80 FR 50278 - 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 160 (August 19, 2015)

Page Range		50278-50287
FR Document		2015-20514

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.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50278-50287]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20514]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9932-75-OECA]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: 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: malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions
about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions,
refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or
in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the
document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources
may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written
inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d)
programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to
use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated
requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and
63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly
referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA
responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP
regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category.
These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to
which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation.
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and
NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions,
and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a
quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to
requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in
40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with
over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the
applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search
for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart,
citation, control number, or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 42 such documents added to
the ADI on August 10, 2015. This notice lists the subject and header of
each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter
or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from
the ADI on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents
for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance
Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.

[[Page 50279]]

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on August 10, 2015; the
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject
matter.
We have also included an abstract of each document identified with
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA Sec. 307(b)(1). For
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

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

[[Page 50280]]

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

Abstracts

Abstract for [1400039]

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

Abstract for [1500001]

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

Abstract for [1500004]

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

Abstract for [1500005]

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

Abstract for [1500006]

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

Abstract for [1500008]

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

Abstract for [1500009]

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

[[Page 50281]]

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

Abstract for [1500010]

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

Abstract for [1500011]

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

Abstract for [1500012]

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

Abstract for [1500013]

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

Abstract for [1500015]

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

Abstract for [1500016]

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

[[Page 50282]]

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

Abstract for [1500017]

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

Abstract for [1500018]

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

Abstract for [1500019]

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

Abstract for [1500020]

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

Abstract for [1500040]

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

Abstract for [1500041]

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

Abstract for [1500042]

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

Abstract for [1500043]

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

[[Page 50283]]

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

Abstract for [1500044]

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

Abstract for [1500045]

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

[[Page 50284]]

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

Abstract for [1500047]

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

Abstract for [1500048]

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

Abstract for [M140017]

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

Abstract for [M140018]

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

Abstract for [M150001]

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

Abstract for [M150002]

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

Abstract for [M150003]

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

Abstract for [M150004]

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

[[Page 50285]]

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

Abstract for [M150005]

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

Abstract for [M150006]

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

Abstract for [M150007]

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

Abstract for [M150008]

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

Abstract for [M150009]

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

Abstract for [M150018]

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

[[Page 50286]]

Abstract for [M150019]

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

Abstract for [M150020]

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

Abstract for [M150021]

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

Abstract for [Z150001]

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

Abstract for [1500052]

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

[[Page 50287]]

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50279

Summary of Headers and Abstracts document, which provides a brief document with respect to whether it is
description of the subject matter. ‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for
The following table identifies the We have also included an abstract of purposes of CAA Sec. 307(b)(1). For
database control number for each each document identified with its example, this notice does not convert an
document posted on the ADI database control number after the table. These applicability determination for a
system on August 10, 2015; the abstracts are provided solely to alert the particular source into a nationwide rule.
applicable category; the section(s) and/ public to possible items of interest and Neither does it purport to make a
or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or are not intended as substitutes for the previously non-binding document
63 (as applicable) addressed in the full text of the documents. This notice binding.
document; and the title of the does not change the status of any

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 10, 2015
Control No. Categories Subparts Title

1400039 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Performance Test Waiver for Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines.
1500001 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Test Waiver for Stationary Spark Internal Combustion Engines.
1500004 ............. NSPS ................................. WWW ................................ Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Ex-
traction Well.
1500005 ............. NSPS ................................. WWW ................................ Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Ex-
traction.
1500006 ............. NSPS ................................. Ja ....................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Flare at Refinery and
Sulfur Plant.
1500008 ............. NSPS ................................. CCCC, EEEE .................... Conditional Exemption for CISWI and OSWI.
1500009 ............. NSPS ................................. CCCC ................................ Petition to Establish Proposed Operating Limits for an Incinerator.
1500010 ............. NSPS ................................. A, Y .................................... Request for PM Performance Testing Extension under Force
Majeure.
1500011 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption.
1500012 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Incinerator Exemption Administrative Correction.
1500013 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption Denial.
1500015 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption.
1500016 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption.
1500017 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Test Notice Waiver.
1500018 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Test Notice Waiver.
1500019 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption.
1500020 ............. NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Request for Alternative to COM Monitoring for Wet Scrubber and
ESP.
1500040 ............. NSPS ................................. LL ....................................... Applicability Determination for Operations Depositing Ponded
Fine Tailings Material as a By-Product from Historical Ore Min-
ing and Processing Operations.
1500041 ............. NSPS ................................. A, LLLL .............................. Alternative Monitoring Location for Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
Effluent.
1500042 ............. NSPS ................................. A, Da, Z ............................. Alternative Compliance Monitoring Plan for Opacity and Carbon
Monoxide Monitoring from an electric submerged arc furnace.
1500043 ............. NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Alternative Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting at
Vessel Boilers.
1500044 ............. NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Request for Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting for Boilers.
1500045 ............. NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Request for Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting for Boilers.
1500047 ............. NSPS ................................. TT ...................................... Applicability Determination for a Tubing Operation for Coating
Metal Wire.
1500048 ............. NSPS ................................. OOOO ............................... Applicability Determination for Pipeline Stations Storage Vessels.
M140017 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. DDDDD .............................. Request for Compliance Extension for Boiler MACT.
M140018 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. JJJJJJ ................................ Test Waiver Denial for Coal-Fired Boilers.
M150001 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. ZZZZ .................................. Alternative Monitoring Request for Non-Resettable Hour Meter for
Stationary Emergency Engines.
M150002 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, JJJJJJ ........................... Compliance Extension for Area Source Coal Fired Boilers.
M150003 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Compliance Extension for Area Source Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines.
M150004 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Compliance Extension for Reciprocating Internal Combustion En-
gine.
M150005 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Compliance Extension for Power Plant Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines.
M150006 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Prior Test Data Use for Initial Compliance Demonstration.
M150007 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. ZZZZ .................................. Applicability Determination for Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines.
M150008 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. ZZZZ .................................. Peak Shaving Engine Redesignation to Black Start Engine.
M150009 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, JJJJJJ ........................... Area Source Boiler PM Test Waiver Request.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

M150018 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. DDDDD, JJJJ, MMMMM, Part 63 Rules and Title V Operating Permit Applicability for Lam-
ZZZZ. ination Facility.
M150019 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. O ........................................ Request for Clarification of Annual Performance Test Require-
ment.
M150020 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. UUUUU .............................. Applicability Determination for Limited-Use Liquid Oil-Fired Elec-
tric Generating Units.
M150021 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. LLL ..................................... Applicability Determination for Cement Finish Mill.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1

50280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 10, 2015—Continued
Control No. Categories Subparts Title

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

Abstracts ongoing basis, and the expected facility’s condensate/leachate system
emissions from the engines are in contributed to the project’s delay.
Abstract for [1400039]
compliance with applicable limits by a
Q: Will EPA provide Matanuska Abstract for [1500006]
substantial margin. EPA denies the NOX
Electric Association (MEA) a waiver performance test waiver because the Q. Does EPA approve the Alternative
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), from the margin of compliance for NOX Monitoring Plan (AMP) request to the
initial performance testing requirement emissions was not sufficient to conclude sulfur monitoring requirements under
under NSPS Subpart JJJJ for nine of the that untested units would be in 40 CFR 60.107a(e) of NSPS, subpart Ja,
ten Wartsila 18V50DF dual-fired, lean- compliance with the NOX standards of for the flare at the Phillips 66 Billings
burn, 17.1 megawatt (23,250 HP), non- subpart JJJJ, given the high variability in Refinery and Jupiter Sulfur Plant
emergency, reciprocating internal NOX emissions. (Jupiter Sulfur) located in Billings,
combustion engines (RICE) to be Montana?
installed at the Eklutna Generation Abstract for [1500004] A. Yes. Based on the information
Station in Eklutna, Alaska? Q: Does EPA approve Roxana provided, EPA conditionally approves
A: No. EPA finds that MEA has not Landfill’s request for an alternative Jupiter Sulfur’s AMP request for
provided an adequate demonstration timeline of additional sixty (60) days, or meeting the flare sulfur monitoring
that the engines in question will meet until January 25, 2015, to bring Well 191 requirements. EPA finds the AMP
the applicable standards, and therefore located in Edwardsville, Illinois, into acceptable since flaring does not occur
the EPA is denying MEA’s request for a compliance with 40 CFR more than four times in any 365-day
waiver from the initial performance 60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) under NSPS period and it contains provisions for the
testing for its Wartsila 18V50DF subpart WWW? monitoring of the rupture discs that are
engines. Although the manufacturer’s A: Yes. Based on the information similar to, or the same as, provisions
data provided indicates that we can provided by Roxana, EPA approves, found in § 60.107a(g)(1)–(6) for
expect that the Wartsila 18V50DF pursuant to 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3), the monitoring the water seal at emergency
engines may be able to meet the proposed alternative timeline to flares. In addition, Jupiter Sulfur will
applicable emissions limits in NSPS complete installation of a new vacuum install a flow meter meeting the
Subpart JJJJ (if properly installed and lateral on Well 191 by January 25, 2015 requirements of § 60.107a(i) on the flare.
operated) conducting a performance test to bring the well into compliance with The conditions for AMP approval
is necessary to provide adequate pressure requirements. Roxana site addressing monitoring, corrective
assurance that an engine is properly personnel must review investigative and actions and recordkeeping requirements
installed and operating. MEA may re- monitoring data and closely monitor are specified in the EPA determination
submit a request for a waiver of any field conditions that would result in letter.
performance tests at its facility once it a violation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
has information that is sufficient to WWW. Abstract for [1500008]
demonstrate that one or more of the Q: Does an incinerator that burns
Abstract for [1500005]
engines, after reaching their maximum pathological waste at the Kenai
production rate, are in compliance with Q: Does EPA approve the alternative Veterinary Hospital in Kenai, Alaska
the standard. compliance timeline to complete a meet the exclusion for pathological
dewatering project for landfill gas waste incineration units in NSPS for
Abstract for [1500001] extraction Well S163R2 at the Waste Other Solid Waste Incineration Units
Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from Management of Illinois, Incorporated. (OSWI), 40 CFR subpart EEEE, and for
performance testing requirements (WMIL) Settler’s Hill Recycling and Commercial Industrial Solid Waste
according to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) for six of Disposal Facility/Midway facility in Incineration Units (CISWI), subpart
seven Waukesha units identified as Batavia, Illinois under 40 CFR subpart CCCC?
identical and operated as compressor WWW? A: Yes. The unit is exempt because it
engines at ConocoPhillips Alaska A: Yes. Based on the information burns 90 percent or more by weight
Incorporated’s (CPAI) Beluga River Unit provided by WMIL, EPA approves pathological, low-level radioactive, and/
(BRU)? WMIL’s proposed alternative or chemotherapeutic waste as defined in
A: Based on the information provided compliance timeline to complete a 40 CFR 60.2977. EPA will consider the
by CPAI, EPA approves the performance dewatering project on Well S163R2 by letter submitted by the hospital to
test waiver for the CO and VOC June 24, 2014. We understand that constitute the notice that the unit meets
standards, but not for the NOX standards WMIL has made efforts to meet the the exclusion. Consistent with the
for the next performance testing that is regulatory deadline but was unable to regulations, records of materials burned
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

due for six of the seven Waukesha meet it due to the nature of the work must be kept to demonstrate that the
engines. EPA approves the CO and VOC involved. Factors including a well depth exclusion continues to apply.
performance testing waiver because of 144 feet deep and its location at the
CPAI has demonstrated that the engines center of the landfill. Lack of Abstract for [1500009]
are identical, they are in the same infrastructure near the well to facilitate Q: Does the EPA approve the
location, they will be operated and dewatering, no electricity near the well, operating limits proposed by Sumitomo
maintained in a similar manner on an and no means to convey liquid into the Metal Mining Pogo (Pogo) for its small

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50281

remote solid waste incinerator under safe working environment under all owner or operator of the incinerator unit
NSPS for Commercial Industrial Solid conditions at all times and has must submit, before start-up, an
Waste Incineration (CISWI) units, knowledge and is aware of the nature of application demonstrating that the unit
subpart CCCC at its mine facility near all materials under its possession. EPA meets the exclusion criteria. Refer to
Delta Junction, Alaska? also believes that Clear AFS neglected to ADI Control Number 1500012 for a
A: Yes. EPA accepts Pogo’s petition to take into safety consideration when correction to the operator name for the
establish operating limits for the making equipment purchase decisions. unit.
incinerator under subpart CCCC. The
petition was submitted 60 days before Abstract for [1500011] Abstract for [1500015]
the initial performance test is scheduled Q: Will EPA exclude the cyclonic Q: Will EPA approve exempted status
to begin and it meets the criteria in burn barrel unit that Lower Kuskokwim for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40
paragraphs (a) through (e) of § 60.2115. School District (LKSD) intends to CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the
The incinerator has no add-on control operate at the Chefornak School in Lower Kuskokwim School District
device and only fires propane as fuel Chefornak, Alaska from the (LKSD) intends to operate at the
with anticipated feedstocks of solid requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Atmautluak, Alaska school facility to
wastes but not hazardous wastes, which EEEE? incinerate dewatered sludge from the
is consistent with 40 CFR 60.2115. Pogo A: Yes. EPA approves LKSD’s request. Atmautluak school wastewater system?
identified the specific parameters to be EPA determines that KSD’s request was A: Yes. EPA determines that the
used, including waste composition and submitted prior to initial startup of the incinerator that LKSD intends to operate
charge rate, charge interval limit, and unit, and that the incineration unit meets the criteria for exclusion for rural
primary and secondary combustion meets the criteria for exclusion from institutional waste incinerators and
chamber temperature and burn-time subpart EEEE (40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1)–(2)) therefore is approving LKSD’s
limits. The relationship between these for rural institutional waste incinerator application for exclusion according to
parameters and emissions was provided units. The unit is located more than 50 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this
by Pogo, and upper and/or lower values miles from the boundary of the nearest request prior to initial start up of the
were proposed. Methods and Metropolitan Statistical Area, and incinerator as required by 40 CFR
instrumentation to measure and alternative disposal options are not 60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in
continuously monitor the operating available or are economically infeasible. Atmautluak is located approximately
parameters were presented, which 284 miles from the boundary of the
include the installation of an electronic Abstract for [1500012] Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna
data acquisition system and the Q1: Will EPA correct the operator and Metropolitan Statistical Area.
calculation of 5-minute rolling average park name operated by and located in Atmautluak is an isolated community
temperatures. Compliance with the the Lake Clark National Park and with no road access and severely
minimum temperature limits will be Preserve for a previously denied limited barge access. There is no legal
determined using the rolling 5-minute exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart and safe disposal site within
average. A rolling weight will be EEEE for an incineration unit operating Atmautluak. Sludge would have to be
calculated with an averaging period to in Port Alsworth, Alaska? shipped to Washington or Oregon for
be determined based on the results of A1: Yes. EPA determination letter disposal and this would be prohibitively
the initial performance test. The issued to the National Park Service on expensive.
frequency and methods for recalibrating April 16, 2013 (Refer to ADI Control
Abstract for [1500016]
instruments were identified. Number 1500013) applies to the
incinerator operated by and located in Q: Will EPA approve exempted status
Abstract for [1500010] the Lake Clark National Park and for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40
Q: Does EPA approve an extension to Preserve, and not to an incinerator being CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the
the applicable performance test operated by Glacier Bay National Park Lower Kuskokwim School District
deadlines caused by a force majeure and Preserve as erroneously stated in (LKSD) intends to operate at the
event in accordance with the provisions the response. Newtok, Alaska school facility to
of 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and incinerate dewatered sludge from the
(a)(4) for an affected facility located in Abstract for [1500013] Newtok school wastewater system?
Alaska, owned and operated by Clear Q: Does EPA determine that the A: Yes. EPA determines that the
Air Force Station (Clear AFS), that is institutional waste incineration unit at incinerator that LKSD intends to operate
subject to 40 CPR 60 subpart Y? the National Park in Port Alsworth, meets the criteria for exclusion for rural
A: No. EPA denies the extension Alaska can be excluded from the Part 60 institutional waste incinerators and
request as it believes that Clear AFS subpart EEEE requirements at 40 CFR therefore is approving LKSD’s
could have taken steps to prevent the 60.2887(h)? application for exclusion according to
circumstances that led to the inability to A: No. EPA determines that the unit 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this
perform the stack test in a safe manner. is not eligible for this exclusion because request prior to initial start up of the
As stated in the supporting information the application for an exclusion was not incinerator as required by 40 CFR
you provided to EPA, which was submitted prior to the start-up of the 60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in
included in a formal request submitted incinerator as required by 40 CFR Newtok is located approximately 360
to the Alaska Department of 60.2887(h)(1). It appears, based on the miles from the boundary of the
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), a information provided by the Park, that Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

similar nearby facility (Eielson Air the unit in question would meet the Metropolitan Statistical Area. Newtok is
Force Base) had tested in 2011 the same criteria of being located more than 50 an isolated community with no road
coal at their facility under similar miles from the boundary of the nearest access and severely limited barge
operational conditions and determined Metropolitan Statistical Area and that access. There is no legal and safe
that the coal was explosive. The EPA alternative disposal options are not disposal site within Newtok. The
believes that Clear AFS has an available or are economically infeasible. community has started a long-term
obligation (a general duty) to ensure a However, subpart EEEE requires that the project to move the village to a new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1

50282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices

location therefore there are no plans to with no road access, and severely water flow rate from the wet
open a permitted landfill at this current limited barge access. Sludge would have electrostatic precipitator (WESP) that is
location. Sludge would have to be to be shipped to Washington or Oregon used to control pollution from the
shipped to Washington or Oregon for for disposal and this would be sewage sludge incinerator at the facility
disposal and this would be prohibitively prohibitively expensive. located in Cromwell, CT?
expensive. A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
Abstract for [1500020]
monitoring location for the water flow
Abstract for [1500017] Q: Will EPA approve alternative from the Mattabassett’s WESP unit
Q: Will EPA grant a request for a monitoring under 40 CFR 60.13(h)(i)(1) under 40 CFR part 60 subpart A, section
waiver of the 30-day notification of NSPS subpart Db for the multi-fuel 60.13(i)(4).
required prior to conducting a Power Boiler No. 20 at the Longview
performance evaluation of a generator Fibre Paper and Packaging, Incorporated Abstract for [1500042]
under NSPS subpart JJJJ at the Joint Base facility in Longview, Washington? Q1: Does EPA approve Boston
Elmendorf/Richardson (JBER) Landfill A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Electrometallurgical Corporation’s
Gas Power Facility in Fairbanks, Alaska alternative monitoring for the multi-fuel (BEMC’s) proposed alternative
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3)? boiler to ensure compliance with the monitoring to use a triboelectric
A: Yes. Based on information state PM limit since moisture from the detector to continuously monitor the
provided by JBER, EPA waives the 30 controls and low stack gas temperature relative particulate matter (PM)
day notice for performance testing result in interference that makes a concentration of the exhaust emitted to
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). JBER continuous opacity monitor (COM) the atmosphere from the submerged arc
indicates that the notice is late because infeasible. Longview’s boiler is already furnace, located at its Woburn, MA
it just became aware that the State of subject to a federally enforceable, state ferroalloy production facility, in lieu of
Alaska has declined to be delegated imposed, PM emission limit that is more a continuous opacity monitoring system
authority to implement and enforce stringent than NSPS subpart Db, and to meet 40 CFR 60.264(b)? BEMC
NSPS subpart JJJJ. therefore, compliance with the Subpart proposes to use EPA Reference Method
Db PM limit is met. The conditions for 9 to establish a relationship between
Abstract for [1500018]
approval are specified in the EPA opacity and the electrical signal
Q: Will EPA grant a request for a determination letter. provided by the triboelectric detector.
waiver of the 30-day notification of A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of
performance evaluation requirement for Abstract for [1500040]
baghouse leak monitoring for the
a Guascor Model SFGM–560 Q: Are the operations conducted by furnace meeting the requirements of 40
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Magnetation, LLC, at their facility CFR 60.48(o)(4)(i) through (v), as they
Engine (RICE) at Farm Power’s new located near Keewatin, Minnesota, to relate to the use of its triboelectric
biogas production facility in Tillamook, produce an iron concentrate considered sensor for opacity monitoring, including
Oregon pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3)? an affected facility and subject to the the development and submittal of a
A: Yes. Based on information requirements of NSPS subpart LL? monitoring plan for approval.
provided by Farm Power, EPA approves A: Yes. EPA determines that the Q2: Does EPA approve BEMC’s
this request pursuant to 40 CFR operations conducted by Magnetation, proposed alternative to install and
60.l9(f)(3). Farm Power indicates that LLC are considered an affected facility operate a continuous CO monitoring
the notice is late because it just became and subject to the requirements of NSPS system (i.e., an Infrared Industries, IR–
aware that the State of Oregon has subpart LL because it produces a 208 Gas Analyzer) that will sample the
declined to be delegated authority to metallic mineral concentrate and the exhaust once every ten minutes in order
implement and enforce NSPS subpart operations meet the definition of to meet 40 CFR 60.263(a)?
JJJJ. metallic mineral processing plant at 40 A2: Yes. EPA approves BEMC’s
CFR 60.381. The definition for ‘‘metallic alternative monitoring to use the gas
Abstract for [1500019] mineral concentrate’’ does not require analyzer for measuring CO continuously
Q: Will EPA approve exempted status that the concentration level be in excess in conjunction with other process
for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 of the historic source ore, and the parameters, such as temperature and
CFR subpart EEEE that the Lower finished product is higher in flow, to ensure proper operating
Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) concentration than currently available, conditions. In addition, BEMC would
intends to operate at the Tuntutuliak, naturally occurring ore. The tailing have the flexibility to monitor CO
Alaska school facility to incinerate material clearly came ‘‘from ore,’’ and periodically at other portions of the
dewatered sludge from the Tuntutuliak the fact that Magnetation’s process relies processes, e.g. furnace outlet.
school wastewater system? on the previous plant having taken
A: Yes. EPA determines that the initial steps in concentrating the ore Abstract for [1500043]
incinerator that LKSD intends to operate does not exempt your process from Q1: Does EPA approve Northeast
meets the criteria for exclusion for rural acting on material which came from ore. Gateway Energy Bridge LLC’s (Northeast
institutional waste incinerators and The beneficiation equipment produces a Gateway’s) proposed use of Method 22
therefore is approving LKSD’s finished product that meets the in lieu of Method 9 for opacity
application for exclusion according to definition of ‘‘metallic mineral observations to comply with 40 CFR
40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this concentrate.’’ Therefore, the equipment 60.43b for each liquid natural gas
request prior to initial start up of the produces metallic mineral concentrates regasification (LNGR) vessels that have
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

incinerator as required by 40 CFR from ore. boilers subject to NSPS subpart Db for
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in the Northeast Gateway Port off the coast
Tuntutuliak is located approximately Abstract for [1500041] of Massachusetts?
360 miles from the boundary of the Q: Does EPA approve the Mattabassett A1: EPA finds that Northeast
Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna District Water Pollution Control Gateway’s request to use Method 22 is
Metropolitan Statistical Area. (Mattabassett) facility’s request for an unnecessary because Northwest
Tuntutuliak is an isolated community alternative monitoring location for the Gateway LLC only burns oil during

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1

50284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves controls were not clearly identified, monoxide (CO). EPA determines that
a decrease in the reporting frequency for which is a criteria under 40 CFR additional time is warranted due to the
the boilers based on the facility’s 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) for approval of an short construction season in Alaska,
records that UMASS Lowell’s has extension of the compliance deadline. uncertainty regarding the final rule
operated using natural gas as the requirements due to reconsideration
Abstract for [M140018]
primary fuel and distillate oil with a amendments, and government
sulfur content no greater than 0.5 Q: Will EPA grant an initial procurement procedures. Approval is
percent as the back-up fuel. performance testing waiver for Aurora conditioned upon Eielson complying
Q2: Does EPA approve UMASS Energy, LLC’s (Aurora) two coal fired with the applicable emission and
Lowell’s request to submit annual boilers, Emission Units (EUs) 5 and 6, operating limits and compliance
reports under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead which are identical in design and demonstration procedures by March 21,
of on a semi-annual basis? manufacture to EU4, at the Chena Power 2015; meeting interim compliance
A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska? deadlines specified in the approval
a decrease in the reporting frequency A: No. Based on the information letter; and meeting tune-up
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Dc based provided, EPA denies Aurora’s request requirements that are required of boilers
on UMASS Lowell’ records that the for a waiver from the Part 63 subpart below 10 MMBTU/hr during the time
facility operates almost exclusively on JJJJJJ initial performance testing for EUs period while the compliance extension
natural gas, with the exception of when 5 and 6. EPA determines that applies.
natural gas supplies were interrupted. insufficient information has been
provided to support a conclusion that Abstract for [M150003]
Abstract for [1500047] EUs 4, 5, and 6 are identical, and have Q: Will EPA grant a one year
Q: Is the new tube manufacturing been operated and maintained in a compliance extension to Hilcorp Alaska
operation at Elektrisola Incorporated’s similar manner necessary to support a for five stationary reciprocating internal
Boscawen, New Hampshire facility waiver request. The age of the boilers combustion engines (RICE) subject to
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT? makes it less likely they may be NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are
A: No. Based on the information identical, which appears to be the case located on the Anna, Dillon, and
provided by the New Hampshire for EU 6 based on the nameplate photos. Monopod Platforms in Alaska’s Cook
Department of Environmental Services Additionally, there has been no Inlet region?
(NHDES), EPA determines that historical test data submitted to A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
Elektrisola’s new tubing operation does demonstrate low variability in the one-year extension to the
not meet the definition of metal coil emissions over time. The fuel, coal, has compliance deadline for all three
surface coating operation in section also not been demonstrated to have low platforms that are area sources. EPA
60.461 because it is applying an organic variability over time. determines that additional time is
coating to metal wire, rather than a warranted because of the short
metal strip. Therefore, Elektrisola’s Abstract for [M150001] construction season in Alaska,
operation is not subject to NSPS subpart Q: Will EPA approve an alternative to uncertainty regarding the final rule
TT. the monitoring requirement for requirements due to reconsideration of
installation of a non-resettable hour the regulation, and difficulties in
Abstract for [1500048] meter for the approximately 74 existing procuring the control equipment due to
Q: Are JP Energy’s pipeline station stationary emergency engines subject to increased demand throughout the
storage vessels at several locations in 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, the industry as the compliance deadline
Kansas subject to NSPS subpart OOOO? NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating approaches. Approval is conditioned on
A: Yes. EPA determines that the Internal Combustion Engines, which are Hilcorp complying with the applicable
storage vessels are located in the ‘‘oil operated by BP Exploration Alaska equipment standards, catalyst
production segment’’ and are affected (BPXA) on the North Slope of Alaska? installation and compliance
facilities subject to NSPS subpart A: No. EPA determines that the demonstration procedures by October
OOOO. The operations described by JP alternative monitoring approach is not 19, 2014; meeting specified interim
Energy, which transfer the oil from the acceptable because the automated compliance deadlines; and complying
wellhead tank loaded on a truck, and engine hour tracking system in use by with the work or management practices
transported to another storage vessel BPXA is not sufficient on its own to for remote stationary RICE by October
prior to the pipeline (emphasis added), meet the rule requirement of 40 CFR 19, 2013.
are transfer operations prior to the 63.6625(f) since it is not ‘‘non-
Abstract for [M150004]
pipeline; as such, they are within the resettable.’’ Since BPXA can adjust the
‘‘oil production segment’’ per 40 CFR automated system hour log, it would not Q: Will EPA grant a one year
60.5365(d) definition. Therefore, the be ‘‘non-resettable’’ as required by the extension to the compliance deadline to
storage vessels in question meet the NESHAP subpart ZZZZ. Hilcorp Alaska for a stationary
criteria for storage vessels affected reciprocating internal combustion
Abstract for [M150002] engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP for
facility at 40 CFR 60.5365(e).
Q: Will EPA grant a one year RICE, 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ,
Abstract for [M140017] extension to the compliance deadline which is located on the Falls Creek Pad
Q: Will EPA approve a one-year for four coal-fired boilers subject to the in Alaska’s South Kenai region?
compliance extension for the Power Area Source NESHAP for boilers, A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Boiler (PB–7) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJJ, located at the Pacific Air the one-year extension to the
subpart DDDDD at the RockTenn CP, Forces, Eielson Air Force Based Central compliance deadline for the unit that is
LLC’s pulp and paperboard mill in Heat and Power Plant in Eielson, not a remote stationary RICE located at
Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma Mill)? Alaska? an area source facility. EPA determines
A: No. EPA determines that although A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves that additional time is warranted
Tacoma Mill identified various potential the one year extension to the because of the short construction season
control technology options, specific compliance deadline for carbon in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50287

facility in accordance with section subpart DDDD affected facility. Also, for terms of this order, including any
§ 63.1340(b)(1). the same reasons as discussed in the existing stocks provisions.
Q5: If the PC NESHAP requirements response to Question 2 for Harleyville DATES: The cancellations are effective
for the kiln (which includes the coal Cement Plant, the Roberta clinker cooler August 19, 2015.
mills) are not applicable, are the is an affected facility under the PC
emissions from the Harleyville coal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
NESHAP. Argos must either comply
mills only subject to the subpart Y with the most stringent standard Caitlin Newcamp, Pesticide Re-
concentration and opacity standards? applicable to the various emissions Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
A5: No. The kiln emissions are routed streams or establish a mechanism to Pesticide Programs, Environmental
through the coal mills so the subpart apportion emissions to the various Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
DDDD requirements will apply to the operations and seek an alternative Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001;
emissions exiting the coal mills, in methodology for determining telephone number: (703) 347–0325;
addition to the subpart Y requirements. compliance under section 60.8(b). email address: newcamp.caitlin@
Q6: Do the requirements of Subpart epa.gov.
Dated: July 10, 2015.
DDDD apply to the Harleyville CISWI SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
kiln emissions routed through the in- Edward J. Messina,
line coal mills (i.e. the PC Coal Mill and Director, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media I. General Information
the Kiln Coal Mill) associated with the Programs Division, Office of Compliance.
A. Does this action apply to me?
waste burning kiln at the mills that were [FR Doc. 2015–20514 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
in place prior to April 2008? BILLING CODE 6560–50–P This action is directed to the public
A6: Yes. Any re-routing or in general, and may be of interest to a
commingling of CISWI kiln emissions wide range of stakeholders including
must not result in uncontrolled ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION environmental, human health, and
emissions directly to the atmosphere. AGENCY agricultural advocates; the chemical
We interpret subpart DDDD (or NSPS industry; pesticide users; and members
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0955; FRL–9930–59] of the public interested in the sale,
CCCC, when applicable) to continue to
apply to all of the CISWI waste-burning Product Cancellation Order for Certain distribution, or use of pesticides. Since
kiln emissions, even if those emissions Pesticide Registrations others also may be interested, the
are routed through an in-line coal mill Agency has not attempted to describe all
or other device prior to exhaust to the AGENCY: Environmental Protection the specific entities that may be affected
atmosphere. Therefore, regardless of the Agency (EPA). by this action.
disposition of in-line coal mills as part ACTION: Notice. B. How can I get copies of this document
of the waste burning kiln, the subpart and other related information?
DDDD standards applicable to waste- SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s
burning kilns apply to the emissions of order for cancellation of certain The docket for this action, identified
the Harleyville kiln when and where pesticide products, identified in Table by docket identification (ID) number
they are emitted to the atmosphere. 1, Unit II, which were voluntarily EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0955, is available
Q7. Which emissions standards deleted by the registrant and accepted at http://www.regulations.gov or at the
(subpart Y, PC NESHAP and/or subpart by the Agency, pursuant to the Federal Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
DDDD) apply to the emissions from Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the
stack 2 at the Roberta Cement Plant Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order Environmental Protection Agency
located in Calera, Alabama, when the follows a March 13, 2013 Federal Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions are Register, Notice of Receipt of Request Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
routed through the coal mill and used from the registrant listed in Table 2 of Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
to provide heat for drying of the coal Unit II to voluntarily cancel these 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
before being emitted to the atmosphere? product registrations. In the March 13, is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
A7: Based on the information 2013 Notice, EPA indicated that it Monday through Friday, excluding legal
provided by Argos, EPA determines that would issue an order implementing the holidays. The telephone number for the
the Roberta coal mill is a thermal dryer cancellation of the subject products, Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
within the meaning of § 60.251(r)(1) and unless the Agency received substantive and the telephone number for the OPP
is subject to the provisions in § 60.251, comments within the 30-day comment Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
§ 60.252(a), § 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a) period that would merit its further the visitor instructions and additional
of subpart Y. review of these requests, or unless the information about the docket available
Q8: Which emissions standards apply registrant withdrew their request. The at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
to the emissions from stack 1 at the Agency did not receive any comments
II. What action is the Agency taking?
Roberta Cement Plant located in Calera, on the notice. Further, the registrant did
Alabama, wherein the clinker cooler not withdraw their request. This notice announces the
emissions are combined with the kiln Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this cancellation, as requested by the
emissions and sent to the raw mill to notice a cancellation order granting the registrant, of products registered under
provide heat for drying before being requested cancellations. Any FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These
emitted to the atmosphere? distribution, sale, or use of the products registrations are listed in sequence by
A9: Argos’s letter acknowledges that subject to this cancellation order is registration number in Table 1 of this
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

the Roberta in-line kiln/raw mill is a permitted only in accordance with the unit.

TABLE 1—PRODUCT CANCELLATIONS
EPA Registration No. Product name Chemical name

8845–39 .................................................... Rid-A-Rat and Mouse Killer ....................................................................................... Warfarin.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM 19AUN1

Document Created: 2015-12-15 11:59:17
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 11:59:17

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 50278