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, 50278-50287 [2015-20514]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50278-50287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20514]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9932-75-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 
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control 
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources 
may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written 
inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) 
programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to 
use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated 
requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 
63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly 
referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA 
responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP 
regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. 
These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to 
which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. 
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and 
NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, 
and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a 
quarterly 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 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 42 such documents added to 
the ADI on August 10, 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 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.

[[Page 50279]]

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on August 10, 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 August 10, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Control No.                   Categories              Subparts                     Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1400039...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Performance Test Waiver for
                                                                                   Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                   Combustion Engines.
1500001...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Test Waiver for Stationary
                                                                                   Spark Internal Combustion
                                                                                   Engines.
1500004...........................  NSPS.................  WWW..................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                   Compliance Timeline for
                                                                                   Landfill Gas Extraction Well.
1500005...........................  NSPS.................  WWW..................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                   Compliance Timeline for
                                                                                   Landfill Gas Extraction.
1500006...........................  NSPS.................  Ja...................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                   Request for Flare at Refinery
                                                                                   and Sulfur Plant.
1500008...........................  NSPS.................  CCCC, EEEE...........  Conditional Exemption for
                                                                                   CISWI and OSWI.
1500009...........................  NSPS.................  CCCC.................  Petition to Establish Proposed
                                                                                   Operating Limits for an
                                                                                   Incinerator.
1500010...........................  NSPS.................  A, Y.................  Request for PM Performance
                                                                                   Testing Extension under Force
                                                                                   Majeure.
1500011...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                   Incinerator Exemption.
1500012...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Incinerator Exemption
                                                                                   Administrative Correction.
1500013...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                   Incinerator Exemption Denial.
1500015...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                   Incinerator Exemption.
1500016...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                   Incinerator Exemption.
1500017...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Test Notice Waiver.
1500018...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Test Notice Waiver.
1500019...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                   Incinerator Exemption.
1500020...........................  NSPS.................  Db...................  Request for Alternative to COM
                                                                                   Monitoring for Wet Scrubber
                                                                                   and ESP.
1500040...........................  NSPS.................  LL...................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   for Operations Depositing
                                                                                   Ponded Fine Tailings Material
                                                                                   as a By-Product from
                                                                                   Historical Ore Mining and
                                                                                   Processing Operations.
1500041...........................  NSPS.................  A, LLLL..............  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                   Location for Wet
                                                                                   Electrostatic Precipitator
                                                                                   Effluent.
1500042...........................  NSPS.................  A, Da, Z.............  Alternative Compliance
                                                                                   Monitoring Plan for Opacity
                                                                                   and Carbon Monoxide
                                                                                   Monitoring from an electric
                                                                                   submerged arc furnace.
1500043...........................  NSPS.................  Db...................  Alternative Testing,
                                                                                   Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
                                                                                   Reporting at Vessel Boilers.
1500044...........................  NSPS.................  Dc...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                   Recordkeeping and Reporting
                                                                                   for Boilers.
1500045...........................  NSPS.................  Dc...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                   Recordkeeping and Reporting
                                                                                   for Boilers.
1500047...........................  NSPS.................  TT...................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   for a Tubing Operation for
                                                                                   Coating Metal Wire.
1500048...........................  NSPS.................  OOOO.................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   for Pipeline Stations Storage
                                                                                   Vessels.
M140017...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  DDDDD................  Request for Compliance
                                                                                   Extension for Boiler MACT.
M140018...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  JJJJJJ...............  Test Waiver Denial for Coal-
                                                                                   Fired Boilers.
M150001...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  ZZZZ.................  Alternative Monitoring Request
                                                                                   for Non-Resettable Hour Meter
                                                                                   for Stationary Emergency
                                                                                   Engines.
M150002...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, JJJJJJ............  Compliance Extension for Area
                                                                                   Source Coal Fired Boilers.
M150003...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Compliance Extension for Area
                                                                                   Source Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                   Combustion Engines.
M150004...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Compliance Extension for
                                                                                   Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                   Combustion Engine.
M150005...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Compliance Extension for Power
                                                                                   Plant Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                   Combustion Engines.
M150006...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Prior Test Data Use for
                                                                                   Initial Compliance
                                                                                   Demonstration.
M150007...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  ZZZZ.................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   for Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                   Combustion Engines.
M150008...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  ZZZZ.................  Peak Shaving Engine
                                                                                   Redesignation to Black Start
                                                                                   Engine.
M150009...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, JJJJJJ............  Area Source Boiler PM Test
                                                                                   Waiver Request.
M150018...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  DDDDD, JJJJ, MMMMM,    Part 63 Rules and Title V
                                                            ZZZZ.                  Operating Permit
                                                                                   Applicability for Lamination
                                                                                   Facility.
M150019...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  O....................  Request for Clarification of
                                                                                   Annual Performance Test
                                                                                   Requirement.
M150020...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  UUUUU................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   for Limited-Use Liquid Oil-
                                                                                   Fired Electric Generating
                                                                                   Units.
M150021...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  LLL..................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   for Cement Finish Mill.

[[Page 50280]]

 
Z150001...........................  Part 63 NESHAP.......  JJJJJJ...............  Performance Test Extension and
                                                                                   Amendment to Force Majeure.
1500042...........................  NSPS, Part 63 NESHAP.  Y, DDDD, LLL.........  Applicability Determination
                                                                                   under section 111, section
                                                                                   112, and section 129 for
                                                                                   Cement Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1400039]

    Q: Will EPA provide Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) a waiver 
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), from the initial performance testing 
requirement under NSPS Subpart JJJJ for nine of the ten Wartsila 
18V50DF dual-fired, lean-burn, 17.1 megawatt (23,250 HP), non-
emergency, reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) to be 
installed at the Eklutna Generation Station in Eklutna, Alaska?
    A: No. EPA finds that MEA has not provided an adequate 
demonstration that the engines in question will meet the applicable 
standards, and therefore the EPA is denying MEA's request for a waiver 
from the initial performance testing for its Wartsila 18V50DF engines. 
Although the manufacturer's data provided indicates that we can expect 
that the Wartsila 18V50DF engines may be able to meet the applicable 
emissions limits in NSPS Subpart JJJJ (if properly installed and 
operated) conducting a performance test is necessary to provide 
adequate assurance that an engine is properly installed and operating. 
MEA may re-submit a request for a waiver of performance tests at its 
facility once it has information that is sufficient to demonstrate that 
one or more of the engines, after reaching their maximum production 
rate, are in compliance with the standard.

Abstract for [1500001]

    Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from performance testing requirements 
according to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) for six of seven Waukesha units 
identified as identical and operated as compressor engines at 
ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated's (CPAI) Beluga River Unit (BRU)?
    A: Based on the information provided by CPAI, EPA approves the 
performance test waiver for the CO and VOC standards, but not for the 
NOX standards for the next performance testing that is due 
for six of the seven Waukesha engines. EPA approves the CO and VOC 
performance testing waiver because CPAI has demonstrated that the 
engines are identical, they are in the same location, they will be 
operated and maintained in a similar manner on an ongoing basis, and 
the expected emissions from the engines are in compliance with 
applicable limits by a substantial margin. EPA denies the 
NOX performance test waiver because the margin of compliance 
for NOX emissions was not sufficient to conclude that 
untested units would be in compliance with the NOX standards 
of subpart JJJJ, given the high variability in NOX 
emissions.

Abstract for [1500004]

    Q: Does EPA approve Roxana Landfill's request for an alternative 
timeline of additional sixty (60) days, or until January 25, 2015, to 
bring Well 191 located in Edwardsville, Illinois, into compliance with 
40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) under NSPS subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by Roxana, EPA approves, 
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3), the proposed alternative timeline to 
complete installation of a new vacuum lateral on Well 191 by January 
25, 2015 to bring the well into compliance with pressure requirements. 
Roxana site personnel must review investigative and monitoring data and 
closely monitor any field conditions that would result in a violation 
of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW.

Abstract for [1500005]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative compliance timeline to complete 
a dewatering project for landfill gas extraction Well S163R2 at the 
Waste Management of Illinois, Incorporated. (WMIL) Settler's Hill 
Recycling and Disposal Facility/Midway facility in Batavia, Illinois 
under 40 CFR subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by WMIL, EPA approves 
WMIL's proposed alternative compliance timeline to complete a 
dewatering project on Well S163R2 by June 24, 2014. We understand that 
WMIL has made efforts to meet the regulatory deadline but was unable to 
meet it due to the nature of the work involved. Factors including a 
well depth of 144 feet deep and its location at the center of the 
landfill. Lack of infrastructure near the well to facilitate 
dewatering, no electricity near the well, and no means to convey liquid 
into the facility's condensate/leachate system contributed to the 
project's delay.

Abstract for [1500006]

    Q. Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request 
to the sulfur monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.107a(e) of NSPS, 
subpart Ja, for the flare at the Phillips 66 Billings Refinery and 
Jupiter Sulfur Plant (Jupiter Sulfur) located in Billings, Montana?
    A. Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA conditionally 
approves Jupiter Sulfur's AMP request for meeting the flare sulfur 
monitoring requirements. EPA finds the AMP acceptable since flaring 
does not occur more than four times in any 365-day period and it 
contains provisions for the monitoring of the rupture discs that are 
similar to, or the same as, provisions found in Sec.  60.107a(g)(1)-(6) 
for monitoring the water seal at emergency flares. In addition, Jupiter 
Sulfur will install a flow meter meeting the requirements of Sec.  
60.107a(i) on the flare. The conditions for AMP approval addressing 
monitoring, corrective actions and recordkeeping requirements are 
specified in the EPA determination letter.

Abstract for [1500008]

    Q: Does an incinerator that burns pathological waste at the Kenai 
Veterinary Hospital in Kenai, Alaska meet the exclusion for 
pathological waste incineration units in NSPS for Other Solid Waste 
Incineration Units (OSWI), 40 CFR subpart EEEE, and for Commercial 
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI), subpart CCCC?
    A: Yes. The unit is exempt because it burns 90 percent or more by 
weight pathological, low-level radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic 
waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.2977. EPA will consider the letter 
submitted by the hospital to constitute the notice that the unit meets 
the exclusion. Consistent with the regulations, records of materials 
burned must be kept to demonstrate that the exclusion continues to 
apply.

Abstract for [1500009]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the operating limits proposed by Sumitomo 
Metal Mining Pogo (Pogo) for its small

[[Page 50281]]

remote solid waste incinerator under NSPS for Commercial Industrial 
Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units, subpart CCCC at its mine 
facility near Delta Junction, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA accepts Pogo's petition to establish operating limits 
for the incinerator under subpart CCCC. The petition was submitted 60 
days before the initial performance test is scheduled to begin and it 
meets the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) of Sec.  60.2115. The 
incinerator has no add-on control device and only fires propane as fuel 
with anticipated feedstocks of solid wastes but not hazardous wastes, 
which is consistent with 40 CFR 60.2115. Pogo identified the specific 
parameters to be used, including waste composition and charge rate, 
charge interval limit, and primary and secondary combustion chamber 
temperature and burn-time limits. The relationship between these 
parameters and emissions was provided by Pogo, and upper and/or lower 
values were proposed. Methods and instrumentation to measure and 
continuously monitor the operating parameters were presented, which 
include the installation of an electronic data acquisition system and 
the calculation of 5-minute rolling average temperatures. Compliance 
with the minimum temperature limits will be determined using the 
rolling 5-minute average. A rolling weight will be calculated with an 
averaging period to be determined based on the results of the initial 
performance test. The frequency and methods for recalibrating 
instruments were identified.

Abstract for [1500010]

    Q: Does EPA approve an extension to the applicable performance test 
deadlines caused by a force majeure event in accordance with the 
provisions of 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) for an 
affected facility located in Alaska, owned and operated by Clear Air 
Force Station (Clear AFS), that is subject to 40 CPR 60 subpart Y?
    A: No. EPA denies the extension request as it believes that Clear 
AFS could have taken steps to prevent the circumstances that led to the 
inability to perform the stack test in a safe manner. As stated in the 
supporting information you provided to EPA, which was included in a 
formal request submitted to the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC), a similar nearby facility (Eielson Air Force Base) 
had tested in 2011 the same coal at their facility under similar 
operational conditions and determined that the coal was explosive. The 
EPA believes that Clear AFS has an obligation (a general duty) to 
ensure a safe working environment under all conditions at all times and 
has knowledge and is aware of the nature of all materials under its 
possession. EPA also believes that Clear AFS neglected to take into 
safety consideration when making equipment purchase decisions.

Abstract for [1500011]

    Q: Will EPA exclude the cyclonic burn barrel unit that Lower 
Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Chefornak 
School in Chefornak, Alaska from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 
subpart EEEE?
    A: Yes. EPA approves LKSD's request. EPA determines that KSD's 
request was submitted prior to initial startup of the unit, and that 
the incineration unit meets the criteria for exclusion from subpart 
EEEE (40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1)-(2)) for rural institutional waste 
incinerator units. The unit is located more than 50 miles from the 
boundary of the nearest Metropolitan Statistical Area, and alternative 
disposal options are not available or are economically infeasible.

Abstract for [1500012]

    Q1: Will EPA correct the operator and park name operated by and 
located in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve for a previously 
denied exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE for an incineration 
unit operating in Port Alsworth, Alaska?
    A1: Yes. EPA determination letter issued to the National Park 
Service on April 16, 2013 (Refer to ADI Control Number 1500013) applies 
to the incinerator operated by and located in the Lake Clark National 
Park and Preserve, and not to an incinerator being operated by Glacier 
Bay National Park and Preserve as erroneously stated in the response.

Abstract for [1500013]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the institutional waste incineration 
unit at the National Park in Port Alsworth, Alaska can be excluded from 
the Part 60 subpart EEEE requirements at 40 CFR 60.2887(h)?
    A: No. EPA determines that the unit is not eligible for this 
exclusion because the application for an exclusion was not submitted 
prior to the start-up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 
60.2887(h)(1). It appears, based on the information provided by the 
Park, that the unit in question would meet the criteria of being 
located more than 50 miles from the boundary of the nearest 
Metropolitan Statistical Area and that alternative disposal options are 
not available or are economically infeasible. However, subpart EEEE 
requires that the owner or operator of the incinerator unit must 
submit, before start-up, an application demonstrating that the unit 
meets the exclusion criteria. Refer to ADI Control Number 1500012 for a 
correction to the operator name for the unit.

Abstract for [1500015]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit 
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School 
District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Atmautluak, Alaska school 
facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Atmautluak school 
wastewater system?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to 
operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste 
incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for 
exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request 
prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Atmautluak is located approximately 
284 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna 
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Atmautluak is an isolated community with 
no road access and severely limited barge access. There is no legal and 
safe disposal site within Atmautluak. Sludge would have to be shipped 
to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively 
expensive.

Abstract for [1500016]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit 
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School 
District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Newtok, Alaska school 
facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Newtok school 
wastewater system?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to 
operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste 
incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for 
exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request 
prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Newtok is located approximately 360 
miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. Newtok is an isolated community with no road access 
and severely limited barge access. There is no legal and safe disposal 
site within Newtok. The community has started a long-term project to 
move the village to a new

[[Page 50282]]

location therefore there are no plans to open a permitted landfill at 
this current location. Sludge would have to be shipped to Washington or 
Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively expensive.

Abstract for [1500017]

    Q: Will EPA grant a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification 
required prior to conducting a performance evaluation of a generator 
under NSPS subpart JJJJ at the Joint Base Elmendorf/Richardson (JBER) 
Landfill Gas Power Facility in Fairbanks, Alaska pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.19(f)(3)?
    A: Yes. Based on information provided by JBER, EPA waives the 30 
day notice for performance testing pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). JBER 
indicates that the notice is late because it just became aware that the 
State of Alaska has declined to be delegated authority to implement and 
enforce NSPS subpart JJJJ.

Abstract for [1500018]

    Q: Will EPA grant a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification 
of performance evaluation requirement for a Guascor Model SFGM-560 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) at Farm Power's new 
biogas production facility in Tillamook, Oregon pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.19(f)(3)?
    A: Yes. Based on information provided by Farm Power, EPA approves 
this request pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). Farm Power indicates that 
the notice is late because it just became aware that the State of 
Oregon has declined to be delegated authority to implement and enforce 
NSPS subpart JJJJ.

Abstract for [1500019]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit 
under 40 CFR subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School District 
(LKSD) intends to operate at the Tuntutuliak, Alaska school facility to 
incinerate dewatered sludge from the Tuntutuliak school wastewater 
system?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to 
operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste 
incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for 
exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request 
prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Tuntutuliak is located approximately 
360 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna 
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Tuntutuliak is an isolated community 
with no road access, and severely limited barge access. Sludge would 
have to be shipped to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would 
be prohibitively expensive.

Abstract for [1500020]

    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring under 40 CFR 
60.13(h)(i)(1) of NSPS subpart Db for the multi-fuel Power Boiler No. 
20 at the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Incorporated facility in 
Longview, Washington?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves alternative monitoring for the 
multi-fuel boiler to ensure compliance with the state PM limit since 
moisture from the controls and low stack gas temperature result in 
interference that makes a continuous opacity monitor (COM) infeasible. 
Longview's boiler is already subject to a federally enforceable, state 
imposed, PM emission limit that is more stringent than NSPS subpart Db, 
and therefore, compliance with the Subpart Db PM limit is met. The 
conditions for approval are specified in the EPA determination letter.

Abstract for [1500040]

    Q: Are the operations conducted by Magnetation, LLC, at their 
facility located near Keewatin, Minnesota, to produce an iron 
concentrate considered an affected facility and subject to the 
requirements of NSPS subpart LL?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the operations conducted by 
Magnetation, LLC are considered an affected facility and subject to the 
requirements of NSPS subpart LL because it produces a metallic mineral 
concentrate and the operations meet the definition of metallic mineral 
processing plant at 40 CFR 60.381. The definition for ``metallic 
mineral concentrate'' does not require that the concentration level be 
in excess of the historic source ore, and the finished product is 
higher in concentration than currently available, naturally occurring 
ore. The tailing material clearly came ``from ore,'' and the fact that 
Magnetation's process relies on the previous plant having taken initial 
steps in concentrating the ore does not exempt your process from acting 
on material which came from ore. The beneficiation equipment produces a 
finished product that meets the definition of ``metallic mineral 
concentrate.'' Therefore, the equipment produces metallic mineral 
concentrates from ore.

Abstract for [1500041]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Mattabassett District Water Pollution 
Control (Mattabassett) facility's request for an alternative monitoring 
location for the water flow rate from the wet electrostatic 
precipitator (WESP) that is used to control pollution from the sewage 
sludge incinerator at the facility located in Cromwell, CT?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring location for the 
water flow from the Mattabassett's WESP unit under 40 CFR part 60 
subpart A, section 60.13(i)(4).

Abstract for [1500042]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Boston Electrometallurgical Corporation's 
(BEMC's) proposed alternative monitoring to use a triboelectric 
detector to continuously monitor the relative particulate matter (PM) 
concentration of the exhaust emitted to the atmosphere from the 
submerged arc furnace, located at its Woburn, MA ferroalloy production 
facility, in lieu of a continuous opacity monitoring system to meet 40 
CFR 60.264(b)? BEMC proposes to use EPA Reference Method 9 to establish 
a relationship between opacity and the electrical signal provided by 
the triboelectric detector.
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of baghouse leak monitoring for the 
furnace meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 60.48(o)(4)(i) through (v), 
as they relate to the use of its triboelectric sensor for opacity 
monitoring, including the development and submittal of a monitoring 
plan for approval.
    Q2: Does EPA approve BEMC's proposed alternative to install and 
operate a continuous CO monitoring system (i.e., an Infrared 
Industries, IR-208 Gas Analyzer) that will sample the exhaust once 
every ten minutes in order to meet 40 CFR 60.263(a)?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves BEMC's alternative monitoring to use the gas 
analyzer for measuring CO continuously in conjunction with other 
process parameters, such as temperature and flow, to ensure proper 
operating conditions. In addition, BEMC would have the flexibility to 
monitor CO periodically at other portions of the processes, e.g. 
furnace outlet.

Abstract for [1500043]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge LLC's 
(Northeast Gateway's) proposed use of Method 22 in lieu of Method 9 for 
opacity observations to comply with 40 CFR 60.43b for each liquid 
natural gas regasification (LNGR) vessels that have boilers subject to 
NSPS subpart Db for the Northeast Gateway Port off the coast of 
Massachusetts?
    A1: EPA finds that Northeast Gateway's request to use Method 22 is 
unnecessary because Northwest Gateway LLC only burns oil during

[[Page 50283]]

startup and the existing NSPS includes a provision, 40 CFR 60.43b(g), 
providing that PM and opacity limits in that NSPS do not apply during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposed waiver request of 
the 30 operating day NOX performance test requirement in 40 
CFR 60.46b(e)?
    A2: EPA is unable to grant a waiver at this time because Northeast 
Gateway has not yet demonstrated compliance by other means. However, 
demonstration of compliance with the more stringent Northeast Gateway 
air permit NOX limit through a performance test, combined 
with data collected with a certified NOX monitor, may 
adequately demonstrate compliance with the Subpart Db NOX 
emission limit without requiring a Subpart Db 30 day performance test.
    Q3: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposed alternative to 
the 30-day rolling average required by 40 CFR 60.44b(i), where 
compliance would be demonstrated each calendar month, regardless of the 
number of operating hours that fall within a given calendar month?
    A3: EPA finds that the proposed waiver of the 30-day averaging 
period is unnecessary because the affected boilers at the Northeast 
Gateway Port are below 250 MMBtu, and burn only natural gas and 
distillate oil.
    Q4: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to use Method 22 
in lieu of Method 9 for opacity observations under 40 CFR 60.48b?
    A4: EPA finds that Method 9 observations will not be necessary 
under 40 CFR 60.48b since, under the permit, oil will be fired only 
during start-up periods.
    Q5: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to modify the 
data requirements for NOX monitoring found at 40 CFR 
60.48b(f)?
    A5: Yes. EPA approves Northeast Gateway's proposed criteria that 
require valid NOX data for 75 percent of the operating hours 
that occur in each calendar month because the proposed data requirement 
will be more stringent than those at 40 CFR 60.48b(f).
    Q6: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request to waive all 
requirements under 40 CFR 60.49b(g) that refer to 30-day NOX 
averages and instead be calculated on a calendar-month average basis?
    A6: No. EPA does not grant the request to waive the 30-day 
NOX average requirement in lieu of a calendar month 
approach. EPA requires that when compliance must be demonstrated, it 
shall be demonstrated consistent with the 30-day regulatory 
requirement. Similarly, requirements for excess emission reports in 40 
CFR 60.48b(h) based on 30-day NOX averages apply.
    Q7: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request to perform 
periodic quality assurance (QA) testing required by the Part 60 
appendices while vessels are not moored at the Northeast Gateway Port?
    A7: EPA will allow QA testing to be conducted while vessels are not 
moored at the Northeast Gateway Port if the testing is conducted in 
accordance with a test protocol and schedule approved by EPA.
    Q8: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to perform a 
Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA) using three 60 minute runs in lieu of 
conducting the nine 21 minute runs of a RATA as required by Appendix F 
of Part 60?
    A8: No. EPA does not approve this request because the nine run 
relative accuracy test audits (RATA) test are necessary to provide a 
statistically significant data set with which to certify the CEMS.
    Q9: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request that the RATA test 
frequency be reduced to initial performance testing and at least once 
every 5 years thereafter as required by Appendix F of Part 60?
    A9: No. EPA does not approve this request. The RATAs must be 
conducted once every four calendar quarters, or upon the next visit for 
each vessel that has visited the Northeast Gateway Port after the 
previous successful RATA, if more than four calendar quarters have 
passed since that vessel's last successful RATA.
    Q10: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal that cylinder 
gas audits (CGAs) required by Appendix F of Part 60 be performed once 
per calendar quarter, or upon the next visit of a vessel to the 
Northeast Gateway Port after the previous CGA, if more than one 
calendar quarter has passed since that vessel's last visit to the 
Northeast Gateway Port?
    A10: Yes. EPA approves the proposed CGA schedule.
    Q11: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to modify the 7 
day calibration drift test requirement in Performance Specification 2 
(``PS2'') of Part 60 Appendix B?
    A11: No. EPA does not approve this modification. However, as stated 
in A7 above, EPA is willing to provide some flexibility in allowing the 
drift test to be conducted when the LNGRV is not moored at the 
facility.
    Q12: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to waive the 
retrospective invalidation of data for CD checks exceeding four times 
the specification and instead consider the ``out of control'' period 
only to apply to data after a CD check that exceeds four times the 
drift specification?
    A12: No. EPA does not approve this request for waiver. Procedure 1 
in Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 defines the out of control period as 
beginning with the completion of the fifth consecutive daily 
calibration drift check that exceeds twice the drift specification (2.5 
percent of span), or with the completion of the last daily CD check 
preceding a CD check that exceeds four times the drift specification.

Abstract for [1500044]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Phillips Academy's (Phillips') request to 
track actual monthly oil usage under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural 
gas supplies are interrupted to its boilers at Phillips' facility in 
Andover, Massachusetts? Phillips currently operates three dual-fuel 
capable boilers with input capacities of 40.79 MMBtu/hr, which are 
subject to NSPS subpart Dc and other applicable Massachusetts permit 
requirements. The facility is currently required to maintain daily 
records of fuel consumption.
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in fuel usage 
recordkeeping from daily to monthly records for Phillips' boilers if 
the facility uses natural gas as the primary fuel and distillate oil 
with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent as the back-up fuel.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Phillips' request to submit annual reports to 
EPA under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of semiannual reports?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting 
frequency under subpart Dc based on Phillips' records that the facility 
has operated exclusively on natural gas for the past eight years, with 
the exception of limited operation on oil with a with a sulfur content 
no greater than 0.5 percent for periodic testing and maintenance. If 
Phillips' 30-day rolling average sulfur content of the fuel exceeds 
0.5%, the facility must immediately resume daily fuel use record 
keeping.

Abstract for [1500045]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the University of Massachusetts Lowell's 
(UMASS Lowell's) request to track actual monthly, instead of daily, oil 
usage under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural gas supplies are 
interrupted to its dual-fuel boilers subject to NSPS subpart Dc at its 
Lowell, Massachusetts facility?

[[Page 50284]]

    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting 
frequency for the boilers based on the facility's records that UMASS 
Lowell's has operated using natural gas as the primary fuel and 
distillate oil with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent as the 
back-up fuel.
    Q2: Does EPA approve UMASS Lowell's request to submit annual 
reports under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of on a semi-annual basis?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting 
frequency under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Dc based on UMASS Lowell' 
records that the facility operates almost exclusively on natural gas, 
with the exception of when natural gas supplies were interrupted.

Abstract for [1500047]

    Q: Is the new tube manufacturing operation at Elektrisola 
Incorporated's Boscawen, New Hampshire facility subject to 40 CFR part 
60 subpart TT?
    A: No. Based on the information provided by the New Hampshire 
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), EPA determines that 
Elektrisola's new tubing operation does not meet the definition of 
metal coil surface coating operation in section 60.461 because it is 
applying an organic coating to metal wire, rather than a metal strip. 
Therefore, Elektrisola's operation is not subject to NSPS subpart TT.

Abstract for [1500048]

    Q: Are JP Energy's pipeline station storage vessels at several 
locations in Kansas subject to NSPS subpart OOOO?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the storage vessels are located in the 
``oil production segment'' and are affected facilities subject to NSPS 
subpart OOOO. The operations described by JP Energy, which transfer the 
oil from the wellhead tank loaded on a truck, and transported to 
another storage vessel prior to the pipeline (emphasis added), are 
transfer operations prior to the pipeline; as such, they are within the 
``oil production segment'' per 40 CFR 60.5365(d) definition. Therefore, 
the storage vessels in question meet the criteria for storage vessels 
affected facility at 40 CFR 60.5365(e).

Abstract for [M140017]

    Q: Will EPA approve a one-year compliance extension for the Power 
Boiler (PB-7) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD at the RockTenn CP, 
LLC's pulp and paperboard mill in Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma Mill)?
    A: No. EPA determines that although Tacoma Mill identified various 
potential control technology options, specific controls were not 
clearly identified, which is a criteria under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) 
for approval of an extension of the compliance deadline.

Abstract for [M140018]

    Q: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing waiver for Aurora 
Energy, LLC's (Aurora) two coal fired boilers, Emission Units (EUs) 5 
and 6, which are identical in design and manufacture to EU4, at the 
Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska?
    A: No. Based on the information provided, EPA denies Aurora's 
request for a waiver from the Part 63 subpart JJJJJJ initial 
performance testing for EUs 5 and 6. EPA determines that insufficient 
information has been provided to support a conclusion that EUs 4, 5, 
and 6 are identical, and have been operated and maintained in a similar 
manner necessary to support a waiver request. The age of the boilers 
makes it less likely they may be identical, which appears to be the 
case for EU 6 based on the nameplate photos. Additionally, there has 
been no historical test data submitted to demonstrate low variability 
in emissions over time. The fuel, coal, has also not been demonstrated 
to have low variability over time.

Abstract for [M150001]

    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative to the monitoring requirement 
for installation of a non-resettable hour meter for the approximately 
74 existing stationary emergency engines subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart ZZZZ, the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal 
Combustion Engines, which are operated by BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA) 
on the North Slope of Alaska?
    A: No. EPA determines that the alternative monitoring approach is 
not acceptable because the automated engine hour tracking system in use 
by BPXA is not sufficient on its own to meet the rule requirement of 40 
CFR 63.6625(f) since it is not ``non-resettable.'' Since BPXA can 
adjust the automated system hour log, it would not be ``non-
resettable'' as required by the NESHAP subpart ZZZZ.

Abstract for [M150002]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year extension to the compliance deadline 
for four coal-fired boilers subject to the Area Source NESHAP for 
boilers, subpart JJJJJJ, located at the Pacific Air Forces, Eielson Air 
Force Based Central Heat and Power Plant in Eielson, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one year extension to the 
compliance deadline for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA determines that 
additional time is warranted due to the short construction season in 
Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to 
reconsideration amendments, and government procurement procedures. 
Approval is conditioned upon Eielson complying with the applicable 
emission and operating limits and compliance demonstration procedures 
by March 21, 2015; meeting interim compliance deadlines specified in 
the approval letter; and meeting tune-up requirements that are required 
of boilers below 10 MMBTU/hr during the time period while the 
compliance extension applies.

Abstract for [M150003]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year compliance extension to Hilcorp Alaska 
for five stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) 
subject to NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are located on the Anna, Dillon, 
and Monopod Platforms in Alaska's Cook Inlet region?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the 
compliance deadline for all three platforms that are area sources. EPA 
determines that additional time is warranted because of the short 
construction season in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule 
requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, and difficulties 
in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand throughout 
the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval is 
conditioned on Hilcorp complying with the applicable equipment 
standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration 
procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting specified interim compliance 
deadlines; and complying with the work or management practices for 
remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

Abstract for [M150004]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year extension to the compliance deadline 
to Hilcorp Alaska for a stationary reciprocating internal combustion 
engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP for RICE, 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
ZZZZ, which is located on the Falls Creek Pad in Alaska's South Kenai 
region?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the 
compliance deadline for the unit that is not a remote stationary RICE 
located at an area source facility. EPA determines that additional time 
is warranted because of the short construction season in Alaska, 
uncertainty regarding the

[[Page 50285]]

final rule requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, and 
difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand 
throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval 
is conditioned upon Hilcorp complying with the applicable equipment 
standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration 
procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting interim compliance deadlines 
specified in the approval letter; and complying with the work or 
management practices for remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

Abstract for [M150005]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one-year compliance extension for two 
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) subject to 
NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are located at the North Slope Borough (NSB) 
Nuiqsut Power Plant in Barrow, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the 
compliance deadline for the two existing gas-fired spark ignition units 
that are not remote stationary RICE and that operate more than 24 hours 
per calendar year at an area source facility. EPA determines that 
additional time is warranted because of the short construction season 
in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to 
reconsideration of the regulation, funding cycles for municipalities, 
and difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased 
demand throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. 
Approval is conditioned on NSB complying with the applicable equipment 
standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration 
procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting specified interim compliance 
deadlines; and complying with the work or management practices for 
remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

Abstract for [M150006]

    Q: Will EPA accept a 2009 performance test as the initial 
performance test to demonstrate compliance for a stationary 
reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP 
subpart ZZZZ at and located at Washington State University (WSU) in 
Pullman, Washington?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the use of the 2009 performance test 
data to serve as the initial performance test for the RICE unit because 
a prior test can only be used if it is not older than two years 
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6612(b)(2). Therefore, an initial test must be 
conducted within 180 days after the compliance date, by October 30, 
2013.

Abstract for [M150007]

    Q: Does EPA determine that engines located at the High Frequency 
Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility near Gakona, Alaska 
are subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 
(RICE) at 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? The facility is owned by the Air 
Force and operated by Marsh Creek, LLC through the Office of Naval 
Research.
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the engines, as described, are RICE and 
therefore subject to Part 63 subpart ZZZZ. The engines would be 
required to meet the applicable numerical emission limitations detailed 
in Table 2d and applicable operating limitations in Table 2b of NESHAP 
subpart ZZZZ for the type of existing stationary engine located at area 
sources of HAP, as detailed in the EPA determination letter.

Abstract for [M150008]

    Q: Can the Eielson Air Force Base's existing compression ignition, 
2-stroke, greater than 500 horsepower, Electromotive Diesel (EMD) 
engine installed in 1987 at the Base's Central Heat and Power Plant be 
designated as a black start engine exclusively and therefore subject to 
the corresponding requirements for that type of engine if the EMD 
engine is no longer used for any peak shaving?
    A: Yes. EPA is responding with guidance to clarify that if the 
engine subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ is not being used for 
peak shaving after the May 3, 2013 compliance date for the engine, and 
the engine meets the definition of a black start engine, it is subject 
to the requirements under NESHAP subpart ZZZZ for a black start engine.

Abstract for [M150009]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a like for like waiver from the initial and 
all subsequent particulate matter (PM) tests according to the 
provisions under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iv) and 63.7(h) for the Moses Lake 
Industries (MLI) boiler located in Moses Lake, Washington?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the information used to estimate the 
emissions is not from a boiler unit that is located at the same 
facility as the unit in question. There is no assurance that the tested 
unit was operated and maintained in a similar manner as the unit in 
question.
    Q2: In case EPA is unable to grant the waiver, does EPA accept a 
source test plan and notification that MLI also provided in its 
submittal dated December 8th, 2011, stating that that they intend to 
conduct a PM source test on February 13th, 2012?
    A2: Yes. EPA accepts the previously submitted test plan and 
notification in question to meet the general provision source test 
requirements from section 63.7(b) to notify EPA at least 60 days in 
advance of a source test.

Abstract for [M150018]

    Q1: Can EPA clarify the applicability for the NESHAP for Major 
Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process 
Heaters, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD; the NESHAP for Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
MMMMM; the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion !Engines, 40 
CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ; and the NESHAP for Paper and Other Web 
Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for Shawmut's flexible substrate 
lamination facility located in West Bridgewater, MA if the facility is 
now an area source?
    A1: EPA determines that Shawmut is no longer subject to 40 CFR part 
63 subparts JJJJ, MMMMM, and DDDDD. Shawmut is no longer subject to 
NESHAP subpart JJJJ because the three adhesive laminators (EUI) are 
permanently decommissioned. Shawmut is not subject to NESHAP subpart 
MMMMM because the facility ceased to be a major HAP source before 
becoming subject to any substantive subpart MMMMM requirements. Shawmut 
is not subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD for its boiler and two process 
heaters (EU3) because EPA allows Shawmut to become an area source of 
HAP before January 2014, the first substantive rule compliance date. 
Shawmut's existing spark ignition engine is subject to NESHAP subpart 
ZZZZ as an area source of HAP because Shawmut became an area source of 
HAP before the first compliance date of October 19, 2013, but subpart 
ZZZZ does not require area sources of HAP to obtain a Title V operating 
permit.
    Q2: Would Shawmut facility be required to maintain its Title V 
operating permit because it is no longer a major source?
    A2: No. EPA determines that Shawmut is no longer subject to the 
requirements of Title V operating permits based on applicability of 
these NESHAP subparts as an area source.

[[Page 50286]]

Abstract for [M150019]

    Q: Can EPA clarify the annual performance test deadline for 
Covidien's ethylene oxide sterilization facility located in North 
Haven, Connecticut?
    A: EPA is clarifying that after the initial performance test, 
subsequent annual testing pursuant 40 CFR 63.363(b)(4)(i) must be 
conducted within 11 to 13 calendar months after the previous test.

Abstract for [M150020]

    Q: Does a dual-fuel steam boiler (Unit 1) at PSEG New Haven Harbor 
Station in New Haven, Connecticut meet the definition of a limited-use 
liquid oil-fired electric generating unit in 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
UUUUU?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA determines that Unit 
1 at PSEG New Haven Harbor Station meets the definition of a limited-
use liquid oil-fired electric generating unit in 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
UUUUU.

Abstract for [M150021]

    Q1: Will the addition of heaters to Dragon Products Company's 
existing finish mill in Thomaston, Maine subject the finish mill to 
requirements for raw material dryers in NESHAP for Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry at 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the Dragon Products' finish mill is not 
an affected source under NESHAP subpart LLL because it is processing 
granulated slag, and is not grinding clinker or blending the slag with 
clinker.
    Q2: Will Dragon Products' proposed finished material dryer be 
subject to subpart LLL?
    A2: No. Based on the information submitted by Dragon Products, EPA 
determines that the proposed dryer is not an affected source under 
NESHAP subpart LLL because the raw material dryer would only be used to 
dry slag a product used in concrete and not used to dry a material for 
use in the production of Portland cement. This determination is 
revising a previously issued determination on the applicability of 
NESHAP subpart to the dryer issued April 8, 2014.

Abstract for [Z150001]

    Q: Will the EPA determine that an amendment to Aurora Energy's 
September 26, 2014 determination is warranted, to provide an additional 
compliance extension for the performance testing deadline for three 
area source coal fired boilers (Emission Units (EUs) 4, 5, and 6) under 
NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ at the Chena Power Plant?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that extending the NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ 
performance test deadline until January 31, 2015, will provide for time 
to complete the repair and installation and ensure that TG #1 is fully 
operational and enable a representative test to be conducted on the 
boilers.

Abstract for [1500052]

    Q1: Argos requests clarification of which emissions standards (40 
CFR part 63 Subpart LLL--The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (PC 
NESHAP); 40 CFR part 60 Subpart Y--New Source Performance Standards for 
Coal Preparation and Processing Plants (subpart Y); and 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart DDDD--``Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units'' 
(subpart DDDD'') apply to the emissions coming from the PC Coal Mill at 
the Harleyville Cement Plant located in Harleyville, SC, that are 
combined with the CISWI kiln emissions, where the CISWI kiln provides 
heat for drying the coal, before being emitted directly to the 
atmosphere?
    A1: Based on the information provided by Argos, EPA made an 
analysis of the standards that would apply to the Harleyville PC Coal 
Mill. EPA determines that the Harleyville PC Coal Mill is subject to 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Y, specifically the 
standards for thermal dryers at section 60.252(a), because the thermal 
dryer is a thermal dryer per section Sec.  60.251(r) (1) and is thus 
subject to the provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(a), Sec.  
60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a). When emissions from the thermal dryer 
(i.e., the affected facility) at the PC coal mill are combined with 
emissions from the CISWI kiln subject to emissions limits in subpart 
DDDD, the emissions exiting from the PC Coal Mill thermal dryer are not 
exempt from the standards in section Sec.  60.252(a). Neither Sec.  
60.251(j) nor Sec.  60.252(c) create an exemption from these 
requirements. We do not believe that any difference between the 
definition of kiln under subpart DDDD and the PC NESHAP precludes 
application of the subpart DDDD standards to the waste-burning kiln 
emissions that are routed through the PC Coal Mill and emitted out of 
stack 2. Since the kiln is an existing CISWI unit, the subpart DDDD 
standards apply to the emissions coming from the waste-burning kiln 
whether or not those emissions are routed to another process before 
being emitted out of stack 2.
    Q2. Is the Harleyville clinker cooler an affected facility under 
the PC NESHAP?
    A2. Yes. EPA determines that the affected facility, in part, is 
each clinker cooler at any Portland cement plant according to Sec.  
63.1340(b)(2) (``What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?''). 
Information provided by Argos demonstrates that the clinker cooler 
meets the definition of clinker cooler at Sec.  63.1341. Therefore, the 
clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP.
    Q3. Which emissions standards (PC NESHAP, subpart Y, and/or subpart 
DDDD) apply to the emissions coming from the Harleyvill Kiln Coal Mill 
that are combined with the CISWI kiln emissions, where the CISWI kiln 
provides heat for drying the coal, before discharging to the atmosphere 
after co-mingling with the clinker cooler exhaust?
    A3. Based on the description provided in Argos' letter, the 
Harleyville Kiln Coal Mill is a thermal dryer within the meaning of 
60.251(r)(1) and thus, for the reasons explained in response to 
question 1, above, EPA determines it is subject to the applicable 
requirements of subpart Y in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(a), Sec.  
60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a). Regarding PC NESHAP and subpart DDDD, 
for the reasons discussed in the response to question 1 we maintain 
that the performance standards for the emissions from CISWI waste 
burning kilns apply when and where they are emitted to the atmosphere. 
And, for the reasons stated in response to Question 2, above, we also 
believe that the clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC 
NESHAP and is subject to the emissions standards for clinker coolers, 
therein. Application of the more stringent emission limits to the 
combined emissions is necessary to assure compliance with each 
applicable standard.
    Q4: Can the PC NESHAP requirements for in-line coal mills be 
applied to the PC Coal Mill and the Kiln Coal Mill at Harleyville, 
independent of the PC NESHAP applicability to the kiln?
    A4: No. Based on the construction date of the kiln provided by 
Argos, EPA determines that the emissions guidelines established under 
subpart DDDD, implemented through a state or federal plan (as 
applicable), will apply unless the waste-burning kiln ceases burning 
solid waste at least 6 months prior to the CISWI part DDDD compliance 
date. Therefore, the kiln is not subject to the PC NESHAP and instead 
it is subject to subpart DDDD. Coal mills are not subject to the 
requirements of the PC NESHAP if the kiln is not a PC NESHAP kiln 
affected

[[Page 50287]]

facility in accordance with section Sec.  63.1340(b)(1).
    Q5: If the PC NESHAP requirements for the kiln (which includes the 
coal mills) are not applicable, are the emissions from the Harleyville 
coal mills only subject to the subpart Y concentration and opacity 
standards?
    A5: No. The kiln emissions are routed through the coal mills so the 
subpart DDDD requirements will apply to the emissions exiting the coal 
mills, in addition to the subpart Y requirements.
    Q6: Do the requirements of Subpart DDDD apply to the Harleyville 
CISWI kiln emissions routed through the in-line coal mills (i.e. the PC 
Coal Mill and the Kiln Coal Mill) associated with the waste burning 
kiln at the mills that were in place prior to April 2008?
    A6: Yes. Any re-routing or commingling of CISWI kiln emissions must 
not result in uncontrolled emissions directly to the atmosphere. We 
interpret subpart DDDD (or NSPS CCCC, when applicable) to continue to 
apply to all of the CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions, even if those 
emissions are routed through an in-line coal mill or other device prior 
to exhaust to the atmosphere. Therefore, regardless of the disposition 
of in-line coal mills as part of the waste burning kiln, the subpart 
DDDD standards applicable to waste-burning kilns apply to the emissions 
of the Harleyville kiln when and where they are emitted to the 
atmosphere.
    Q7. Which emissions standards (subpart Y, PC NESHAP and/or subpart 
DDDD) apply to the emissions from stack 2 at the Roberta Cement Plant 
located in Calera, Alabama, when the CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions 
are routed through the coal mill and used to provide heat for drying of 
the coal before being emitted to the atmosphere?
    A7: Based on the information provided by Argos, EPA determines that 
the Roberta coal mill is a thermal dryer within the meaning of Sec.  
60.251(r)(1) and is subject to the provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  
60.252(a), Sec.  60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a) of subpart Y.
    Q8: Which emissions standards apply to the emissions from stack 1 
at the Roberta Cement Plant located in Calera, Alabama, wherein the 
clinker cooler emissions are combined with the kiln emissions and sent 
to the raw mill to provide heat for drying before being emitted to the 
atmosphere?
    A9: Argos's letter acknowledges that the Roberta in-line kiln/raw 
mill is a subpart DDDD affected facility. Also, for the same reasons as 
discussed in the response to Question 2 for Harleyville Cement Plant, 
the Roberta clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP. 
Argos must either comply with the most stringent standard applicable to 
the various emissions streams or establish a mechanism to apportion 
emissions to the various operations and seek an alternative methodology 
for determining compliance under section 60.8(b).

     Dated: July 10, 2015.
Edward J. Messina,
Director, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office 
of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-20514 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P