Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program, 95585-95591 [2016-31235]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9956–57–OECA] Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: 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. SUMMARY: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) data system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under ‘‘Air’’ at: https:// www2.epa.gov/compliance/resourcesand-guidance-documents-complianceassistance. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564–7027, or by email at: malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions about individual applicability determinations, monitoring decisions or regulatory interpretations, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. The EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). The EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. The EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations. The EPA currently compiles EPAissued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric 95585 ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is a data system on the Internet with over three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. Today’s notice comprises a summary of 30 such documents added to the ADI on December 6, 2016. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under ‘‘Air’’ at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/ resources-and-guidance-documentscompliance-assistance. Summary of Headers and Abstracts The following table identifies the control number for each document posted on the ADI data system on December 6, 2016; the applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) For example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make a previously non-binding document binding. ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON DECEMBER 6, 2016 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Control No. Categories Subparts 1500007 ............. 1500050 ............. NSPS ............................ MACT, NESHAP, NSPS. NSPS ............................ NSPS ............................ NSPS ............................ NSPS ............................ NSPS ............................ Eb ................................. A, Db, JJJJJJ ............... Waiver of System Operational Limits During Performance Test. Extension Request for Initial Performance Test at Coal-Fired Boiler. Ja .................................. IIII ................................. KKK, OOOO, VV, VVa Ja .................................. CCCC, DDDD .............. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Flares at a Petroleum Refinery. Regulatory Interpretation for Bi-fuel Engine Kits. Applicability Determination for a Natural Gas Processing Plant. Applicability Determination for a Condensate Splitter Processing Facility. Applicability Determination for Thermal Oxidizer. 1500053 1500061 1500075 1500076 1500077 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Title Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1 95586 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON DECEMBER 6, 2016—Continued Control No. Categories Subparts Title 1500078 ............. NSPS ............................ OOO ............................. 1500079 ............. 1500080 ............. NSPS ............................ NSPS ............................ DD ................................ JJJ ................................ 1500084 ............. NSPS ............................ 1600001 ............. 1600002 ............. 1600005 ............. GACT, MACT, NESHAP, NSPS. NSPS ............................ NSPS ............................ KKK, NNN, OOOO, RRR. CCCC, DDDDD, JJJJJJ Applicability Determination for Equipment Replacement at Salt Recovery Production Line. Applicability Determination for Wire Screen Column Dryers. Applicability Determination for Closed Loop Dry to Dry Cleaning Equipment. Alternative Monitoring for Vent Streams Flow Monitoring and Pilot Light Monitoring. Applicability Determination for a Stoker Boiler. 1600006 ............. NSPS ............................ LLLL ............................. 1600007 ............. NSPS ............................ Ja .................................. 1600008 ............. NSPS ............................ J, Ja .............................. M150035 ............ M150038 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... MACT, NESHAP .......... HHHHHHH ................... N ................................... M150039 M150040 M160001 M160002 M160003 M160004 Z150003 Z150007 MACT, MACT, MACT, MACT, MACT, MACT, MACT, MACT, DDDDD ........................ DDDDD ........................ RRR .............................. DDDD, DDDDD ............ DDDDD ........................ BBBBB ......................... BBBBBB ....................... ZZZZ ............................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ Z150008 ............ Z150012 ............ Z160001 ............ NESHAP NESHAP NESHAP NESHAP NESHAP NESHAP NESHAP NESHAP .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... MACT, NESHAP, NSPS. GACT, MACT, NESHAP. GACT, MACT, NESHAP. IIII, JJJJ, ZZZZ ............. JJJJJJ ........................... DDDDDDD ................... sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Abstracts Abstract for [1500007] Q: Will the EPA grant a waiver to the large municipal waste combustor (MWC) at Covanta Marion, Inc. (CMI) in Brooks, Oregon, pursuant to its authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2) for the combustor unit load level limitations, under 40 CFR 60.53b(c)(1) for the particulate matter control device inlet temperature, and under 40 CFR 60.58b(m)(2)(ii) for the average mass carbon feed rate, for the two weeks preceding, and during the annual dioxin/furan and mercury performance tests for the purpose of evaluating system performance? A: Yes. For the purpose of evaluating system performance, the EPA agrees to waive the following operational limits imposed to large municipal waste combustors under the Federal Plan at subpart FFF, part 62, pursuant to its authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2): (1) MWC load level (steam generation rate), (2) flue gas temperatures at the inlet to the particulate matter control device, and (3) activated carbon injection rate (mass carbon feed rate). These VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 OOO ............................. LLLL ............................. Extension Request for Performance Test at Sand Mine. Alternative Monitoring for Granular Activated Carbon and Fugitive Ash Monitoring at Sewage Sludge Incinerator. Alternative Monitoring for Wet Electrostatic Precipitator at Sewage Sludge Incinerator. Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Flares at Chemical Plant. Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Portable Temporary Thermal Oxidizer Units at Refinery Degassing Operations. Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber at Polyvinyl Chloride Plant. Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Air Pollution Control Device at Chrome Plating Facility. Alternative Monitoring for Wet Scrubbers at Pulp and Paper Mill. Alternative Monitoring for Wet Venturi Scrubber and Power Boiler. Applicability Determination for an Aluminum Chip Dryer. Applicability Determination for Drying Kilns and Boilers. Applicability Determination for a Biomass Boiler Sub-Categorization. Applicability Determination for Semiconductor Facility. Alternative Monitoring for Internal Floating Roof Tanks. Regulatory Interpretation of Duke Energy Emergency Generator Programs. Regulatory Interpretation on Stack Testing for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Regulatory Interpretation of Emissions Test Data for Wood-Fired Boilers. Clarification of Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule. requirements are waived for the two week period preceding, and during the annual dioxin/furan and mercury performance test which is scheduled to take place during the week of June 9, 2014 at the CMI MWC. This waiver is limited to the time frame and operational limits specifically identified above, and all otherwise applicable requirements continue to be in effect during this period. Abstract for [1500050] Q: May the Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB) in Alaska have an extension to the required initial performance test deadlines for a recently constructed Boiler 6A subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Db and 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ under the force majeure provisions in 40 CFR 60.2, 60.8(a)(1) through (4); 63.2, and 60.7(a)(4)(i) through (iii)? A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request does not meet the definition of a ‘‘force majeure event’’. The EPA cannot conclude that the delay in full operation of B6A in sufficient time to conduct the required initial performance tests was beyond the control of the EAFB; therefore, the EPA PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 is denying the EAFB’s request to extend the April 26, 2015, deadline for conducting the initial performance testing of B6A. Abstract for [1500053] Q: Will the EPA approve alternatives to the quality assurance testing requirements, required by 40 CFR 60.107a(e)(1), for the total reduced sulfur (TRS) flare analyzer at the CHS Inc. refinery in Laurel, Montana? A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the alternative quality assurance testing requirements for the high range TRS portion of the analyzer under 40 CFR 60.l3(i). The conditions for approval of the AMP request to address safety hazards concerns are established in the EPA response letter, which include a laboratory demonstration of linearity for the analyzer. Abstract for [1500061] Q1: Does the installation of the bi-fuel kit on new U.S. EPA-certified units at engines at the USR Corporation in Virginia subject to NSPS subpart IIII affect the manufacturer’s certification? E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices In other words, is the unit still a certified unit? A1: No. The EPA determines that the engine is no longer certified after the conversion and the owner/operator must follow the requirements listed under 40 CFR 60.4211(g) to show compliance with emission standards in NSPS subpart IIII. Q2: Does the installation and operation of the bi-fuel kit on a certified engine constitute tampering under the Clean Air Act, or is this action prohibited by other provisions of the Clean Air Act? A2: No. The EPA determines this action is not prohibited for certified stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines (CI ICE), but after the installation and operation of the kit, the unit is no longer certified. The owner/operator must show compliance with emission standards by following requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.4211(g). Q3: If a manufacturer’s certification is affected for an engine, what specific requirements must be performed to ensure compliance with emission standards under NSPS subpart IIII? URS requests a determination as to the testing procedures required for a facility with a fleet of identical engines which have been installed with bi-fuel units. The engines are identical in size, horsepower, model year, etc. The test would determine compliance with NSPS subpart IIII and would represent compliance for all the identical engines for the client. It is URS’ contention that since the engines are identical in every way, it would be unnecessary and cost prohibitive to test all of the engines. Can a representative engine test satisfy the testing requirements for a fleet of identical engines for the same client? A3: No. The testing requirements are listed in 40 CFR 60.4211(g). An initial performance test must be conducted for stationary CI ICE less than or equal to 500 horsepower (HP). For stationary CI ICE greater than 500 horsepower, the owner/operator must conduct an initial test, and subsequent testing every 8,760 hours of operation or every 3 years, whichever comes first. The EPA determines that a representative engine test cannot satisfy the testing requirements for a fleet of identical engines for one client, unless the owner/ operator has requested and received approval of a waiver of the performance testing requirements, listed under 40 CFR 60.8(b). Abstract for [1500075] Q1: Does the NSPS subpart OOOO apply to the storage facilities at the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 Williams Four Corners LLC Ignacio Gas Plant located near Ignacio, Colorado? A1: Yes. Based on the information provided, the EPA understands the storage facilities referred to are the portion of the plant which stores final product (propane, butane, etc.) prior to offsite transport. As such, the storage facilities at the Ignacio Gas Plant are a process unit and an affected facility under subpart OOOO. Q2: What value should the Ignacio Gas Plant use for ‘‘B’’ in the equation for determining whether a ‘‘capital expenditure’’ has occurred, and thus a modification under subpart OOOO at the Ignacio Gas Plant? A2: For determining whether a modification has occurred at the Ignacio Gas Plant under subpart OOOO, in the equation for capital expenditure in 40 CFR 60.481(a), the value to be used for ‘‘B’’ is 4.5 and the value to be used for ‘‘X’’ is 2011 minus the year of construction. Abstract for [1500076] Q1: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart Ja applies to the condensate splitter located at the Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate LCC (KMCC) Facility, a petroleum refinery located in Galena Park, Texas? A1: Yes. Based upon the information provided, the EPA determines that the KMCC condensate splitter facility is a refinery under subpart Ja because it receives and distills a crude oil and condensate hydrocarbon mixture into various refined petroleum products. Based on review of the company’s information, the EPA concludes that the raw material feedstock, processes employed, and products generated meet the definition of a petroleum refinery provided at 40 CFR 60.101a. Abstract for [1500077] Q1: Does the EPA determine that the thermal oxidizer at the 3M Company (3M) facility in Cordova, Illinois is subject to the Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC? A1: No. The EPA determines that the thermal oxidizer is not subject to subpart CCCC because 3M commenced construction of the thermal oxidizer before the threshold date for a new CISWI unit. Q2: Does the EPA determine that a fluorinated liquid organic chemical byproduct from a chemical manufacturing process unit at the facility which is atomized in the thermal oxidizer is not a ‘‘solid waste’’ as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265? PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 95587 A2: Yes. Based on the information provided, the byproduct liquid appears to meet the Non Hazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) criteria and would be considered a non-waste ingredient under the 40 CFR part 241 regulations. Abstract for [1500078] Q1: Does the EPA determine that the ‘‘like-for-like’’ replacement exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d) is applicable to the replacement of affected facilities on production lines that were constructed after August 31, 1983 at the 3M Company salt recovery production line located in Elyria, Ohio? A1: Yes. The EPA determines that the ‘‘like-for-like’’ replacement exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(1) of subpart OOO is applicable to ‘‘affected facilities’’ (those constructed after August 31, 1983) with regards to the subpart OOO amendments promulgated on April 28, 2009 based on 3M’s description that the Weigh Conveyors A and B are equal or smaller in size to and perform the same function as the original conveyors, and emissions at the conveyors did not increase, and as long as the remaining affected facilities in the salt recovery production line have not been replaced since April 22, 2008. Q2: What emission standards apply to a production line constructed after August 31, 1983 that includes affected facilities constructed as a ‘‘like-for-like’’ replacement after April 22, 2008, assuming that all of the affected facilities on the production line have not been replaced as provided in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(3)? A2: A production line constructed after August 31, 1983 that includes affected facilities constructed as a ‘‘likefor-like’’ replacement after April 22, 2008 is subject to the original subpart OOO rule standards promulgated on August 1, 1985, and not the 2009 subpart OOO rule standards, as long as all affected facilities on the production line have not been replaced. Abstract for [1500079] Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart DD applies to column dryers constructed of woven wire screen at the Riceland Foods facility in Stuttgart, Arkansas (Riceland)? A: No. The EPA determines that although the Riceland facility is a grain terminal elevator subject to subpart DD, the column dryers in question are a new subcategory of grain dryers not subject to subpart DD due to its differences in size, type and class of column dryers. The EPA has stated this position in the July 9, 2014 proposed rule for subpart DD and in a new proposed subpart DDa E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1 95588 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices rule, which now includes a definition for ‘‘wire screen column dryers’’. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1500080] Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart JJJ for Petroleum Dry Cleaners applies to closed loop, dry to dry new hydrocarbon equipment at Parrot Cleaners facility in Louisville, Kentucky? A: No. The EPA determines that the dry to dry closed loop machines installed at Parrot Cleaners do not meet the definition of a ‘‘petroleum dry cleaner,’’ in that they do not use solvent in a ‘‘combination of washers, dryers, filters, stills, and settling tanks’’ since these are single unit machines. The EPA intent to regulate dry cleaning machines with separate units (i.e., transfer machines with separate washers and dryers) in subpart JJJ is evidenced by the equipment standard requiring separate ‘‘solvent recovery dryers’’ in section 60.622 and in the testing procedures in section 60.624, as well as in other EPA statements regarding the petroleum solvent drycleaning industry. Therefore, subpart JJJ does not apply to the dry to dry machines installed at the facility. Abstract for [1500084] Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of a lock and seal configuration in lieu of flow indicators to monitor VOC containing vent streams routed from distillation facilities to plant flares at the Aux Sable Liquid Products (ASLP) facility in Morris, Illinois to demonstrate compliance with requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart NNN? A1: Yes. The EPA approves locking or sealing leak-proof bypass valves in the closed position in lieu of flow indicators. ASLP will conduct monthly monitoring of the lock or seal valves to ensure that they function and are kept in the closed position. ASLP will maintain a log of each lock or seal inspection and comply with the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2), 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(i), and 40 CFR 60.703 (b)(2)(ii) of NSPS subpart RRR for the purpose of complying with NSPS NNN. In addition, ASLP will need to comply with the monitoring and record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 60.705(d)(2) and (s). Q2: Does the EPA approve the use of infrared cameras to monitor the continuous presence of a pilot light in lieu of a thermocouple or ultraviolet beam sensor, in the ASLP Morris, Illinois facility? A2: No. The EPA does not approve the use of an infrared camera pilot monitor (PM) to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.663(b), 40 CFR 60.703(b) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 and 40 CFR 60.18(e)(2) because ASLP is unable to prove that their pilot monitor can continuously monitor the presence of a pilot flame. The PM is able to detect the flare flame accurately and reliability when the vent gas is flowing, but it has not proven to have sufficient resolution for a situation where the pilot light is not present and a flare flame is present with vent gas flowing. Abstract for [1600001] Q1: Does the EPA determine that the stoker boiler at Fibrominn LLC (Fibrominn) in Benson, Minnesota is subject to the Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC (CISWI NSPS)? A1: No. Although the EPA concludes that the boiler is a CISWI unit, Fibrominn commenced construction of its boiler on or before June 4, 2010 and there is no evidence that it has been modified or reconstructed after August 7, 2013. Therefore, the EPA concludes that Fibrominn’s boiler is not subject to the CISWI NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR 60.2010 and 60.2015. Q2: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn’s boiler is subject to the Federal Plan Requirements for CISWI Units That Commenced Construction On or Before November 30, 1999, 40 CFR part 62 subpart III (CISWI FIP)? A2: No. Fibrominn’s boiler is not subject to the CISWI FIP because Fibrominn commenced construction between November 30, 1999, and June 4, 2010. The CISWI NSPS applies to each CISWI unit that commenced construction after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or modification after August 7, 2013. Q3: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn’s boiler is exempt from the requirements in the CISWI FIP? A3: No. Fibrominn’s boiler is not subject to the CISWI FIP. Therefore, the question of whether Fibrominn’s boiler is exempt from the CISWI FIP is moot. Q4: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn can avoid being subject to the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (Major Source Boiler MACT) by taking federally enforceable limits on its potential to emit prior to the compliance date, January 31, 2016? A4: Yes. The EPA agrees that Fibrominn can take federally enforceable limits on its potential to emit to avoid being subject to the Major Source Boiler MACT. By doing so, Fibrominn would become subject to the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and Institutional Boilers Area Sources, 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ (Area Source Boiler MACT). Q5: If Fibrominn submits a formal application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to amend Fibrominn’s existing Title V permit in order to take a synthetic minor limit, and Fibrominn submits the application to the MPCA prior to January 31, 2016, the compliance date for the Major Source Boiler MACT, does this constitute Fibrominn’s ‘‘taking a synthetic minor limit’’ in terms of eligibility to avoid being subject to the Major Source Boiler MACT? A5: No. Fibrominn’s submittal of its application for modification of its Title V permit does not constitute taking federally enforceable limits on its potential to emit. Q6: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn remain subject to the casespecific MACT in its 2002 Title V permit after the compliance date for the Major Source Boiler MACT? A6: Yes. The EPA notes that more than one MACT standard can apply to the same equipment or operation. Unless the case specific MACT is removed from the permit, Fibrominn would remain subject to the case specific MACT and either the Major Source or Area Source Boiler MACT. Abstract for [1600002] Q: Does the EPA approve an extension of time to conduct a performance test required by NSPS subpart OOO based on a force majeure event at the Hi-Crush Augusta, LLC industrial sand mine and processing plant in August, Wisconsin? A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request does not meet the definition of a ‘‘force majeure event’’ under 40 CFR 60.2. Abstract for [1600005] Q1: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for the granular activated carbon adsorption system used to control mercury emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL at the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control Facility in Cromwell, Connecticut? A1: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett’s AMP for the carbon bed under 40 CFR 60.13(i) for the granular activated carbon adsorption system (‘‘carbon bed’’) used to control mercury emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to subpart LLLL. The alternative monitoring plan that Mattabassett has proposed, combined with the facilities construction permit, meets the requirement of a similar type of monitoring application for carbon E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices beds used to control mercury under 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE. Q2: Does the EPA approve Mattabassett’s site-specific ash handling monitoring plan to meet the fugitive emission limits specified in 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL, considering that the ash at the facility is collected using an entirely wet system? A2: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett’s site-specific plan for fugitive ash monitoring that consists of daily observations of the ash lagoons. Abstract for [1600006] Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used to control air emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL located at the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control Facility (Mattabassett) in Cromwell, Connecticut? A: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett’s AMP to monitor the total water flow rate of the influent to the WESP on an 8 hour block basis and to set the parameter limit at 90 percent of the 8 hour flow recorded during the initial performance test. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1600007] Q: Does the EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan to use the same high level calibration gas for both the low range and high level range for two dual range hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitors installed on two flares subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Shell Chemical LP plant in Saraland, Alabama? A: Yes. The EPA responded to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management that based upon the expectation that the majority of H2S readings will be made on the lower range of the dual range monitors, a demonstration that the monitors have a linear response across their entire range of operation, and the toxicity of H2S, the proposal is acceptable. Abstract for [1600008] Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitoring plan (AMP) for portable temporary thermal oxidizer units (TOUs) that control emissions during tank degassing and vapor control projects subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J and 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at Tristar Global Energy Solutions (Tristar) petroleum refineries located in EPA Region 4? A: Yes. The EPA approves the AMP request since installing and operating an H2S continuous emission monitoring system would be impractical due to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 short term nature of the degassing operations performed by Tristar. In addition, Tristar’s proposed monitoring alternative is consistent with previously approved alternatives for other tank degassing service providers. Abstract for [M150035] Q1: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring request (AMR) for the purpose of monitoring pressure drop under requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHHHH Table 5, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Copolymer Production at Major Sources NESHAP at the Oxy Vinyls, LP Pasadena PVC plant in Pasadena, Texas? A1: Yes. The EPA approves the AMR to substitute ambient pressure for the measured outlet pressure of the scrubber. Since the scrubber is a low pressure scrubber, the outlet of the scrubber system operates at ambient pressure. Any pressure changes in the scrubber would be indicated by changes to the inlet pressure, which will be directly monitored. Therefore, the calculation of pressure drop will be determined by the difference between inlet pressure and ambient pressure. The operating limit for pressure drop has been established using engineering assessments and manufacturer’s recommendations, which is allowed by 40 CFR 63.11935(d)(2). Scrubber pressure drop will be recorded in accordance with the approved AMR during a performance test, along with other operating parameters required by Table 5 of subpart HHHHHHH. The frequency and content of pressure drop monitoring, recording, and reporting will not change as a result of the approved AMR. Abstract for [M150038] Q: Does the EPA approve of alternative work practice and monitoring procedures for the three enclosed hard chromium plating tanks to be installed that will be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart N at the Har-Conn Chrome Company (Har-Conn) facility in West Hartford, Connecticut? A: Yes. The EPA approves the HarConn alternative monitoring procedures to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the operation and maintenance (‘‘O&M’’) practices and monitoring specified in Table 1 of 63.342 as they are not feasible for the application to the Palm Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE) used by the enclosed hard chromium tanks. Har-Conn will use the operation and maintenance (O&M) practices and manual recommended by the manufacturer of the Palm Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE), as well as daily, weekly, PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 95589 monthly, quarterly, and annual compliance monitoring logs for the EED. Abstract for [M150039] Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan to the use of an alternative control device parameter other than one of the parameters required at 40 CFR 63.7525(f) and Tables 4, 7, and 8 in subpart DDDDD for wet scrubbers at the SAPPI Fine Paper North America (SAPPI) facility in Skowhegan, Maine? A: Yes. The EPA approves SAPPI’s alternative monitoring request for the wet scrubber to monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure in lieu of the pressure drop across the wet scrubber used to control emissions from the Number 2 Power Boiler. Based on the data provided showing strong correlation between spray tower liquid recirculation pressure and flow, as well as data that demonstrates a poor correlation between pressure drop of the scrubber and heat input to the boiler (an indicator of emissions), EPA agrees that this method may be used in this situation in lieu of monitoring pressure drop across the scrubber. In addition, this method is consistent with similar boiler monitoring applications. Abstract for [M150040] Q1: Does the EPA approve separate sets of parameter monitoring thresholds for the scrubber liquid flow rate and pressure drop of the wet venturi scrubber subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD at the Verso Corporation (Verso) facility in Jay, Maine under two operating scenarios: (1) Periods when the unit burns biomass and combined biomass/fossil-fuel burning at boiler capacities up to 480 MMBtu, and (2) periods when the unit burns only fossil fuel at boiler capacities equal to or less than 240 MMBtu, on a 30-day rolling average and on a daily block average when burning only fossil fuels? A1: Yes. The EPA approves Verso’s alternative monitoring request for both operating scenarios. Q2: Does the EPA approve for Verso when burning exclusively natural gas to operate without engaging the wet venturi scrubber after startup and exclude periods when the wet scrubber is not engaged due to burning gas from the 30-day compliance averages? A2: Yes. The EPA approves the request to allow the unit to operate without engaging the wet scrubber and to exclude parameter monitoring data during periods when only natural gas is fired, provided that Verso can demonstrate through existing data or emissions testing that the unit complies E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1 95590 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices with the PM, Hg, and HCl emissions standards while firing only natural gas. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [M160001] Q: Would an aluminum chip drying process at the Remelt Scientific facility (Remelt) in Port Charlotte, Florida, that is used to remove water meet the definition of ‘‘thermal chip dryer’’ in 40 CFR part 63 subpart RRR? A: No. Remelt’s chip drying process does the not meet the definition of ‘‘thermal chip dryer’’ and is therefore not subject to subpart RRR. Based on the description that the process operates at temperatures of 200F and 235F, and the oil that remains on the chips has an evaporation temperature of over 300F, we believe that the process would be used solely to remove water from the aluminum chips since it would not be operating at temperatures sufficient to remove the machining oil that remains on the chips. Abstract for [M160002] Q1: The ArborTech Forest Products, Inc. (ArborTech) facility in Blackstone, Virginia is planning to increase its lumber production such that the potential to emit for methanol would be greater than 10 tons per year. Does the EPA determine that the facility would be reclassified as a major source for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)? A1: Yes. The EPA determines that if ArborTech increases the air permit limit on production and potential methanol emissions would exceed 10 tons/year that the facility would qualify as a major source and would need to be reclassified as a major source in the State permit. Q2: Does the EPA determine that ArborTech would be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDD, Plywood and Composite Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (PCWP MACT), and would the dry kilns be considered an affected source immediately upon issuance of the revised permit/reclassification to a major source of HAPs? A2: Yes. The EPA determines that ArborTech would be subject to the subpart DDDD rule on the date of issuance of the revised permit when the facility would be reclassified as a major source of HAPs, and therefore the dry kilns would be an affected source under the rule. Q3: Does the EPA determine that if the wood-fired boilers’ exhaust is routed to the lumber kiln(s) and used to dry lumber the boilers would be an ‘‘affected source’’ under the PCWP MACT and subject to the rule? A3: The EPA determines that if Arbortech becomes a major source of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 HAPs, and if ArborTech sent 100 percent of the exhaust from its woodfired boilers to its lumber drying kiln(s) to help dry lumber, then the boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major Source Boiler MACT), but would instead be subject to the PCWP MACT. Q4: When does the EPA determine that Arbortech would become subject to the Major Source Boiler MACT? A4: The EPA determines that if ArborTech were to become a major source of HAPs after the Major Source Boiler MACT initial compliance date for existing sources of January 31, 2016, then ArborTech would be required to bring its existing boilers into compliance with the Major Source Boiler MACT within three years after ArborTech became a major source, unless ArborTech had previously sent 100% of the exhaust from its boiler(s) to its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and their exhaust streams affected sources under the PCWP MACT. If Arbortech were to become a major source prior to the Major Source Boiler MACT initial compliance date for existing sources of January 31, 2016, then its existing boilers would be required to be in compliance as of January 31, 2016, unless ArborTech had previously sent 100% of the exhaust from its boiler(s) to its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and their exhaust streams affected sources under the PCWP MACT. Abstract for [M160003] Q: Does the EPA approve the recategorization of Boiler No. 9 at the Finch Paper, LLC (Finch) integrated pulp and paper manufacturing facility located in Glen Falls, New York from the wet biomass stoker subcategory to the hybrid suspension grate boiler subcategory pursuant to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major Source Boiler MACT)? A: Yes. Based on the information submitted on the design and operation of the Boiler No. 9, the EPA determines that it meets the definition of ‘‘hybrid suspension grate boiler’’ found in 40 CFR 63.7575. Therefore, Boiler No. 9 will be subject to the rule as it pertains to existing hybrid suspension grate boilers. Abstract for [M160004] Q: Does the EPA determine that the Truesense Imaging, Inc. (Truesense) semiconductor fabrication business (Semiconductor Business) located at its microelectronics wafer fabrication facility (FAB facility) in Rochester, NY is subject to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing, 40 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 CFR part 63 subpart BBBBB (Semiconductor MACT)? A: Yes. The EPA determines that the FAB facility, currently owned and operated by Truesense, is and continues to be an existing source with compliance required as of 2006 and must continue to comply with the Semiconductor MACT, even after a sale, as long as the source otherwise continues to meet the definition of an affected facility (i.e., major source status not withstanding) consistent with the ‘‘Once In Always In’’ policy. Abstract for [Z150003] Q: Does the EPA approve Monroe Interstate Pipeline Company (MIPC) alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service inspections in lieu of the out-of-service inspection requirements for specific types of internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb, NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels), at the MIPC Chelsea Tank Farm in Aston, PA? A: Yes. In accordance with 40 CFR 60.13 and 63.8(f), EPA approves MIPC alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service internal inspection methodology for the IFR storage tanks subject to NSPS Kb and GD GACT specified in the AMP request (tanks that have geodesic dome roofs equipped with skylights for enhanced natural lighting and aluminum honeycomb panel decks constructed decks with mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals liquid surface) to meet the internal out-of-service inspection required at intervals no greater than 10 years by the applicable regulations. MIPC will be able to have visual access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the top side of the IFR for the specified storage tanks, as well as properly inspect and repair the requisite components while these tanks are still in-service, consistent with the inspection and repair requirements established under NSPS subpart Kb. In addition, MIPC internal inspection methodology includes identifying and addressing any gaps of more than 1⁄8 inch between any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal; complying with the fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time frame requirement in NSPS subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and implementing a full top-side and bottom-side out-of-service inspection of the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices any reason, and keep records for at least five years. Abstract for [Z150007] Q: Does the EPA determine that the stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) participating in two Duke Energy Carolinas nonresidential demand response programs meet the definition of ‘‘emergency stationary RICE’’ in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (‘‘RICE NESHAP’’)? A: No. The EPA determines that the terms of Duke’s demand response programs do not meet all of the operational limits on emergency engines in the RICE NESHAP. The terms of the programs are consistent with the limitations on emergency demand response. However, an engine must also comply with the definition of ‘‘emergency stationary RICE’’ and all of the operational restrictions in 40 CFR 63.6640(f) to be considered RICE NESHAP emergency engines. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [Z150008] Q1: Has EPA Method 1 been removed from the reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, or should the engines at Farabee Mechanical in Hickman, Nebraska (Farabee) be following Method 1 for test port locations. A1: No. EPA Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A from the RICE NESHAP should be followed for test port locations. The EPA response letter provides guidance for numerous testing scenarios under NESHAP subpart ZZZZ sources including engines where Method 1 is required but the testing ports do not meet the minimum criteria of Method 1 and engines that are not required to use Method 1 procedures. Q2: Is there any conflict with the RICE NESHAP subpart ZZZZ rule if utilizing test ports at engines for testing purposes? A2: No. The Farabee Mechanical facility was approved to use single-point sampling at NSPS subpart JJJJ sources in lieu of Method 1 for their engines. Single point sampling without a stratification test for nitrogen oxide emissions using Alternative Test Method 87 is allowed under 40 CFR 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ. However, single point sampling for carbon monoxide at NESHAP subpart ZZZZ sources have not yet been broadly approved. Therefore, when Method 1 is not met, a stratification test is to be conducted to show if the site is acceptable to perform the test. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 Abstract for [Z150012] Q: Does the EPA approve the use of the results of a particulate matter emission test conducted on December 2014 for two new wood-fired boilers at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ as being representative of ‘‘initial conditions’’ because the first test, conducted in February 2014, was not conducted under normal operating conditions? A: Yes. The EPA approves the use of emissions test data from the second test as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11220(b) since it is representative of normal operating conditions, and therefore Norwich University may avoid the requirement to test particulate matter every three years. Abstract for [Z160001] Q: Does the EPA accept the proposal by Tyson Foods Inc. to use a louvered door system, where the louvers would only open inward and would only open when negative pressure is in place, to meet the work practice requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDDDD, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule), to keep exterior doors in the immediate affected areas shut except during normal ingress and egress, as practicable? A: Yes. The EPA determines that the use of the louvered door system would meet the requirements of subpart DDDDDDD. The louvered door system described would maintain the function of the closed doors by only opening the louvers to the interior of the building when the doors are under negative pressure, drawing air into the building. Under these conditions the doors would be serving the purpose of minimizing the release of prepared feed dust emissions to the outside, which is the intent of the work practice standard in Section 63.11621(a)(1)(iii). Dated: November 10, 2016. David A. Hindin, Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. [FR Doc. 2016–31235 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 95591 FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 2017 Meeting Schedule Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will hold its meetings on the following dates throughout 2017, unless otherwise noted. February 22–23, 2017 April 26–27, 2017 June 21–22, 2017 August 30–31, 2017 October 25–26, 2017 December 20–21, 2017 The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to the following topics: Accounting and Reporting of Government Land Budget and Accrual Reconciliation Concepts—The Financial Report DoD Implementation Guidance Request Leases Risk Assumed Tax Expenditures Any other topics as needed Unless otherwise noted, FASAB meetings begin at 9 a.m. and conclude before 5 p.m. and are held at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) at 441 G Street NW. in Room 7C13. Agendas and briefing materials are available at http://www.fasab.gov/ briefing-materials/ approximately one week before the meetings. Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO building security requires advance notice of your attendance. If you wish to attend a FASAB meeting, please pre-register on our Web site at http://www.fasab.gov/pre-registration/ no later than 8 a.m. the Tuesday before the meeting to be observed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512–7350. Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92–463. Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95585-95591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31235]



[[Page 95585]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9956-57-OECA]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a 
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the 
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. The 
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control 
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources 
may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to 
written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Section 
111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek 
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from 
the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). The EPA's written responses to these 
inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. 
Furthermore, the EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad 
range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a 
whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the 
type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the 
regulation. The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly 
referred to as regulatory interpretations.
    The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In 
addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to 
the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The 
ADI is a data system on the Internet with over three thousand EPA 
letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and 
stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and 
memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control 
number, or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 30 such documents added to 
the ADI on December 6, 2016. This notice lists the subject and header 
of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the 
letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be 
obtained from the ADI on the Internet through the Resources and 
Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act 
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the control number for each document 
posted on the ADI data system on December 6, 2016; the applicable 
category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 
(as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the 
document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) For 
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination 
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport 
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

             ADI Determinations Uploaded on December 6, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Control No.          Categories        Subparts          Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1500007..............  NSPS...........  Eb.............  Waiver of
                                                          System
                                                          Operational
                                                          Limits During
                                                          Performance
                                                          Test.
1500050..............  MACT, NESHAP,    A, Db, JJJJJJ..  Extension
                        NSPS.                             Request for
                                                          Initial
                                                          Performance
                                                          Test at Coal-
                                                          Fired Boiler.
1500053..............  NSPS...........  Ja.............  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring
                                                          Plan for
                                                          Flares at a
                                                          Petroleum
                                                          Refinery.
1500061..............  NSPS...........  IIII...........  Regulatory
                                                          Interpretation
                                                          for Bi-fuel
                                                          Engine Kits.
1500075..............  NSPS...........  KKK, OOOO, VV,   Applicability
                                         VVa.             Determination
                                                          for a Natural
                                                          Gas Processing
                                                          Plant.
1500076..............  NSPS...........  Ja.............  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for a
                                                          Condensate
                                                          Splitter
                                                          Processing
                                                          Facility.
1500077..............  NSPS...........  CCCC, DDDD.....  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for Thermal
                                                          Oxidizer.

[[Page 95586]]

 
1500078..............  NSPS...........  OOO............  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for Equipment
                                                          Replacement at
                                                          Salt Recovery
                                                          Production
                                                          Line.
1500079..............  NSPS...........  DD.............  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for Wire
                                                          Screen Column
                                                          Dryers.
1500080..............  NSPS...........  JJJ............  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for Closed
                                                          Loop Dry to
                                                          Dry Cleaning
                                                          Equipment.
1500084..............  NSPS...........  KKK, NNN, OOOO,  Alternative
                                         RRR.             Monitoring for
                                                          Vent Streams
                                                          Flow
                                                          Monitoring and
                                                          Pilot Light
                                                          Monitoring.
1600001..............  GACT, MACT,      CCCC, DDDDD,     Applicability
                        NESHAP, NSPS.    JJJJJJ.          Determination
                                                          for a Stoker
                                                          Boiler.
1600002..............  NSPS...........  OOO............  Extension
                                                          Request for
                                                          Performance
                                                          Test at Sand
                                                          Mine.
1600005..............  NSPS...........  LLLL...........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring for
                                                          Granular
                                                          Activated
                                                          Carbon and
                                                          Fugitive Ash
                                                          Monitoring at
                                                          Sewage Sludge
                                                          Incinerator.
1600006..............  NSPS...........  LLLL...........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring for
                                                          Wet
                                                          Electrostatic
                                                          Precipitator
                                                          at Sewage
                                                          Sludge
                                                          Incinerator.
1600007..............  NSPS...........  Ja.............  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring of
                                                          Hydrogen
                                                          Sulfide from
                                                          Flares at
                                                          Chemical
                                                          Plant.
1600008..............  NSPS...........  J, Ja..........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring of
                                                          Hydrogen
                                                          Sulfide from
                                                          Portable
                                                          Temporary
                                                          Thermal
                                                          Oxidizer Units
                                                          at Refinery
                                                          Degassing
                                                          Operations.
M150035..............  MACT, NESHAP...  HHHHHHH........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring for
                                                          Scrubber at
                                                          Polyvinyl
                                                          Chloride
                                                          Plant.
M150038..............  MACT, NESHAP...  N..............  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring
                                                          Procedures for
                                                          Air Pollution
                                                          Control Device
                                                          at Chrome
                                                          Plating
                                                          Facility.
M150039..............  MACT, NESHAP...  DDDDD..........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring for
                                                          Wet Scrubbers
                                                          at Pulp and
                                                          Paper Mill.
M150040..............  MACT, NESHAP...  DDDDD..........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring for
                                                          Wet Venturi
                                                          Scrubber and
                                                          Power Boiler.
M160001..............  MACT, NESHAP...  RRR............  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for an
                                                          Aluminum Chip
                                                          Dryer.
M160002..............  MACT, NESHAP...  DDDD, DDDDD....  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for Drying
                                                          Kilns and
                                                          Boilers.
M160003..............  MACT, NESHAP...  DDDDD..........  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for a Biomass
                                                          Boiler Sub-
                                                          Categorization
                                                          .
M160004..............  MACT, NESHAP...  BBBBB..........  Applicability
                                                          Determination
                                                          for
                                                          Semiconductor
                                                          Facility.
Z150003..............  MACT, NESHAP...  BBBBBB.........  Alternative
                                                          Monitoring for
                                                          Internal
                                                          Floating Roof
                                                          Tanks.
Z150007..............  MACT, NESHAP...  ZZZZ...........  Regulatory
                                                          Interpretation
                                                          of Duke Energy
                                                          Emergency
                                                          Generator
                                                          Programs.
Z150008..............  MACT, NESHAP,    IIII, JJJJ,      Regulatory
                        NSPS.            ZZZZ.            Interpretation
                                                          on Stack
                                                          Testing for
                                                          Reciprocating
                                                          Internal
                                                          Combustion
                                                          Engines.
Z150012..............  GACT, MACT,      JJJJJJ.........  Regulatory
                        NESHAP.                           Interpretation
                                                          of Emissions
                                                          Test Data for
                                                          Wood-Fired
                                                          Boilers.
Z160001..............  GACT, MACT,      DDDDDDD........  Clarification
                        NESHAP.                           of Prepared
                                                          Feeds Area
                                                          Source Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1500007]

    Q: Will the EPA grant a waiver to the large municipal waste 
combustor (MWC) at Covanta Marion, Inc. (CMI) in Brooks, Oregon, 
pursuant to its authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2) for the combustor 
unit load level limitations, under 40 CFR 60.53b(c)(1) for the 
particulate matter control device inlet temperature, and under 40 CFR 
60.58b(m)(2)(ii) for the average mass carbon feed rate, for the two 
weeks preceding, and during the annual dioxin/furan and mercury 
performance tests for the purpose of evaluating system performance?
    A: Yes. For the purpose of evaluating system performance, the EPA 
agrees to waive the following operational limits imposed to large 
municipal waste combustors under the Federal Plan at subpart FFF, part 
62, pursuant to its authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2): (1) MWC load 
level (steam generation rate), (2) flue gas temperatures at the inlet 
to the particulate matter control device, and (3) activated carbon 
injection rate (mass carbon feed rate). These requirements are waived 
for the two week period preceding, and during the annual dioxin/furan 
and mercury performance test which is scheduled to take place during 
the week of June 9, 2014 at the CMI MWC. This waiver is limited to the 
time frame and operational limits specifically identified above, and 
all otherwise applicable requirements continue to be in effect during 
this period.

Abstract for [1500050]

    Q: May the Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB) in Alaska have an 
extension to the required initial performance test deadlines for a 
recently constructed Boiler 6A subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Db and 
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ under the force majeure provisions in 40 
CFR 60.2, 60.8(a)(1) through (4); 63.2, and 60.7(a)(4)(i) through 
(iii)?
    A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request 
does not meet the definition of a ``force majeure event''. The EPA 
cannot conclude that the delay in full operation of B6A in sufficient 
time to conduct the required initial performance tests was beyond the 
control of the EAFB; therefore, the EPA is denying the EAFB's request 
to extend the April 26, 2015, deadline for conducting the initial 
performance testing of B6A.

Abstract for [1500053]

    Q: Will the EPA approve alternatives to the quality assurance 
testing requirements, required by 40 CFR 60.107a(e)(1), for the total 
reduced sulfur (TRS) flare analyzer at the CHS Inc. refinery in Laurel, 
Montana?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the alternative quality 
assurance testing requirements for the high range TRS portion of the 
analyzer under 40 CFR 60.l3(i). The conditions for approval of the AMP 
request to address safety hazards concerns are established in the EPA 
response letter, which include a laboratory demonstration of linearity 
for the analyzer.

Abstract for [1500061]

    Q1: Does the installation of the bi-fuel kit on new U.S. EPA-
certified units at engines at the USR Corporation in Virginia subject 
to NSPS subpart IIII affect the manufacturer's certification?

[[Page 95587]]

In other words, is the unit still a certified unit?
    A1: No. The EPA determines that the engine is no longer certified 
after the conversion and the owner/operator must follow the 
requirements listed under 40 CFR 60.4211(g) to show compliance with 
emission standards in NSPS subpart IIII.
    Q2: Does the installation and operation of the bi-fuel kit on a 
certified engine constitute tampering under the Clean Air Act, or is 
this action prohibited by other provisions of the Clean Air Act?
    A2: No. The EPA determines this action is not prohibited for 
certified stationary compression ignition internal combustion engines 
(CI ICE), but after the installation and operation of the kit, the unit 
is no longer certified. The owner/operator must show compliance with 
emission standards by following requirements listed in 40 CFR 
60.4211(g).
    Q3: If a manufacturer's certification is affected for an engine, 
what specific requirements must be performed to ensure compliance with 
emission standards under NSPS subpart IIII? URS requests a 
determination as to the testing procedures required for a facility with 
a fleet of identical engines which have been installed with bi-fuel 
units. The engines are identical in size, horsepower, model year, etc. 
The test would determine compliance with NSPS subpart IIII and would 
represent compliance for all the identical engines for the client. It 
is URS' contention that since the engines are identical in every way, 
it would be unnecessary and cost prohibitive to test all of the 
engines. Can a representative engine test satisfy the testing 
requirements for a fleet of identical engines for the same client?
    A3: No. The testing requirements are listed in 40 CFR 60.4211(g). 
An initial performance test must be conducted for stationary CI ICE 
less than or equal to 500 horsepower (HP). For stationary CI ICE 
greater than 500 horsepower, the owner/operator must conduct an initial 
test, and subsequent testing every 8,760 hours of operation or every 3 
years, whichever comes first. The EPA determines that a representative 
engine test cannot satisfy the testing requirements for a fleet of 
identical engines for one client, unless the owner/operator has 
requested and received approval of a waiver of the performance testing 
requirements, listed under 40 CFR 60.8(b).

Abstract for [1500075]

    Q1: Does the NSPS subpart OOOO apply to the storage facilities at 
the Williams Four Corners LLC Ignacio Gas Plant located near Ignacio, 
Colorado?
    A1: Yes. Based on the information provided, the EPA understands the 
storage facilities referred to are the portion of the plant which 
stores final product (propane, butane, etc.) prior to offsite 
transport. As such, the storage facilities at the Ignacio Gas Plant are 
a process unit and an affected facility under subpart OOOO.
    Q2: What value should the Ignacio Gas Plant use for ``B'' in the 
equation for determining whether a ``capital expenditure'' has 
occurred, and thus a modification under subpart OOOO at the Ignacio Gas 
Plant?
    A2: For determining whether a modification has occurred at the 
Ignacio Gas Plant under subpart OOOO, in the equation for capital 
expenditure in 40 CFR 60.481(a), the value to be used for ``B'' is 4.5 
and the value to be used for ``X'' is 2011 minus the year of 
construction.

Abstract for [1500076]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart Ja applies to the 
condensate splitter located at the Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate LCC 
(KMCC) Facility, a petroleum refinery located in Galena Park, Texas?
    A1: Yes. Based upon the information provided, the EPA determines 
that the KMCC condensate splitter facility is a refinery under subpart 
Ja because it receives and distills a crude oil and condensate 
hydrocarbon mixture into various refined petroleum products. Based on 
review of the company's information, the EPA concludes that the raw 
material feedstock, processes employed, and products generated meet the 
definition of a petroleum refinery provided at 40 CFR 60.101a.

Abstract for [1500077]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine that the thermal oxidizer at the 3M 
Company (3M) facility in Cordova, Illinois is subject to the Standards 
of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 
(CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC?
    A1: No. The EPA determines that the thermal oxidizer is not subject 
to subpart CCCC because 3M commenced construction of the thermal 
oxidizer before the threshold date for a new CISWI unit.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that a fluorinated liquid organic 
chemical byproduct from a chemical manufacturing process unit at the 
facility which is atomized in the thermal oxidizer is not a ``solid 
waste'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265?
    A2: Yes. Based on the information provided, the byproduct liquid 
appears to meet the Non Hazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) criteria 
and would be considered a non-waste ingredient under the 40 CFR part 
241 regulations.

Abstract for [1500078]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine that the ``like-for-like'' replacement 
exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d) is applicable to the replacement of 
affected facilities on production lines that were constructed after 
August 31, 1983 at the 3M Company salt recovery production line located 
in Elyria, Ohio?
    A1: Yes. The EPA determines that the ``like-for-like'' replacement 
exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(1) of subpart OOO is applicable to 
``affected facilities'' (those constructed after August 31, 1983) with 
regards to the subpart OOO amendments promulgated on April 28, 2009 
based on 3M's description that the Weigh Conveyors A and B are equal or 
smaller in size to and perform the same function as the original 
conveyors, and emissions at the conveyors did not increase, and as long 
as the remaining affected facilities in the salt recovery production 
line have not been replaced since April 22, 2008.
    Q2: What emission standards apply to a production line constructed 
after August 31, 1983 that includes affected facilities constructed as 
a ``like-for-like'' replacement after April 22, 2008, assuming that all 
of the affected facilities on the production line have not been 
replaced as provided in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(3)?
    A2: A production line constructed after August 31, 1983 that 
includes affected facilities constructed as a ``like-for-like'' 
replacement after April 22, 2008 is subject to the original subpart OOO 
rule standards promulgated on August 1, 1985, and not the 2009 subpart 
OOO rule standards, as long as all affected facilities on the 
production line have not been replaced.

Abstract for [1500079]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart DD applies to column 
dryers constructed of woven wire screen at the Riceland Foods facility 
in Stuttgart, Arkansas (Riceland)?
    A: No. The EPA determines that although the Riceland facility is a 
grain terminal elevator subject to subpart DD, the column dryers in 
question are a new subcategory of grain dryers not subject to subpart 
DD due to its differences in size, type and class of column dryers. The 
EPA has stated this position in the July 9, 2014 proposed rule for 
subpart DD and in a new proposed subpart DDa

[[Page 95588]]

rule, which now includes a definition for ``wire screen column 
dryers''.

Abstract for [1500080]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS subpart JJJ for Petroleum Dry 
Cleaners applies to closed loop, dry to dry new hydrocarbon equipment 
at Parrot Cleaners facility in Louisville, Kentucky?
    A: No. The EPA determines that the dry to dry closed loop machines 
installed at Parrot Cleaners do not meet the definition of a 
``petroleum dry cleaner,'' in that they do not use solvent in a 
``combination of washers, dryers, filters, stills, and settling tanks'' 
since these are single unit machines. The EPA intent to regulate dry 
cleaning machines with separate units (i.e., transfer machines with 
separate washers and dryers) in subpart JJJ is evidenced by the 
equipment standard requiring separate ``solvent recovery dryers'' in 
section 60.622 and in the testing procedures in section 60.624, as well 
as in other EPA statements regarding the petroleum solvent drycleaning 
industry. Therefore, subpart JJJ does not apply to the dry to dry 
machines installed at the facility.

Abstract for [1500084]

    Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of a lock and seal configuration 
in lieu of flow indicators to monitor VOC containing vent streams 
routed from distillation facilities to plant flares at the Aux Sable 
Liquid Products (ASLP) facility in Morris, Illinois to demonstrate 
compliance with requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart NNN?
    A1: Yes. The EPA approves locking or sealing leak-proof bypass 
valves in the closed position in lieu of flow indicators. ASLP will 
conduct monthly monitoring of the lock or seal valves to ensure that 
they function and are kept in the closed position. ASLP will maintain a 
log of each lock or seal inspection and comply with the monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2), 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(i), and 40 CFR 
60.703 (b)(2)(ii) of NSPS subpart RRR for the purpose of complying with 
NSPS NNN. In addition, ASLP will need to comply with the monitoring and 
record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 60.705(d)(2) and (s).
    Q2: Does the EPA approve the use of infrared cameras to monitor the 
continuous presence of a pilot light in lieu of a thermocouple or 
ultraviolet beam sensor, in the ASLP Morris, Illinois facility?
    A2: No. The EPA does not approve the use of an infrared camera 
pilot monitor (PM) to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.663(b), 40 CFR 
60.703(b) and 40 CFR 60.18(e)(2) because ASLP is unable to prove that 
their pilot monitor can continuously monitor the presence of a pilot 
flame. The PM is able to detect the flare flame accurately and 
reliability when the vent gas is flowing, but it has not proven to have 
sufficient resolution for a situation where the pilot light is not 
present and a flare flame is present with vent gas flowing.

Abstract for [1600001]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine that the stoker boiler at Fibrominn LLC 
(Fibrominn) in Benson, Minnesota is subject to the Standards of 
Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 
(CISWI) Units, 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC (CISWI NSPS)?
    A1: No. Although the EPA concludes that the boiler is a CISWI unit, 
Fibrominn commenced construction of its boiler on or before June 4, 
2010 and there is no evidence that it has been modified or 
reconstructed after August 7, 2013. Therefore, the EPA concludes that 
Fibrominn's boiler is not subject to the CISWI NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.2010 and 60.2015.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn's boiler is subject to 
the Federal Plan Requirements for CISWI Units That Commenced 
Construction On or Before November 30, 1999, 40 CFR part 62 subpart III 
(CISWI FIP)?
    A2: No. Fibrominn's boiler is not subject to the CISWI FIP because 
Fibrominn commenced construction between November 30, 1999, and June 4, 
2010. The CISWI NSPS applies to each CISWI unit that commenced 
construction after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or 
modification after August 7, 2013.
    Q3: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn's boiler is exempt from 
the requirements in the CISWI FIP?
    A3: No. Fibrominn's boiler is not subject to the CISWI FIP. 
Therefore, the question of whether Fibrominn's boiler is exempt from 
the CISWI FIP is moot.
    Q4: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn can avoid being subject 
to the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD 
(Major Source Boiler MACT) by taking federally enforceable limits on 
its potential to emit prior to the compliance date, January 31, 2016?
    A4: Yes. The EPA agrees that Fibrominn can take federally 
enforceable limits on its potential to emit to avoid being subject to 
the Major Source Boiler MACT. By doing so, Fibrominn would become 
subject to the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 
Boilers Area Sources, 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ (Area Source Boiler 
MACT).
    Q5: If Fibrominn submits a formal application to the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to amend Fibrominn's existing Title V 
permit in order to take a synthetic minor limit, and Fibrominn submits 
the application to the MPCA prior to January 31, 2016, the compliance 
date for the Major Source Boiler MACT, does this constitute Fibrominn's 
``taking a synthetic minor limit'' in terms of eligibility to avoid 
being subject to the Major Source Boiler MACT?
    A5: No. Fibrominn's submittal of its application for modification 
of its Title V permit does not constitute taking federally enforceable 
limits on its potential to emit.
    Q6: Does the EPA determine that Fibrominn remain subject to the 
case-specific MACT in its 2002 Title V permit after the compliance date 
for the Major Source Boiler MACT?
    A6: Yes. The EPA notes that more than one MACT standard can apply 
to the same equipment or operation. Unless the case specific MACT is 
removed from the permit, Fibrominn would remain subject to the case 
specific MACT and either the Major Source or Area Source Boiler MACT.

Abstract for [1600002]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an extension of time to conduct a 
performance test required by NSPS subpart OOO based on a force majeure 
event at the Hi-Crush Augusta, LLC industrial sand mine and processing 
plant in August, Wisconsin?
    A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request 
does not meet the definition of a ``force majeure event'' under 40 CFR 
60.2.

Abstract for [1600005]

    Q1: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 
the granular activated carbon adsorption system used to control mercury 
emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60 
subpart LLLL at the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control 
Facility in Cromwell, Connecticut?
    A1: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's AMP for the carbon bed 
under 40 CFR 60.13(i) for the granular activated carbon adsorption 
system (``carbon bed'') used to control mercury emissions from the 
sewage sludge incinerator subject to subpart LLLL. The alternative 
monitoring plan that Mattabassett has proposed, combined with the 
facilities construction permit, meets the requirement of a similar type 
of monitoring application for carbon

[[Page 95589]]

beds used to control mercury under 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.
    Q2: Does the EPA approve Mattabassett's site-specific ash handling 
monitoring plan to meet the fugitive emission limits specified in 40 
CFR part 60 subpart LLLL, considering that the ash at the facility is 
collected using an entirely wet system?
    A2: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's site-specific plan for 
fugitive ash monitoring that consists of daily observations of the ash 
lagoons.

Abstract for [1600006]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 
the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used to control air emissions 
from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
LLLL located at the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control 
Facility (Mattabassett) in Cromwell, Connecticut?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's AMP to monitor the total 
water flow rate of the influent to the WESP on an 8 hour block basis 
and to set the parameter limit at 90 percent of the 8 hour flow 
recorded during the initial performance test.

Abstract for [1600007]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan to use the 
same high level calibration gas for both the low range and high level 
range for two dual range hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitors installed on 
two flares subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Shell Chemical 
LP plant in Saraland, Alabama?
    A: Yes. The EPA responded to the Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management that based upon the expectation that the 
majority of H2S readings will be made on the lower range of the dual 
range monitors, a demonstration that the monitors have a linear 
response across their entire range of operation, and the toxicity of 
H2S, the proposal is acceptable.

Abstract for [1600008]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 
monitoring plan (AMP) for portable temporary thermal oxidizer units 
(TOUs) that control emissions during tank degassing and vapor control 
projects subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J and 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
Ja at Tristar Global Energy Solutions (Tristar) petroleum refineries 
located in EPA Region 4?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the AMP request since installing and 
operating an H2S continuous emission monitoring system would be 
impractical due to the short term nature of the degassing operations 
performed by Tristar. In addition, Tristar's proposed monitoring 
alternative is consistent with previously approved alternatives for 
other tank degassing service providers.

Abstract for [M150035]

    Q1: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring request (AMR) 
for the purpose of monitoring pressure drop under requirements of 40 
CFR part 63 subpart HHHHHHH Table 5, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and 
Copolymer Production at Major Sources NESHAP at the Oxy Vinyls, LP 
Pasadena PVC plant in Pasadena, Texas?
    A1: Yes. The EPA approves the AMR to substitute ambient pressure 
for the measured outlet pressure of the scrubber. Since the scrubber is 
a low pressure scrubber, the outlet of the scrubber system operates at 
ambient pressure. Any pressure changes in the scrubber would be 
indicated by changes to the inlet pressure, which will be directly 
monitored. Therefore, the calculation of pressure drop will be 
determined by the difference between inlet pressure and ambient 
pressure. The operating limit for pressure drop has been established 
using engineering assessments and manufacturer's recommendations, which 
is allowed by 40 CFR 63.11935(d)(2). Scrubber pressure drop will be 
recorded in accordance with the approved AMR during a performance test, 
along with other operating parameters required by Table 5 of subpart 
HHHHHHH. The frequency and content of pressure drop monitoring, 
recording, and reporting will not change as a result of the approved 
AMR.

Abstract for [M150038]

    Q: Does the EPA approve of alternative work practice and monitoring 
procedures for the three enclosed hard chromium plating tanks to be 
installed that will be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart N at the Har-
Conn Chrome Company (Har-Conn) facility in West Hartford, Connecticut?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the Har-Conn alternative monitoring 
procedures to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the operation and 
maintenance (``O&M'') practices and monitoring specified in Table 1 of 
63.342 as they are not feasible for the application to the Palm 
Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE) used by the enclosed hard 
chromium tanks. Har-Conn will use the operation and maintenance (O&M) 
practices and manual recommended by the manufacturer of the Palm 
Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE), as well as daily, 
weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual compliance monitoring logs for 
the EED.

Abstract for [M150039]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan to the use 
of an alternative control device parameter other than one of the 
parameters required at 40 CFR 63.7525(f) and Tables 4, 7, and 8 in 
subpart DDDDD for wet scrubbers at the SAPPI Fine Paper North America 
(SAPPI) facility in Skowhegan, Maine?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves SAPPI's alternative monitoring request for 
the wet scrubber to monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure in lieu of 
the pressure drop across the wet scrubber used to control emissions 
from the Number 2 Power Boiler. Based on the data provided showing 
strong correlation between spray tower liquid recirculation pressure 
and flow, as well as data that demonstrates a poor correlation between 
pressure drop of the scrubber and heat input to the boiler (an 
indicator of emissions), EPA agrees that this method may be used in 
this situation in lieu of monitoring pressure drop across the scrubber. 
In addition, this method is consistent with similar boiler monitoring 
applications.

Abstract for [M150040]

    Q1: Does the EPA approve separate sets of parameter monitoring 
thresholds for the scrubber liquid flow rate and pressure drop of the 
wet venturi scrubber subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD at the 
Verso Corporation (Verso) facility in Jay, Maine under two operating 
scenarios: (1) Periods when the unit burns biomass and combined 
biomass/fossil-fuel burning at boiler capacities up to 480 MMBtu, and 
(2) periods when the unit burns only fossil fuel at boiler capacities 
equal to or less than 240 MMBtu, on a 30-day rolling average and on a 
daily block average when burning only fossil fuels?
    A1: Yes. The EPA approves Verso's alternative monitoring request 
for both operating scenarios.
    Q2: Does the EPA approve for Verso when burning exclusively natural 
gas to operate without engaging the wet venturi scrubber after startup 
and exclude periods when the wet scrubber is not engaged due to burning 
gas from the 30-day compliance averages?
    A2: Yes. The EPA approves the request to allow the unit to operate 
without engaging the wet scrubber and to exclude parameter monitoring 
data during periods when only natural gas is fired, provided that Verso 
can demonstrate through existing data or emissions testing that the 
unit complies

[[Page 95590]]

with the PM, Hg, and HCl emissions standards while firing only natural 
gas.

Abstract for [M160001]

    Q: Would an aluminum chip drying process at the Remelt Scientific 
facility (Remelt) in Port Charlotte, Florida, that is used to remove 
water meet the definition of ``thermal chip dryer'' in 40 CFR part 63 
subpart RRR?
    A: No. Remelt's chip drying process does the not meet the 
definition of ``thermal chip dryer'' and is therefore not subject to 
subpart RRR. Based on the description that the process operates at 
temperatures of 200F and 235F, and the oil that remains on the chips 
has an evaporation temperature of over 300F, we believe that the 
process would be used solely to remove water from the aluminum chips 
since it would not be operating at temperatures sufficient to remove 
the machining oil that remains on the chips.

Abstract for [M160002]

    Q1: The ArborTech Forest Products, Inc. (ArborTech) facility in 
Blackstone, Virginia is planning to increase its lumber production such 
that the potential to emit for methanol would be greater than 10 tons 
per year. Does the EPA determine that the facility would be 
reclassified as a major source for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)?
    A1: Yes. The EPA determines that if ArborTech increases the air 
permit limit on production and potential methanol emissions would 
exceed 10 tons/year that the facility would qualify as a major source 
and would need to be reclassified as a major source in the State 
permit.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that ArborTech would be subject to 40 
CFR part 63 subpart DDDD, Plywood and Composite Wood Products National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (PCWP MACT), and would 
the dry kilns be considered an affected source immediately upon 
issuance of the revised permit/reclassification to a major source of 
HAPs?
    A2: Yes. The EPA determines that ArborTech would be subject to the 
subpart DDDD rule on the date of issuance of the revised permit when 
the facility would be reclassified as a major source of HAPs, and 
therefore the dry kilns would be an affected source under the rule.
    Q3: Does the EPA determine that if the wood-fired boilers' exhaust 
is routed to the lumber kiln(s) and used to dry lumber the boilers 
would be an ``affected source'' under the PCWP MACT and subject to the 
rule?
    A3: The EPA determines that if Arbortech becomes a major source of 
HAPs, and if ArborTech sent 100 percent of the exhaust from its wood-
fired boilers to its lumber drying kiln(s) to help dry lumber, then the 
boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major 
Source Boiler MACT), but would instead be subject to the PCWP MACT.
    Q4: When does the EPA determine that Arbortech would become subject 
to the Major Source Boiler MACT?
    A4: The EPA determines that if ArborTech were to become a major 
source of HAPs after the Major Source Boiler MACT initial compliance 
date for existing sources of January 31, 2016, then ArborTech would be 
required to bring its existing boilers into compliance with the Major 
Source Boiler MACT within three years after ArborTech became a major 
source, unless ArborTech had previously sent 100% of the exhaust from 
its boiler(s) to its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and their 
exhaust streams affected sources under the PCWP MACT. If Arbortech were 
to become a major source prior to the Major Source Boiler MACT initial 
compliance date for existing sources of January 31, 2016, then its 
existing boilers would be required to be in compliance as of January 
31, 2016, unless ArborTech had previously sent 100% of the exhaust from 
its boiler(s) to its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and their 
exhaust streams affected sources under the PCWP MACT.

Abstract for [M160003]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the re-categorization of Boiler No. 9 at 
the Finch Paper, LLC (Finch) integrated pulp and paper manufacturing 
facility located in Glen Falls, New York from the wet biomass stoker 
subcategory to the hybrid suspension grate boiler subcategory pursuant 
to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major Source Boiler MACT)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted on the design and 
operation of the Boiler No. 9, the EPA determines that it meets the 
definition of ``hybrid suspension grate boiler'' found in 40 CFR 
63.7575. Therefore, Boiler No. 9 will be subject to the rule as it 
pertains to existing hybrid suspension grate boilers.

Abstract for [M160004]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that the Truesense Imaging, Inc. 
(Truesense) semiconductor fabrication business (Semiconductor Business) 
located at its microelectronics wafer fabrication facility (FAB 
facility) in Rochester, NY is subject to the National Emissions 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing, 
40 CFR part 63 subpart BBBBB (Semiconductor MACT)?
    A: Yes. The EPA determines that the FAB facility, currently owned 
and operated by Truesense, is and continues to be an existing source 
with compliance required as of 2006 and must continue to comply with 
the Semiconductor MACT, even after a sale, as long as the source 
otherwise continues to meet the definition of an affected facility 
(i.e., major source status not withstanding) consistent with the ``Once 
In Always In'' policy.

Abstract for [Z150003]

    Q: Does the EPA approve Monroe Interstate Pipeline Company (MIPC) 
alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service 
inspections in lieu of the out-of-service inspection requirements for 
specific types of internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks subject to 
40 CFR part 63 subpart BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
Kb, NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels), at the MIPC 
Chelsea Tank Farm in Aston, PA?
    A: Yes. In accordance with 40 CFR 60.13 and 63.8(f), EPA approves 
MIPC alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service 
internal inspection methodology for the IFR storage tanks subject to 
NSPS Kb and GD GACT specified in the AMP request (tanks that have 
geodesic dome roofs equipped with skylights for enhanced natural 
lighting and aluminum honeycomb panel decks constructed decks with 
mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals liquid surface) to meet the 
internal out-of-service inspection required at intervals no greater 
than 10 years by the applicable regulations. MIPC will be able to have 
visual access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and 
secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the 
top side of the IFR for the specified storage tanks, as well as 
properly inspect and repair the requisite components while these tanks 
are still in-service, consistent with the inspection and repair 
requirements established under NSPS subpart Kb. In addition, MIPC 
internal inspection methodology includes identifying and addressing any 
gaps of more than \1/8\ inch between any deck fitting gasket, seal, or 
wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal; complying with the 
fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time frame 
requirement in NSPS subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and 
implementing a full top-side and bottom-side out-of-service inspection 
of the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for

[[Page 95591]]

any reason, and keep records for at least five years.

Abstract for [Z150007]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that the stationary reciprocating 
internal combustion engines (RICE) participating in two Duke Energy 
Carolinas nonresidential demand response programs meet the definition 
of ``emergency stationary RICE'' in the National Emissions Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal 
Combustion Engines (``RICE NESHAP'')?
    A: No. The EPA determines that the terms of Duke's demand response 
programs do not meet all of the operational limits on emergency engines 
in the RICE NESHAP. The terms of the programs are consistent with the 
limitations on emergency demand response. However, an engine must also 
comply with the definition of ``emergency stationary RICE'' and all of 
the operational restrictions in 40 CFR 63.6640(f) to be considered RICE 
NESHAP emergency engines.

Abstract for [Z150008]

    Q1: Has EPA Method 1 been removed from the reciprocating internal 
combustion engine (RICE) NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, or should the engines at 
Farabee Mechanical in Hickman, Nebraska (Farabee) be following Method 1 
for test port locations.
    A1: No. EPA Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A from the RICE 
NESHAP should be followed for test port locations. The EPA response 
letter provides guidance for numerous testing scenarios under NESHAP 
subpart ZZZZ sources including engines where Method 1 is required but 
the testing ports do not meet the minimum criteria of Method 1 and 
engines that are not required to use Method 1 procedures.
    Q2: Is there any conflict with the RICE NESHAP subpart ZZZZ rule if 
utilizing test ports at engines for testing purposes?
    A2: No. The Farabee Mechanical facility was approved to use single-
point sampling at NSPS subpart JJJJ sources in lieu of Method 1 for 
their engines. Single point sampling without a stratification test for 
nitrogen oxide emissions using Alternative Test Method 87 is allowed 
under 40 CFR 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ. However, single point sampling 
for carbon monoxide at NESHAP subpart ZZZZ sources have not yet been 
broadly approved. Therefore, when Method 1 is not met, a stratification 
test is to be conducted to show if the site is acceptable to perform 
the test.

Abstract for [Z150012]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the use of the results of a particulate 
matter emission test conducted on December 2014 for two new wood-fired 
boilers at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont that are subject 
to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ as being 
representative of ``initial conditions'' because the first test, 
conducted in February 2014, was not conducted under normal operating 
conditions?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the use of emissions test data from the 
second test as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11220(b) since it 
is representative of normal operating conditions, and therefore Norwich 
University may avoid the requirement to test particulate matter every 
three years.

Abstract for [Z160001]

    Q: Does the EPA accept the proposal by Tyson Foods Inc. to use a 
louvered door system, where the louvers would only open inward and 
would only open when negative pressure is in place, to meet the work 
practice requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDDDD, National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: 
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule), to keep 
exterior doors in the immediate affected areas shut except during 
normal ingress and egress, as practicable?
    A: Yes. The EPA determines that the use of the louvered door system 
would meet the requirements of subpart DDDDDDD. The louvered door 
system described would maintain the function of the closed doors by 
only opening the louvers to the interior of the building when the doors 
are under negative pressure, drawing air into the building. Under these 
conditions the doors would be serving the purpose of minimizing the 
release of prepared feed dust emissions to the outside, which is the 
intent of the work practice standard in Section 63.11621(a)(1)(iii).

    Dated: November 10, 2016.
David A. Hindin,
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2016-31235 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P