta, Georgia?
A: Yes. The EPA finds the alternative monitoring approach
acceptable to demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM emission
limit by sampling and analyzing the waste stream (i.e., ash/solids
content of the mixed isomer stream) on a monthly basis for twelve
months. In addition, it relies on a conservative assumption that all
the ash in the waste is emitted as particulate matter. The site-
specific alternative monitoring we are conditionally approving will
apply after EPA issues the final CISWI federal plan or approves a
revised Georgia CISWI state plan.
Abstract for [1900022]
Q: Does EPA approve Eastman Chemical Company's request to conduct
hydrogen chloride (HCl) performance testing on only some of the seven
identical boilers (No. 18--21) that burn coal, biosludge, and liquid
waste at the company's Kingsport, Tennessee facility subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart DDDD (Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units)?
A: EPA conditionally approves the performance test waiver request.
Based upon the lack of post-combustion add-on controls for HCl and the
significant margin of compliance during the initial HCl performance
testing conducted on the seven boilers, a waiver of testing for five of
the seven boilers will be acceptable if test results for two
representative units demonstrates that the HCl concentration in the
flue from the boilers tested is less than or equal to 50 percent of the
applicable limit in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.
Abstract for [1900023]
Q: What is the EPA interpretation for continuous monitoring system
(CMS) downtime and emission reporting requirements under the Clean Air
Act New Source Performance Standards (``NSPS'') General Provisions at
40 CFR part 60, subpart A?
R; The EPA responded to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) that it is withdrawing a regulatory interpretation dated
June 26, 2017 (AD Control Number 1700037) in response to ODEQ's April
18, 2017 request to allow for further examination and discussion of the
questions. Based upon new information received from industry, the June
2017 EPA response may lead to some uncertainty when applied across
several industry sectors. The regulatory requirements at issue involve
the reporting for CMS downtime and the calculation of a valid hour of
emissions under NSPS subpart A.
Abstract for [A160003]
Q1: When planning a renovation/demolition project, is the
collection and analysis of bulk samples using Polarized Light
Microscopy the only way to comply with the requirements of a thorough
inspection under 40 CFR 61.145(a) of subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP)?
A1: The asbestos NESHAP does not define ``thorough inspection.''
This was left to the owner/operator to determine when undertaking a
renovation/demolition operation. Some possible means of determining a
thorough inspection include, but is not limited to: (1) Use the ASTM-
E2356-14 Standard Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Surveys
(ADI #A150001); (2) Assume building materials within the facility are
asbestos-containing materials, and follow the regulation accordingly;
and (3) Apply the definition(s) of friable, non-friable, Category I
non-friable asbestos-containing material and/or Category II non-friable
asbestos-containing material, sample and analyze building materials
using Polarized Light Microscopy.
Q2: What type of documentation would be acceptable to the EPA for
each building component impacted by the renovation/demolition operation
in order to comply with 40 CFR 61.145(a)?
A2: Depending on the circumstances, there may be appropriate
documents that show asbestos content or lack of asbestos content for
each building material. The documentation should provide information on
how the asbestos content was determined. For compliance purposes,
Polarized Light Microscopy is the test method recognized in the
regulatory definition of asbestos-containing materials. One example of
documentation that would be acceptable is found in a school's
Management Plan required under 40 CFR part 763.
Abstract for [FP00007]
Q: Does EPA approve site-specific operating parameters (SSOPs)
under 40 CFR part 62 subpart HHH for the polishing system and wet gas
scrubber on the hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator at the
Wyoming Medical Center (WMC) located in Casper, Wyoming?
A: Yes. Based on the particular design of WMC's polishing system
and the process-specific and testing data provided, EPA approves SSOPs
for the polishing system and the wet gas scrubber. The SSOPs for the
polishing system are: Carbon adsorber unit maximum inlet temperature;
cartridge filter unit minimum inlet temperature; laboratory analysis of
carbon medial sampled at the 50 percent bed level within the adsorber
unit every two years according to one or more published test methods
(e.g. ASTM); and the carbon bed will be replaced every six to ten
years, depending on the intermittent two-year test results. The SSOPs
for the wet gas scrubber are those required in 40 CFR 60.57c and wet
gas scrubber unit maximum outlet temperature.
Abstract for [M100091]
Q1: Has EPA waived Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) requirements for
[[Page 10684]]
certain Arkansas facilities, based on EPA' s 2014 delegation of NESHAP
authority to Arkansas and the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between EPA Region 6 and the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) that implements that delegation?
A1: No. While the 2014 Delegation and the MOU contain a provision
that major sources in Arkansas subject to delegated 40 CFR part 63
standards are only required to submit the information required by the
General Provisions and the relevant 40 CFR part 63 subpart to ADEQ,
this provision was not intended to constitute EPA approval to waive ERT
requirements in 40 CFR part 63 that are applicable to Arkansas
facilities. This determination is consistent with 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2),
which identifies delegations that EPA must retain which cannot be
delegated to a State, including 40 CFR 63.10(f), Approval of Major
Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting. In addition, 40 CFR part
63, subpart DDDDD specifies at 40 CFR 63.7570(b)(5) that the authority
to approve a major change to recordkeeping or reporting is not
delegable to state, local, or tribal agencies, and is specifically
retained by EPA.
Q2: Does EPA approve a major change to reporting under subpart
DDDDD for Deltic Timber Corporation facilities in Arkansas to allow
those facilities to submit paper reports to the ADEQ in lieu of
electronic reporting using the ERT?
A2: No. EPA believes that approval of such a major reporting change
for performance testing information would directly conflict with the
intent and objectives of the ERT requirements in subpart DDDDD and
would be inconsistent with the important purposes behind the electronic
reporting requirements. Electronic reports that cannot be uploaded via
the ERT must be placed on a compact disc and sent to EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, per 40 CFR 63.7550(h)(l)(i).
Abstract for [M150022]
Q: Does EPA determine that two boilers at the Packaging Corporation
of America (PCA) mill in Valdosta, Georgia that fire wet woody biomass
meet the Boiler definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD for
classification as hybrid suspension grate units?
A: Yes. Based on your description of the two boilers, EPA
determines that these boilers meet the definition of a hybrid
suspension grate unit in subpart DDDDD and can be classified
accordingly.
Abstract for [M180003]
Q: Does EPA approve BASF's alternative monitoring request pursuant
to 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(l) and 63.8(f) to change automatic waste feed cut-
off requirements for the operating parameter limit (OPL) on flue gas
flow rate for three hazardous waste combustion incinerators A, B and C
at its Hannibal, Missouri facility?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request with the
following conditions: BASF shall notify EPA at least 30 days prior to
any system or equipment changes associated with the waste tank fume
(WTF) flow and motive air flow; BASF shall continuously monitor WTF
flow and motive air flow to incinerators A, B and C; compliance with
the OPL for flue gas flow shall be determine; BASF shall automatically
cut-off hazardous waste feed to hazardous waste incinerators A, B and C
if the rolling average combustion air/fume air flow exceeds the OPL for
flue gas flow; when establishing the operating parameter limit of
maximum flue gas flow rate required for destruction and removal
efficiency (40 CFR 63.12090)(2)), particulate matter (40 CFR
63.1209(m)(l)(i)(C), dioxins/furans (40 CFR 63.1209(k)(3)) and hydrogen
chloride and chlorine gas (40 CFR 63.1209(o)(2)), all gaseous flow
inputs shall be continuously monitored during compliance testing and
shall be used to determine the operating parameter limit; and, the
alternative monitoring approval shall be included as an appendix to all
hazardous waste incinerator units A, B and C comprehensive performance
test plan submittals.
Abstract for [M180006]
Q: Does EPA approve an extension to the number of additional
runtime hours for an emergency diesel generator located at Entergy
Operations, Inc.'s Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) facility in Russellville,
Arkansas, which is subject to the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines, subpart ZZZZ (RICE NESHAP)?
A: No. EPA does not approve the additional runtime hours since the
emergency generator ran more than 100 hours due to the facility's error
in programming the controller, and not because of the time necessary
for maintenance or testing.
Abstract for [M180007]
Q: Does EPA approve The Dow Chemical Company's (Dow's) proposal to
monitor a non-regenerative carbon adsorption system using the weight of
the carbon bed and outlet temperature of each bed in the series, for
the Myers 10 Mixer Process Unit facility in Midland, Michigan, subject
to the NESHAP for miscellaneous coating manufacturing, subpart HHHHH?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA approves Dow's
proposed operating parameters and averaging periods in lieu of the
parameters under 40 CFR 63.990(c)(3), which are not appropriate for a
none regenerative carbon system and use of an organic monitoring device
capable of providing a continuous record is economically impractical.
Abstract for [M180008]
Q: Does EPA approve Veolia E.S. Technical Solutions, L.L.C.'s
(Veolia's) request to waive the requirement to establish and comply
with a maximum ash feed rate operating parameter limit (OPL) for three
hazardous waste incinerators located at its Sauget, Illinois facility
and subject to NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC), 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEE?
A: No. EPA does not approve Veolia's OPL waiver request, because
Veolia has not demonstrated that neither the maximum ash feed rate OPL
nor an alternative OPL is needed to ensure compliance with the
particulate matter emission standard in the subpart EEE. To evaluate
this request, Veolia must submit supplemental information within 30
days of the EPA response letter's date to consider its application
during review of the comprehensive performance test plan.
Abstract for [M180009]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan (AMP) for
detecting leaks in ancillary equipment which is in ethylene glycol (EG)
service, using weekly audio/visual/olfactory (AVO) inspections at six
separate DCP Midstream LP (DCP) gas processing plants located in Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves DCP's proposed AMP to conduct weekly AVO
inspections of the ancillary equipment in EG service at six gas
processing plants. Visual evidence of EG liquid on, or dripping from,
ancillary equipment in EG service would indicate an equipment leak, and
repair must be conducted as required by 40 CFR part 61, subpart V.
Abstract for [M180010]
Q: Does EPA determine that the glycol dehydration reboiler at the
Enable Gas Gathering, LLC Strong City Compressor Station, located in
Oklahoma, is a process heater subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD?
[[Page 10685]]
A: Yes. EPA determines that the glycol dehydration reboiler is a
process heater subject to subpart DDDDD since the gaseous fuel fired to
the reboiler is not regulated under another MACT subpart, and the
exhaust gas from the combustion chamber is uncontrolled (i.e. emissions
are released directly to the atmosphere). Although the glycol
dehydration reboiler is an affected under NESHAP subpart HH (``Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities NESHAP''), the process vent standards
under this rule only apply to a glycol dehydration unit still vent and
flash tank, if present, but do not address the combustion chamber
emissions of a reboiler unit. This determination is consistent with 40
CFR 63.7491(h), which indicates that units used as control devices for
gas streams regulated under other MACT subparts are not subject to MACT
subpart DDDDD. Under MACT subpart HH, a reboiler unit is defined
separately from a glycol dehydration unit and is not considered a
control device under subpart HH. At the subject facility, an enclosed
flare is the control device for the glycol dehydration unit process
vents subject to subpart HH. Therefore, the glycol reboiler is
considered a process heater subject to the MACT DDDDD, because it is
not a control device being used to comply with another MACT subpart and
does not meet the exemption provided at 40 CFR 63.7491(h).
Abstract for [M180012]
Q: Does EPA approve the request from ExxonMobil Fuels & Lubricants
Company (ExxonMobil) for its Joliet Refinery in Channahon, Illinois,
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, to temporarily conduct alternate
monitoring for pilot flame presence at its flares during periods of
time when atmospheric conditions interfere with the operation of the
infrared sensors, until ExxonMobil can install thermocouples that will
not have any interference issue?
A: Yes. Because safety reasons preclude ExxonMobil from installing
thermocouples until a flare outage, EPA approves the request to
temporarily use infrared sensors, combined with alternative monitoring
techniques during periods of time when atmospheric conditions interfere
with the operation of the infrared sensors, until ExxonMobil installs
thermocouples to monitor pilot flame presence next flare outage or July
1, 2019 (one year after the compliance date), whichever is sooner.
Abstract for [M180013]
Q: Does EPA determine that the five newly installed engines at the
ONEOK Field Services Company, LLC Antioch Booster Station in Garvin
County, Oklahoma are subject to the area source requirements under 40
CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ?
A: Yes. The EPA responded to the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) that it agrees with its determination that
the five new engines are subject to the area source requirements for
new stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines under 40 CFR
63.6590(a)(2)(iii). The primary hazardous air pollutant (HAP) from the
new engines is formaldehyde. The new engines are subject to federally
enforceable limits to ensure that total facility formaldehyde emissions
will be below 10 tons per year. Since all the existing engines that
caused the facility to be previously classified as a major source of
HAP were retired, and the new engines are subject to federally
enforceable emission limits below major source thresholds, the facility
is now classified as an area source of HAPs.
Abstract for [M190001]
Q: Does EPA determine that the request for a waiver of the
requirement to monitor the catalyst inlet temperature during low
operating capacity periods for 14 non-emergency generators subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ located at Robins Air Force Base (Robins)
in Houston County, Georgia is acceptable?
A: No. The EPA responded to the Air Protection Branch of the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division that while EPA does not have
the authority to waive the catalyst inlet temperature monitoring
requirement in subpart ZZZZ, Robins can petition EPA for approval of an
alternative to the catalyst inlet temperature range specified in the
rule (i.e., 450-1350 [deg]F).
Abstract for [M190002]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request to use an
acoustic monitor for verifying the presence of a pilot flame for a
hydrogen flare at the SI Group facility in Orangeburg, South Carolina
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (MON rule)?
A: Yes. Based upon a review of information submitted by the SI
Group, EPA determines that the proposed major alternative monitoring
approach with use of the acoustic pilot monitor satisfies the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.987(c) for a continuous pilot flame on the
hydrogen flare.
Abstract for [M190003]
Q: Does EPA approve the proposed alternative monitoring parameter
for a scrubber that controls emissions from the No. 1 Lime Kiln at the
International Paper pulp mill in Pensacola, Florida subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA confirms that the
2004 approved monitoring parameter (lime production rate) as an
alternative to the scrubber monitoring parameter specified in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM (differential pressure) is an acceptable
alternative under 40 CFR 63.987(c) of the revised subpart MM, effective
on October 11, 2019.
Abstract for [Z180003]
Q: Does EPA approve Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
(Dominion) to use existing monitors that measure differential pressure
across the air filter media and continuously display the condition
during engine operation in lieu of the annual air filter inspections
required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, at the Millstone Nuclear
Power Station in Waterford, Connecticut?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the pressure drop monitoring as an
alternative to the annual filter inspections because the differential
pressure readings shall be taken at least once each time the engine is
operated (approximately every 4 hours for extended runs) and shall be
maintained within the approved specifications to ensure optimal engine
performance and reliability which minimize emissions. Further, if
readings are out of specifications, Dominion shall take corrective
actions.
Abstract for [Z180004]
Q1: Does EPA approve ``alternative monitoring parameters'' in lieu
of the required parametric monitoring for group 2 asphalt storage
tanks, which are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, during the
annual regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) shutdown for maintenance
activities, which lasts for approximately 2 weeks, at the CertainTeed
Saint-Gobain North America (CertainTeed) facility in Shakopee,
Minnesota?
A1: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan because
CertainTeed uses an RTO to comply with subpart LLLLL during normal
operation and will only use the mist eliminators and conduct visible
emission (VE) checks once per shift or twice daily during daylight
hours per EPA Method 22 for compliance with the zero-opacity standard
during the approximately 2-
[[Page 10686]]
week long annual RTO maintenance outage. EPA agrees that it is overly
burdensome to require the installation of the required parametric
monitoring equipment for this short duration of time.
Q2: Does EPA approve ``alternative monitoring parameters'' for
group 2 asphalt storage tanks which are subject to subpart LLLLL
anytime there is a production curtailment and CertainTeed shuts down
the RTO?
A2: No. CertainTeed did not provide information about how often
this production curtailment might occur, so EPA cannot determine
whether or not it is reasonable to allow alternative monitoring during
these periods of time.
Dated: January 15, 2020.
John Dombrowski,
Deputy Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2020-03754 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P