Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program, 22176-22186 [2015-09242]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22176-22186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09242]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9926-65-OECA]


Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent 
Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring 
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of 
Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, 
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that 
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/
or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance 
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act 
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The 
letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by control number, 
date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI 
or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-
7027, or by email at: malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions 
about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, 
refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or 
in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the 
document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a 
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the 
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 
part 63 NESHAP regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) and/or Generally Available Control Technology 
(GACT)standards] and Sec.  111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no 
specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request 
applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written inquiries 
regarding applicability for the part 63 and Sec.  111(d) programs. The 
NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring 
or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. 
See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written 
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory 
requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These 
inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the 
regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or 
reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written 
responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory 
interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them to the

[[Page 22177]]

ADI. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests 
pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR 
part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one 
thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, 
NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for 
letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, 
control number, or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 56 such documents added to 
the ADI on April 7, 2015. This notice lists the subject and header of 
each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter 
or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from 
the ADI through the OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on April 7, 2015; the 
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title 
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject 
matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA Sec.  307(b)(1). For 
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination 
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport 
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 7, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Control Number                  Categories               Subparts                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M110015............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP,   CC, G, Kb.............  Rule Interpretation on Raw
                                      NSPS.                                           Data Definition and
                                                                                      Retention for Storage
                                                                                      Vessels.
1400038............................  NSPS..................  OOO...................  Applicability of Rule to
                                                                                      Gypsum Handling Equipment
                                                                                      at a Power Plant with Fuel
                                                                                      Gas Desulfurization Units.
1100018............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Low Sulfur Bearing
                                                                                      Fuel Gas Stream.
Z140006............................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP..  YYYYY.................  Performance Test Waiver
                                                                                      Request for EAF Secondary
                                                                                      Dust Collection System.
M120012............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  FFFF..................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      For Grab Sampling in Lieu
                                                                                      of Continuous Monitoring
                                                                                      of Caustic Scrubbers.
Z120001............................  Part 61 NESHAP........  J, V..................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                      for NESHAP Subparts J and
                                                                                      V Benzene Fugitive
                                                                                      Equipment Leaks.
M120015............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP,   J, UUU................  Alternate Work Practice--
                                      NSPS.                                           SRU Sulfur Pit Bypass
                                                                                      Lines.
Z140005............................  Part 63 NESHAP........  WWWWWW................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                      for Research and
                                                                                      Development Unit under
                                                                                      NESHAP Subpart WWWWWW.
M120018............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP,   J, UUU................  Alternative Monitoring in
                                      NSPS.                                           Lieu of COMS for
                                                                                      Regenerators.
M120020............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  NNNNN.................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      Caustic Scrubber
                                                                                      Parametric Monitoring.
1200038............................  NSPS..................  D.....................  Stack COMS Relocation
                                                                                      Determined By Equivalency
                                                                                      Testing.
M120021............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  G, H..................  Approval of a Common Report
                                                                                      Schedule--MACT Subparts G
                                                                                      and H.
1200039............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      Hydrocracker Feed Surge
                                                                                      Drum Vent Stream.
1200040............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      NHT Feed Surge Drum Off--
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream.
1200041............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Hydrogen
                                                                                      Sulfide Monitoring for
                                                                                      Oleflex Reactor Vent
                                                                                      Stream.
1200042............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Hydrogen
                                                                                      Sulfide Monitoring for
                                                                                      Truck Loading, Storage
                                                                                      Tank and Well Vent Gas
                                                                                      Streams.
1200046............................  NSPS..................  JJJJ..................  Single-Point Testing In
                                                                                      Place of Method 1 or 1A--
                                                                                      Engine Emission Testing.
1200062............................  NSPS..................  KKK, Kb...............  Applicability of NSPS
                                                                                      Subparts Kb and KKK for a
                                                                                      Vapor Recovery Unit and
                                                                                      Storage Tanks.
M120027............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  JJJ...................  Timing Issues in
                                                                                      Determining MACT and Title
                                                                                      V Applicability.
M120029............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  S.....................  Approval of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Frequency under
                                                                                      the Pulp and Paper MACT.
1200087............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Revision to NSPS Method of
                                                                                      Determining Compliance for
                                                                                      Combined Effluent NOX
                                                                                      CEMS.
Z140004............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  ZZZZ..................  Exemption for Emergency
                                                                                      Engines at Commercial Area
                                                                                      Sources from RICE NESHAP--
                                                                                      Regulatory Interpretation.
1400016............................  NSPS..................  EEEE, FFFF............  Applicability Determination
                                                                                      for Commercially Operated
                                                                                      Contraband Incinerator.
1400019............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Guidance on Alternative
                                                                                      Compliance Timeline
                                                                                      Requests for Landfill.
A140003............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Applicability of the
                                                                                      Asbestos NESHAP as it
                                                                                      Applies to Concrete
                                                                                      Bridges.
M140006............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  A, MMMM...............  Continuing Requirements
                                                                                      when Surface Coating
                                                                                      Operations no Longer Meets
                                                                                      Affected Source Criteria.
M140008............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  CC, G.................  Interpretation of Required
                                                                                      Tank Inspection Frequency.
1400021............................  NSPS..................  Dc, Ja................  NOx Requirements for
                                                                                      Boilers.
M140009............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  ZZZZ..................  Disapproval of an Engine De-
                                                                                      Rate Proposal.
M140010............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  ZZZZ..................  Approval of an Engine De-
                                                                                      rate Proposal.

[[Page 22178]]

 
M140011............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP,   IIII, ZZZZ............  Applicability to a Non-
                                      NSPS.                                           stationary Engine
                                                                                      Relocated For Use as a
                                                                                      Stationary Engine.
M140012............................  PART 63 NESHAP........  A, JJJJJJ.............  Determination of Force
                                                                                      Majeure.
M140013............................  PART 63 NESHAP........  JJJJJJ................  Regulatory Interpretation
                                                                                      of Tune-up Requirements
                                                                                      for Spreader Stoker
                                                                                      Boiler.
M140014............................  PART 63 NESHAP........  JJJJJJ................  Compliance Extension for
                                                                                      Replacement Energy Source.
Z140007............................  Part 63 NESHAP........  BBBBBBB, VVVVVV.......  Rule Applicability to HAP-
                                                                                      Containing Mixing
                                                                                      Operations to Produce
                                                                                      Acrylic-Based Stucco.
A140004............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Small Residence Exemption.
A140005............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Interim Method of
                                                                                      Determination of Asbestos
                                                                                      in Bulk Insulation Samples
                                                                                      and Transmission Electron
                                                                                      Microscopy.
M140016............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP..  DDDDD.................  Categorization and
                                                                                      applicability of a Boiler
                                                                                      using natural gas and tire
                                                                                      derived fuel.
1400022............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  NSPS Fuel Gas Definition
                                                                                      and Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      of Marine Vessel Loading
                                                                                      Vapors.
1400023............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Conditional CEMS Exemption
                                                                                      Approval for Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Combustion of Off-gas Vent
                                                                                      Stream.
1400024............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  CEMS Exemption in Lieu of
                                                                                      Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      Combustion of Commercial
                                                                                      Grade Natural Gas and
                                                                                      Refinery Fuel Gas.
1400025............................  NSPS..................  KKK...................  Regulatory Interpretation
                                                                                      for Gas Plant Propane
                                                                                      Refrigeration System.
1400026............................  NSPS..................  OOOO..................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                      for Reciprocating
                                                                                      Compressors.
1400027............................  MACT, PART 63 NESHAP,   J, UUU................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                      NSPS.                                           for Wet Gas Scrubber on a
                                                                                      Fluidized Catalytic
                                                                                      Cracking Unit.
1400028............................  NSPS..................  NNN, RRR..............  Alternative Monitoring and
                                                                                      Waiver of Testing Request
                                                                                      for Distillation Vent Gas
                                                                                      to Process Heaters.
1400029............................  NSPS..................  Ja....................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring of Condensate
                                                                                      Splitter Flare.
1400030............................  NSPS..................  Ja....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Oxygen in Boiler Stack
                                                                                      Emissions.
1400031............................  NSPS..................  J, Ja.................  Alternative Hydrogen
                                                                                      Sulfide Monitoring in Tank
                                                                                      Degassing Vapors Combusted
                                                                                      in Portable Thermal
                                                                                      Oxidizers.
1400032............................  NSPS..................  OOOO..................  Regulatory Interpretation--
                                                                                      Submission of Photographs
                                                                                      For Natural Gas Well
                                                                                      Completion Annual Reports.
1400033............................  NSPS..................  J, Ja.................  Alternative Hydrogen
                                                                                      Sulfide Monitoring in Tank
                                                                                      Degassing Vapors Combusted
                                                                                      in Portable Thermal
                                                                                      Oxidizers.
1400034............................  NSPS..................  A, D..................  Regulatory Interpretation--
                                                                                      Demonstrating Continuous
                                                                                      Compliance and Reporting
                                                                                      Excess Emissions for NSPS
                                                                                      and Title V.
1400035............................  NSPS..................  Ec....................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                      Parameters for a Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubber Followed By
                                                                                      Carbon Adsorber and
                                                                                      Cartridge Filter at an
                                                                                      HMIWI.
1400036............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Fuel Analysis from
                                                                                      Subpart Db Boiler.
1400037............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Conditional CEMS Exemption
                                                                                      Approval for Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Combustion of Off-gas Vent
                                                                                      Stream.
1100017............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Opacity for a Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [M110015]

    Q1: What is EPA interpretation of raw data, in reference to 40 CFR 
63.654 and 40 CFR 60.115b and the storage vessel recordkeeping 
provisions in NSPS subpart Kb, and Part 63 NESHAP subparts G and CC?
    A1: EPA indicated to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
Region 14 that although the phrase ``raw data'' does not have a 
regulatory definition, EPA has issued guidance on this subject to deal 
with air pollution measurement systems and the quality assurance 
procedures associated with such systems. In general, raw data is data 
that is captured and recorded on field data sheets during a measurement 
of some sort, such as sampling of emissions or testing of control 
equipment.
    Q2: May a source, after transferring data from field data sheets 
into an electronic database, dispose of the field data sheets?
    A2: No. Original field data sheets must be preserved whenever any 
sort of emissions sampling or equipment testing, such as measuring seal 
gaps in a storage tank, is performed. Transferring raw data into a 
database can introduce additional error in data transcription and 
entry.

Abstract for [1400038]

    Q1: Is gypsum handling equipment at the Dominion Chesterfield Power 
Station in Chester, Virginia, subject to NSPS subpart OOO for 
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants? Dominion acknowledges that a 
limestone crushing process at Chesterfield is subject to subpart OOO.
    A1: Yes. The gypsum handling equipment is also subject to NSPS 
subpart OOO. The facility meets the definition of a nonmetallic mineral 
processing plant, and each affected facility at Chesterfield is subject 
to subpart OOO, including the belt conveyors used to transfer gypsum to 
storage sheds or loading docks.
    Q2: Must the crushing or grinding of gypsum take place in the 
``production line'' to be subject to subpart OOO?
    A2: No. The definition of production line does not require that 
every affected facility be part of a production line with crushing or 
grinding. If crushing or grinding of a nonmetallic mineral occurs 
anywhere at the facility, then each affected facility is subject 
regardless of its location within the plant.
    Q3: Are there other power plants with flue gas desulfurization 
units where the gypsum handling equipment is subject to subpart OOO?
    A3: Yes. Based on a brief review of similar permits, EPA found at 
least three such power plants with permits where subpart OOO was 
applied to the gypsum handling equipment.

[[Page 22179]]

Abstract for [1100018]

    Q: Does EPA approve the ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas Refinery 
Alternate Monitoring Plan (AMP) under NSPS subpart J? Conoco claims an 
exemption per 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv) because Flare #7 receives fuel 
gas waste from catalytic reforming units.
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves ConocoPhillips's AMP. 
Conditional approval of alternative monitoring parameters is granted 
based on a requirement that the flare receive low sulfur/sulfide 
bearing streams waste fuel gas only from catalytic reformers. Any 
significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide concentration detected in 
the stream would initiate continuous monitoring under 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) or (4). Introduction of other streams that are not from 
catalytic reformers require application of another AMP.

Abstract for [Z140006]

    Q1: Does EPA approve of a waiver in the number of performance test 
sampling locations required to comply with particulate stack sampling 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY for the electric arc 
furnace at ArcelorMittal's LaPlace, Louisiana facility?
    A1: No. Based on the information provided, EPA could not approve 
the request to sample only three of the six emission points. Without 
the results of a previous performance test which included results for 
all six emission points, EPA could not confirm that emissions from 
three of the emission points might be representative of all six. 
Additionally, EPA reserves the right to determine which emission points 
should be sampled.
    Q2: Can the 60-day testing notification requirement be waived, 
allowing ArcelorMittal a 30-day notification period?
    A2: Yes. Based on the timing of ArcelorMittal's testing waiver 
request and the testing schedule, EPA is allowing a reduced testing 
notification timeframe. EPA asked that ArcelorMittal provide the 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a written notice at 
least ten (10) days prior to the intended testing dates in order that 
DEQ be afforded the opportunity to observe the testing.

Abstract for [M120012]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring the caustic strength of scrubber effluent by a grab sample 
monitoring system, in lieu of continuously measuring caustic strength, 
under MACT subpart FFFF for the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing process units and caustic scrubbers controlling Group 1 
Process Vents at the Dow Chemical plant in La Porte, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP based on the information provided. The 
plan to monitor scrubber caustic strength by grab sampling, in lieu of 
continuously measuring caustic strength, is technically acceptable. 
Subpart FFFF requires that the scrubbers be monitored continuously 
either via continuous pH measurement and recording as specified in 40 
CFR 63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), or via continuously 
monitoring and recording the caustic strength of the effluent. Use of a 
continuous pH meter or caustic strength analyzer may be unreliable due 
to fouling. The AMP includes frequent grab sampling to monitor caustic 
strength based on a worst case loading scenario.

Abstract for [Z120001]

    Q: Is an inter-plant pipeline which transports liquids that are at 
least 10 percent benzene by weight between two major source facilities, 
each belonging to Equistar Chemicals in Alvin, Texas, subject to part 
61 NESHAP subparts J and V?
    A: Yes. An inter-plant pipeline that transports benzene liquids is 
an emission source that is in benzene service according to 40 CFR 
61.110 and 61.111, regardless of whether or not the pipeline is defined 
as a discrete process unit. 40 CFR 61.110(a) includes valves, 
connectors or systems in benzene service, regardless of their location, 
and subpart V applies as the leak detection provision for subpart J, 
per 40 CFR 61.111.

Abstract for [M120015]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternate work practice for monitoring 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) at bypass lines associated with 
sulfur recovery unit (SRU) sulfur pits, which are subject to both MACT 
subpart UUU and NSPS subpart J, and the terms of a Consent Decree (CD), 
at the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, Texas East and West 
refineries?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the alternate work practice because it 
would be in direct conflict with both the rule and the intent of the 
CD, and would result in non-compliance. The SRUs and sulfur pits are 
subject to a CD that requires sulfur pit emissions to be continuously 
monitored and counted toward SRU total emissions for compliance 
demonstration with the NSPS subpart J limit for sulfur dioxide 
(SO2). Since the alternative work practice proposed by Flint 
Hills did not include continuous monitoring per 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2), 
the data necessary to comply with the portion of the CD requiring 
aggregation of sulfur pit emissions for compliance demonstration with 
the NSPS subpart J SO2 limit would not be collected.

Abstract for [Z140005]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from NESHAP subpart WWWWWW under 
the definition of research and development for the electroplating and 
surface finishing facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New 
Mexico?
    A: Yes. Based on a review of 40 CFR 63.11505(d)(2) and the 
definition of a research and development process unit at 40 CFR 
63.11511, EPA determines that the facility meets the definition and is 
not subject to NESHAP subpart WWWWWW.

Abstract for [M120018]

    Q: Will EPA approve Motiva Enterprises' (Motiva) Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring 
wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit 
(FCCU), in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), due 
to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack, to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) 
and requirements of MACT subpart UUU at Motiva's Port Arthur, Texas 
refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Motiva's AMP. A performance test 
is necessary to establish Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) and other 
operating and monitoring conditions required for demonstrating 
compliance with NSPS subpart J, MACT subpart UUU and the Consent Decree 
for each WGS. The EPA response letter specifies the operating 
conditions, operating parameters, test notice deadlines, and 
notification content that are conditions of the approval. Interim OPLs 
are provided.

Abstract for [M120020]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
parametric monitoring on caustic scrubbers used to control hydrochloric 
acid emissions from storage tanks, loading, and process vents under 40 
CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN at the Rubicon facility in Geismar, 
Louisiana?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided in Rubicon's request, EPA 
conditionally approves the AMP. A minimum pH operating parameter limit 
(OPL), and a minimum recirculating liquid flow rate, pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.9020(e)(1)(i), must be established during a performance test 
conducted

[[Page 22180]]

under worst case emissions operating scenario. The scrubbers' 
effectiveness in meeting subpart NNNNN emission standards during normal 
operations will be ensured by continuous monitoring of the two OPLs.

Abstract for [1200038]

    Q1: Can equivalency testing be approved to relocate the flue gas 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) on the stack outlet of a 
wet gas scrubber (WGS) covered under NSPS subpart D at the Texas 
Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Gibbons Creek Electric Steam Generating 
Station Unit 1?
    A1: Yes. 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B Performance Specification 1 (PS 
1) Section 8.1 (2)(i) and (ii) specify measurement location and light 
beam path requirements for COMS. If the proposed alternate COMS 
locations do not meet these requirements, equivalency testing must be 
conducted in accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 (2)(iii) for each 
possible alternative location. Based on the test proposal, EPA approves 
the request for conducting preliminary equivalency testing only, with a 
60-day notification provided to the State authority.
    Q2: What if there are separate ducts that split the vent stream gas 
flow?
    A2: Relocation and the preliminary equivalency testing must include 
the use of two COMS units in order to provide opacity readings 
representative of total emissions.
    Q3: What must the facility do to obtain subsequent approval for 
permanent relocation of the stack COMS?
    A3: TMPA must provide the data and operating information from the 
preliminary equivalency testing for the alternative location ultimately 
selected, in accordance with the applicable performance test reporting 
requirements of NSPS subparts A and D. In accordance with PS 1 Section 
8.1 (2)(iii), the average opacity value measured at each temporary COMS 
at the selected alternate location must be within +/- 10 percent of the 
average opacity value measured at the existing flue gas stack COMS, and 
the difference between any two average opacity values must be less than 
2 percent opacity (absolute value).

Abstract for [M120021]

    Q: Does EPA approve a common schedule for submitting periodic 
reports under the Hazardous Organic part 63 NESHAP, subparts G and H, 
at the Union Carbide Texas City, Texas facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the common schedule provided the reporting 
requirement of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1) is satisfied, which only allows a 
60-day lag between the end of the reporting period and the due date of 
a periodic report. EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(a)(6) 
and 63.9(i), and concurred that the proposed reporting schedule 
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1).

Abstract for [1200039]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery 
hydrocracker feed surge drum off-gas vent stream combusted at four 
hydrocracker heaters at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West 
refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the 
process vent streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the 
H2S monitoring data furnished. The approval specifies 
operating parameter limits for total sulfur and temperature. Valero 
must follow the seven step process detailed in the Valero consent 
decree appendix on Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J 
Refinery Fuel Gas.

Abstract for [1200040]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery process 
feed surge drum off-gas vent stream combusted at a charge heater under 
NSPS subpart J at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West 
refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the 
process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the 
H2S monitoring data furnished. The approval specifies 
operating parameter limits for total sulfur and temperature. Valero 
must follow the seven step process detailed in the Valero consent 
decree appendix on Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J 
Refinery Fuel Gas.

Abstract for [1200041]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) the No. 4 vent stream at 
the Valero Refining West Plant in Corpus Christi, Texas? The request 
involves vent streams from the Oleflex Reactor Lock Hopper Engager off-
gas vent stream combusted at the Oleflex Interheater.
    A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's alternative monitoring request based 
on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent 
gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. There 
will be no points where sour gas can be introduced into the vent gas 
stream. The effluent is to be sampled and tested daily. Valero must 
follow the seven step process (Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS 
subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas) in the consent decree for the No. 4 vent 
stream.

Abstract for [1200042]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) of vent gases from the 
control of diesel and jet fuel truck loading, toluene and reformate 
storage tanks, and groundwater recovery wells at the Valero Refining 
Corpus Christi, Texas East refinery? The vent streams are combusted at 
the truck rack thermal oxidizer enclosed vapor combustor.
    A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the 
process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the 
H2S monitoring data furnished. Valero must follow the seven 
step process detailed in the Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS 
subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas appendix of Valero's consent decree. The 
approval specifies an H2S operating limit from each of the 
emission sources (e.g., loading, tanks, wells) covered by the AMP.

Abstract for [1200046]

    Q: Does EPA approve single-point testing in place of Method 1 or 1A 
for required testing of engine emissions under 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
JJJJ, for the ConocoPhillips Lake Pelto Compressor Barge, located 
offshore in southern Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips' single-point testing, since 
the engines are located over water, and are difficult to test due to 
limited space.

Abstract for [1200062]

    Q1: Is the installation of a backup vapor recovery unit (BU-VRU) to 
capture emissions from a glycol dehydrator unit, which includes a 
compressor, at the Marathon Petroleum Indian Basin Gas Plant near 
Carlsbad, New Mexico, considered a modification of an affected facility 
and thus subject to NSPS subpart KKK?
    A1: Based on the information provided by the Air Quality Bureau of 
the New Mexico Environment Department (AQB-NMED), EPA determines that 
the installation of the BU-VRU compressor at the Indian Basin Gas Plant 
is subject to NSPS subpart KKK. The compressor is an affected facility 
under NSPS subpart KKK that was constructed after the applicability 
date and is presumed to be in VOC or wet gas service. The pollution 
control device exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) of

[[Page 22181]]

the General Provisions is superseded by 40 CFR 60.630 and therefore 
does not apply. In addition, the NSPS subpart KKK does not include 
exemptions for compressor emergency operations or operating less than 
500 hours per year. With respect to whether the other affected 
facility, which includes all other equipment (except compressors), that 
are part of the glycol dehydrator process unit, EPA cannot make a 
modification determination since there is no information on emission 
increases or decreases available.
    Q2: Are the two storage tanks at the Indian Basin Gas Plant subject 
to NSPS subpart Kb, or are they exempt under the custody transfer 
exemption in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4)?
    A2: Based on the information provided by AQB-NMED, EPA determines 
that the storage tanks are subject to NSPS subpart Kb. The Indian Basin 
Gas Plant is not part of the producing operation and its tanks are 
after the point of custody transfer as defined at 40 CFR 60.111(b). 
Therefore, the tanks do not qualify for the ``prior to custody 
transfer'' exemption in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4).

Abstract for [M120027]

    Q1: Does EPA agree with the determinations of the Portsmouth Local 
Air Agency and the Southeast District Office of the Ohio EPA that the 
America Styrenics Hanging Rock and Marietta, Ohio facilities are 
subject to the MACT if they changed processes after the compliance date 
such that their potential emissions are well below the HAP major source 
thresholds?
    A1: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Portsmouth Local 
Air Agency, EPA determines that the facilities are still subject to the 
major source MACT standard because it is EPA's position that any source 
that is a major source of HAP on the first substantive compliance date 
of an applicable NESHAP will remain subject to that NESHAP regardless 
of the level of the source's subsequent emissions.
    Q2: Are these facilities still subject to Title V if their HAP 
emissions potential was the only criteria that made them subject to 
Title V requirements?
    A2: Yes. Because the facilities are subject to a major source MACT 
standard, they are also subject to Title V permitting requirements 
under Section 502(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a).

Abstract for [M120029]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring frequency for 
inspections of once per month rather than every 30 days under the Pulp 
and Paper MACT for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in Coshocton, 
Ohio?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this minor modification to the monitoring 
frequency under 40 CFR 63.8(b)(i) provided that the monitoring events 
are at least 21 days apart.

Abstract for [1200087]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a subtractive method for the 
NOx compliance determination and use of a temporary Continuous Emission 
Monitoring System (CEMs) for the initial performance test for a NSPS 
subpart Db affected facility at Valero Refining's Ethanol Plant in 
Bloomingburg, Ohio? The proposed method uses combined emissions from 
this subpart Db facility and another affected facility as determined by 
a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), and subtracts the 
emissions from the other facility as read by a separate CEMS.
    A: Yes. EPA approves the subtractive compliance determination 
approach under 40 CFR 60.8(b) authority for the initial performance 
testing. This request was necessary because, while the NSPS allows for 
the location of a CEMS in a stack serving multiple affected sources for 
the purpose of demonstration of continuous compliance, no such 
allowance is made for the initial performance testing requirement.

Abstract for [Z140004]

    Q1: Are emergency engines located at commercial sources that are 
used for telecommunications purposes exempt from the Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart ZZZZ?
    A1: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR part 63.6590(b)(3) state that 
emergency engines located at area sources that are classified as 
commercial, institutional or residential emergency stationary RICE are 
not subject to the requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.
    Q2: Are emergency engines used by telecommunication facilities that 
are installed and located on industrial property also exempt?
    A2: The applicability of the RICE NESHAP is dependent on whether 
the commercial or industrial operation has common control over the 
emergency engine. If the industrial facility has control, the engine 
could be subject to the RICE NESHAP.

Abstract for [1400016]

    Q1: Is Kippur Corporation's (Kippur) dual chamber, commercial 
incinerator which thermally destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection in El Paso, Texas subject to regulation as an ``other 
solid waste incineration'' (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 subparts 
EEEE and FFFF?
    A1: Yes. Based on the information submitted by Kippur, EPA 
determines that the contraband incinerator is an OSWI unit subject to 
either NSPS subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF. In addition, the incinerator 
would not be subject to subpart EEEE because an air pollution abatement 
equipment is not considered part of an OSWI unit. Therefore, the 
increased feed rate caused by the higher air flow volume resulting from 
the addition of a second baghouse on the OSWI unit does not constitute 
a modification of the incinerator under NSPS subpart EEEE. Based on 
this and additional supplemental information Kippur provided, the OSWI 
Unit is therefore subject to NSPS subpart FFFF since subpart EEEE 
applicability was not trigger with the OSWI unit changes consistent 
with 40 CFR 60.2992.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a petition for approval of operating parameter 
limits (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet scrubber to comply with 
emission limitations?
    A2: No. In a separate September 12, 2012 letter, EPA disapproved 
the petition because specific information was lacking for final 
approval. Therefore, Kippur must comply with the appropriate NSPS 
subpart FFFF requirements.

Abstract for [1400019]

    Q1: The Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC. on behalf of American 
Disposal Services of Illinois, which owns the Livingston Landfill, 
requests a clarification as to whether the Alternative Compliance 
Timeline (ACT) requests are due 15 days after an initial exceedance is 
identified through required monitoring activities, pursuant to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3) and (a)(s).
    A1: EPA indicates that 40 CFR 60.755 requires landfill owner/
operators to repair the cause of an exceedance within 15 days, or 
expand the gas collection system within 120 days. In the event that the 
landfill owner or operator, despite its best efforts, is unable to make 
the necessary repairs to resolve the exceedance within 15 days, and it 
believes that an expansion of gas collection is unwarranted, the 
landfill owner or operator may submit for approval an ACT request for 
correcting the as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as it knows that it 
will not be able to correct the exceedance in 15 days and it is 
unwarranted to expand the gas collection system) to avoid being in

[[Page 22182]]

violation of the rule and communicate the reasons for the exceedance, 
results of the investigation, and schedule for corrective action.
    Q2: Are ACT requests necessary if the owner/operator chooses to 
expand the gas collection system and is unable to complete the 
expansion project within 120 days?
    A2: Yes. The landfill owner or operator may submit an ACT request 
as soon as it determines that it cannot meet the 120 day deadline to 
avoid being in violation of the rule. See above response under A1.
    Q3: What information is included in an ACT request?
    A3: EPA's response describes a number of items that should be 
included, at a minimum. The request must promptly identify the problem, 
be very detailed, and contain substantial reasons beyond the control of 
the facility owner or operator why the exceedances could not and cannot 
be completed within the prescribed time frame allowed in the rule.
    Q4: If a facility makes repairs to a well to restore the well field 
to its original designed capacity, or replaces the well in-kind, does 
that constitute an expansion of the gas collection system (thereby 
causing the 120-day deadline to be applicable)?
    A4: No. An expansion of the gas collection system consists of an 
increase beyond the original design capacity.

Abstract for [A140003]

    Q1: Are bridges considered regulated structures under the asbestos 
NESHAP?
    A1: Yes. In a response to the California Air Resource Board, EPA 
indicated that a bridge is a structure within the definition of a 
facility. As discussed in the October 1990 Background Information 
Document for Asbestos, it is prudent not to exclude structures such as 
bridges.
    Q2: Is a thorough inspection of a bridge for the presence of 
asbestos, including Category I and Category II, required under the 
asbestos NESHAP?
    A2: Yes. Under 40 CFR 61.145(a), a thorough inspection of any 
facility is required before demolition or renovation to identify 
friable asbestos, Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos-
containing material (ACM) and Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM 
that are not friable at the time of the inspection but will be made 
friable due to the demolition or renovation.
    Q3: Is bridge concrete Category I, or is it Category II nonfriable 
ACM?
    A3: Bridge concrete is not listed as Category I nonfriable ACM. 
According to 40 CFR 61.141, Bridge concrete is considered Category II 
nonfriable ACM if it contains more than 1 percent asbestos that, when 
dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand 
pressure.
    Q4: Must bridge concrete be sampled for the presence of asbestos 
before demolition?
    A4: The bridge concrete must be thoroughly inspected. See 40 CFR 
61.145(a). Sampling is done to determine whether the material is ACM or 
not. The amount of ACM that is or will be made friable during the 
demolition factors into whether asbestos NESHAP requirements apply.
    Q5: If the bridge concrete was never tested for the presence of 
asbestos before demolition and now the concrete is going to be crushed 
and recycled, must the concrete be tested for asbestos before crushing 
and recycling?
    A5: The concrete at a demolition operation regulated by 40 CFR 
61.145 must be thoroughly inspected before the demolition operation to 
determine whether the material is ACM. The recycling could be 
considered part of the demolition operation and require the owner/
operator to sample to determine whether the concrete is ACM. The 
results will determine whether the concrete can continue to be recycled 
or must be managed and disposed of as regulated ACM.

Abstract for [M140006]

    Q: Does K&K Ironworks in Chicago, Illinois remain subject to 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart MMMM given that they no longer use the quantity of 
coatings required by 40 CFR 63.3881(b) for an affected source to be 
covered by Subpart MMMM, and they meet the criteria established at 40 
CFR 63.3881(c)(1) to be excluded from coverage of subpart MMMM?
    A: Although K&K Ironworks of Chicago operations no longer fall 
under the types of activities subject to Subpart MMMM, there may be 
requirements of subpart MMMM and 40 CFR part 63 subpart A that did not 
immediately terminate when the company discontinued the use of coatings 
that contain HAPs. For example, the records retention and recordkeeping 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.3931(b) and 63.10(b)(3) are continuing 
obligations, that were triggered when the company used xylene.

Abstract for [M140008]

    Q: Frontier Refining requested an applicability determination 
regarding the timing of tank inspections to meet the annual tank 
inspection requirements under NESHAP subpart G for the Holly Frontier 
facility in Wyoming. Can the annual inspection requirement be 
accomplished within an 11-13 month window from the prior inspection?
    A: Yes. If a regulation does not specifically state what is meant 
by the ``once per'' (timeframe), the EPA interprets the timeframe to 
mean at some point within the timeframe and at a reasonable interval 
between events. See, for example, 40 CFR 63.100(k)(9)(iii). A once per 
month obligation means sometime within the month, but not the last day 
of one month and the first day of the next month, because that is not a 
reasonable time interval. For annual requirements, a reasonable 
interval between events would be between 11 and 13 months.

Abstract for [1400021]

    Q: Does EPA agree that Calumet Superior's two steam generating 
boilers located at its petroleum refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, and 
which are fuel gas combustion devices (FGCDs) affected facilities under 
NSPS subpart Ja, do not meet the definition of a process heaters under 
NSPS subpart Ja, and therefore are not subject to the emission limits, 
performance testing, monitoring and excess emission reporting 
requirements for NOx located at 40 CFR 60.102a(g)(2), 60.104a(i), 
60.107a(c), 60.107a(d) and 60.102a(i)?
    A: Yes. EPA agrees that Calumet Superior's boilers meet the 
definition of FGCDs and do not meet the definition of process heaters 
under NSPS subpart Ja. Therefore, the boilers are not subject to any 
NOx requirements under NSPS subpart Ja. However, to the extent that the 
boilers are affected facilities under the Standards of Performance for 
Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, NSPS 
subpart Dc, they may be subject to NOx requirements.

Abstract for [M140009]

    Q: May Benson Woodworking in Walpole, New Hampshire de-rate its 
Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set from its current capacity of greater 
than 300 brake horsepower hour (bhp) to less than 300 bhp by cutting 
the existing factory governor seal, resetting the loading screws to the 
lower output specification, and then resealing the governor with wire 
and a dealer specific lead stamp, to comply with the Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart ZZZZ?
    A: No. The de-rate method proposal is not approvable by EPA. The 
proposed method of de-rating the engine is not permanent in nature.

[[Page 22183]]

Abstract for [M140010]

    Q: Can the following physical changes to Benson Woodworking's 
Walpole, New Hampshire Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set, including: 
removal of the current 400 amp circuit breaker and associated frame; 
destruction of the 400 amp frame; and, fabrication and installation of 
a new frame to hold a smaller 250 amp circuit that would prevent the 
engine output from exceeding 299 bhp, result in a de-rating of engine's 
capacity to less than 300 bhp?
    A: Yes. Based on the physical changes that Benson has proposed, EPA 
approves the de-rating of the unit to less than 300 bhp given the 
permanent nature of the physical changes to the unit.

Abstract for [M140011]

    Q: Does the NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal 
Combustion Engines, subpart IIII apply to an existing marine propulsion 
engine manufactured March 22, 1999 (EU ID#4) that the Alaska Village 
Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning to relocate as a non-stationary 
engine at its existing power plant in Emmonak, Alaska?
    A: No. The EU ID#4 engine is not subject to NSPS subpart IIII 
because it was manufactured prior to April 1, 2006, and commenced 
construction prior to July 11, 2005. The conversion of an existing non-
stationary engine to use as an engine at a stationary source is not 
``commencement of construction'' that would trigger new source status 
under this rule. However, the EU ID#4 existing engine would be subject 
to the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 
(RICE), 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ when it is operated as a stationary 
source.

Abstract for [M140012]

    Q1: Did a force majeure event, as defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
A, occur at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that on April 28, 2014, a force majeure 
event occurred at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska, when a 
mechanical failure of one of the facility's turbine generator rendered 
it inoperable.
    Q2: Is a 60 day extension of the performance test deadline under 
NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ appropriate?
    A2: Yes. The turbine generator, which is subject to a testing 
deadline, is needed for representative operation of the boiler when the 
load from winter district heating is not there to draw steam from the 
boiler. In 60 days (November 17, 2014) the load from winter district 
heating will be sufficient. Considering the time estimated to repair 
the turbine generator, it is reasonable to extend the deadline for the 
boiler compliance testing by 60 days.

Abstract for [M140013]

    Q: Can EPA provide further guidance on how to conduct tune-ups 
under 40 CFR 63.11223(b), which is Condition 4 of the previously EPA 
approved one-year compliance deadline extension for the Eielson Air 
Force Base's Central Heat and Power Plant in Alaska? The four existing 
coal fired boilers subject to the compliance extension are of the 
spreader stoker/traveling grate design and do not have burners.
    A: Yes. EPA amends the previous approval of the compliance 
extension to provide further guidance on Condition 4 of the approval, 
as detailed in the EPA response letter. EPA provides guidance on how to 
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11223(b) when burners are not 
present. Some requirements of 40 CFR 63.11223(b) do not apply, while 
others requirements, such as adjusting the air-to-fuel ratio, and 
measurement of oxygen and carbon monoxide are still required to be 
performed.

Abstract for [M140014]

    Q: Does EPA approve a one-year compliance extension to meet the 
NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional 
Boilers, subpart JJJJJJ, for three existing coal-fired boilers (that 
operate as back-ups) located at the Brigham Young University in Idaho 
(BYU-Idaho)? The coal-fired boilers will be demolished and replaced 
with a new energy plant that will be fueled with natural gas.
    A: EPA conditionally approves an extension until December 31, 2014, 
to operate three coal-fired boilers in their backup capacity without 
the installation of controls that would otherwise be required to meet 
the NESHAP subpart JJJJJ. The compliance deadline is extended because 
BYU-Idaho is constructing a natural gas source of energy generation as 
a replacement source of energy to meet requirements of the CAA 
standard. The approval is conditional on BYU-Idaho implementing: (1) 
interim compliance deadlines for the construction of the natural gas 
replacement energy; and (2) tune-ups specified in 40 CFR 63.11214 for 
existing coal-fired boilers with a heat input capacity of less than 10 
MM BTU/hr that do not meet the definition of limited-use boiler, or an 
oxygen trim system that maintains an optimum air-to-fuel ratio.

Abstract for [Z140007]

    Q: Which area source NESHAP regulation applies to the operations at 
the BASF Corporation Facility in Lancaster, Texas (Lancaster site)? The 
NESHAP regulations to evaluate include: NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB 
applicable to Chemical Preparations Industry area source category; 
NESHAP subpart VVVVVV applicable to the Chemical Manufacturing Source 
Category; and NESHAP subpart CCCCCCC applicable to Paints and Allied 
Products Manufacturing.
    A: EPA finds that the NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB is applicable because 
the operations at the Lancaster site are mixing-type processes, which 
are typical of the Chemical Preparations Source Category. EPA 
understands the Lancaster Site produces architectural coatings, 
primarily acrylic latex-based stucco that contains aggregate, primarily 
sand. The Lancaster Site mixes latex dispersions produced off-site with 
aggregate and other additives to produce acrylic-based stucco.

Abstract for [A140004]

    Q: Does EPA agree with the City of Sarasota, Florida that the 
demolition of a single-family residential building acquired by the city 
is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP subpart M due to the small 
residence exemption?
    A: Yes. Based on facts presented in the Memorandum of Law from 
Sarasota and the definition of facility in the asbestos NESHAP, EPA 
determines the building meets the conditions of a small residential 
building (a building containing four or fewer dwelling units) and is 
not subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulation. The house was not used 
for any institutional, commercial, public, or industrial purpose prior 
to the demolition. It is not part of an installation, nor part of any 
public or private project.

Abstract for [A140005]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Transmission Electron Microscopy test 
procedure in place of the point counting procedure used to make a 
determination of the presence of asbestos in bulk materials, as 
required under the asbestos NESHAP?
    A: In a response to Masek Consulting Services, EPA indicates that 
the current asbestos regulation requires point counting after 
evaluating the sample by Polarized Light Microscopy. The owner/operator 
may choose to use Transmission Electron Microscopy only after analyzing 
the sample by Polarized Light Microscopy and point counting.

[[Page 22184]]

Abstract for [M140016]

    Q: Does EPA agree that the Boise DeRidder Mill No. l Bark Boiler in 
DeRidder, Louisiana is a biomass hybrid suspension grate boiler under 
NESHAP subpart DDDDD?
    A: Yes. EPA agrees that the boiler is subject to NESHAP subpart 
DDDDD. The Bark Boiler has characteristics that are consistent with the 
definition of hybrid suspension grate boiler at 40 CFR 63.7575. 
However, natural gas and tire derived fuel are also present as 
potential fuels in the boiler. Therefore, the facility must keep 
records to demonstrate that the annual average moisture content is at 
or above the 40 percent moisture limit, as required in the rule.

Abstract for [1400022]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 
product vapors from marine vessel loading operations which are 
inherently low in sulfur content, and are combusted in the Marine Vapor 
Recovery (MVR) Flare No.3, under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart J for the 
Chalmette Refining's Chalmette, Louisiana refinery?
    A: EPA determines that the AMP is no longer necessary since the 
definition of fuel gas has been modified under the September 12, 2012 
amendment to subpart J (77 Federal Register 56463). The marine vessel 
loading vapor stream does not meet the definition of a fuel gas, as 
defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). Therefore, MVR Flare No.3 does not need to 
meet the continuous monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4).

Abstract for [1400023]

    Q: Can an exemption from monitoring be approved for a fuel gas 
stream that is low in sulfur content under NSPS subpart J, for the off-
gas vent stream from the Gasoline Desulfurization Unit Selective 
Hydrogenation Unit Surge Drum Vent that is routed to the North Flare at 
the Marathon Oil facility in Garyville, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. Based on Marathon's description of the process vent 
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S 
monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption. 
EPA finds that, when controlled as delineated in the response letter, 
the vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur, according to 
40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), and does not need to meet the continuous 
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). EPA 
included the facility's proposed operating parameter limits, which the 
facility must continue to monitor, as part of the conditional approval.

Abstract for [1400024]

    Q: Can an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plan be 
approved for a fuel gas stream that is low in sulfur under NSPS 40 CFR 
60 subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, Texas? The refinery 
proposes to combust commercial grade natural gas as a supplemental 
fuel, in combination with refinery fuel gas vent streams.
    A: Yes. Based on ExxonMobil's description of the process vent 
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S 
monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption. 
EPA finds that the mixture of non-monitored commercial natural gas and 
refinery fuel vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur, 
according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), when used and controlled as 
described in the EPA response letter. EPA included the facility's 
proposed operating parameter limits, which the facility must continue 
to monitor, as part of the conditional approval. Therefore, the fuel 
gas combustion devices listed in the request do not need to meet the 
continuous monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 
60.105(a)(4).

Abstract for [1400025]

    Q: Is the propane refrigeration system used at the Enbridge Nine 
Mile Gas Plant in Dewey County, Oklahoma subject to the requirements of 
NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart KKK?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that propane system is subject to NSPS KKK 
based upon the information the company provided. The propane 
refrigeration system is a process unit that can also operate 
independently if supplied with sufficient feed. The propane 
refrigeration system is ``equipment'' under 40 CFR 60.631 because it 
consists of valves, connectors, and compressors in VOC service. These 
components are in light liquid VOC service because they contain or 
contact propane, which constitutes at least 97 percent by weight of 
content of the refrigeration system, and the propane is a liquid within 
the operating conditions of the refrigeration system.

Abstract for [1400026]

    Q: Are two natural gas reciprocating compressors which were 
transferred from a ``laydown'' yard to the Fayetteville Gathering 
Hattieville Compressor Station, located in Hattieville, Arkansas, 
affected facilities subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart OOOO?
    A: No. Relocation, by itself, does not trigger NSPS applicability 
through modification. Based upon the fact that the company commenced 
construction of the two compressors on a continuous basis prior to the 
effective date of NSPS subpart OOOO, nor were they modified, these 
units are not affected facilities under the subpart. EPA clarified in 
final rule preamble to NSPS OOOO that relocation does not subject a 
source to new source standards. Additionally, the General Provisions to 
Part 60 contain similar language, that relocation or change in 
ownership, by itself, is not a modification.

Abstract for [1400027]

    Q1: Does EPA provide final approval of an Alternative Monitoring 
Plan (AMP) for parametric monitoring in lieu of a continuous opacity 
monitor for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking 
Unit (FCCU) at Holly Refining & Marketing in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Holly) 
under NSPS 40 CFR 60, subpart J, and NESHAP 40 CFR 63, subpart UUU, 
based on submittal of test results?
    A1: Yes. EPA grants final approval of Holly's AMP request. Holly 
conducted a performance test and submitted additional data pertaining 
to a prior, conditionally approved AMP. EPA reviewed the performance 
test results and found the data supportive for establishing final OPLs 
for the WGS, which included minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratios, based on 3-
hour, hourly rolling averages, for operation of the WGS with one or two 
nozzles.

Abstract for [1400028]

    Q: May the Ineos Chocolate Bayou facility in Alvin, Texas, which is 
subject to both 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations (NSPS subpart 
NNN) and Reactor Processes (NSPS subpart RRR) use the monitoring and 
testing provisions in NSPS subpart RRR in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN for 
the process heaters?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for meeting Subpart RRR in lieu of 
NSPS subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping for use of process heaters as control devices for 
compliance with the standards of both subparts. This would require 
monitoring of small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance 
events during maintenance in accordance with NSPS subpart RRR since 
they act as bypass valves. In addition, the schematic required by 40 
CFR 60.705(s) is required with the initial report and must be 
maintained on site to ensure that the

[[Page 22185]]

affected vent streams are being routed to appropriate control devices 
without bypass.

Abstract for [1400029]

    Q1: Does EPA agree with Kinder Morgan that the Condensate Splitter 
Flare located at the Galena Park Condensate Processing Facility in 
Harris County, Texas is subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
    A1: No. EPA is unable to verify applicability of NSPS subpart Ja 
because sufficient information about the facility or the operations and 
processes vented to the flare were not provided.
    Q2: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request 
for the Condensate Splitter Flare?
    A2: No. Kinder Morgan did not furnish sufficient detail about vent 
streams routed to the flare, or adequately describe the specific 
refinery process that would produce low sulfur content vent streams. 
Assuming the vent streams are fuel gas streams subject to NSPS subpart 
Ja, we cannot approve any AMP that seeks to circumvent a specific 
emissions monitoring requirement for affected facility operations. 
Under NSPS, new facilities must be constructed in such a manner that 
monitors are installed to demonstrate initial compliance and ensure 
ongoing compliance until such time that an exemption can be met. 
Furthermore, applications for exemptions to a rule must provide 
sufficient data at the time of the request in order to be evaluated for 
approval.

Abstract for [1400030]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the HollyFrontier Companies' request for 
approval of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring oxygen 
in the stack, in lieu of parametric monitoring to substitute for a 
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, for the hydrocracker reboiler 
at Navajo Refining's Artesia, New Mexico refinery (Navajo), to comply 
with the NOX and oxygen standards in NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 
subpart Ja?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that Navajo's AMP that combines monitoring 
oxygen in the stack along with other specific process monitoring 
parameters is acceptable based on the limited usage of refinery fuel 
gas and the information submitted, including the performance test 
results. Navajo sampled the fuel gas at the reboiler to demonstrate 
that the stream is 100 percent purchased natural gas. Also, to improve 
the efficiency of the heater, Navajo installed new burner tips to 
better combust the purchased natural gas. As a result, NOX 
and O2 emissions were reduced, as verified by a performance 
test.

Abstract for [1400031]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for PSC 
Industrial to conduct monitoring of H2S emissions at various 
locations in EPA Region 6, in lieu of installing a continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other 
similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, 
at refineries that are subject to NSPS 40 CFR 60 subparts J or Ja?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves PSC Industrial's AMP request. 
Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the 
design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data 
furnished, EPA finds that it is impractical to require monitoring via 
an H2S CEMS as specified by NSPS subparts J and Ja for the specific 
portable and temporary combustion device use. EPA included operating 
parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must furnish as 
part of the conditional approval. This conditional approval applies to 
this company's refineries in EPA Region 6 only. EPA's conditional 
approval should also be referenced and appropriately incorporated into 
PSC Industrial's new source review permit in each state where degassing 
operations at refineries will occur, to ensure federal enforceability.

Abstract for [1400032]

    Q: Can Samson Exploration, Houston, Texas submit hard copy 
photographs with the required GIS and date stamp data printed below 
each photograph in streamlined annual reports required under 40 CFR 
60.5420(b)(2) of NSPS subpart OOOO?
    A: Yes. The inclusion of such types of submissions in annual 
reports is acceptable. There is no regulatory prohibition against 
submitting hard copies which have the date and GIS coordinates printed 
beneath each photograph, provided that the proximity of each photograph 
and its associated data ensures clear correlation. EPA further 
clarified that, in conjunction with the self-certification statement 
required under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(1)(iv), a statement should be included 
that digital images of the photographs for each well completion are 
retained, such that the digital image files contain embedded date 
stamps and geographic coordinate stamps to link the photographs with 
the specific well completion operations.

Abstract for [1400033]

    Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Tristar 
Global Energy Solutions Company (Tristar) to conduct monitoring of 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in lieu of installing a 
continuous emission monitoring system, when performing tank degassing 
and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal 
oxidizers, at refineries at various locations that are subject to NSPS 
subparts J or Ja?
    A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas 
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S 
monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request. 
EPA included operating parameter limits and data which the refineries 
must furnish as part of the conditional approval. This conditional 
approval applies to Tristar's degreasing operations at refineries in 
EPA Region 6 only.

Abstract for [1400034]

    Q1: Does EPA agree with Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC) 
that excess emission for the Hugo Generating Station, Choctaw County, 
Oklahoma coal-fired boiler, an ``affected facility'' under NSPS for 
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators, subpart D, would only be reported 
for certain periods of operational status such as when the boiler is 
firing fuel for the purpose of generating electricity?
    A1: No. EPA disagreed that reporting of excess emissions should be 
limited to certain periods of boiler operational status. EPA reiterated 
that the NSPS requires reporting of all periods of excess emissions, 
including those temporary occurrences that may result in a particular 
emission standard being exceeded. Required recordkeeping and reporting 
should be viewed, along with O&M and SSM protocols, as a company's 
substantiation of acting in good faith to demonstrate compliance with 
emission limitations, standards, and work practice standards at all 
times. EPA believes that WFEC has misinterpreted certain monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the NSPS and MACT standards 
that a combustion source must meet for continuous compliance 
demonstration, which we explained in the Regulatory Interpretation 
enclosure of the EPA response.

Abstract for [1400035]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring Operating Parameter 
Limits (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec, for a pollution control system on 
a new

[[Page 22186]]

medical waste incinerator which consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) 
followed by a carbon adsorber and cartridge filter, located at the 
University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMBG) in Galveston, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Hydro-Environmental Technologies 
petition on behalf UTMBG for an AMP. As part of the conditional 
approval, performance testing must be conducted to demonstrate 
compliance and establish OPL values for the WGS, carbon adsorber and 
cartridge filter. Final approval of the AMP will be based on the OPLs 
established and other provisions that may be deemed necessary from our 
evaluation of the test results.

Abstract for [1400036]

    Q: Will EPA approve the Fuel Analysis Plan for monitoring total 
sulfur content of fuels in lieu of SO2 emissions monitoring 
under NSPS subpart Db for Industrial-Commercial Institutional Steam 
Generating Units for which construction, reconstruction, or 
modification commenced after June 19, 1984, at the No. 6 Power Boiler 
in Westvaco, Texas L.P. facility (Westvaco)?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Westvaco's Fuel Analysis Plan, 
as delineated within the response letter. 40 CFR 60.45b(k) allows 
compliance to be demonstrated by a fuel based compliance alternative. 
The plan ensures that data will be collected to demonstrate that the 
average percentage sulfur concentration in the wood fuel, plus three 
standard deviations, will not result in a combined fuel mixture that 
will exceed the sulfur emission limit. Westvaco will continue to obtain 
and maintain fuel receipts for the other combusted fuels.

Abstract for [1400037]

    Q: Can an exemption from monitoring be approved for a fuel gas 
stream that is low in sulfur content, under NSPS subpart J, for the 
off-gas vent stream from the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot in the Alky 
Stripper Reboiler Heater, at the Valero Refining Meraux facility in 
Meraux, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. Based on the description of the process vent streams, the 
design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data 
furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption in light of changes 
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 Federal Register 35866). 
EPA finds that, when used and controlled as described in the response 
letter, the vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur 
according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D) and therefore, the fuel gas 
combustion device does not need to meet the continuous monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4) for the Merox Off-
gas Knockout Pot fuel gas stream. Valero Meraux is required to monitor 
and control the relevant process parameters, as summarized in the 
Enclosure, as a condition of this exemption approval.

Abstract for [1100017]

    Q: Can alternative monitoring be approved in lieu of a Continuous 
Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) since the moisture in the Fluid 
Catalytic Cracking Unit exhaust from the wet gas scrubber (WGS) will 
interfere with the ability of the COMS to take accurate opacity 
readings due to water interference for the Conoco Phillips Sweeny, 
Texas Refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring based on 
information provided by Conoco, including a stack test report and three 
proposed operating parameters limits (OPLs) for the wet gas scrubber. 
The OPLs address nozzle pressure, pressure drop, and liquid to gas 
ratio.

    Dated: April 13, 2015.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-09242 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P