80 FR 22176 - Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 76 (April 21, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 76 (April 21, 2015)
| Page Range | 22176-22186 | |
| FR Document | 2015-09242 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 22176-22186] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-09242] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-65-OECA] Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/ or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564- 7027, or by email at: [email protected]. For technical questions about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and/or Generally Available Control Technology (GACT)standards] and Sec. 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Sec. 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the [[Page 22177]] ADI. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. Today's notice comprises a summary of 56 such documents added to the ADI on April 7, 2015. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. Summary of Headers and Abstracts The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on April 7, 2015; the applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA Sec. 307(b)(1). For example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make a previously non-binding document binding. ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 7, 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Control Number Categories Subparts Title ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M110015............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, CC, G, Kb............. Rule Interpretation on Raw NSPS. Data Definition and Retention for Storage Vessels. 1400038............................ NSPS.................. OOO................... Applicability of Rule to Gypsum Handling Equipment at a Power Plant with Fuel Gas Desulfurization Units. 1100018............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Sulfur Bearing Fuel Gas Stream. Z140006............................ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.. YYYYY................. Performance Test Waiver Request for EAF Secondary Dust Collection System. M120012............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. FFFF.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan For Grab Sampling in Lieu of Continuous Monitoring of Caustic Scrubbers. Z120001............................ Part 61 NESHAP........ J, V.................. Applicability Determination for NESHAP Subparts J and V Benzene Fugitive Equipment Leaks. M120015............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, J, UUU................ Alternate Work Practice-- NSPS. SRU Sulfur Pit Bypass Lines. Z140005............................ Part 63 NESHAP........ WWWWWW................ Applicability Determination for Research and Development Unit under NESHAP Subpart WWWWWW. M120018............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring in NSPS. Lieu of COMS for Regenerators. M120020............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. NNNNN................. Alternative Monitoring for Caustic Scrubber Parametric Monitoring. 1200038............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Stack COMS Relocation Determined By Equivalency Testing. M120021............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. G, H.................. Approval of a Common Report Schedule--MACT Subparts G and H. 1200039............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring for Hydrocracker Feed Surge Drum Vent Stream. 1200040............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring for NHT Feed Surge Drum Off-- Gas Vent Stream. 1200041............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring for Oleflex Reactor Vent Stream. 1200042............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring for Truck Loading, Storage Tank and Well Vent Gas Streams. 1200046............................ NSPS.................. JJJJ.................. Single-Point Testing In Place of Method 1 or 1A-- Engine Emission Testing. 1200062............................ NSPS.................. KKK, Kb............... Applicability of NSPS Subparts Kb and KKK for a Vapor Recovery Unit and Storage Tanks. M120027............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. JJJ................... Timing Issues in Determining MACT and Title V Applicability. M120029............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. S..................... Approval of an Alternative Monitoring Frequency under the Pulp and Paper MACT. 1200087............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Revision to NSPS Method of Determining Compliance for Combined Effluent NOX CEMS. Z140004............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. ZZZZ.................. Exemption for Emergency Engines at Commercial Area Sources from RICE NESHAP-- Regulatory Interpretation. 1400016............................ NSPS.................. EEEE, FFFF............ Applicability Determination for Commercially Operated Contraband Incinerator. 1400019............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Guidance on Alternative Compliance Timeline Requests for Landfill. A140003............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP as it Applies to Concrete Bridges. M140006............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. A, MMMM............... Continuing Requirements when Surface Coating Operations no Longer Meets Affected Source Criteria. M140008............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. CC, G................. Interpretation of Required Tank Inspection Frequency. 1400021............................ NSPS.................. Dc, Ja................ NOx Requirements for Boilers. M140009............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. ZZZZ.................. Disapproval of an Engine De- Rate Proposal. M140010............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. ZZZZ.................. Approval of an Engine De- rate Proposal. [[Page 22178]] M140011............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, IIII, ZZZZ............ Applicability to a Non- NSPS. stationary Engine Relocated For Use as a Stationary Engine. M140012............................ PART 63 NESHAP........ A, JJJJJJ............. Determination of Force Majeure. M140013............................ PART 63 NESHAP........ JJJJJJ................ Regulatory Interpretation of Tune-up Requirements for Spreader Stoker Boiler. M140014............................ PART 63 NESHAP........ JJJJJJ................ Compliance Extension for Replacement Energy Source. Z140007............................ Part 63 NESHAP........ BBBBBBB, VVVVVV....... Rule Applicability to HAP- Containing Mixing Operations to Produce Acrylic-Based Stucco. A140004............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Small Residence Exemption. A140005............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Interim Method of Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples and Transmission Electron Microscopy. M140016............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP.. DDDDD................. Categorization and applicability of a Boiler using natural gas and tire derived fuel. 1400022............................ NSPS.................. J..................... NSPS Fuel Gas Definition and Alternative Monitoring of Marine Vessel Loading Vapors. 1400023............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Conditional CEMS Exemption Approval for Low Sulfur Combustion of Off-gas Vent Stream. 1400024............................ NSPS.................. J..................... CEMS Exemption in Lieu of Alternative Monitoring for Combustion of Commercial Grade Natural Gas and Refinery Fuel Gas. 1400025............................ NSPS.................. KKK................... Regulatory Interpretation for Gas Plant Propane Refrigeration System. 1400026............................ NSPS.................. OOOO.................. Applicability Determination for Reciprocating Compressors. 1400027............................ MACT, PART 63 NESHAP, J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring Plan NSPS. for Wet Gas Scrubber on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit. 1400028............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring and Waiver of Testing Request for Distillation Vent Gas to Process Heaters. 1400029............................ NSPS.................. Ja.................... Request for Alternative Monitoring of Condensate Splitter Flare. 1400030............................ NSPS.................. Ja.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Oxygen in Boiler Stack Emissions. 1400031............................ NSPS.................. J, Ja................. Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring in Tank Degassing Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers. 1400032............................ NSPS.................. OOOO.................. Regulatory Interpretation-- Submission of Photographs For Natural Gas Well Completion Annual Reports. 1400033............................ NSPS.................. J, Ja................. Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring in Tank Degassing Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers. 1400034............................ NSPS.................. A, D.................. Regulatory Interpretation-- Demonstrating Continuous Compliance and Reporting Excess Emissions for NSPS and Title V. 1400035............................ NSPS.................. Ec.................... Alternative Operating Parameters for a Wet Gas Scrubber Followed By Carbon Adsorber and Cartridge Filter at an HMIWI. 1400036............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fuel Analysis from Subpart Db Boiler. 1400037............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Conditional CEMS Exemption Approval for Low Sulfur Combustion of Off-gas Vent Stream. 1100017............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of Opacity for a Wet Gas Scrubber. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstracts Abstract for [M110015] Q1: What is EPA interpretation of raw data, in reference to 40 CFR 63.654 and 40 CFR 60.115b and the storage vessel recordkeeping provisions in NSPS subpart Kb, and Part 63 NESHAP subparts G and CC? A1: EPA indicated to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Region 14 that although the phrase ``raw data'' does not have a regulatory definition, EPA has issued guidance on this subject to deal with air pollution measurement systems and the quality assurance procedures associated with such systems. In general, raw data is data that is captured and recorded on field data sheets during a measurement of some sort, such as sampling of emissions or testing of control equipment. Q2: May a source, after transferring data from field data sheets into an electronic database, dispose of the field data sheets? A2: No. Original field data sheets must be preserved whenever any sort of emissions sampling or equipment testing, such as measuring seal gaps in a storage tank, is performed. Transferring raw data into a database can introduce additional error in data transcription and entry. Abstract for [1400038] Q1: Is gypsum handling equipment at the Dominion Chesterfield Power Station in Chester, Virginia, subject to NSPS subpart OOO for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants? Dominion acknowledges that a limestone crushing process at Chesterfield is subject to subpart OOO. A1: Yes. The gypsum handling equipment is also subject to NSPS subpart OOO. The facility meets the definition of a nonmetallic mineral processing plant, and each affected facility at Chesterfield is subject to subpart OOO, including the belt conveyors used to transfer gypsum to storage sheds or loading docks. Q2: Must the crushing or grinding of gypsum take place in the ``production line'' to be subject to subpart OOO? A2: No. The definition of production line does not require that every affected facility be part of a production line with crushing or grinding. If crushing or grinding of a nonmetallic mineral occurs anywhere at the facility, then each affected facility is subject regardless of its location within the plant. Q3: Are there other power plants with flue gas desulfurization units where the gypsum handling equipment is subject to subpart OOO? A3: Yes. Based on a brief review of similar permits, EPA found at least three such power plants with permits where subpart OOO was applied to the gypsum handling equipment. [[Page 22179]] Abstract for [1100018] Q: Does EPA approve the ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas Refinery Alternate Monitoring Plan (AMP) under NSPS subpart J? Conoco claims an exemption per 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv) because Flare #7 receives fuel gas waste from catalytic reforming units. A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves ConocoPhillips's AMP. Conditional approval of alternative monitoring parameters is granted based on a requirement that the flare receive low sulfur/sulfide bearing streams waste fuel gas only from catalytic reformers. Any significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide concentration detected in the stream would initiate continuous monitoring under 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or (4). Introduction of other streams that are not from catalytic reformers require application of another AMP. Abstract for [Z140006] Q1: Does EPA approve of a waiver in the number of performance test sampling locations required to comply with particulate stack sampling requirements under 40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY for the electric arc furnace at ArcelorMittal's LaPlace, Louisiana facility? A1: No. Based on the information provided, EPA could not approve the request to sample only three of the six emission points. Without the results of a previous performance test which included results for all six emission points, EPA could not confirm that emissions from three of the emission points might be representative of all six. Additionally, EPA reserves the right to determine which emission points should be sampled. Q2: Can the 60-day testing notification requirement be waived, allowing ArcelorMittal a 30-day notification period? A2: Yes. Based on the timing of ArcelorMittal's testing waiver request and the testing schedule, EPA is allowing a reduced testing notification timeframe. EPA asked that ArcelorMittal provide the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a written notice at least ten (10) days prior to the intended testing dates in order that DEQ be afforded the opportunity to observe the testing. Abstract for [M120012] Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring the caustic strength of scrubber effluent by a grab sample monitoring system, in lieu of continuously measuring caustic strength, under MACT subpart FFFF for the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units and caustic scrubbers controlling Group 1 Process Vents at the Dow Chemical plant in La Porte, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP based on the information provided. The plan to monitor scrubber caustic strength by grab sampling, in lieu of continuously measuring caustic strength, is technically acceptable. Subpart FFFF requires that the scrubbers be monitored continuously either via continuous pH measurement and recording as specified in 40 CFR 63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), or via continuously monitoring and recording the caustic strength of the effluent. Use of a continuous pH meter or caustic strength analyzer may be unreliable due to fouling. The AMP includes frequent grab sampling to monitor caustic strength based on a worst case loading scenario. Abstract for [Z120001] Q: Is an inter-plant pipeline which transports liquids that are at least 10 percent benzene by weight between two major source facilities, each belonging to Equistar Chemicals in Alvin, Texas, subject to part 61 NESHAP subparts J and V? A: Yes. An inter-plant pipeline that transports benzene liquids is an emission source that is in benzene service according to 40 CFR 61.110 and 61.111, regardless of whether or not the pipeline is defined as a discrete process unit. 40 CFR 61.110(a) includes valves, connectors or systems in benzene service, regardless of their location, and subpart V applies as the leak detection provision for subpart J, per 40 CFR 61.111. Abstract for [M120015] Q: Does EPA approve an alternate work practice for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) at bypass lines associated with sulfur recovery unit (SRU) sulfur pits, which are subject to both MACT subpart UUU and NSPS subpart J, and the terms of a Consent Decree (CD), at the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, Texas East and West refineries? A: No. EPA does not approve the alternate work practice because it would be in direct conflict with both the rule and the intent of the CD, and would result in non-compliance. The SRUs and sulfur pits are subject to a CD that requires sulfur pit emissions to be continuously monitored and counted toward SRU total emissions for compliance demonstration with the NSPS subpart J limit for sulfur dioxide (SO2 ). Since the alternative work practice proposed by Flint Hills did not include continuous monitoring per 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2), the data necessary to comply with the portion of the CD requiring aggregation of sulfur pit emissions for compliance demonstration with the NSPS subpart J SO2 limit would not be collected. Abstract for [Z140005] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption from NESHAP subpart WWWWWW under the definition of research and development for the electroplating and surface finishing facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico? A: Yes. Based on a review of 40 CFR 63.11505(d)(2) and the definition of a research and development process unit at 40 CFR 63.11511, EPA determines that the facility meets the definition and is not subject to NESHAP subpart WWWWWW. Abstract for [M120018] Q: Will EPA approve Motiva Enterprises' (Motiva) Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), due to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack, to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) and requirements of MACT subpart UUU at Motiva's Port Arthur, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Motiva's AMP. A performance test is necessary to establish Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) and other operating and monitoring conditions required for demonstrating compliance with NSPS subpart J, MACT subpart UUU and the Consent Decree for each WGS. The EPA response letter specifies the operating conditions, operating parameters, test notice deadlines, and notification content that are conditions of the approval. Interim OPLs are provided. Abstract for [M120020] Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for parametric monitoring on caustic scrubbers used to control hydrochloric acid emissions from storage tanks, loading, and process vents under 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN at the Rubicon facility in Geismar, Louisiana? A: Yes. Based on the information provided in Rubicon's request, EPA conditionally approves the AMP. A minimum pH operating parameter limit (OPL), and a minimum recirculating liquid flow rate, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.9020(e)(1)(i), must be established during a performance test conducted [[Page 22180]] under worst case emissions operating scenario. The scrubbers' effectiveness in meeting subpart NNNNN emission standards during normal operations will be ensured by continuous monitoring of the two OPLs. Abstract for [1200038] Q1: Can equivalency testing be approved to relocate the flue gas continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) on the stack outlet of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) covered under NSPS subpart D at the Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Gibbons Creek Electric Steam Generating Station Unit 1? A1: Yes. 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B Performance Specification 1 (PS 1) Section 8.1 (2)(i) and (ii) specify measurement location and light beam path requirements for COMS. If the proposed alternate COMS locations do not meet these requirements, equivalency testing must be conducted in accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 (2)(iii) for each possible alternative location. Based on the test proposal, EPA approves the request for conducting preliminary equivalency testing only, with a 60-day notification provided to the State authority. Q2: What if there are separate ducts that split the vent stream gas flow? A2: Relocation and the preliminary equivalency testing must include the use of two COMS units in order to provide opacity readings representative of total emissions. Q3: What must the facility do to obtain subsequent approval for permanent relocation of the stack COMS? A3: TMPA must provide the data and operating information from the preliminary equivalency testing for the alternative location ultimately selected, in accordance with the applicable performance test reporting requirements of NSPS subparts A and D. In accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 (2)(iii), the average opacity value measured at each temporary COMS at the selected alternate location must be within +/- 10 percent of the average opacity value measured at the existing flue gas stack COMS, and the difference between any two average opacity values must be less than 2 percent opacity (absolute value). Abstract for [M120021] Q: Does EPA approve a common schedule for submitting periodic reports under the Hazardous Organic part 63 NESHAP, subparts G and H, at the Union Carbide Texas City, Texas facility? A: Yes. EPA approves the common schedule provided the reporting requirement of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1) is satisfied, which only allows a 60-day lag between the end of the reporting period and the due date of a periodic report. EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(a)(6) and 63.9(i), and concurred that the proposed reporting schedule satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1). Abstract for [1200039] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) for a refinery hydrocracker feed surge drum off-gas vent stream combusted at four hydrocracker heaters at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West refinery? A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the process vent streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished. The approval specifies operating parameter limits for total sulfur and temperature. Valero must follow the seven step process detailed in the Valero consent decree appendix on Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas. Abstract for [1200040] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) for a refinery process feed surge drum off-gas vent stream combusted at a charge heater under NSPS subpart J at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West refinery? A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished. The approval specifies operating parameter limits for total sulfur and temperature. Valero must follow the seven step process detailed in the Valero consent decree appendix on Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas. Abstract for [1200041] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) the No. 4 vent stream at the Valero Refining West Plant in Corpus Christi, Texas? The request involves vent streams from the Oleflex Reactor Lock Hopper Engager off- gas vent stream combusted at the Oleflex Interheater. A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's alternative monitoring request based on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished. There will be no points where sour gas can be introduced into the vent gas stream. The effluent is to be sampled and tested daily. Valero must follow the seven step process (Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas) in the consent decree for the No. 4 vent stream. Abstract for [1200042] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) of vent gases from the control of diesel and jet fuel truck loading, toluene and reformate storage tanks, and groundwater recovery wells at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas East refinery? The vent streams are combusted at the truck rack thermal oxidizer enclosed vapor combustor. A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP based on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished. Valero must follow the seven step process detailed in the Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas appendix of Valero's consent decree. The approval specifies an H2 S operating limit from each of the emission sources (e.g., loading, tanks, wells) covered by the AMP. Abstract for [1200046] Q: Does EPA approve single-point testing in place of Method 1 or 1A for required testing of engine emissions under 40 CFR part 60 subpart JJJJ, for the ConocoPhillips Lake Pelto Compressor Barge, located offshore in southern Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips' single-point testing, since the engines are located over water, and are difficult to test due to limited space. Abstract for [1200062] Q1: Is the installation of a backup vapor recovery unit (BU-VRU) to capture emissions from a glycol dehydrator unit, which includes a compressor, at the Marathon Petroleum Indian Basin Gas Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, considered a modification of an affected facility and thus subject to NSPS subpart KKK? A1: Based on the information provided by the Air Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department (AQB-NMED), EPA determines that the installation of the BU-VRU compressor at the Indian Basin Gas Plant is subject to NSPS subpart KKK. The compressor is an affected facility under NSPS subpart KKK that was constructed after the applicability date and is presumed to be in VOC or wet gas service. The pollution control device exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) of [[Page 22181]] the General Provisions is superseded by 40 CFR 60.630 and therefore does not apply. In addition, the NSPS subpart KKK does not include exemptions for compressor emergency operations or operating less than 500 hours per year. With respect to whether the other affected facility, which includes all other equipment (except compressors), that are part of the glycol dehydrator process unit, EPA cannot make a modification determination since there is no information on emission increases or decreases available. Q2: Are the two storage tanks at the Indian Basin Gas Plant subject to NSPS subpart Kb, or are they exempt under the custody transfer exemption in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4)? A2: Based on the information provided by AQB-NMED, EPA determines that the storage tanks are subject to NSPS subpart Kb. The Indian Basin Gas Plant is not part of the producing operation and its tanks are after the point of custody transfer as defined at 40 CFR 60.111(b). Therefore, the tanks do not qualify for the ``prior to custody transfer'' exemption in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4). Abstract for [M120027] Q1: Does EPA agree with the determinations of the Portsmouth Local Air Agency and the Southeast District Office of the Ohio EPA that the America Styrenics Hanging Rock and Marietta, Ohio facilities are subject to the MACT if they changed processes after the compliance date such that their potential emissions are well below the HAP major source thresholds? A1: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Portsmouth Local Air Agency, EPA determines that the facilities are still subject to the major source MACT standard because it is EPA's position that any source that is a major source of HAP on the first substantive compliance date of an applicable NESHAP will remain subject to that NESHAP regardless of the level of the source's subsequent emissions. Q2: Are these facilities still subject to Title V if their HAP emissions potential was the only criteria that made them subject to Title V requirements? A2: Yes. Because the facilities are subject to a major source MACT standard, they are also subject to Title V permitting requirements under Section 502(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a). Abstract for [M120029] Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring frequency for inspections of once per month rather than every 30 days under the Pulp and Paper MACT for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in Coshocton, Ohio? A: Yes. EPA approves this minor modification to the monitoring frequency under 40 CFR 63.8(b)(i) provided that the monitoring events are at least 21 days apart. Abstract for [1200087] Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a subtractive method for the NOx compliance determination and use of a temporary Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMs) for the initial performance test for a NSPS subpart Db affected facility at Valero Refining's Ethanol Plant in Bloomingburg, Ohio? The proposed method uses combined emissions from this subpart Db facility and another affected facility as determined by a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), and subtracts the emissions from the other facility as read by a separate CEMS. A: Yes. EPA approves the subtractive compliance determination approach under 40 CFR 60.8(b) authority for the initial performance testing. This request was necessary because, while the NSPS allows for the location of a CEMS in a stack serving multiple affected sources for the purpose of demonstration of continuous compliance, no such allowance is made for the initial performance testing requirement. Abstract for [Z140004] Q1: Are emergency engines located at commercial sources that are used for telecommunications purposes exempt from the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ? A1: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR part 63.6590(b)(3) state that emergency engines located at area sources that are classified as commercial, institutional or residential emergency stationary RICE are not subject to the requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Q2: Are emergency engines used by telecommunication facilities that are installed and located on industrial property also exempt? A2: The applicability of the RICE NESHAP is dependent on whether the commercial or industrial operation has common control over the emergency engine. If the industrial facility has control, the engine could be subject to the RICE NESHAP. Abstract for [1400016] Q1: Is Kippur Corporation's (Kippur) dual chamber, commercial incinerator which thermally destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in El Paso, Texas subject to regulation as an ``other solid waste incineration'' (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 subparts EEEE and FFFF? A1: Yes. Based on the information submitted by Kippur, EPA determines that the contraband incinerator is an OSWI unit subject to either NSPS subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF. In addition, the incinerator would not be subject to subpart EEEE because an air pollution abatement equipment is not considered part of an OSWI unit. Therefore, the increased feed rate caused by the higher air flow volume resulting from the addition of a second baghouse on the OSWI unit does not constitute a modification of the incinerator under NSPS subpart EEEE. Based on this and additional supplemental information Kippur provided, the OSWI Unit is therefore subject to NSPS subpart FFFF since subpart EEEE applicability was not trigger with the OSWI unit changes consistent with 40 CFR 60.2992. Q2: Does EPA approve a petition for approval of operating parameter limits (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet scrubber to comply with emission limitations? A2: No. In a separate September 12, 2012 letter, EPA disapproved the petition because specific information was lacking for final approval. Therefore, Kippur must comply with the appropriate NSPS subpart FFFF requirements. Abstract for [1400019] Q1: The Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC. on behalf of American Disposal Services of Illinois, which owns the Livingston Landfill, requests a clarification as to whether the Alternative Compliance Timeline (ACT) requests are due 15 days after an initial exceedance is identified through required monitoring activities, pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3) and (a)(s). A1: EPA indicates that 40 CFR 60.755 requires landfill owner/ operators to repair the cause of an exceedance within 15 days, or expand the gas collection system within 120 days. In the event that the landfill owner or operator, despite its best efforts, is unable to make the necessary repairs to resolve the exceedance within 15 days, and it believes that an expansion of gas collection is unwarranted, the landfill owner or operator may submit for approval an ACT request for correcting the as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as it knows that it will not be able to correct the exceedance in 15 days and it is unwarranted to expand the gas collection system) to avoid being in [[Page 22182]] violation of the rule and communicate the reasons for the exceedance, results of the investigation, and schedule for corrective action. Q2: Are ACT requests necessary if the owner/operator chooses to expand the gas collection system and is unable to complete the expansion project within 120 days? A2: Yes. The landfill owner or operator may submit an ACT request as soon as it determines that it cannot meet the 120 day deadline to avoid being in violation of the rule. See above response under A1. Q3: What information is included in an ACT request? A3: EPA's response describes a number of items that should be included, at a minimum. The request must promptly identify the problem, be very detailed, and contain substantial reasons beyond the control of the facility owner or operator why the exceedances could not and cannot be completed within the prescribed time frame allowed in the rule. Q4: If a facility makes repairs to a well to restore the well field to its original designed capacity, or replaces the well in-kind, does that constitute an expansion of the gas collection system (thereby causing the 120-day deadline to be applicable)? A4: No. An expansion of the gas collection system consists of an increase beyond the original design capacity. Abstract for [A140003] Q1: Are bridges considered regulated structures under the asbestos NESHAP? A1: Yes. In a response to the California Air Resource Board, EPA indicated that a bridge is a structure within the definition of a facility. As discussed in the October 1990 Background Information Document for Asbestos, it is prudent not to exclude structures such as bridges. Q2: Is a thorough inspection of a bridge for the presence of asbestos, including Category I and Category II, required under the asbestos NESHAP? A2: Yes. Under 40 CFR 61.145(a), a thorough inspection of any facility is required before demolition or renovation to identify friable asbestos, Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos- containing material (ACM) and Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM that are not friable at the time of the inspection but will be made friable due to the demolition or renovation. Q3: Is bridge concrete Category I, or is it Category II nonfriable ACM? A3: Bridge concrete is not listed as Category I nonfriable ACM. According to 40 CFR 61.141, Bridge concrete is considered Category II nonfriable ACM if it contains more than 1 percent asbestos that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Q4: Must bridge concrete be sampled for the presence of asbestos before demolition? A4: The bridge concrete must be thoroughly inspected. See 40 CFR 61.145(a). Sampling is done to determine whether the material is ACM or not. The amount of ACM that is or will be made friable during the demolition factors into whether asbestos NESHAP requirements apply. Q5: If the bridge concrete was never tested for the presence of asbestos before demolition and now the concrete is going to be crushed and recycled, must the concrete be tested for asbestos before crushing and recycling? A5: The concrete at a demolition operation regulated by 40 CFR 61.145 must be thoroughly inspected before the demolition operation to determine whether the material is ACM. The recycling could be considered part of the demolition operation and require the owner/ operator to sample to determine whether the concrete is ACM. The results will determine whether the concrete can continue to be recycled or must be managed and disposed of as regulated ACM. Abstract for [M140006] Q: Does K&K Ironworks in Chicago, Illinois remain subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMMM given that they no longer use the quantity of coatings required by 40 CFR 63.3881(b) for an affected source to be covered by Subpart MMMM, and they meet the criteria established at 40 CFR 63.3881(c)(1) to be excluded from coverage of subpart MMMM? A: Although K&K Ironworks of Chicago operations no longer fall under the types of activities subject to Subpart MMMM, there may be requirements of subpart MMMM and 40 CFR part 63 subpart A that did not immediately terminate when the company discontinued the use of coatings that contain HAPs. For example, the records retention and recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 63.3931(b) and 63.10(b)(3) are continuing obligations, that were triggered when the company used xylene. Abstract for [M140008] Q: Frontier Refining requested an applicability determination regarding the timing of tank inspections to meet the annual tank inspection requirements under NESHAP subpart G for the Holly Frontier facility in Wyoming. Can the annual inspection requirement be accomplished within an 11-13 month window from the prior inspection? A: Yes. If a regulation does not specifically state what is meant by the ``once per'' (timeframe), the EPA interprets the timeframe to mean at some point within the timeframe and at a reasonable interval between events. See, for example, 40 CFR 63.100(k)(9)(iii). A once per month obligation means sometime within the month, but not the last day of one month and the first day of the next month, because that is not a reasonable time interval. For annual requirements, a reasonable interval between events would be between 11 and 13 months. Abstract for [1400021] Q: Does EPA agree that Calumet Superior's two steam generating boilers located at its petroleum refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, and which are fuel gas combustion devices (FGCDs) affected facilities under NSPS subpart Ja, do not meet the definition of a process heaters under NSPS subpart Ja, and therefore are not subject to the emission limits, performance testing, monitoring and excess emission reporting requirements for NOx located at 40 CFR 60.102a(g)(2), 60.104a(i), 60.107a(c), 60.107a(d) and 60.102a(i)? A: Yes. EPA agrees that Calumet Superior's boilers meet the definition of FGCDs and do not meet the definition of process heaters under NSPS subpart Ja. Therefore, the boilers are not subject to any NOx requirements under NSPS subpart Ja. However, to the extent that the boilers are affected facilities under the Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, NSPS subpart Dc, they may be subject to NOx requirements. Abstract for [M140009] Q: May Benson Woodworking in Walpole, New Hampshire de-rate its Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set from its current capacity of greater than 300 brake horsepower hour (bhp) to less than 300 bhp by cutting the existing factory governor seal, resetting the loading screws to the lower output specification, and then resealing the governor with wire and a dealer specific lead stamp, to comply with the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ? A: No. The de-rate method proposal is not approvable by EPA. The proposed method of de-rating the engine is not permanent in nature. [[Page 22183]] Abstract for [M140010] Q: Can the following physical changes to Benson Woodworking's Walpole, New Hampshire Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set, including: removal of the current 400 amp circuit breaker and associated frame; destruction of the 400 amp frame; and, fabrication and installation of a new frame to hold a smaller 250 amp circuit that would prevent the engine output from exceeding 299 bhp, result in a de-rating of engine's capacity to less than 300 bhp? A: Yes. Based on the physical changes that Benson has proposed, EPA approves the de-rating of the unit to less than 300 bhp given the permanent nature of the physical changes to the unit. Abstract for [M140011] Q: Does the NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, subpart IIII apply to an existing marine propulsion engine manufactured March 22, 1999 (EU ID#4) that the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is planning to relocate as a non-stationary engine at its existing power plant in Emmonak, Alaska? A: No. The EU ID#4 engine is not subject to NSPS subpart IIII because it was manufactured prior to April 1, 2006, and commenced construction prior to July 11, 2005. The conversion of an existing non- stationary engine to use as an engine at a stationary source is not ``commencement of construction'' that would trigger new source status under this rule. However, the EU ID#4 existing engine would be subject to the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ when it is operated as a stationary source. Abstract for [M140012] Q1: Did a force majeure event, as defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart A, occur at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska? A1: Yes. EPA determines that on April 28, 2014, a force majeure event occurred at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska, when a mechanical failure of one of the facility's turbine generator rendered it inoperable. Q2: Is a 60 day extension of the performance test deadline under NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ appropriate? A2: Yes. The turbine generator, which is subject to a testing deadline, is needed for representative operation of the boiler when the load from winter district heating is not there to draw steam from the boiler. In 60 days (November 17, 2014) the load from winter district heating will be sufficient. Considering the time estimated to repair the turbine generator, it is reasonable to extend the deadline for the boiler compliance testing by 60 days. Abstract for [M140013] Q: Can EPA provide further guidance on how to conduct tune-ups under 40 CFR 63.11223(b), which is Condition 4 of the previously EPA approved one-year compliance deadline extension for the Eielson Air Force Base's Central Heat and Power Plant in Alaska? The four existing coal fired boilers subject to the compliance extension are of the spreader stoker/traveling grate design and do not have burners. A: Yes. EPA amends the previous approval of the compliance extension to provide further guidance on Condition 4 of the approval, as detailed in the EPA response letter. EPA provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11223(b) when burners are not present. Some requirements of 40 CFR 63.11223(b) do not apply, while others requirements, such as adjusting the air-to-fuel ratio, and measurement of oxygen and carbon monoxide are still required to be performed. Abstract for [M140014] Q: Does EPA approve a one-year compliance extension to meet the NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers, subpart JJJJJJ, for three existing coal-fired boilers (that operate as back-ups) located at the Brigham Young University in Idaho (BYU-Idaho)? The coal-fired boilers will be demolished and replaced with a new energy plant that will be fueled with natural gas. A: EPA conditionally approves an extension until December 31, 2014, to operate three coal-fired boilers in their backup capacity without the installation of controls that would otherwise be required to meet the NESHAP subpart JJJJJ. The compliance deadline is extended because BYU-Idaho is constructing a natural gas source of energy generation as a replacement source of energy to meet requirements of the CAA standard. The approval is conditional on BYU-Idaho implementing: (1) interim compliance deadlines for the construction of the natural gas replacement energy; and (2) tune-ups specified in 40 CFR 63.11214 for existing coal-fired boilers with a heat input capacity of less than 10 MM BTU/hr that do not meet the definition of limited-use boiler, or an oxygen trim system that maintains an optimum air-to-fuel ratio. Abstract for [Z140007] Q: Which area source NESHAP regulation applies to the operations at the BASF Corporation Facility in Lancaster, Texas (Lancaster site)? The NESHAP regulations to evaluate include: NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB applicable to Chemical Preparations Industry area source category; NESHAP subpart VVVVVV applicable to the Chemical Manufacturing Source Category; and NESHAP subpart CCCCCCC applicable to Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing. A: EPA finds that the NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB is applicable because the operations at the Lancaster site are mixing-type processes, which are typical of the Chemical Preparations Source Category. EPA understands the Lancaster Site produces architectural coatings, primarily acrylic latex-based stucco that contains aggregate, primarily sand. The Lancaster Site mixes latex dispersions produced off-site with aggregate and other additives to produce acrylic-based stucco. Abstract for [A140004] Q: Does EPA agree with the City of Sarasota, Florida that the demolition of a single-family residential building acquired by the city is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP subpart M due to the small residence exemption? A: Yes. Based on facts presented in the Memorandum of Law from Sarasota and the definition of facility in the asbestos NESHAP, EPA determines the building meets the conditions of a small residential building (a building containing four or fewer dwelling units) and is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulation. The house was not used for any institutional, commercial, public, or industrial purpose prior to the demolition. It is not part of an installation, nor part of any public or private project. Abstract for [A140005] Q: Does EPA approve the Transmission Electron Microscopy test procedure in place of the point counting procedure used to make a determination of the presence of asbestos in bulk materials, as required under the asbestos NESHAP? A: In a response to Masek Consulting Services, EPA indicates that the current asbestos regulation requires point counting after evaluating the sample by Polarized Light Microscopy. The owner/operator may choose to use Transmission Electron Microscopy only after analyzing the sample by Polarized Light Microscopy and point counting. [[Page 22184]] Abstract for [M140016] Q: Does EPA agree that the Boise DeRidder Mill No. l Bark Boiler in DeRidder, Louisiana is a biomass hybrid suspension grate boiler under NESHAP subpart DDDDD? A: Yes. EPA agrees that the boiler is subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD. The Bark Boiler has characteristics that are consistent with the definition of hybrid suspension grate boiler at 40 CFR 63.7575. However, natural gas and tire derived fuel are also present as potential fuels in the boiler. Therefore, the facility must keep records to demonstrate that the annual average moisture content is at or above the 40 percent moisture limit, as required in the rule. Abstract for [1400022] Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for product vapors from marine vessel loading operations which are inherently low in sulfur content, and are combusted in the Marine Vapor Recovery (MVR) Flare No.3, under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart J for the Chalmette Refining's Chalmette, Louisiana refinery? A: EPA determines that the AMP is no longer necessary since the definition of fuel gas has been modified under the September 12, 2012 amendment to subpart J (77 Federal Register 56463). The marine vessel loading vapor stream does not meet the definition of a fuel gas, as defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). Therefore, MVR Flare No.3 does not need to meet the continuous monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). Abstract for [1400023] Q: Can an exemption from monitoring be approved for a fuel gas stream that is low in sulfur content under NSPS subpart J, for the off- gas vent stream from the Gasoline Desulfurization Unit Selective Hydrogenation Unit Surge Drum Vent that is routed to the North Flare at the Marathon Oil facility in Garyville, Louisiana? A: Yes. Based on Marathon's description of the process vent streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption. EPA finds that, when controlled as delineated in the response letter, the vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur, according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), and does not need to meet the continuous monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). EPA included the facility's proposed operating parameter limits, which the facility must continue to monitor, as part of the conditional approval. Abstract for [1400024] Q: Can an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plan be approved for a fuel gas stream that is low in sulfur under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, Texas? The refinery proposes to combust commercial grade natural gas as a supplemental fuel, in combination with refinery fuel gas vent streams. A: Yes. Based on ExxonMobil's description of the process vent streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption. EPA finds that the mixture of non-monitored commercial natural gas and refinery fuel vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur, according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), when used and controlled as described in the EPA response letter. EPA included the facility's proposed operating parameter limits, which the facility must continue to monitor, as part of the conditional approval. Therefore, the fuel gas combustion devices listed in the request do not need to meet the continuous monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). Abstract for [1400025] Q: Is the propane refrigeration system used at the Enbridge Nine Mile Gas Plant in Dewey County, Oklahoma subject to the requirements of NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart KKK? A: Yes. EPA determines that propane system is subject to NSPS KKK based upon the information the company provided. The propane refrigeration system is a process unit that can also operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed. The propane refrigeration system is ``equipment'' under 40 CFR 60.631 because it consists of valves, connectors, and compressors in VOC service. These components are in light liquid VOC service because they contain or contact propane, which constitutes at least 97 percent by weight of content of the refrigeration system, and the propane is a liquid within the operating conditions of the refrigeration system. Abstract for [1400026] Q: Are two natural gas reciprocating compressors which were transferred from a ``laydown'' yard to the Fayetteville Gathering Hattieville Compressor Station, located in Hattieville, Arkansas, affected facilities subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart OOOO? A: No. Relocation, by itself, does not trigger NSPS applicability through modification. Based upon the fact that the company commenced construction of the two compressors on a continuous basis prior to the effective date of NSPS subpart OOOO, nor were they modified, these units are not affected facilities under the subpart. EPA clarified in final rule preamble to NSPS OOOO that relocation does not subject a source to new source standards. Additionally, the General Provisions to Part 60 contain similar language, that relocation or change in ownership, by itself, is not a modification. Abstract for [1400027] Q1: Does EPA provide final approval of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for parametric monitoring in lieu of a continuous opacity monitor for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Holly Refining & Marketing in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Holly) under NSPS 40 CFR 60, subpart J, and NESHAP 40 CFR 63, subpart UUU, based on submittal of test results? A1: Yes. EPA grants final approval of Holly's AMP request. Holly conducted a performance test and submitted additional data pertaining to a prior, conditionally approved AMP. EPA reviewed the performance test results and found the data supportive for establishing final OPLs for the WGS, which included minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratios, based on 3- hour, hourly rolling averages, for operation of the WGS with one or two nozzles. Abstract for [1400028] Q: May the Ineos Chocolate Bayou facility in Alvin, Texas, which is subject to both 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations (NSPS subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes (NSPS subpart RRR) use the monitoring and testing provisions in NSPS subpart RRR in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN for the process heaters? A: Yes. EPA approves the request for meeting Subpart RRR in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping for use of process heaters as control devices for compliance with the standards of both subparts. This would require monitoring of small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance events during maintenance in accordance with NSPS subpart RRR since they act as bypass valves. In addition, the schematic required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) is required with the initial report and must be maintained on site to ensure that the [[Page 22185]] affected vent streams are being routed to appropriate control devices without bypass. Abstract for [1400029] Q1: Does EPA agree with Kinder Morgan that the Condensate Splitter Flare located at the Galena Park Condensate Processing Facility in Harris County, Texas is subject to NSPS subpart Ja? A1: No. EPA is unable to verify applicability of NSPS subpart Ja because sufficient information about the facility or the operations and processes vented to the flare were not provided. Q2: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request for the Condensate Splitter Flare? A2: No. Kinder Morgan did not furnish sufficient detail about vent streams routed to the flare, or adequately describe the specific refinery process that would produce low sulfur content vent streams. Assuming the vent streams are fuel gas streams subject to NSPS subpart Ja, we cannot approve any AMP that seeks to circumvent a specific emissions monitoring requirement for affected facility operations. Under NSPS, new facilities must be constructed in such a manner that monitors are installed to demonstrate initial compliance and ensure ongoing compliance until such time that an exemption can be met. Furthermore, applications for exemptions to a rule must provide sufficient data at the time of the request in order to be evaluated for approval. Abstract for [1400030] Q1: Does EPA approve the HollyFrontier Companies' request for approval of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring oxygen in the stack, in lieu of parametric monitoring to substitute for a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, for the hydrocracker reboiler at Navajo Refining's Artesia, New Mexico refinery (Navajo), to comply with the NOX and oxygen standards in NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja? A1: Yes. EPA determines that Navajo's AMP that combines monitoring oxygen in the stack along with other specific process monitoring parameters is acceptable based on the limited usage of refinery fuel gas and the information submitted, including the performance test results. Navajo sampled the fuel gas at the reboiler to demonstrate that the stream is 100 percent purchased natural gas. Also, to improve the efficiency of the heater, Navajo installed new burner tips to better combust the purchased natural gas. As a result, NOX and O2 emissions were reduced, as verified by a performance test. Abstract for [1400031] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for PSC Industrial to conduct monitoring of H2 S emissions at various locations in EPA Region 6, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries that are subject to NSPS 40 CFR 60 subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves PSC Industrial's AMP request. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, EPA finds that it is impractical to require monitoring via an H2S CEMS as specified by NSPS subparts J and Ja for the specific portable and temporary combustion device use. EPA included operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. This conditional approval applies to this company's refineries in EPA Region 6 only. EPA's conditional approval should also be referenced and appropriately incorporated into PSC Industrial's new source review permit in each state where degassing operations at refineries will occur, to ensure federal enforceability. Abstract for [1400032] Q: Can Samson Exploration, Houston, Texas submit hard copy photographs with the required GIS and date stamp data printed below each photograph in streamlined annual reports required under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(2) of NSPS subpart OOOO? A: Yes. The inclusion of such types of submissions in annual reports is acceptable. There is no regulatory prohibition against submitting hard copies which have the date and GIS coordinates printed beneath each photograph, provided that the proximity of each photograph and its associated data ensures clear correlation. EPA further clarified that, in conjunction with the self-certification statement required under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(1)(iv), a statement should be included that digital images of the photographs for each well completion are retained, such that the digital image files contain embedded date stamps and geographic coordinate stamps to link the photographs with the specific well completion operations. Abstract for [1400033] Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Tristar Global Energy Solutions Company (Tristar) to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system, when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries at various locations that are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request. EPA included operating parameter limits and data which the refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. This conditional approval applies to Tristar's degreasing operations at refineries in EPA Region 6 only. Abstract for [1400034] Q1: Does EPA agree with Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC) that excess emission for the Hugo Generating Station, Choctaw County, Oklahoma coal-fired boiler, an ``affected facility'' under NSPS for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators, subpart D, would only be reported for certain periods of operational status such as when the boiler is firing fuel for the purpose of generating electricity? A1: No. EPA disagreed that reporting of excess emissions should be limited to certain periods of boiler operational status. EPA reiterated that the NSPS requires reporting of all periods of excess emissions, including those temporary occurrences that may result in a particular emission standard being exceeded. Required recordkeeping and reporting should be viewed, along with O&M and SSM protocols, as a company's substantiation of acting in good faith to demonstrate compliance with emission limitations, standards, and work practice standards at all times. EPA believes that WFEC has misinterpreted certain monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the NSPS and MACT standards that a combustion source must meet for continuous compliance demonstration, which we explained in the Regulatory Interpretation enclosure of the EPA response. Abstract for [1400035] Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec, for a pollution control system on a new [[Page 22186]] medical waste incinerator which consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) followed by a carbon adsorber and cartridge filter, located at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMBG) in Galveston, Texas? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Hydro-Environmental Technologies petition on behalf UTMBG for an AMP. As part of the conditional approval, performance testing must be conducted to demonstrate compliance and establish OPL values for the WGS, carbon adsorber and cartridge filter. Final approval of the AMP will be based on the OPLs established and other provisions that may be deemed necessary from our evaluation of the test results. Abstract for [1400036] Q: Will EPA approve the Fuel Analysis Plan for monitoring total sulfur content of fuels in lieu of SO2 emissions monitoring under NSPS subpart Db for Industrial-Commercial Institutional Steam Generating Units for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after June 19, 1984, at the No. 6 Power Boiler in Westvaco, Texas L.P. facility (Westvaco)? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Westvaco's Fuel Analysis Plan, as delineated within the response letter. 40 CFR 60.45b(k) allows compliance to be demonstrated by a fuel based compliance alternative. The plan ensures that data will be collected to demonstrate that the average percentage sulfur concentration in the wood fuel, plus three standard deviations, will not result in a combined fuel mixture that will exceed the sulfur emission limit. Westvaco will continue to obtain and maintain fuel receipts for the other combusted fuels. Abstract for [1400037] Q: Can an exemption from monitoring be approved for a fuel gas stream that is low in sulfur content, under NSPS subpart J, for the off-gas vent stream from the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot in the Alky Stripper Reboiler Heater, at the Valero Refining Meraux facility in Meraux, Louisiana? A: Yes. Based on the description of the process vent streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves the exemption in light of changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 Federal Register 35866). EPA finds that, when used and controlled as described in the response letter, the vent gas stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D) and therefore, the fuel gas combustion device does not need to meet the continuous monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4) for the Merox Off- gas Knockout Pot fuel gas stream. Valero Meraux is required to monitor and control the relevant process parameters, as summarized in the Enclosure, as a condition of this exemption approval. Abstract for [1100017] Q: Can alternative monitoring be approved in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) since the moisture in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit exhaust from the wet gas scrubber (WGS) will interfere with the ability of the COMS to take accurate opacity readings due to water interference for the Conoco Phillips Sweeny, Texas Refinery? A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring based on information provided by Conoco, including a stack test report and three proposed operating parameters limits (OPLs) for the wet gas scrubber. The OPLs address nozzle pressure, pressure drop, and liquid to gas ratio. Dated: April 13, 2015. Lisa Lund, Director, Office of Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015-09242 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![22176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices
time on the specified comment date. Persons unable to file electronically http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/
Protests may be considered, but should submit an original and 5 copies resources-and-guidance-documents-
intervention is necessary to become a of the intervention or protest to the compliance-assistance. The letters and
party to the proceeding. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, memoranda on the ADI may be located
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC by control number, date, author,
information relating to filing 20426. subpart, or subject search. For questions
requirements, interventions, protests, The filings in the above-referenced about the ADI or this notice, contact
service, and qualifying facilities filings proceeding(s) are accessible in the Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202)
can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Commission’s eLibrary system by 564–7027, or by email at:
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For clicking on the appropriate link in the malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical
other information, call (866) 208–3676 above list. They are also available for questions about individual applicability
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. review in the Commission’s Public determinations or monitoring decisions,
Dated: April 15, 2015. Reference Room in Washington, DC. refer to the contact person identified in
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
There is an eSubscription link on the the individual documents, or in the
Web site that enables subscribers to absence of a contact person, refer to the
Deputy Secretary.
receive email notification when a author of the document.
[FR Doc. 2015–09178 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am]
document is added to a subscribed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please email Background
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call The General Provisions of the NSPS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Federal Energy Regulatory (202) 502–8659. part 60 and the General Provisions of
Commission Dated: April 14, 2015. the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., that a source owner or operator may
[Docket No. ER15–1463–000] request a determination of whether
Deputy Secretary.
Triton Energy, Inc.; Supplemental [FR Doc. 2015–09044 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am]
certain intended actions constitute the
Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate commencement of construction,
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Filing Includes Request for Blanket reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s
Section 204 Authorization written responses to these inquiries are
commonly referred to as applicability
This is a supplemental notice in the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and
above-referenced proceeding, of Triton AGENCY 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP
Energy, Inc.’s application for market- [FRL–9926–65–OECA] regulations [which include Maximum
based rate authority, with an Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
accompanying rate schedule, noting that Applicability Determination Index (ADI) and/or Generally Available Control
such application includes a request for Database System Recent Posting: Technology (GACT)standards] and
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Applicability Determinations, § 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
part 34, of future issuances of securities Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and contain no specific regulatory provision
and assumptions of liability. Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining providing that sources may request
Any person desiring to intervene or to to Standards of Performance for New applicability determinations, EPA also
protest should file with the Federal Stationary Sources, National Emission responds to written inquiries regarding
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Standards for Hazardous Air applicability for the part 63 and § 111(d)
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Pollutants, and the Stratospheric programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 Ozone Protection Program allow sources to seek permission to use
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice monitoring or recordkeeping that is
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and AGENCY: Environmental Protection different from the promulgated
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to Agency (EPA). requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i),
intervene or protest must serve a copy ACTION: Notice of availability. 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f).
of that document on the Applicant. EPA’s written responses to these
Notice is hereby given that the SUMMARY: This notice announces inquiries are commonly referred to as
deadline for filing protests with regard applicability determinations, alternative alternative monitoring decisions.
to the applicant’s request for blanket monitoring decisions, and regulatory Furthermore, EPA responds to written
authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of interpretations that EPA has made inquiries about the broad range of NSPS
future issuances of securities and under the New Source Performance and NESHAP regulatory requirements as
assumptions of liability is May 4, 2015. Standards (NSPS); the National they pertain to a whole source category.
The Commission encourages Emission Standards for Hazardous Air These inquiries may pertain, for
electronic submission of protests and Pollutants (NESHAP); and/or the example, to the type of sources to which
interventions in lieu of paper, using the Stratospheric Ozone Protection the regulation applies, or to the testing,
FERC Online links at http:// Program. monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An requirements contained in the
service, persons with Internet access electronic copy of each complete regulation. EPA’s written responses to
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
who will eFile a document and/or be document posted on the Applicability these inquiries are commonly referred to
listed as a contact for an intervenor Determination Index (ADI) database as regulatory interpretations.
must create and validate an system is available on the Internet EPA currently compiles EPA-issued
eRegistration account using the through the Resources and Guidance NSPS and NESHAP applicability
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling Documents for Compliance Assistance determinations, alternative monitoring
link to log on and submit the page of the Clean Air Act Compliance decisions, and regulatory
intervention or protests. Monitoring Web site under ‘‘Air’’ at: interpretations, and posts them to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/1.svg)
![22178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 7, 2015—Continued
Control Number Categories Subparts Title
M140011 ................ MACT, PART 63 IIII, ZZZZ ............... Applicability to a Non-stationary Engine Relocated For Use as a Stationary
NESHAP, NSPS. Engine.
M140012 ................ PART 63 NESHAP A, JJJJJJ ............... Determination of Force Majeure.
M140013 ................ PART 63 NESHAP JJJJJJ ................... Regulatory Interpretation of Tune-up Requirements for Spreader Stoker Boiler.
M140014 ................ PART 63 NESHAP JJJJJJ ................... Compliance Extension for Replacement Energy Source.
Z140007 ................. Part 63 NESHAP .. BBBBBBB, Rule Applicability to HAP-Containing Mixing Operations to Produce Acrylic-
VVVVVV. Based Stucco.
A140004 ................ Asbestos ............... M ........................... Small Residence Exemption.
A140005 ................ Asbestos ............... M ........................... Interim Method of Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples and
Transmission Electron Microscopy.
M140016 ................ MACT, PART 63 DDDDD ................. Categorization and applicability of a Boiler using natural gas and tire derived
NESHAP. fuel.
1400022 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ NSPS Fuel Gas Definition and Alternative Monitoring of Marine Vessel Load-
ing Vapors.
1400023 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Conditional CEMS Exemption Approval for Low Sulfur Combustion of Off-gas
Vent Stream.
1400024 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ CEMS Exemption in Lieu of Alternative Monitoring for Combustion of Com-
mercial Grade Natural Gas and Refinery Fuel Gas.
1400025 ................. NSPS .................... KKK ....................... Regulatory Interpretation for Gas Plant Propane Refrigeration System.
1400026 ................. NSPS .................... OOOO ................... Applicability Determination for Reciprocating Compressors.
1400027 ................. MACT, PART 63 J, UUU .................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wet Gas Scrubber on a Fluidized Catalytic
NESHAP, NSPS. Cracking Unit.
1400028 ................. NSPS .................... NNN, RRR ............ Alternative Monitoring and Waiver of Testing Request for Distillation Vent Gas
to Process Heaters.
1400029 ................. NSPS .................... Ja .......................... Request for Alternative Monitoring of Condensate Splitter Flare.
1400030 ................. NSPS .................... Ja .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Oxygen in Boiler Stack Emissions.
1400031 ................. NSPS .................... J, Ja ...................... Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring in Tank Degassing Vapors Com-
busted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers.
1400032 ................. NSPS .................... OOOO ................... Regulatory Interpretation—Submission of Photographs For Natural Gas Well
Completion Annual Reports.
1400033 ................. NSPS .................... J, Ja ...................... Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring in Tank Degassing Vapors Com-
busted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers.
1400034 ................. NSPS .................... A, D ....................... Regulatory Interpretation—Demonstrating Continuous Compliance and Report-
ing Excess Emissions for NSPS and Title V.
1400035 ................. NSPS .................... Ec .......................... Alternative Operating Parameters for a Wet Gas Scrubber Followed By Car-
bon Adsorber and Cartridge Filter at an HMIWI.
1400036 ................. NSPS .................... Db .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fuel Analysis from Subpart Db Boiler.
1400037 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Conditional CEMS Exemption Approval for Low Sulfur Combustion of Off-gas
Vent Stream.
1100017 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Monitoring of Opacity for a Wet Gas Scrubber.
Abstracts electronic database, dispose of the field subpart OOO, including the belt
data sheets? conveyors used to transfer gypsum to
Abstract for [M110015]
A2: No. Original field data sheets storage sheds or loading docks.
Q1: What is EPA interpretation of raw must be preserved whenever any sort of Q2: Must the crushing or grinding of
data, in reference to 40 CFR 63.654 and emissions sampling or equipment gypsum take place in the ‘‘production
40 CFR 60.115b and the storage vessel testing, such as measuring seal gaps in line’’ to be subject to subpart OOO?
recordkeeping provisions in NSPS a storage tank, is performed.
Transferring raw data into a database A2: No. The definition of production
subpart Kb, and Part 63 NESHAP
can introduce additional error in data line does not require that every affected
subparts G and CC?
transcription and entry. facility be part of a production line with
A1: EPA indicated to the Texas crushing or grinding. If crushing or
Commission on Environmental Quality Abstract for [1400038] grinding of a nonmetallic mineral
Region 14 that although the phrase ‘‘raw Q1: Is gypsum handling equipment at occurs anywhere at the facility, then
data’’ does not have a regulatory the Dominion Chesterfield Power each affected facility is subject
definition, EPA has issued guidance on Station in Chester, Virginia, subject to regardless of its location within the
this subject to deal with air pollution NSPS subpart OOO for Nonmetallic plant.
measurement systems and the quality Mineral Processing Plants? Dominion
assurance procedures associated with Q3: Are there other power plants with
acknowledges that a limestone crushing
such systems. In general, raw data is flue gas desulfurization units where the
process at Chesterfield is subject to
data that is captured and recorded on gypsum handling equipment is subject
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
subpart OOO.
field data sheets during a measurement to subpart OOO?
A1: Yes. The gypsum handling
of some sort, such as sampling of equipment is also subject to NSPS A3: Yes. Based on a brief review of
emissions or testing of control subpart OOO. The facility meets the similar permits, EPA found at least three
equipment. definition of a nonmetallic mineral such power plants with permits where
Q2: May a source, after transferring processing plant, and each affected subpart OOO was applied to the gypsum
data from field data sheets into an facility at Chesterfield is subject to handling equipment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22179
Abstract for [1100018] manufacturing process units and caustic CFR 60.104(a)(2), the data necessary to
Q: Does EPA approve the scrubbers controlling Group 1 Process comply with the portion of the CD
ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas Refinery Vents at the Dow Chemical plant in La requiring aggregation of sulfur pit
Alternate Monitoring Plan (AMP) under Porte, Texas? emissions for compliance demonstration
A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP based with the NSPS subpart J SO2 limit
NSPS subpart J? Conoco claims an
on the information provided. The plan would not be collected.
exemption per 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)
to monitor scrubber caustic strength by
because Flare #7 receives fuel gas waste Abstract for [Z140005]
grab sampling, in lieu of continuously
from catalytic reforming units. measuring caustic strength, is Q: Does EPA approve an exemption
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves technically acceptable. Subpart FFFF from NESHAP subpart WWWWWW
ConocoPhillips’s AMP. Conditional requires that the scrubbers be monitored under the definition of research and
approval of alternative monitoring continuously either via continuous pH development for the electroplating and
parameters is granted based on a measurement and recording as specified surface finishing facility at Los Alamos
requirement that the flare receive low in 40 CFR 63.994(c)(1)(i) and National Laboratory in New Mexico?
sulfur/sulfide bearing streams waste fuel 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), or via continuously A: Yes. Based on a review of 40 CFR
gas only from catalytic reformers. Any monitoring and recording the caustic 63.11505(d)(2) and the definition of a
significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide strength of the effluent. Use of a research and development process unit
concentration detected in the stream continuous pH meter or caustic strength at 40 CFR 63.11511, EPA determines
would initiate continuous monitoring analyzer may be unreliable due to that the facility meets the definition and
under 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or (4). fouling. The AMP includes frequent is not subject to NESHAP subpart
Introduction of other streams that are grab sampling to monitor caustic WWWWWW.
not from catalytic reformers require strength based on a worst case loading
application of another AMP. Abstract for [M120018]
scenario.
Abstract for [Z140006] Q: Will EPA approve Motiva
Abstract for [Z120001] Enterprises’ (Motiva) Alternative
Q1: Does EPA approve of a waiver in Q: Is an inter-plant pipeline which Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR
the number of performance test transports liquids that are at least 10 60.8 and 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet
sampling locations required to comply percent benzene by weight between two gas scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery Fluid
with particulate stack sampling major source facilities, each belonging Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu
requirements under 40 CFR part 63 to Equistar Chemicals in Alvin, Texas, of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring
subpart YYYYY for the electric arc subject to part 61 NESHAP subparts J System (COMS), due to moisture
furnace at ArcelorMittal’s LaPlace, and V? interference on opacity readings in the
Louisiana facility? A: Yes. An inter-plant pipeline that stack, to demonstrate compliance with
A1: No. Based on the information transports benzene liquids is an the opacity limit under 40 CFR
provided, EPA could not approve the emission source that is in benzene 60.102(a)(2) and requirements of MACT
request to sample only three of the six service according to 40 CFR 61.110 and subpart UUU at Motiva’s Port Arthur,
emission points. Without the results of 61.111, regardless of whether or not the Texas refinery?
a previous performance test which pipeline is defined as a discrete process A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
included results for all six emission unit. 40 CFR 61.110(a) includes valves, Motiva’s AMP. A performance test is
points, EPA could not confirm that connectors or systems in benzene necessary to establish Operating
emissions from three of the emission service, regardless of their location, and Parameter Limits (OPLs) and other
points might be representative of all six. subpart V applies as the leak detection operating and monitoring conditions
Additionally, EPA reserves the right to provision for subpart J, per 40 CFR required for demonstrating compliance
determine which emission points 61.111. with NSPS subpart J, MACT subpart
should be sampled. UUU and the Consent Decree for each
Q2: Can the 60-day testing Abstract for [M120015]
WGS. The EPA response letter specifies
notification requirement be waived, Q: Does EPA approve an alternate the operating conditions, operating
allowing ArcelorMittal a 30-day work practice for monitoring hydrogen parameters, test notice deadlines, and
notification period? sulfide (H2S) at bypass lines associated notification content that are conditions
A2: Yes. Based on the timing of with sulfur recovery unit (SRU) sulfur of the approval. Interim OPLs are
ArcelorMittal’s testing waiver request pits, which are subject to both MACT provided.
and the testing schedule, EPA is subpart UUU and NSPS subpart J, and
allowing a reduced testing notification the terms of a Consent Decree (CD), at Abstract for [M120020]
timeframe. EPA asked that ArcelorMittal the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative
provide the Louisiana Department of Texas East and West refineries? Monitoring Plan (AMP) for parametric
Environmental Quality (DEQ) a written A: No. EPA does not approve the monitoring on caustic scrubbers used to
notice at least ten (10) days prior to the alternate work practice because it would control hydrochloric acid emissions
intended testing dates in order that DEQ be in direct conflict with both the rule from storage tanks, loading, and process
be afforded the opportunity to observe and the intent of the CD, and would vents under 40 CFR part 63 subpart
the testing. result in non-compliance. The SRUs and NNNNN at the Rubicon facility in
sulfur pits are subject to a CD that Geismar, Louisiana?
Abstract for [M120012] requires sulfur pit emissions to be A: Yes. Based on the information
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative continuously monitored and counted provided in Rubicon’s request, EPA
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring toward SRU total emissions for conditionally approves the AMP. A
the caustic strength of scrubber effluent compliance demonstration with the minimum pH operating parameter limit
by a grab sample monitoring system, in NSPS subpart J limit for sulfur dioxide (OPL), and a minimum recirculating
lieu of continuously measuring caustic (SO2). Since the alternative work liquid flow rate, pursuant to 40 CFR
strength, under MACT subpart FFFF for practice proposed by Flint Hills did not 63.9020(e)(1)(i), must be established
the miscellaneous organic chemical include continuous monitoring per 40 during a performance test conducted
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/4.svg)
![22180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices
under worst case emissions operating requirement of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1) is the vent gas stream. The effluent is to be
scenario. The scrubbers’ effectiveness in satisfied, which only allows a 60-day lag sampled and tested daily. Valero must
meeting subpart NNNNN emission between the end of the reporting period follow the seven step process
standards during normal operations will and the due date of a periodic report. (Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS
be ensured by continuous monitoring of EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas) in the
the two OPLs. CFR 63.10(a)(6) and 63.9(i), and consent decree for the No. 4 vent
concurred that the proposed reporting stream.
Abstract for [1200038]
schedule satisfies the requirements of 40
Q1: Can equivalency testing be Abstract for [1200042]
CFR 63.152(c)(1).
approved to relocate the flue gas Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative
continuous opacity monitoring system Abstract for [1200039] Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring
(COMS) on the stack outlet of a wet gas Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative hydrogen sulfide (H2S) of vent gases
scrubber (WGS) covered under NSPS Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring from the control of diesel and jet fuel
subpart D at the Texas Municipal Power hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery truck loading, toluene and reformate
Agency (TMPA) Gibbons Creek Electric hydrocracker feed surge drum off-gas storage tanks, and groundwater recovery
Steam Generating Station Unit 1? vent stream combusted at four wells at the Valero Refining Corpus
A1: Yes. 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B hydrocracker heaters at the Valero Christi, Texas East refinery? The vent
Performance Specification 1 (PS 1) Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West streams are combusted at the truck rack
Section 8.1 (2)(i) and (ii) specify refinery? thermal oxidizer enclosed vapor
measurement location and light beam A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s AMP combustor.
path requirements for COMS. If the based on the description of the process A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s AMP
proposed alternate COMS locations do vent streams, the design of the vent gas based on the description of the process
not meet these requirements, controls, and the H2S monitoring data vent stream, the design of the vent gas
equivalency testing must be conducted furnished. The approval specifies controls, and the H2S monitoring data
in accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 operating parameter limits for total furnished. Valero must follow the seven
(2)(iii) for each possible alternative sulfur and temperature. Valero must step process detailed in the Alternative
location. Based on the test proposal, follow the seven step process detailed in Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J
EPA approves the request for the Valero consent decree appendix on Refinery Fuel Gas appendix of Valero’s
conducting preliminary equivalency Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS consent decree. The approval specifies
testing only, with a 60-day notification subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas. an H2S operating limit from each of the
provided to the State authority. emission sources (e.g., loading, tanks,
Q2: What if there are separate ducts Abstract for [1200040]
wells) covered by the AMP.
that split the vent stream gas flow? Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative
A2: Relocation and the preliminary Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring Abstract for [1200046]
equivalency testing must include the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery Q: Does EPA approve single-point
use of two COMS units in order to process feed surge drum off-gas vent testing in place of Method 1 or 1A for
provide opacity readings representative stream combusted at a charge heater required testing of engine emissions
of total emissions. under NSPS subpart J at the Valero under 40 CFR part 60 subpart JJJJ, for
Q3: What must the facility do to Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West the ConocoPhillips Lake Pelto
obtain subsequent approval for refinery? Compressor Barge, located offshore in
permanent relocation of the stack A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s AMP southern Louisiana?
COMS? based on the description of the process A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips’
A3: TMPA must provide the data and vent stream, the design of the vent gas single-point testing, since the engines
operating information from the controls, and the H2S monitoring data are located over water, and are difficult
preliminary equivalency testing for the furnished. The approval specifies to test due to limited space.
alternative location ultimately selected, operating parameter limits for total
Abstract for [1200062]
in accordance with the applicable sulfur and temperature. Valero must
performance test reporting requirements follow the seven step process detailed in Q1: Is the installation of a backup
of NSPS subparts A and D. In the Valero consent decree appendix on vapor recovery unit (BU–VRU) to
accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS capture emissions from a glycol
(2)(iii), the average opacity value subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas. dehydrator unit, which includes a
measured at each temporary COMS at compressor, at the Marathon Petroleum
Abstract for [1200041] Indian Basin Gas Plant near Carlsbad,
the selected alternate location must be
within +/¥ 10 percent of the average Q: Does EPA approve an alternative New Mexico, considered a modification
opacity value measured at the existing monitoring request for monitoring of an affected facility and thus subject
flue gas stack COMS, and the difference hydrogen sulfide (H2S) the No. 4 vent to NSPS subpart KKK?
between any two average opacity values stream at the Valero Refining West Plant A1: Based on the information
must be less than 2 percent opacity in Corpus Christi, Texas? The request provided by the Air Quality Bureau of
(absolute value). involves vent streams from the Oleflex the New Mexico Environment
Reactor Lock Hopper Engager off-gas Department (AQB–NMED), EPA
Abstract for [M120021] vent stream combusted at the Oleflex determines that the installation of the
Q: Does EPA approve a common Interheater. BU–VRU compressor at the Indian Basin
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
schedule for submitting periodic reports A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s Gas Plant is subject to NSPS subpart
under the Hazardous Organic part 63 alternative monitoring request based on KKK. The compressor is an affected
NESHAP, subparts G and H, at the the description of the process vent facility under NSPS subpart KKK that
Union Carbide Texas City, Texas stream, the design of the vent gas was constructed after the applicability
facility? controls, and the H2S monitoring data date and is presumed to be in VOC or
A: Yes. EPA approves the common furnished. There will be no points wet gas service. The pollution control
schedule provided the reporting where sour gas can be introduced into device exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22181
the General Provisions is superseded by for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in El Paso, Texas subject to regulation
40 CFR 60.630 and therefore does not in Coshocton, Ohio? as an ‘‘other solid waste incineration’’
apply. In addition, the NSPS subpart A: Yes. EPA approves this minor (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60
KKK does not include exemptions for modification to the monitoring subparts EEEE and FFFF?
compressor emergency operations or frequency under 40 CFR 63.8(b)(i) A1: Yes. Based on the information
operating less than 500 hours per year. provided that the monitoring events are submitted by Kippur, EPA determines
With respect to whether the other at least 21 days apart. that the contraband incinerator is an
affected facility, which includes all OSWI unit subject to either NSPS
Abstract for [1200087] subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF. In
other equipment (except compressors),
that are part of the glycol dehydrator Q: Does EPA approve a request to use addition, the incinerator would not be
process unit, EPA cannot make a a subtractive method for the NOx subject to subpart EEEE because an air
modification determination since there compliance determination and use of a pollution abatement equipment is not
is no information on emission increases temporary Continuous Emission considered part of an OSWI unit.
or decreases available. Monitoring System (CEMs) for the Therefore, the increased feed rate
Q2: Are the two storage tanks at the initial performance test for a NSPS caused by the higher air flow volume
Indian Basin Gas Plant subject to NSPS subpart Db affected facility at Valero resulting from the addition of a second
subpart Kb, or are they exempt under Refining’s Ethanol Plant in baghouse on the OSWI unit does not
the custody transfer exemption in 40 Bloomingburg, Ohio? The proposed constitute a modification of the
CFR 60.110b(d)(4)? method uses combined emissions from incinerator under NSPS subpart EEEE.
A2: Based on the information this subpart Db facility and another Based on this and additional
provided by AQB–NMED, EPA affected facility as determined by a supplemental information Kippur
determines that the storage tanks are Continuous Emission Monitoring provided, the OSWI Unit is therefore
subject to NSPS subpart Kb. The Indian System (CEMS), and subtracts the subject to NSPS subpart FFFF since
Basin Gas Plant is not part of the emissions from the other facility as read subpart EEEE applicability was not
producing operation and its tanks are by a separate CEMS. trigger with the OSWI unit changes
after the point of custody transfer as A: Yes. EPA approves the subtractive consistent with 40 CFR 60.2992.
defined at 40 CFR 60.111(b). Therefore, compliance determination approach Q2: Does EPA approve a petition for
the tanks do not qualify for the ‘‘prior under 40 CFR 60.8(b) authority for the approval of operating parameter limits
to custody transfer’’ exemption in 40 initial performance testing. This request (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet
CFR 60.110b(d)(4). was necessary because, while the NSPS scrubber to comply with emission
allows for the location of a CEMS in a limitations?
Abstract for [M120027] stack serving multiple affected sources A2: No. In a separate September 12,
Q1: Does EPA agree with the for the purpose of demonstration of 2012 letter, EPA disapproved the
determinations of the Portsmouth Local continuous compliance, no such petition because specific information
Air Agency and the Southeast District allowance is made for the initial was lacking for final approval.
Office of the Ohio EPA that the America performance testing requirement. Therefore, Kippur must comply with the
Styrenics Hanging Rock and Marietta, appropriate NSPS subpart FFFF
Ohio facilities are subject to the MACT Abstract for [Z140004] requirements.
if they changed processes after the Q1: Are emergency engines located at Abstract for [1400019]
compliance date such that their commercial sources that are used for
potential emissions are well below the telecommunications purposes exempt Q1: The Cornerstone Environmental
HAP major source thresholds? from the Reciprocating Internal Group, LLC. on behalf of American
A1: Yes. Based on the information Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP Disposal Services of Illinois, which
provided by the Portsmouth Local Air regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart owns the Livingston Landfill, requests a
Agency, EPA determines that the ZZZZ? clarification as to whether the
facilities are still subject to the major A1: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR Alternative Compliance Timeline (ACT)
source MACT standard because it is part 63.6590(b)(3) state that emergency requests are due 15 days after an initial
EPA’s position that any source that is a engines located at area sources that are exceedance is identified through
major source of HAP on the first classified as commercial, institutional or required monitoring activities, pursuant
substantive compliance date of an residential emergency stationary RICE to the requirements in 40 CFR
applicable NESHAP will remain subject are not subject to the requirements at 40 60.755(a)(3) and (a)(s).
to that NESHAP regardless of the level CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. A1: EPA indicates that 40 CFR 60.755
of the source’s subsequent emissions. Q2: Are emergency engines used by requires landfill owner/operators to
Q2: Are these facilities still subject to telecommunication facilities that are repair the cause of an exceedance
Title V if their HAP emissions potential installed and located on industrial within 15 days, or expand the gas
was the only criteria that made them property also exempt? collection system within 120 days. In
subject to Title V requirements? A2: The applicability of the RICE the event that the landfill owner or
A2: Yes. Because the facilities are NESHAP is dependent on whether the operator, despite its best efforts, is
subject to a major source MACT commercial or industrial operation has unable to make the necessary repairs to
standard, they are also subject to Title common control over the emergency resolve the exceedance within 15 days,
V permitting requirements under engine. If the industrial facility has and it believes that an expansion of gas
Section 502(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. control, the engine could be subject to collection is unwarranted, the landfill
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7661a(a). the RICE NESHAP. owner or operator may submit for
approval an ACT request for correcting
Abstract for [M120029] Abstract for [1400016] the as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative Q1: Is Kippur Corporation’s (Kippur) it knows that it will not be able to
monitoring frequency for inspections of dual chamber, commercial incinerator correct the exceedance in 15 days and
once per month rather than every 30 which thermally destroys contraband it is unwarranted to expand the gas
days under the Pulp and Paper MACT for U.S. Customs and Border Protection collection system) to avoid being in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/6.svg)
![22182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices
violation of the rule and communicate if it contains more than 1 percent accomplished within an 11–13 month
the reasons for the exceedance, results asbestos that, when dry, cannot be window from the prior inspection?
of the investigation, and schedule for crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to A: Yes. If a regulation does not
corrective action. powder by hand pressure. specifically state what is meant by the
Q2: Are ACT requests necessary if the Q4: Must bridge concrete be sampled
‘‘once per’’ (timeframe), the EPA
owner/operator chooses to expand the for the presence of asbestos before
interprets the timeframe to mean at
gas collection system and is unable to demolition?
A4: The bridge concrete must be some point within the timeframe and at
complete the expansion project within
thoroughly inspected. See 40 CFR a reasonable interval between events.
120 days?
A2: Yes. The landfill owner or 61.145(a). Sampling is done to See, for example, 40 CFR
operator may submit an ACT request as determine whether the material is ACM 63.100(k)(9)(iii). A once per month
soon as it determines that it cannot meet or not. The amount of ACM that is or obligation means sometime within the
the 120 day deadline to avoid being in will be made friable during the month, but not the last day of one
violation of the rule. See above response demolition factors into whether asbestos month and the first day of the next
under A1. NESHAP requirements apply. month, because that is not a reasonable
Q3: What information is included in Q5: If the bridge concrete was never time interval. For annual requirements,
an ACT request? tested for the presence of asbestos before a reasonable interval between events
A3: EPA’s response describes a demolition and now the concrete is would be between 11 and 13 months.
number of items that should be going to be crushed and recycled, must Abstract for [1400021]
included, at a minimum. The request the concrete be tested for asbestos before
must promptly identify the problem, be crushing and recycling? Q: Does EPA agree that Calumet
very detailed, and contain substantial A5: The concrete at a demolition Superior’s two steam generating boilers
reasons beyond the control of the operation regulated by 40 CFR 61.145 located at its petroleum refinery in
facility owner or operator why the must be thoroughly inspected before the Superior, Wisconsin, and which are fuel
exceedances could not and cannot be demolition operation to determine gas combustion devices (FGCDs)
completed within the prescribed time whether the material is ACM. The affected facilities under NSPS subpart
frame allowed in the rule. recycling could be considered part of Ja, do not meet the definition of a
Q4: If a facility makes repairs to a well the demolition operation and require process heaters under NSPS subpart Ja,
to restore the well field to its original the owner/operator to sample to and therefore are not subject to the
designed capacity, or replaces the well determine whether the concrete is ACM. emission limits, performance testing,
in-kind, does that constitute an The results will determine whether the monitoring and excess emission
expansion of the gas collection system concrete can continue to be recycled or reporting requirements for NOx located
(thereby causing the 120-day deadline to must be managed and disposed of as at 40 CFR 60.102a(g)(2), 60.104a(i),
be applicable)? regulated ACM. 60.107a(c), 60.107a(d) and 60.102a(i)?
A4: No. An expansion of the gas
Abstract for [M140006] A: Yes. EPA agrees that Calumet
collection system consists of an increase
beyond the original design capacity. Q: Does K&K Ironworks in Chicago, Superior’s boilers meet the definition of
Illinois remain subject to 40 CFR part 63 FGCDs and do not meet the definition
Abstract for [A140003] subpart MMMM given that they no of process heaters under NSPS subpart
Q1: Are bridges considered regulated longer use the quantity of coatings Ja. Therefore, the boilers are not subject
structures under the asbestos NESHAP? required by 40 CFR 63.3881(b) for an to any NOx requirements under NSPS
A1: Yes. In a response to the affected source to be covered by Subpart subpart Ja. However, to the extent that
California Air Resource Board, EPA MMMM, and they meet the criteria the boilers are affected facilities under
indicated that a bridge is a structure established at 40 CFR 63.3881(c)(1) to be the Standards of Performance for Small
within the definition of a facility. As excluded from coverage of subpart Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
discussed in the October 1990 MMMM? Steam Generating Units, NSPS subpart
Background Information Document for A: Although K&K Ironworks of Dc, they may be subject to NOx
Asbestos, it is prudent not to exclude Chicago operations no longer fall under requirements.
structures such as bridges. the types of activities subject to Subpart
Q2: Is a thorough inspection of a MMMM, there may be requirements of Abstract for [M140009]
bridge for the presence of asbestos, subpart MMMM and 40 CFR part 63 Q: May Benson Woodworking in
including Category I and Category II, subpart A that did not immediately Walpole, New Hampshire de-rate its
required under the asbestos NESHAP? terminate when the company Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set from its
A2: Yes. Under 40 CFR 61.145(a), a discontinued the use of coatings that current capacity of greater than 300
thorough inspection of any facility is contain HAPs. For example, the records brake horsepower hour (bhp) to less
required before demolition or retention and recordkeeping than 300 bhp by cutting the existing
renovation to identify friable asbestos, requirements at 40 CFR 63.3931(b) and factory governor seal, resetting the
Category I and Category II nonfriable 63.10(b)(3) are continuing obligations, loading screws to the lower output
asbestos-containing material (ACM) and that were triggered when the company specification, and then resealing the
Category I and Category II nonfriable used xylene. governor with wire and a dealer specific
ACM that are not friable at the time of
Abstract for [M140008] lead stamp, to comply with the
the inspection but will be made friable
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
due to the demolition or renovation. Q: Frontier Refining requested an
Q3: Is bridge concrete Category I, or applicability determination regarding Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at
is it Category II nonfriable ACM? the timing of tank inspections to meet 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ?
A3: Bridge concrete is not listed as the annual tank inspection requirements A: No. The de-rate method proposal is
Category I nonfriable ACM. According under NESHAP subpart G for the Holly not approvable by EPA. The proposed
to 40 CFR 61.141, Bridge concrete is Frontier facility in Wyoming. Can the method of de-rating the engine is not
considered Category II nonfriable ACM annual inspection requirement be permanent in nature.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22183
Abstract for [M140010] (November 17, 2014) the load from Abstract for [Z140007]
Q: Can the following physical changes winter district heating will be sufficient.
Considering the time estimated to repair Q: Which area source NESHAP
to Benson Woodworking’s Walpole, regulation applies to the operations at
New Hampshire Caterpillar 3306 the turbine generator, it is reasonable to
extend the deadline for the boiler the BASF Corporation Facility in
Generator Set, including: removal of the Lancaster, Texas (Lancaster site)? The
current 400 amp circuit breaker and compliance testing by 60 days.
NESHAP regulations to evaluate
associated frame; destruction of the 400 Abstract for [M140013] include: NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB
amp frame; and, fabrication and applicable to Chemical Preparations
installation of a new frame to hold a Q: Can EPA provide further guidance
on how to conduct tune-ups under 40 Industry area source category; NESHAP
smaller 250 amp circuit that would subpart VVVVVV applicable to the
prevent the engine output from CFR 63.11223(b), which is Condition 4
of the previously EPA approved one- Chemical Manufacturing Source
exceeding 299 bhp, result in a de-rating Category; and NESHAP subpart
of engine’s capacity to less than 300 year compliance deadline extension for
the Eielson Air Force Base’s Central CCCCCCC applicable to Paints and
bhp? Allied Products Manufacturing.
A: Yes. Based on the physical changes Heat and Power Plant in Alaska? The
four existing coal fired boilers subject to A: EPA finds that the NESHAP
that Benson has proposed, EPA subpart BBBBBBB is applicable because
approves the de-rating of the unit to less the compliance extension are of the
spreader stoker/traveling grate design the operations at the Lancaster site are
than 300 bhp given the permanent mixing-type processes, which are
nature of the physical changes to the and do not have burners.
A: Yes. EPA amends the previous typical of the Chemical Preparations
unit. Source Category. EPA understands the
approval of the compliance extension to
Abstract for [M140011] provide further guidance on Condition 4 Lancaster Site produces architectural
of the approval, as detailed in the EPA coatings, primarily acrylic latex-based
Q: Does the NSPS for Stationary stucco that contains aggregate, primarily
Compression Ignition Internal response letter. EPA provides guidance
on how to meet the requirements of 40 sand. The Lancaster Site mixes latex
Combustion Engines, subpart IIII apply dispersions produced off-site with
to an existing marine propulsion engine CFR 63.11223(b) when burners are not
present. Some requirements of 40 CFR aggregate and other additives to produce
manufactured March 22, 1999 (EU ID#4) acrylic-based stucco.
that the Alaska Village Electric 63.11223(b) do not apply, while others
Cooperative (AVEC) is planning to requirements, such as adjusting the air- Abstract for [A140004]
relocate as a non-stationary engine at its to-fuel ratio, and measurement of
oxygen and carbon monoxide are still Q: Does EPA agree with the City of
existing power plant in Emmonak,
required to be performed. Sarasota, Florida that the demolition of
Alaska?
a single-family residential building
A: No. The EU ID#4 engine is not Abstract for [M140014] acquired by the city is not subject to the
subject to NSPS subpart IIII because it
Q: Does EPA approve a one-year asbestos NESHAP subpart M due to the
was manufactured prior to April 1,
compliance extension to meet the small residence exemption?
2006, and commenced construction
prior to July 11, 2005. The conversion NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, A: Yes. Based on facts presented in
of an existing non-stationary engine to Commercial and Institutional Boilers, the Memorandum of Law from Sarasota
use as an engine at a stationary source subpart JJJJJJ, for three existing coal- and the definition of facility in the
is not ‘‘commencement of construction’’ fired boilers (that operate as back-ups) asbestos NESHAP, EPA determines the
that would trigger new source status located at the Brigham Young building meets the conditions of a small
under this rule. However, the EU ID#4 University in Idaho (BYU-Idaho)? The residential building (a building
existing engine would be subject to the coal-fired boilers will be demolished containing four or fewer dwelling units)
NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating and replaced with a new energy plant and is not subject to the asbestos
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), 40 that will be fueled with natural gas. NESHAP regulation. The house was not
CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ when it is A: EPA conditionally approves an used for any institutional, commercial,
operated as a stationary source. extension until December 31, 2014, to public, or industrial purpose prior to the
operate three coal-fired boilers in their demolition. It is not part of an
Abstract for [M140012] backup capacity without the installation installation, nor part of any public or
Q1: Did a force majeure event, as of controls that would otherwise be private project.
defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart A, required to meet the NESHAP subpart Abstract for [A140005]
occur at the Chena Power Plant in JJJJJ. The compliance deadline is
Fairbanks, Alaska? extended because BYU-Idaho is Q: Does EPA approve the
A1: Yes. EPA determines that on constructing a natural gas source of Transmission Electron Microscopy test
April 28, 2014, a force majeure event energy generation as a replacement procedure in place of the point counting
occurred at the Chena Power Plant in source of energy to meet requirements of procedure used to make a determination
Fairbanks, Alaska, when a mechanical the CAA standard. The approval is of the presence of asbestos in bulk
failure of one of the facility’s turbine conditional on BYU-Idaho materials, as required under the asbestos
generator rendered it inoperable. implementing: (1) interim compliance NESHAP?
Q2: Is a 60 day extension of the deadlines for the construction of the A: In a response to Masek Consulting
performance test deadline under natural gas replacement energy; and (2) Services, EPA indicates that the current
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ appropriate? tune-ups specified in 40 CFR 63.11214 asbestos regulation requires point
A2: Yes. The turbine generator, which for existing coal-fired boilers with a heat counting after evaluating the sample by
is subject to a testing deadline, is input capacity of less than 10 MM BTU/ Polarized Light Microscopy. The owner/
needed for representative operation of hr that do not meet the definition of operator may choose to use
the boiler when the load from winter limited-use boiler, or an oxygen trim Transmission Electron Microscopy only
district heating is not there to draw system that maintains an optimum air- after analyzing the sample by Polarized
steam from the boiler. In 60 days to-fuel ratio. Light Microscopy and point counting.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/8.svg)
![22184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices
Abstract for [M140016] Abstract for [1400024] modification. Based upon the fact that
Q: Does EPA agree that the Boise Q: Can an exemption in lieu of the company commenced construction
DeRidder Mill No. l Bark Boiler in Alternative Monitoring Plan be of the two compressors on a continuous
DeRidder, Louisiana is a biomass hybrid approved for a fuel gas stream that is basis prior to the effective date of NSPS
suspension grate boiler under NESHAP low in sulfur under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart OOOO, nor were they modified,
subpart DDDDD? these units are not affected facilities
subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in
A: Yes. EPA agrees that the boiler is under the subpart. EPA clarified in final
Baytown, Texas? The refinery proposes
subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD. rule preamble to NSPS OOOO that
to combust commercial grade natural
The Bark Boiler has characteristics that relocation does not subject a source to
gas as a supplemental fuel, in
are consistent with the definition of new source standards. Additionally, the
combination with refinery fuel gas vent
hybrid suspension grate boiler at 40 CFR General Provisions to Part 60 contain
streams.
63.7575. However, natural gas and tire similar language, that relocation or
A: Yes. Based on ExxonMobil’s
derived fuel are also present as potential change in ownership, by itself, is not a
description of the process vent streams,
fuels in the boiler. Therefore, the facility modification.
the design of the vent gas controls, and
must keep records to demonstrate that the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA Abstract for [1400027]
the annual average moisture content is conditionally approves the exemption.
at or above the 40 percent moisture Q1: Does EPA provide final approval
EPA finds that the mixture of non- of an Alternative Monitoring Plan
limit, as required in the rule. monitored commercial natural gas and (AMP) for parametric monitoring in lieu
Abstract for [1400022] refinery fuel vent gas stream combusted of a continuous opacity monitor for a
is inherently low in sulfur, according to Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative
40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), when used Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Holly
monitoring plan (AMP) for product
and controlled as described in the EPA Refining & Marketing in Tulsa,
vapors from marine vessel loading
response letter. EPA included the Oklahoma (Holly) under NSPS 40 CFR
operations which are inherently low in
facility’s proposed operating parameter 60, subpart J, and NESHAP 40 CFR 63,
sulfur content, and are combusted in the
Marine Vapor Recovery (MVR) Flare limits, which the facility must continue subpart UUU, based on submittal of test
No.3, under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart J to monitor, as part of the conditional results?
for the Chalmette Refining’s Chalmette, approval. Therefore, the fuel gas A1: Yes. EPA grants final approval of
Louisiana refinery? combustion devices listed in the request Holly’s AMP request. Holly conducted a
A: EPA determines that the AMP is no do not need to meet the continuous performance test and submitted
longer necessary since the definition of monitoring requirements of 40 CFR additional data pertaining to a prior,
fuel gas has been modified under the 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). conditionally approved AMP. EPA
September 12, 2012 amendment to Abstract for [1400025] reviewed the performance test results
subpart J (77 Federal Register 56463). and found the data supportive for
The marine vessel loading vapor stream Q: Is the propane refrigeration system establishing final OPLs for the WGS,
does not meet the definition of a fuel used at the Enbridge Nine Mile Gas which included minimum Liquid-to-Gas
gas, as defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). Plant in Dewey County, Oklahoma Ratios, based on 3-hour, hourly rolling
Therefore, MVR Flare No.3 does not subject to the requirements of NSPS 40 averages, for operation of the WGS with
need to meet the continuous monitoring CFR 60 subpart KKK? one or two nozzles.
requirements of either 40 CFR A: Yes. EPA determines that propane
system is subject to NSPS KKK based Abstract for [1400028]
60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4).
upon the information the company Q: May the Ineos Chocolate Bayou
Abstract for [1400023] provided. The propane refrigeration facility in Alvin, Texas, which is subject
Q: Can an exemption from monitoring system is a process unit that can also to both 40 CFR part 60, Standards of
be approved for a fuel gas stream that operate independently if supplied with Performance for Volatile Organic
is low in sulfur content under NSPS sufficient feed. The propane Compound (VOC) Emissions from
subpart J, for the off-gas vent stream refrigeration system is ‘‘equipment’’ Synthetic Organic Chemical
from the Gasoline Desulfurization Unit under 40 CFR 60.631 because it consists Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
Selective Hydrogenation Unit Surge of valves, connectors, and compressors Distillation Operations (NSPS subpart
Drum Vent that is routed to the North in VOC service. These components are NNN) and Reactor Processes (NSPS
Flare at the Marathon Oil facility in in light liquid VOC service because they subpart RRR) use the monitoring and
Garyville, Louisiana? contain or contact propane, which testing provisions in NSPS subpart RRR
A: Yes. Based on Marathon’s constitutes at least 97 percent by weight in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN for the
description of the process vent streams, of content of the refrigeration system, process heaters?
the design of the vent gas controls, and and the propane is a liquid within the A: Yes. EPA approves the request for
the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA operating conditions of the refrigeration meeting Subpart RRR in lieu of NSPS
conditionally approves the exemption. system. subpart NNN requirements for testing,
EPA finds that, when controlled as monitoring, and recordkeeping for use
delineated in the response letter, the Abstract for [1400026] of process heaters as control devices for
vent gas stream combusted is inherently Q: Are two natural gas reciprocating compliance with the standards of both
low in sulfur, according to 40 CFR compressors which were transferred subparts. This would require monitoring
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), and does not need to from a ‘‘laydown’’ yard to the of small vent and drain valves utilized
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
meet the continuous monitoring Fayetteville Gathering Hattieville for maintenance events during
requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or Compressor Station, located in maintenance in accordance with NSPS
60.105(a)(4). EPA included the facility’s Hattieville, Arkansas, affected facilities subpart RRR since they act as bypass
proposed operating parameter limits, subject to the requirements of NSPS valves. In addition, the schematic
which the facility must continue to subpart OOOO? required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) is required
monitor, as part of the conditional A: No. Relocation, by itself, does not with the initial report and must be
approval. trigger NSPS applicability through maintained on site to ensure that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22185
affected vent streams are being routed to emissions were reduced, as verified by Abstract for [1400033]
appropriate control devices without a performance test. Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative
bypass. Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Tristar
Abstract for [1400031]
Abstract for [1400029] Global Energy Solutions Company
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative (Tristar) to conduct monitoring of
Q1: Does EPA agree with Kinder Monitoring Plan (AMP) for PSC hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in
Morgan that the Condensate Splitter Industrial to conduct monitoring of H2S lieu of installing a continuous emission
Flare located at the Galena Park emissions at various locations in EPA monitoring system, when performing
Condensate Processing Facility in Harris Region 6, in lieu of installing a tank degassing and other similar
County, Texas is subject to NSPS continuous emission monitoring system operations controlled by portable,
subpart Ja? (CEMS), when performing tank temporary thermal oxidizers, at
A1: No. EPA is unable to verify degassing and other similar operations refineries at various locations that are
applicability of NSPS subpart Ja because controlled by portable, temporary subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja?
sufficient information about the facility thermal oxidizers, at refineries that are A: Yes. Based on the description of
or the operations and processes vented subject to NSPS 40 CFR 60 subparts J or the process, the vent gas streams, the
to the flare were not provided. Ja? design of the vent gas controls, and the
Q2: Does EPA approve an Alternative A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA
Monitoring Plan (AMP) request for the PSC Industrial’s AMP request. Based on conditionally approves the AMP
Condensate Splitter Flare? the description of the process, the vent request. EPA included operating
A2: No. Kinder Morgan did not gas streams, the design of the vent gas parameter limits and data which the
furnish sufficient detail about vent controls, and the H2S monitoring data refineries must furnish as part of the
streams routed to the flare, or furnished, EPA finds that it is conditional approval. This conditional
adequately describe the specific refinery impractical to require monitoring via an approval applies to Tristar’s degreasing
process that would produce low sulfur H2S CEMS as specified by NSPS operations at refineries in EPA Region 6
content vent streams. Assuming the vent subparts J and Ja for the specific only.
streams are fuel gas streams subject to portable and temporary combustion
NSPS subpart Ja, we cannot approve any device use. EPA included operating Abstract for [1400034]
AMP that seeks to circumvent a specific parameter limits (OPLs) and data which Q1: Does EPA agree with Western
emissions monitoring requirement for the refineries must furnish as part of the Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC)
affected facility operations. Under conditional approval. This conditional that excess emission for the Hugo
NSPS, new facilities must be approval applies to this company’s Generating Station, Choctaw County,
constructed in such a manner that refineries in EPA Region 6 only. EPA’s Oklahoma coal-fired boiler, an ‘‘affected
monitors are installed to demonstrate conditional approval should also be facility’’ under NSPS for Fossil Fuel
initial compliance and ensure ongoing referenced and appropriately Fired Steam Generators, subpart D,
compliance until such time that an incorporated into PSC Industrial’s new would only be reported for certain
exemption can be met. Furthermore, source review permit in each state periods of operational status such as
applications for exemptions to a rule where degassing operations at refineries when the boiler is firing fuel for the
must provide sufficient data at the time will occur, to ensure federal purpose of generating electricity?
of the request in order to be evaluated enforceability. A1: No. EPA disagreed that reporting
for approval. Abstract for [1400032] of excess emissions should be limited to
Abstract for [1400030] certain periods of boiler operational
Q: Can Samson Exploration, Houston, status. EPA reiterated that the NSPS
Q1: Does EPA approve the Texas submit hard copy photographs requires reporting of all periods of
HollyFrontier Companies’ request for with the required GIS and date stamp excess emissions, including those
approval of an Alternative Monitoring data printed below each photograph in temporary occurrences that may result
Plan (AMP) for monitoring oxygen in streamlined annual reports required in a particular emission standard being
the stack, in lieu of parametric under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(2) of NSPS exceeded. Required recordkeeping and
monitoring to substitute for a subpart OOOO? reporting should be viewed, along with
Continuous Emissions Monitoring A: Yes. The inclusion of such types of O&M and SSM protocols, as a
System, for the hydrocracker reboiler at submissions in annual reports is company’s substantiation of acting in
Navajo Refining’s Artesia, New Mexico acceptable. There is no regulatory good faith to demonstrate compliance
refinery (Navajo), to comply with the prohibition against submitting hard with emission limitations, standards,
NOX and oxygen standards in NSPS, 40 copies which have the date and GIS and work practice standards at all times.
CFR part 60 subpart Ja? coordinates printed beneath each EPA believes that WFEC has
A1: Yes. EPA determines that photograph, provided that the proximity misinterpreted certain monitoring,
Navajo’s AMP that combines monitoring of each photograph and its associated recordkeeping and reporting provisions
oxygen in the stack along with other data ensures clear correlation. EPA in the NSPS and MACT standards that
specific process monitoring parameters further clarified that, in conjunction a combustion source must meet for
is acceptable based on the limited usage with the self-certification statement continuous compliance demonstration,
of refinery fuel gas and the information required under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(1)(iv), which we explained in the Regulatory
submitted, including the performance a statement should be included that Interpretation enclosure of the EPA
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
test results. Navajo sampled the fuel gas digital images of the photographs for response.
at the reboiler to demonstrate that the each well completion are retained, such
stream is 100 percent purchased natural that the digital image files contain Abstract for [1400035]
gas. Also, to improve the efficiency of embedded date stamps and geographic Q: Does EPA approve the alternative
the heater, Navajo installed new burner coordinate stamps to link the monitoring Operating Parameter Limits
tips to better combust the purchased photographs with the specific well (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec, for a
natural gas. As a result, NOX and O2 completion operations. pollution control system on a new
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/10.svg)
![22186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices
medical waste incinerator which and therefore, the fuel gas combustion includes whether the acquisition of the
consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) device does not need to meet the nonbanking company complies with the
followed by a carbon adsorber and continuous monitoring requirements of standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
cartridge filter, located at the University 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4) for (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
of Texas Medical Branch (UTMBG) in the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot fuel gas noted, nonbanking activities will be
Galveston, Texas? stream. Valero Meraux is required to conducted throughout the United States.
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves monitor and control the relevant process Unless otherwise noted, comments
Hydro-Environmental Technologies parameters, as summarized in the regarding each of these applications
petition on behalf UTMBG for an AMP. Enclosure, as a condition of this must be received at the Reserve Bank
As part of the conditional approval, exemption approval. indicated or the offices of the Board of
performance testing must be conducted Governors not later than May 15, 2015.
to demonstrate compliance and Abstract for [1100017] A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
establish OPL values for the WGS, Q: Can alternative monitoring be (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice
carbon adsorber and cartridge filter. approved in lieu of a Continuous President) 230 South LaSalle Street,
Final approval of the AMP will be based Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
on the OPLs established and other since the moisture in the Fluid Catalytic 1. Wintrust Financial Corporation,
provisions that may be deemed Cracking Unit exhaust from the wet gas Rosemont, Illinois; to acquire North
necessary from our evaluation of the test scrubber (WGS) will interfere with the Bank, Chicago, Illinois.
results. ability of the COMS to take accurate B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
opacity readings due to water (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice
Abstract for [1400036] President) 2200 North Pearl Street,
interference for the Conoco Phillips
Q: Will EPA approve the Fuel Sweeny, Texas Refinery? Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
Analysis Plan for monitoring total sulfur A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 1. First Financial Bankshares, Inc.,
content of fuels in lieu of SO2 emissions monitoring based on information Abilene, Texas; to merge with FBC
monitoring under NSPS subpart Db for provided by Conoco, including a stack Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly
Industrial-Commercial Institutional test report and three proposed operating acquire First Bank, National
Steam Generating Units for which parameters limits (OPLs) for the wet gas Association, both in Conroe, Texas.
construction, reconstruction, or scrubber. The OPLs address nozzle Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
modification commenced after June 19, pressure, pressure drop, and liquid to System, April 15, 2015.
1984, at the No. 6 Power Boiler in gas ratio. Michael J. Lewandowski,
Westvaco, Texas L.P. facility Associate Secretary of the Board.
(Westvaco)? Dated: April 13, 2015.
Lisa Lund, [FR Doc. 2015–09021 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am]
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
Westvaco’s Fuel Analysis Plan, as Director, Office of Compliance.
delineated within the response letter. 40 [FR Doc. 2015–09242 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am]
CFR 60.45b(k) allows compliance to be BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
demonstrated by a fuel based
compliance alternative. The plan Agency Information Collection
ensures that data will be collected to FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Activities: Announcement of Board
demonstrate that the average percentage Approval Under Delegated Authority
sulfur concentration in the wood fuel, Formations of, Acquisitions by, and and Submission to OMB
plus three standard deviations, will not Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
result in a combined fuel mixture that AGENCY: Board of Governors of the
will exceed the sulfur emission limit. The companies listed in this notice Federal Reserve System.
have applied to the Board for approval, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
Westvaco will continue to obtain and
maintain fuel receipts for the other pursuant to the Bank Holding Company final approval of proposed information
combusted fuels. Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) collection by the Board of Governors of
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part the Federal Reserve System (Board)
Abstract for [1400037] 225), and all other applicable statutes under OMB delegated authority, as per
Q: Can an exemption from monitoring and regulations to become a bank OMB Regulations on Controlling
be approved for a fuel gas stream that holding company and/or to acquire the Paperwork Burdens on the Public.
is low in sulfur content, under NSPS assets or the ownership of, control of, or Board-approved collections of
subpart J, for the off-gas vent stream the power to vote shares of a bank or information are incorporated into the
from the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot in bank holding company and all of the official OMB inventory of currently
the Alky Stripper Reboiler Heater, at the banks and nonbanking companies approved collections of information.
Valero Refining Meraux facility in owned by the bank holding company, Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act
Meraux, Louisiana? including the companies listed below. Submission, supporting statements and
A: Yes. Based on the description of The applications listed below, as well approved collection of information
the process vent streams, the design of as other related filings required by the instrument(s) are placed into OMB’s
the vent gas controls, and the H2S Board, are available for immediate public docket files. The Federal Reserve
monitoring data furnished, EPA inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank may not conduct or sponsor, and the
conditionally approves the exemption indicated. The applications will also be respondent is not required to respond
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
in light of changes made to NSPS available for inspection at the offices of to, an information collection that has
subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 Federal the Board of Governors. Interested been extended, revised, or implemented
Register 35866). EPA finds that, when persons may express their views in on or after October 1, 1995, unless it
used and controlled as described in the writing on the standards enumerated in displays a currently valid OMB control
response letter, the vent gas stream the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the number.
combusted is inherently low in sulfur proposal also involves the acquisition of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D) a nonbanking company, the review also Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22252/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 08:33:46
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 08:33:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of availability. | |
| Contact | An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: http://www2.epa.gov/ compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564- 7027, or by email at: [email protected] For technical questions about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 22176 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR