83 FR 22668 - Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Emission Guidelines and Federal Plan Requirements for Existing Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 95 (May 16, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 95 (May 16, 2018)
| Page Range | 22668-22678 | |
| FR Document | 2018-10463 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 22668-22678] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-10463] [[Page 22668]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9977-73-OECA] Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Emission Guidelines and Federal Plan Requirements for Existing 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 with regard to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); the Emission Guidelines and Federal Plan Requirements for existing sources; and/or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) data system is available on the internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring website under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by author, date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at: [email protected]. For technical questions about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions in part 60 also apply to Federal and EPA-approved state plans for existing sources in 40 CFR part 62. See 40 CFR 62.02(b)(2). The EPA's written responses to inquiries on provisions in parts 60, 61 and 62 are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) standards] contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 regulations. In addition, the General Provisions in part 60 and 63 allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts 60 through 63 as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations. The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is a data system on the internet with over three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, emission guidelines and Federal Plans for existing sources, 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 54 such documents added to the ADI on April 24, 2018. 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 website under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. Summary of Headers and Abstracts The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI data system on April 24, 2018; the applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, 62, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. Also included is 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 contents of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). For example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make a previously non-binding document binding. ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 24, 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Control No. Categories Subparts Title ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1600019.................... NSPS............................. A, TTTT................ Applicability Determination for Stationary Combustion Turbine. FP00003.................... Federal Plan..................... LLL, EEE............... Alternative Monitoring Plan at Sewage Sludge Incinerator. 1700003.................... NSPS............................. WWW.................... Alternative Tier 2 Testing Methodology for MSW Landfill. 1700004.................... NSPS, MACT, NESHAP............... Kb, UUUU............... Applicability Determination for Two Carbon Disulfide Storage Tanks. [[Page 22669]] 1700005.................... NSPS, MACT....................... Ja, CC................. Applicability Determination to Determine if Compliance with 40 CFR 63.670 Triggers 40 CFR 60 NSPS Subpart Ja for Flares. FP00004.................... Federal Plan..................... LLL.................... Applicability Determination for Sewage Sludge Gasifier. 1700008.................... NSPS............................. A, Appen............... Relative Accuracy Test Audit Frequency for Carbon Monoxide CEMS. 1700010.................... NSPS............................. CCCC, EEEE............. Applicability Determination for Gasification Unit. 1700011.................... Federal Plan, NSPS............... GGG, WWW............... Request for Removal of Landfill Gas Collection and Control System. 1700012.................... NSPS............................. A, J................... Applicability Determination for Flare at Hydrogen Reformer Facility. 1700014.................... NSPS............................. OOOOa.................. Applicability Determination for Well Completion Operations. 1700015.................... NSPS............................. KKKK................... Regulatory Interpretation for Emissions Reporting at Combustion Turbine. 1700016.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide in Temporary Tank Degassing Events at a Refinery. 1700017.................... NSPS............................. OOO.................... Applicability Determination of Nonmetallic Mineral. 1700018.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfur Dioxide in Flares and Fuel Gas Combustion Devices at Petroleum Refinery. 1700019.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Alternative Monitoring Request for Sulfur Dioxide at Sulfur Recovery Plant. 1700020.................... NSPS............................. A, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for CEMS Calibration Gas at a Refinery. 1700021.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers at Refineries. 1700022.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan and Performance Test Waiver for Hydrogen Sulfide Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers and Fuel Gas Combustion Devices at Refineries. 1700023.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide in Vapor Combustion Units at a Refinery. 1700024.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfur Dioxide in Flares and Fuel Gas Combustion Devices at a Refinery. 1700025.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide in Mobile Combustion Devices at Refineries. 1700026.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for NOx CEMS Span for Heaters at a Refinery. 1700027.................... NSPS............................. A, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Total Reduced Sulfur in Flare System at a Refinery. 1700028.................... NSPS............................. NNN, RRR............... Alternative Monitoring Plan and Test Waiver for the Olefins Manufacturing Unit and Demethanizer Distillation Column Vents at a Chemical Manufacturing Plant. 1700029.................... NSPS, NESHAP, MACT............... J, UUU................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wet Gas Scrubber at a Refinery. 1700030.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Flare Flow Monitoring Accuracy Requirement for a Refinery. 1700031.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Flare Flow Monitoring Accuracy Requirement for a Refinery. 1700032.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Flare Flow Monitoring Accuracy Requirement for a Refinery. 1700033.................... NSPS............................. Ja..................... Flare Flow Monitoring Accuracy Requirement for a Refinery. 1700034.................... NSPS, NESHAP, MACT............... Ja, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring Plan for Sulfur Dioxide and Oxygen Concentrations at Sulfur Recovery Unit Incinerator at a Refinery. 1700035.................... NSPS............................. J, Ja.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Portable Flares and Fuel Gas Combustion Devices During Degassing Operations at a Refinery. 1700036.................... NSPS............................. FFF.................... Performance Test Waiver for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing Lines. A170001.................... Asbestos, NESHAP................. M...................... Applicability Determination for Vermiculite Material in Building Demolition. M170001.................... MACT............................. PPPP................... Applicability Determination for Surface Coating Facility. M170002.................... MACT............................. CC..................... Applicability Determination for Vapor Combustor at a Petroleum Refinery. M170004.................... MACT, NESHAP..................... DDDDD, HHH............. Applicability Determination for Glycol Reboiler Heater at Natural Gas Facility. M170005.................... MACT............................. EEE.................... Alternative Relative Accuracy Procedure for Three Hazardous Waste Liquid Fuel Boilers. M170006.................... MACT............................. PPPP................... Alternative Control Device and Monitoring for Plastic Parts and Products Coating Facility. M170007.................... MACT............................. PPPPP.................. Reconstruction for Test Cells/Stands. M170008.................... MACT............................. CC..................... Determination for Flare Vent Gas Chromatography Calibration and Configuration at Refinery. M170009.................... MACT............................. UUUUU.................. Eligibility to Pursue Low Emitting Electric Generating Unit Status under the Mercury Air Toxics Rule. M170010.................... MACT, NSPS....................... ZZZZ, IIII............. Applicability Determination for Engines at Pump Station. M170011.................... MACT............................. FFFF, G................ Waiver Request for Flow Measurement at a Flare Performance Test. M170012.................... MACT............................. DDDDD.................. Mercury Site-Specific Fuel Analysis Plans for Boilers and Process Heaters. M170013.................... MACT............................. DDDDD.................. Alternative Mercury Analysis Breakthrough Request. M170014.................... MACT, NESHAP..................... UUU.................... Alternative Monitoring for Oxygen Concentration at a Refinery. M170017.................... MACT............................. FFFF, HHHHH............ Applicability of MON & MCM rules to Adhesive Processes at 3M. WDS-146.................... Woodstoves NSPS.................. AAA.................... Regulatory Interpretation for Catalyst Suitable Replacement Procedures. WDS-147.................... Woodstoves, NSPS................. AAA, QQQQ.............. Regulatory Interpretation on the Wood Heater Sealing and Certification Requirements. WDS-148.................... Woodstoves NSPS.................. AAA.................... Applicability Determination for Wood- Burning Sauna Heaters. Z170001.................... NESHAP, MACT..................... X...................... Applicability Determination for Secondary Lead Smelting Facility. Z170002.................... NESHAP........................... UUUU................... Alternative Test and Monitoring Methods for Sulfur Compound Emissions in Process Vents at a Cellulose Manufacturing Facility. [[Page 22670]] Z170003.................... NESHAP........................... UUU.................... Alternative Monitoring for Oxygen Concentration in Catalyst Regenerator at a Refinery. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstracts Abstract for [1600019] Q: Did construction commence on the Portland General Electric (PGE) Carty Generating Facility electric generating unit (EGU) located in Boardman, Oregon when the turn-key contract for construction of the Facility was signed, or later when the contractor began actual onsite construction activities? A: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.5(a) and 40 CFR 60.2 definition of ``commence'', EPA determines that PGE's construction commenced on June 3, 2013, when PGE entered into a contractual obligation construction of the Carty Generating Facility. Abstract for [FP00003] Q1: Does the EPA approve Lynn Water and Sewer Commission's (Lynn's) request to use site-specific control technology and monitoring parameters for the granular activated carbon adsorption system used to control mercury emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator (SSI), subject to the 40 CFR part, subpart MMMM, Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Timelines for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Units, and located in Lynn, Massachusetts? The SSI is expected to be subject to the federal standards to be promulgated under 40 CFR part 62 subpart LLL, Federal Plan Requirements for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units Constructed on or Before October 14, 2010. A1: Yes. The EPA approves Lynn's site-specific mercury emission control and monitoring plan for the carbon adsorber. SSIs located in states that did not develop plans by March 21, 2016, as required by subpart MMMM, will be subject to the Federal plan requirements of Subpart LLL, until such time as the state develops a plan that is approved by EPA. Moreover, the Clean Air Act at 42 U.S.C. 7429(f)(2) states that performance standards for existing SSIs shall be in effect no later than five years after the date the emission guidelines were promulgated, that is by March 21, 2016. Q2: Does the EPA approve Lynn's request for an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used to control particulate from the incinerator? A2: Yes. The EPA approves Lynn's request for an AMP for the WESP. Abstract for [1700003] Q: Does the EPA approve the alternative testing under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (the Landfill NSPS) to allow use of landfill gas flow rate measurements at the header of the voluntary gas collection and control system (GCCS) to calculate annual non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emissions for a Tier 2 test at the Central Sanitary Landfill (CSL) in Pierson, Michigan? A: No. The EPA does not approve the alternative testing to use the flow rate measurements from the header of the GCCS, unless CSL can verify that the flow rate measured in the header of the GCCS accounts for the total quantity of landfill gas generated by the landfill. Abstract for [1700004] Q: Does the EPA determine that the two carbon disulfide (CS2) storage tanks located at the 3M Company (3M) Elyria, Ohio manufacturing plant are regulated under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb, Standards of Performance in Volatile Organic Liquid for Storage Vessels (NSPS Kb)? The CS2 storage tanks in question are part of an unloading and storage operation regulated under 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUU (MACT UUUU), NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, and the tanks do not have gaseous emissions. A: No. The EPA determines that the storage tanks in question that store CS2, a volatile organic liquid, are not regulated under NSPS Kb based on the language in Section VI.G.2 of the EPA memorandum from William Schrock, OAQPS/ESD/OCG to Docket No. A-99-39, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed NESHAP for Cellulosic Products Manufacturing, dated February 15, 2002. The two CS2 storage tanks are not the type of storage vessels in terms of their physical siting and operational design that were intended to be regulated under NSPS Subpart Kb, even when these tanks meet the vapor pressure and designed capacity under the NSPS rule. The tanks in question are completely submerged in a common water bath and have no air space within the tanks due to having a water layer above the CS2 layer at all times. Therefore, the tanks do not have direct CS2 gaseous emissions. Abstract for [1700005] Q: Does the EPA determine that changes made to the OMD-1 Rail rack flare, located at the Suncor Energy, Inc. petroleum refinery in Commerce City, Colorado, to ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC, NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries, are considered a modification under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja? A: No. Based on the information provided, the addition of utility supplied natural gas to the OMD-1 Rail rack flare would not be considered a modification for subpart Ja purposes because this flare is not physically connecting any new piping from a ``refinery process unit'', including ``ancillary equipment,'' or a ``fuel gas system'' as those terms are defined in Subpart Ja. Rather, the new piping is adding utility supplied natural gas to vapors from loading racks, Also, the addition of utility supplied natural gas to the OMD-1 Rail rack flare is not increasing the flow capacity of the flare. Abstract for [FP00004] Q: Does the EPA determine that 40 CFR part 60 subpart MMMM-- Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Timelines for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Units (SSI EG Rule) applies to a sewage sludge gasifier owned by MaxWest Environmental Systems Inc. (MaxWest) and located in Sanford, Florida? A: No. EPA determines that the SSI EG Rule, does not apply to the Maxwest sewage sludge gasifier and thermal oxidizer process heater. According to the SSI EG Rule, an SSI unit is an ``enclosed device or devices using controlled flame combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of sewage sludge by removing combustible matter.'' The MaxWest system has no flame and it is not a sewage sludge incinerator. Next, while the syngas which results from the gasifier is combusted, the SSI EG rule defines sewage sludge as ``solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sludge in treatment works.'' Since the syngas is a gas and not a solid, semisolid, or liquid, it does not meet the definition of sewage sludge in the SSI EG rule (even [[Page 22671]] though it is derived from sewage sludge). Abstract for [1700008] Q: Does the EPA approve an alternate Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) frequency for two carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) on two turbines located at the Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI) Dell Power Plant in Dell, Arkansas? A: Yes. The EPA approves AECI's request to follow the part 75 RATA frequency requirements for both NOx and CO CEMS, in accordance with similar prior approvals allowing a reduction in RATA frequency requirements for NOx and CO CEMS under part 60 Appendix F. The AECI turbines operate infrequently, and part 60 RATA frequency requirements do not take into account the frequency of the unit operations. Abstract for [1700010] Q: Is the proposed pilot gasification unit at the Carbon Black Global LLC (CBG) facility in Dunlap, Tennessee subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC (Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI NSPS)? The pilot ``scaled-down'' unit will be used to optimize and research the gasification of a variety of carbon-based waste feedstocks for clients. The resultant syngas will be flared. A: No. The proposed CBG's operation of the pilot unit is not a CISWI unit as defined in Sec. 60.2265 and is therefore not subject to the CISWI NSPS because the resultant syngas will not be in a container when combusted in the flare. While operation of the pilot unit by CBG is not subject to the CISWI NSPS, combustion of syngas produced by the gasification of other wastes, by CBG clients, should be evaluated by the appropriate delegated permitting agency for potential applicability under section 129 or section 112 (in the case of hazardous waste rules). Abstract for [1700011] Q1: Does the EPA give permission to remove the Site No. 1, Site No. 2, Fons and Old Wayne landfills' (the Landfills) landfill gas (LFG) gas collection and control system (GCCS) at a Wayne Disposal Inc. (WDI) site in Belleville, Michigan that is subject to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62 subpart GGG (Landfill Federal Plan)? A1: Yes. The EPA grants permission for WDI to cap or remove its LFG GCCS from a specific cell to allow a new hazardous waste landfill cell to overlay it since it has met the approval criteria established at 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(v), including: (1) The Landfills are ``a closed landfill[s]; (2) demonstrated that the NMOC gas production rate is less than 50 Mg/yr; and (3) demonstrated that the GCCS has been in operation for at least 15 years, as well as the required removal report is described in 40 CFR 60.757(e). Details behind this decision are included in the EPA determination letter. Q2: Can a landfill cap and remove its GCCS prior to the 15-year control period if a GCCS was operational prior to the start of the 15- year control period, but not in compliance with the Landfill NSPS and the Landfill Federal Plan design criteria? A2: No. WDI may cap or remove its GCCS at the remaining Landfills after October 6, 2017, since all conditions per 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(v) for landfill closure will be met on that date. A landfill is required to do a performance test when a GCCS is installed to ensure that it is in compliance with the Landfill Federal Plan or Landfill NSPS, whichever is applicable, which is one of the criteria. Once the GCCS is determined to be in compliance with design criteria in the Landfill NSPS and the Federal plan, the 15-year control period begins. Based on the information provided, WDI has not yet satisfied the 15-year requirement and must maintain operation of the GCCS until October 6, 2017. Abstract for [1700012] Q1: Does the EPA determine that the purchase order for a flare at the Linde Gas North America hydrogen reformer facility, located in Romeoville, Illinois, signed prior to the applicability deadline for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, establish that the facility ``commenced construction'' of the flare? A1: Yes. The signed purchase order established a contractual obligation to construct the flare and therefore the facility had commenced construction prior to the subpart J applicability deadline. Q2: Does the EPA determine that gas streams routed to the flare for combustion are exempt from the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emission limit at 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1) if the streams result from startup, shutdown, upset or malfunction of the plant or are due to relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions? A2: Yes. Process upset gases and gases released as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions are exempt from this H2S emission limit. Q3: Does the EPA determine that the flare is exempt from the sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 60.105(a) if the fuel gas streams are ``inherently low in sulfur''? A3: Yes. Based on the information provided to the EPA about the gas streams directed to the flare, they are inherently low in sulfur and therefore the facility is exempt from the SO2 monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 60.105(a). Abstract for [1700014] Q: Does the EPA determine that well completions performed by CountryMark Energy Resources, LLC (CountryMark) meet the definition of hydraulic fracturing at 40 CFR 60.5430a and are subject to subpart OOOOa? A: Yes. The EPA determines that CountryMark's operations meet the definition of hydraulic fracturing at 40 CFR 60.5430a, and are therefore subject to applicable requirements of subpart OOOOa, including but not limited to the standards for well affected facilities at 40 CFR 60.5375a. EPA concludes that the formations within the Illinois Basin that CountryMark has identified are considered ``tight formations'' because it is necessary to inject pressurized fluids into the formations to ``increase the flow of hydrocarbons to the wellhead''. Abstract for [1700015] Q: Does EPA determine that water and fuel injection data associated with the startup and shutdown of a combustion turbine at the Marshfield Utilities electric power generation facility be included in the 4-hour rolling average calculation used to determine compliance with the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission limitations for stationary combustion turbines and for reporting excess emissions under 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKKK? A: Yes. Subpart KKKK requires that all unit operating hours, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction be included in the 4-hour rolling average steam or water to fuel ratio calculation in accordance with 40 CFR 60.4335(a) and 40 CFR 60.4375(a), and any excess emissions must be reported under 40 CFR 60.4380(a)(l). However, such excess emissions would not constitute a violation of subpart KKKK if they occurred as a result of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Abstract for [1700016] Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in refinery fuel gas during TRiSTAR/ Global Vapor Control, Inc.'s (TRiSTAR) temporary vapor control events, such as [[Page 22672]] tank degassing and cleaning operations subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J at refineries in Region 5? A: Yes. The EPA approves TRiSTAR's AMP at refineries in Region 5 since installing and operating an H2S CMS would be technically impractical due to the short term nature of tank degassing and similar operations. Abstract for [1700017] Q: Does the EPA determine that sodium gluconate produced at the PMP Fermentation Products, Inc. facility in Peoria, Illinois is classified as a nonmetallic mineral under NSPS Subpart OOO? A. Yes. The EPA determines that sodium gluconate meets the definition of nonmetallic mineral established in NSPS subpart OOO. Abstract for [1700018] Q: Does the EPA approve an expansion of the previously approved Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the Flint Hills Resources refinery to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) when using portable flares and fuel gas combustion devices to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from vessels and pipes subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J or Ja? A: Yes. The EPA approves that the previously-approved AMP, to monitor H2 S and SO2 in flares and fuel gas combustion devices used to treat VOC emissions from petroleum refinery storage tank degassing and cleaning operations subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja. Abstract for [1700019] Q: Does the EPA approve Calumet Superior's alternative monitoring proposal to use a static default moisture correction to correct the sulfur dioxide CEMS data to a dry basis, for a sulfur recovery plant located in Superior, Wisconsin, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja? A: No. NSPS subpart Ja at 40 CFR 60.l06a(a)(l) and the Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60 allow for the data to be monitored either on a dry basis, or to be corrected to a dry basis using continuously monitored moisture data. Abstract for [1700020] Q: Does the EPA approve a request to reduce the concentrations of the calibration gas and validation standards on the continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for several flares subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Alon USA (Alon) Big Spring refinery located in Big Spring, Texas? A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the request provided that all other requirements of the monitoring procedures of NSPS subpart Ja for total reduced sulfur (TRS) and hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) are followed. The alternative span gases will address safety concerns involving storage, handling, and engineering controls. The EPA conditionally approves a calibration gas concentration range of 0-85 percent for conducting daily drift checks, relative accuracy test audits, and cylinder gas audits, using a mass spectrometer to continuously analyze and monitor H2 S and TRS, provided that Alon conducts linearity analysis on the mass spectrometer once every three years to determine linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations of acid gas vent streams. Abstract for [1700021] Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for various refineries located in EPA Region 6 and operated by Debusk Service Group to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, that are subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, the EPA conditionally approves the AMP. The EPA included proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. The AMP is only for degassing operations conducted at refineries in EPA Region 6. Separate, similar AMP requests for the same company to conduct degassing operations at refineries in states in other EPA regions must be approved by those EPA regions. Abstract for [1700022] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the two Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi refineries (Flint Hills Refineries) to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers and other fuel combustion devices that are subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2 S monitoring data furnished, EPA conditionally approves a combined AMP for the portable fuel combustion devices used at both refineries. EPA included proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs), and data which the refineries must retain and obtain from contractors, as part of the conditional approval. The AMP is only for the portable fuel combustion devices at the aforementioned Flint Hills Refineries. Separate, similar AMP requests for the same company must be approved by the EPA region. Abstract for [1700023] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) in refinery fuel gas streams at the Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.'s (Magellan) facility in Corpus Christi, Texas which are subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. Based on the information provided by Magellan, the facility uses a vapor combustion unit (VCU) to control emissions from degassing, cleaning, and maintenance activities associated with tanks, vessels, pipes, and LPG trucks. Because the VCU will be used infrequently, and for short periods, installation of an H2 S continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) as required under NSPS Subpart Ja is not economically feasible. The EPA approves use of colorimetric stain tubes to determine the concentration of H2 S in three fuel gas grab samples prior to entering the VCU. Magellan must record the results of each grab sample, the key activities completed with each operation, and any other relevant information associated with degassing, cleaning, and maintenance activities. Abstract for [1700024] Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Flint Hill Resources in Rosemount, Minnesota, to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) in flares for flares and fuel gas combustion devices used to treat volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum refinery storage tank degassing and cleaning operations subject to the New Source Performance Standards for Petroleum Refineries, 40 CFR part 60 subparts J and Ja (NSPS subparts J and Ja)? A: Yes. The EPA approves an AMP to monitor H2 S and SO2 in flares for flares and fuel gas combustion devices used to treat VOC emissions from petroleum refinery storage tank degassing and cleaning operations subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja. [[Page 22673]] Abstract for [1700025] Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for GEM Mobile Treatment Services to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) in refinery fuel gas during temporary vapor control events subject NSPS Subparts J and Ja, such as tank degassing, at refineries in EPA Region 5? A: Yes. The EPA approves an AMP to monitor H2 S in refinery fuel gas for mobile combustion devices flares and fuel gas combustion devices used to treat emissions from temporary vapor control events, such as tank degassing. Separate, similar AMP requests for facilities located in other EPA regions must be approved by the appropriate EPA region. Abstract for [1700026] Q: Does the EPA approve Flint Hills Resources (FHR) to use a span of 0-50 ppmvd for the nitrogen oxides (NOX ) continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) at two heaters located at the Pine Ben Refinery located in Saint Paul Minnesota, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja? A: No. EPA disapproves the Alternative Monitoring Proposal to allow the analyzers spans of 0-50 ppmvd as this range does not cover the applicable emission limit of 60 ppmvd. However, the EPA conditionally approves a span of 0-60 ppmvd rather than the 120-180 ppmdv required by 40 CFR 60.107a(c)(1) for the NOX CEMS. The specific conditions are specified in the EPA response letter. Abstract for [1700027] Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to reduce the concentration of calibration gas used to perform daily validations and quarterly cylinder gas audits (CGA) of the Total Reduced Sulfur monitor for the flare gas system at the HollyFrontier El Dorado Refining LLC refinery (HFEDR) in El Dorado, Kansas, as required pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 40 CFR 60, Appendix F, respectively? A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the HFEDR AMP due to the safety concerns associated with handling gases with high concentrations of hydrogen disulfide (H2 S). The conditions are listed in the EPA determination letter. Abstract for [1700028] Q1: Does the EPA approve a waiver of the initial performance test for the Olefins Manufacturing Unit and Demethanizer Distillation Column Vents, at the Eastman Chemical Company, Longview, Texas facility, subject to 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Distillation Operations (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes (subpart RRR)? A1: Yes. EPA waives the initial performance test for the specific vents associated with the two units, both subject to NSPS Subparts RRR and NNN, as these are being introduced with the primary fuel into a boiler or process heater in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(b) and as provided for in Sec. 60.704(b)(5) of subpart RRR. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to appropriate control devices, subpart RRR requires that the facility maintain a schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s), fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems, and include the diagram in the initial report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b). Q2: Does EPA approve a substitution of NSPS subpart NNN for NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative flow and temperature monitoring for the vent streams associated with two new demethanizer distillation columns? A2: Yes. The EPA approves the alternative request for meeting subpart RRR in lieu of subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping for boilers and process heaters, part of the fuel gas system, to comply with the standards of both subparts. Abstract for [1700029] Q: Does the EPA re-approve the May 2011 AMP to comply with new opacity requirements for a wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Motiva's Convent, Louisiana refinery, subject to NSPS subpart J and NESHAP subpart UUU, for continued parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System? A: Yes. Based on the previously established operating parameter limits for the scrubbers, the EPA agrees that the monitoring provisions of the previously approved AMP were at least as stringent as the new FCCUs requirements in both rules amended December 1, 2015, and therefore re-approves the AMP under the new rules. Abstract for [1700030] Q1: Does the EPA find that the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to modify a flare's flow sensor measurement accuracy during extremely low flow conditions at the Valero Refining Company's Ardmore Refinery in Ardmore, Oklahoma, is still necessary if the flare is a control device subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)? A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP is no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals. Q2: What does the revised rule now require? A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or 5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps. Abstract for [1700031] Q1: Does the EPA find that the Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMPs) to modify the flow sensor measurement accuracy of flares during extremely low flow conditions at the Valero Refining, Texas L.P.'s Corpus Christi West Plant and Corpus Christi East Plant Refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas, are still necessary if the flares are control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)? A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMPs are no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals. Q2: What does the revised rule now require? A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within 20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or 5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps. Abstract for [1700032] Q1: Does the EPA find that the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to modify flow sensor measurement accuracy for multiple flares during extremely low flow conditions at the Valero Refining Company's Texas City Refinery in Texas City, Texas, is still necessary, if the flares are control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)? A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP is no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals. [[Page 22674]] Q2: What does the revised rule now require? A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within 20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or 5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps. Abstract for [1700033] Q1: Does the EPA find that an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to modify flow sensor measurement accuracy for multiple flares during extremely low flow conditions at Valero Refining Company's Three Rivers Refinery in Three Rivers, Texas, is still necessary if the flares are control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)? A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP is no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals. Q2: What does the revised rule now require? A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within 20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or 5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps. Abstract for [1700034] Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for determining sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and oxygen (O2 ) concentrations on a dry basis, using wet basis concentration data from continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) at a sulfur recovery unit (SRU) incinerator at the Valero Refining-Meraux LLC (Valero) petroleum refinery, located in Meraux, Louisiana, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja and 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU? A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves Valero's AMP on the No. 3 SRU incinerator while the new dry basis SO2 and O2 CEMS are installed and commissioned before the AMP expiration date of August 1, 2017. Valero proposed programming the refinery's process control and data acquisition system to perform real time moisture corrections of the vent stream concentrations at the SRU incinerator. The EPA approves Valero's request to use a methodology to mathematically correct the measured wet basis concentrations to dry basis using Equation 2-1, from 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 2, and the moisture fraction value from the most recent stack test. Abstract for [1700035] Q: Does the EPA approve WRB Refining LP's (WRB) Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions from portable flares and fuel gas combustion devices used to control emissions from storage tank, process unit vessel and piping degassing for maintenance and cleaning events at the Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois refinery subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J and Ja? A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves WRB's AMP request since it agrees that it is impractical to continuously monitor the H2S in and SO2 emissions from gases going to portable flares and fuel gas combustion devices during the infrequent and temporary events when storage tanks, process unit vessels and piping are degassed for maintenance and cleaning operations, and approves the AMP. The conditions are specified in the EPA determination letter. Abstract for [1700036] Q: Does the EPA grant 3M's request to waive the initial performance testing requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFF, Standards of Performance for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing (NSPS subpart FFF) for 3M's 3L and 6L lines at its Hutchinson, Minnesota facility, which are controlled by separate thermal oxidizers? A: No. The EPA does not waive the initial performance testing requirements for 3M's 3L and 6L lines under NSPS subpart FFF for two reasons. First, the capture and destruction efficiency testing on which 3M wants the waiver to rely were not conducted at the same time. NSPS subpart FFF requires ``a performance test to determine overall VOC control efficiency'' which implies simultaneous testing of both capture efficiency and destruction efficiency at the same time to demonstrate compliance. Second, even if separate testing of capture and destruction efficiency was allowed by NSPS subpart FFF, the tests identified by 3M for demonstrating compliance were conducted years apart (3 and 10 years for the 3L and 6L lines, respectively). Such long time periods between testing cannot provide assurance that compliance was achieved, and cannot provide assurance that operational conditions during each test were identical. Abstract for [A170001] Q: Is there a requirement that Wayne County treat vermiculite material containing less than one percent asbestos by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) and/or Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) as regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) under 40 CFR part 61 subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP)? The Wayne County Airport demolition of Building 715 involves suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM) consisting of spray-applied fireproofing on the primary roof structure that contains vermiculite. A: The EPA recommends, but does not require, that the regulated community assume vermiculite material is asbestos-containing material (ACM) and treat it accordingly. However, if vermiculite material is present in building materials at a facility (as either friable or Category I or II nonfriable material that could become regulated), then the facility must be thoroughly inspected and any suspect vermiculite material must be sampled and analyzed like any other suspect asbestos- containing friable or nonfriable material unless it is assumed to be ACM and treated accordingly. Based on the site-specific test results provided by the Wayne County Airport, the spray-applied fire proofing tested at Building 715 is not ACM, and is not subject to the federal Asbestos NESHAP. Abstract for [M170001] Q: Does the EPA determine that the Magna DexSys facility in Lansing, Michigan (Lansing facility) is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) for purposes of applicability of the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, at 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPP? A: Yes. Based upon the information provided, the EPA determines that Magna DexSys is a major source as defined under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of subpart PPPP. The Lansing facility's permitted xylene emission limits have always been, and are still, above the major source threshold. Furthermore, Magna DexSys lacks the data necessary to calculate uncontrolled HAP emissions at the facility, and there are no federally enforceable physical or operational limitations in place to limit emissions from the facility to less than 10 tons per year for a single HAP or 25 tons per year for any combination of HAP. Abstract for [M170002] Q: Does the EPA determine that the vapor combustor in the Plant 2 loading [[Page 22675]] area at the Suncor Energy Inc. petroleum refinery in Commerce City, Colorado is considered a flare under 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC, NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries, and, therefore, subject to the flare requirements of 40 CFR 63.670 and 63.671? A: No. The EPA determines that the vapor combustor described in the March 10, 2017 letter does not meet the definition of a flare at 40 CFR 63.641 of subpart CC. Therefore, the vapor combustor is not subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 and 63.671. However, the combustor needs to be tested, and operating parameters established and monitored, to assure compliance with the subpart CC emission limits. Abstract for [M170004] Q: Does the EPA determine that the glycol dehydration unit reboiler at El Paso Natural Gas' southern New Mexico facility, which is subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities (NESHAP subpart HHH), is also subject to the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (NESHAP subpart DDDDD)? A: Yes. The EPA determines that although the glycol dehydration reboiler is subject to NESHAP subpart HHH, the reboiler is also subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD. The reboiler is considered a process heater subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD because the gaseous fuel fired to the unit is not regulated under another subpart, and the exhaust gas from the reboiler combustion chamber is uncontrolled (i.e. the emissions vent directly to atmosphere). The EPA noted that process vent standards under NESHAP subpart HHH only apply to the dehydrator reboiler still vent and flash tank emissions. A flare is the control device for these emissions under NESHAP subpart HHH. However, NESHAP subpart HHH does not apply to the reboiler combustion chamber emissions because the reboiler itself is not a control device being used to comply with another NESHAP (in this case, subpart HHH). Abstract for [M170005] Q: Does EPA approve a request for an alternative relative accuracy (RA) procedure for three hazardous waste liquid fuel boilers at Vertellus Agriculture & Nutrition Specialties, LLC (Vertellus), in Indianapolis, Indiana, subject to 40 CFR part 266 subpart H (the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule or BIF rule) and 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT)? A: Yes. EPA concludes that Vertellus may use the alternative RA procedure in the context of either the BIF Rule or the HWC MACT. The EPA previously approved the use of the alternative RA procedure in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 266 for the hazardous waste liquid fuel boilers under the BIF rule at Vertellus. The EPA believes that the alternative RA procedures in Appendix A of the HWC MACT are acceptable procedures for a hazardous waste burning liquid fuel boiler. Abstract for [M170006] Q: Does EPA approve the use of the `R Boiler' as an alternative control device to comply with the ``emission rate with add-on controls'' compliance option under 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPP (the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products) for two plastic parts and products coating production lines at the SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC (SABIC) facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana? A: Yes. Based on the information provided by SABIC, and the fact that SABIC intends to conduct a performance test to determine the organic HAP destruction efficiency of the `R Boiler', the EPA approves SABIC's request for this boiler to serve as an add-on control device under the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products since it is consistent with the subpart PPPP MACT requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance thermal oxidizer as a control device. Abstract for [M170007] Q1: Does the EPA determine that Caterpillar Inc.'s (Caterpillar's) existing test cells/stands at its Lafayette facility are a reconstructed affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP? A1: No. EPA determines that many of the test cells/stands components that were added or replaced were not linked together by a single planning decision, and therefore cannot be aggregated together as a single project. The cost of Caterpillar's component replacements or component additions to the affected source that could conceivably be aggregated together are well below the 50% of the cost of constructing a new comparable facility. Q2: Has the EPA further defined the terms ``passive measurement and control limitations'' as used in subpart PPPPP? A2: The EPA has not provided further definition of these terms since promulgating the subpart PPPPP rule in 2003. However, the cost of passive measurement and control instrumentation and electronics is excluded from affected source reconstruction calculations as explained in 40 CFR 63.9290. Abstract for [M170008] Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of either of the calibration options provided at 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(i) or (ii) under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (NESHAP subpart CC) for its gas chromatograph (GC), if the current configuration of the GC does not allow it to identify 1,3 butadiene? The Calumet Superior, LLC. refinery plant in Superior, Wisconsin (Calumet) uses a gas chromatograph (GC) to monitor the flare vent gas composition to assess compliance with the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670(e). A1: No. 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(i) of NESHAP subpart CC is not an option because the current flare vent gas GC configuration does not allow it to identify 1,3 butadiene. Therefore, Calumet can only use the calibration option provided at 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(ii) since it allows the use of a surrogate calibration gas to cover all compounds in the flare vent gas stream. Q2: Does the EPA determine that the current configuration of the flare vent GC that does not allow it to identify 1,3 butadiene meets the requirements of the NESHAP subpart CC to assess compliance with the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670(e)? Calumet has collected and analyzed flare vent gas samples for 1,3 butadiene. The results of this sampling detected 1, 3 butadiene at concentrations levels below the threshold expected to have an impact on the net heating value of the flare vent gas in the combustion zone. A2: Yes. Based on the information Calumet provided and pursuant to 40 CFR 63.670(j)(1) and 63.67l(e), the EPA determines that the current configuration of the flare vent gas GC meets the requirements of the NESHAP subpart CC. Abstract for [M170009] Q: The Michigan South Central Power Agency's Endicott Generating Station (Endicott) has a source with an emergency scrubber bypass duct subject to the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) at 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU. Is this source eligible to pursue Low Emitting electric utility steam generating unit (LEE) status for sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.10000? [[Page 22676]] A: Yes. In accordance with the technical corrections to MATS promulgated in April 2016, Endicott may pursue LEE status for its source. Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.10000(c)(1)(i)(C)(1), if a source's control device bypass emissions are measured in the bypass stack or duct or the source's control device bypass exhaust is routed through the electric utility steam generating unit main stack so that emissions are measured during the bypass event, then the source may pursue LEE status. Abstract for [M170010] Q: Does the EPA determine that the replacement pump engines at the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana are existing emergency stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) that are not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? A: No. Based upon the information provided and the description of the engine use, the EPA determines that the engines at the Lake Borgne Pump Station do not meet the definition of existing emergency stationary RICE at 40 CFR 63.6675. Since construction or reconstruction of the stationary engines began after June 12, 2006, and the engines are located in an area source of emissions, the engines are subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII (Compression Ignition NSPS). Abstract for [M170011] Q: Does the EPA approve a waiver of the volumetric flow rate determination required as part of the performance test for a flare under 40 CFR part 63 subparts G and FFFF at the Lyondell Chemical (Lyondell) Bayport Choate Plant (Plant) in Pasadena, Texas? A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves a waiver of the requirement to determine the volumetric flow rate using EPA Method 2 during initial performance testing of a flare at the Plant. The volumetric flow rate can be calculated using existing flow measurement devices upstream of the flare and estimated flows based on process knowledge from all minor streams that may be routed to the flare on an interim basis. Lyondell must install flow meters for the flare and must demonstrate compliance with flare exit velocity requirements using the approved process-based engineering calculation protocol for volumetric flow rate. Abstract for [M170012] Q: Does EPA approve site specific fuel analysis plans to be conducted in accordance with approved EPA Method 30 at Union Carbide Corporation's Hahnville, Louisiana facility, for the purpose of determining mercury levels to classify boiler and heater fuel sources as Other Gas 1 or 2 under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD? A: Yes. Based on the information submitted, the EPA approves the fuel analysis plans. Abstract for [M170013] Q: Does the EPA approve SABIC Innovative Plastics' (SABIC's) request to replace EPA Method 30B mercury analysis breakthrough Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements with Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) criteria and/or waive the breakthrough QA/QC for a test conducted in April 2016, for the purposes of complying with 40 CFR part 60 subpart DDDDD? A: No. The EPA does not approve SABIC's request. There are substantive reasons why the criteria are different for compliance testing versus RATA testing. The EPA does find however, that while the breakthrough criterion was not met in several instances during the tests, it appears that the remaining data quality objectives were met and there is no reason to reject the QA/QC data. Abstract for [M170014] Q: Does the EPA approve Calumet Superior, LLC's (Calumet's) alternative monitoring request to maintain the hourly oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator at or above one percent by volume on a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU at the Superior, Wisconsin refinery? A: Yes. The EPA approves Calumets' alternative monitoring request for use of wet basis analyzer readings to demonstrate compliance with the one percent by volume oxygen concentration limit in 40 CFR 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) for periods of startup, shutdown, and hot standby. Calumet provided information that indicates catalyst fines can plug an analyzer that measures on a dry basis. In addition, the oxygen concentration on a wet basis will always yield a lower reading versus a dry basis oxygen reading. Abstract for [M170017] Q1: Are Processes 1, referred to as ``adhesive compounding'', located at the 3M's Hutchinson, Minnesota (``Hutchinson'') and Knoxville, Iowa (``Knoxville'') facilities subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON rule) or 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM rule) at MCM when the adhesive compound is shipped off-site? A1: The MON rule applies to Processes 1 when the adhesive compound is shipped off-site. The MCM does not apply to Process 1 when the adhesive compound is shipped off-site. Process 1 is a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process that produces an adhesive product classified by NAICS 325, and process or uses organic HAP, and is therefore a process that is contemplated by 63.2435(b). Q2: Are Processes 2, referred to as ``mogul based adhesive compounding'', located at the 3M's Hutchinson and Knoxville facilities subject to the MON or the MCM when the mogul based adhesive compound is shipped off-site? A2: The MON applies to Processes 2 when the mogul based adhesive compound is shipped off-site. The MCM does not apply to Processes 2 when the mogul based adhesive compound is shipped off-site. 3M described the first step which involves a chemical reaction of non-HAP containing raw materials. The first step is completed by quenching the reaction, without storage after the first step. The second step, HAP containing raw materials were added to the same vessel with the material from the first step. Because there is no storage after step 1, we believe that both steps of Process 2 are part of one miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process to produce a product described by NAICS 325. Q3: Are Processes 1 and 2 located at the 3M's Hutchinson and Knoxville facilities exempt from the MON as ``affiliated operations'' when making the adhesive compound and mogul based adhesive compound, respectively, at the same facility that is subject to Subpart JJJJ (POWC)? A3: Yes. Processes 1 and 2 meet the exemption for affiliated operations under the MON when making the adhesive and mogul based adhesive, respectively, at the same facility where they are used in a POWC affected facility. The definitions of affiliated operations in both the MON and the preamble to the POWC contain the broad language to define the exemption. Therefore, we interpret these broad terms to include the actual production of the product that meets the definition of ``coating'' under the rule. Abstract for [WDS-146] Q: Blaze King Industries Incorporated is seeking EPA clarification on the steps for adequately demonstrating replacement catalyst equivalency for catalyst-equipped wood heaters subject to the 2015 Standards of Performance [[Page 22677]] for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters, and Forced-Air Furnaces, (40 CFR part 60 subpart AAA) (2015 NSPS Standards). A: The 2015 NSPS standards requires that, to have a catalyst deemed suitable for replacement, equivalency testing be conducted by an EPA- approved test laboratory. Consistent with the 2015 Standards, the manufacturer must notify the EPA of the date that certification testing (catalyst equivalency testing) is scheduled to begin as stated in 40 CFR 60.534(g). This notice must be received by the EPA at least 30 days before the start of testing. Abstract for [WDS-147] This letter is in response to the three November 20, 2015 letters (which the EPA is consolidating into one response) from OMNI-Test Laboratories, Inc. (OMNI) requesting clarification of several issues under 2015 Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters (subpart AAA) and New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (subpart QQQQ) (collectively referred to as the ``2015 NSPS Standards'') Q1: Do the 2015 NSPS Standards allow unsealing of a wood heater, for which a full certification test series has not been completed, for further testing? A1: The 2015 NSPS Standards do not specifically allow for unsealing of a wood heater for which a test laboratory has suspended a compliance test. However, EPA interprets some sections of the 2015 NSPS Standards to allow the unsealing of a wood heater for the purpose of further testing in specific circumstances. Q2: Can the manufacturer provide new parts or make simple modifications to the sealed wood heater in lieu of making and shipping a new prototype? A2: Yes. However, the wood heater must remain sealed until the operation and test data obtained from the suspended test is submitted and reviewed by the EPA. Q3: Does a wood heater that has undergone an incomplete test certification have to be sealed and archived in perpetuity? A3: No. However, when the wood heater is sealed per 40 CFR 60.535(a)(2)(vii) and 60.5477(a)(2)(vii), the wood heater must remain sealed until the operation and test data obtained from the suspended test is submitted and reviewed by the EPA. Q4: What are the certification requirements under 40 CFR 60.533(e)? A4: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(e), the EPA may issue a conditional, temporary certificate of compliance to a manufacturer if they submit a full test report and a complete application. Q5: Are the certifications of conformity that an EPA-accredited test laboratory submits to the EPA ``de facto temporary certificates of compliance'' because they are not required for the EPA to issue a temporary certificate of compliance to a manufacturer? A5: No. As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(e), a conditional, temporary certificate of compliance may only be granted by the EPA provided that the manufacturer submits a complete certification application that meets all the requirements in 40 CFR 60.533(b). Q6: Does submission of a certificate of conformity with a complete certification package (i.e., application and full test report), prior to May 16, 2016, make a manufacturer requesting certification ineligible to receive a temporary certificate of compliance? A6: No. The manufacturer may receive a conditional, temporary certificate of compliance under 40 CFR 60.533(e) until the EPA's review of the application is complete. Q7: What are the requirements for quality assurance audits for model lines that are deemed certified under 40 CFR 60.533(h)(1)? A7: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(m), ``the manufacturer of a model line with a compliance certification under paragraph (h)(1) of this section must conduct a quality assurance program that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (m) by May 16, 2016.'' Q8: Are manufacturers required to contract the services of a third- party certifier to conduct quality assurance audits? A8: Yes. Manufacturers are required by 40 CFR 60.533(m) to contract the services of a third-party certifier to conduct quality assurance audits. Q9: What are the requirements for deemed certified wood heaters under 40 CFR 60.533(m)? A9: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(m), by May 16, 2016, manufacturers must have in place a quality assurance program that satisfies the requirements under 40 CFR 60.533(m)(1) through (5). Q10: Does a certificate of compliance issued prior to May 15, 2015, at an emission level less than or equal to the 2015 emission standard need to be renewed before May 15, 2020? A10: No. Manufacturers of model lines that are deemed certified per 40 CFR 60.533(h)(1) and for which a certificate of compliance has been issued prior to May 15, 2015, showing an emission level less than or equal to the 2015 emission standards, do not need to renew their certificates until May 15, 2020. Abstract for [WDS-148] Q: Does EPA determine that the wood heater regulations at 40 CFR part 60 subparts AAA apply to the wood-burning sauna heaters manufactured by Harvia Oy? A: No. Based upon the information provided and the specific circumstances described in Harvia Oy's letters to the EPA, the EPA determines that the wood heater subpart AAA standards do not apply to Harvia Oy's wood-burning sauna heaters since these do not meet the definition of wood heaters. The sauna heaters are intended to heat the sauna room only and not to be used for residential heating. Abstract for [Z170001] Q: Does the EPA determine that the Exide Technologies secondary lead smelting facility in Vernon, CA, which has been permanently shut down and is being dismantled, is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart X? A: No. The EPA determines that the facility is no longer a ``secondary lead smelter'' for purposes of subpart X because it can no longer physically or legally operate as a secondary lead smelter. In addition, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved Exide's Final Closure Plan on December 8, 2016. Abstract for [Z170002] Q: Does the EPA approve Futamura USA, Incorporated's (Futamura's) request to use an alternative test method using a mass spectrometer (MS) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to measure specific sulfur compound emissions from process vents on the cellulose manufacturing process and alternative monitoring method that would eliminate the need to collect and report carbon disulfide (CS2) Recovery Plan operating data based on the availability of the emissions data from the proposed MS CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (NESHAP subpart UUUU), at its Tecumseh, Kansas facility? A: Yes. Based on the information provided, the EPA conditionally grants temporary approval for the alternative test method and monitoring method to allow Futamura to demonstrate the ability to document compliance with NESHAP UUUU by using a MS CEMS. This temporary approval expires one year from June 16, 2017. At least 60 days prior to this expiration date, Futamura is required to make a request to EPA for continue and permanent use [[Page 22678]] of the CS. In addition, the CS CEMS needs to successfully pass the required relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and meet additional conditions outline in the determination letter for EPA approval. Abstract for [Z170003] Q: Does the EPA approve BP Product North America's (BP) alternative monitoring request to maintain the hourly oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator at or above one percent by volume on a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU at the Whiting, Indiana refinery? A: Yes. The EPA approves the request to maintain the hourly oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator at or above one percent by volume on a wet basis during periods of startup, shutdown, and hot standby. BP provided information that indicates catalyst fines can plug an analyzer that measures on a dry basis. In addition, the oxygen concentration on a wet basis will always yield a lower reading versus a dry basis oxygen reading. Dated: May 7, 2018. David A. Hindin, Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. [FR Doc. 2018-10463 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![22668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of a contact person, refer to the author ADI on a regular basis. In addition, the
AGENCY of the document. ADI contains EPA-issued responses to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requests pursuant to the stratospheric
[FRL–9977–73–OECA] ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR
Background part 82. The ADI is a data system on the
Applicability Determination Index (ADI) The General Provisions of the NSPS internet with over three thousand EPA
Data System Recent Posting: Agency in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) letters and memoranda pertaining to the
Applicability Determinations, part 60 and the General Provisions of applicability, monitoring,
Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide recordkeeping, and reporting
Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining that a source owner or operator may requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP,
to Standards of Performance for New request a determination of whether emission guidelines and Federal Plans
Stationary Sources, Emission certain intended actions constitute the for existing sources, and stratospheric
Guidelines and Federal Plan commencement of construction, ozone regulations. Users can search for
Requirements for Existing Sources, reconstruction, or modification. 40 CFR letters and memoranda by date, office of
National Emission Standards for 60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions issuance, subpart, citation, control
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the in part 60 also apply to Federal and number, or by string word searches.
Stratospheric Ozone Protection EPA-approved state plans for existing Today’s notice comprises a summary
Program sources in 40 CFR part 62. See 40 CFR of 54 such documents added to the ADI
62.02(b)(2). The EPA’s written responses on April 24, 2018. This notice lists the
AGENCY: Environmental Protection to inquiries on provisions in parts 60, 61 subject and header of each letter and
Agency (EPA). and 62 are commonly referred to as memorandum, as well as a brief abstract
ACTION: Notice of availability. applicability determinations. Although of the letter or memorandum. Complete
the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which copies of these documents may be
SUMMARY: This notice announces
include Maximum Achievable Control obtained from the ADI on the internet
applicability determinations, alternative
Technology (MACT) standards and/or through the Resources and Guidance
monitoring decisions, and regulatory
Generally Available Control Technology Documents for Compliance Assistance
interpretations that EPA has made with
(GACT) standards] contain no specific page of the Clean Air Act Compliance
regard to the New Source Performance
regulatory provision providing that Monitoring website under ‘‘Air’’ at:
Standards (NSPS); the National
sources may request applicability https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
determinations, the EPA also responds resources-and-guidance-documents-
Pollutants (NESHAP); the Emission
to written inquiries regarding compliance-assistance.
Guidelines and Federal Plan
applicability for the part 63 regulations.
Requirements for existing sources; and/ Summary of Headers and Abstracts
In addition, the General Provisions in
or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection The following table identifies the
part 60 and 63 allow sources to seek
Program. database control number for each
permission to use monitoring or
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An recordkeeping that is different from the document posted on the ADI data
electronic copy of each complete promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR system on April 24, 2018; the applicable
document posted on the Applicability 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s)
Determination Index (ADI) data system 63.10(f). The EPA’s written responses to of 40 CFR part 60, 61, 62, or 63 (as
is available on the internet through the these inquiries are commonly referred to applicable) addressed in the document;
Resources and Guidance Documents for as alternative monitoring decisions. and the title of the document, which
Compliance Assistance page of the Furthermore, the EPA responds to provides a brief description of the
Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring written inquiries about the broad range subject matter.
website under ‘‘Air’’ at: https:// of regulatory requirements in 40 CFR Also included is an abstract of each
www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources- parts 60 through 63 as they pertain to document identified with its control
and-guidance-documents-compliance- a whole source category. These inquiries number after the table. These abstracts
assistance. The letters and memoranda may pertain, for example, to the type of are provided solely to alert the public to
on the ADI may be located by author, sources to which the regulation applies, possible items of interest and are not
date, office of issuance, subpart, or to the testing, monitoring, intended as substitutes for the contents
citation, control number, or by string recordkeeping, or reporting of the documents. This notice does not
word searches. For questions about the requirements contained in the change the status of any document with
ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave regulation. The EPA’s written responses respect to whether it is ‘‘of nationwide
at EPA by phone at: (202) 564–7027, or to these inquiries are commonly referred scope or effect’’ for purposes of CAA
by email at: malave.maria@epa.gov. For to as regulatory interpretations. section 307(b)(1). For example, this
technical questions about individual The EPA currently compiles EPA- notice does not convert an applicability
applicability determinations or issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determination for a particular source
monitoring decisions, refer to the determinations, alternative monitoring into a nationwide rule. Neither does it
contact person identified in the decisions, and regulatory purport to make a previously non-
individual documents, or in the absence interpretations, and posts them to the binding document binding.
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 24, 2018
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Control No. Categories Subparts Title
1600019 ................. NSPS ............................. A, TTTT ............ Applicability Determination for Stationary Combustion Turbine.
FP00003 ................. Federal Plan .................. LLL, EEE .......... Alternative Monitoring Plan at Sewage Sludge Incinerator.
1700003 ................. NSPS ............................. WWW ............... Alternative Tier 2 Testing Methodology for MSW Landfill.
1700004 ................. NSPS, MACT, NESHAP Kb, UUUU ......... Applicability Determination for Two Carbon Disulfide Storage Tanks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/1.svg)
![22670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 24, 2018—Continued
Control No. Categories Subparts Title
Z170003 ................. NESHAP ........................ UUU .................. Alternative Monitoring for Oxygen Concentration in Catalyst Regenerator at
a Refinery.
Abstracts A2: Yes. The EPA approves Lynn’s times. Therefore, the tanks do not have
request for an AMP for the WESP. direct CS2 gaseous emissions.
Abstract for [1600019]
Abstract for [1700003] Abstract for [1700005]
Q: Did construction commence on the
Portland General Electric (PGE) Carty Q: Does the EPA approve the Q: Does the EPA determine that
Generating Facility electric generating alternative testing under 40 CFR part 60, changes made to the OMD–1 Rail rack
unit (EGU) located in Boardman, Oregon subpart WWW (the Landfill NSPS) to flare, located at the Suncor Energy, Inc.
when the turn-key contract for allow use of landfill gas flow rate petroleum refinery in Commerce City,
construction of the Facility was signed, measurements at the header of the Colorado, to ensure compliance with 40
or later when the contractor began voluntary gas collection and control CFR part 63 subpart CC, NESHAP from
actual onsite construction activities? system (GCCS) to calculate annual non- Petroleum Refineries, are considered a
A: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.5(a) and 40 methane organic compound (NMOC) modification under 40 CFR part 60
CFR 60.2 definition of ‘‘commence’’, emissions for a Tier 2 test at the Central subpart Ja?
Sanitary Landfill (CSL) in Pierson, A: No. Based on the information
EPA determines that PGE’s construction
Michigan? provided, the addition of utility
commenced on June 3, 2013, when PGE
supplied natural gas to the OMD–1 Rail
entered into a contractual obligation A: No. The EPA does not approve the
rack flare would not be considered a
construction of the Carty Generating alternative testing to use the flow rate modification for subpart Ja purposes
Facility. measurements from the header of the because this flare is not physically
GCCS, unless CSL can verify that the connecting any new piping from a
Abstract for [FP00003]
flow rate measured in the header of the ‘‘refinery process unit’’, including
Q1: Does the EPA approve Lynn GCCS accounts for the total quantity of ‘‘ancillary equipment,’’ or a ‘‘fuel gas
Water and Sewer Commission’s (Lynn’s) landfill gas generated by the landfill. system’’ as those terms are defined in
request to use site-specific control Subpart Ja. Rather, the new piping is
Abstract for [1700004]
technology and monitoring parameters adding utility supplied natural gas to
for the granular activated carbon Q: Does the EPA determine that the vapors from loading racks, Also, the
adsorption system used to control two carbon disulfide (CS2) storage tanks addition of utility supplied natural gas
mercury emissions from the sewage located at the 3M Company (3M) Elyria, to the OMD–1 Rail rack flare is not
sludge incinerator (SSI), subject to the Ohio manufacturing plant are regulated increasing the flow capacity of the flare.
40 CFR part, subpart MMMM, under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb,
Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Standards of Performance in Volatile Abstract for [FP00004]
Timelines for Existing Sewage Sludge Organic Liquid for Storage Vessels Q: Does the EPA determine that 40
Incineration (SSI) Units, and located in (NSPS Kb)? The CS2 storage tanks in CFR part 60 subpart MMMM—
Lynn, Massachusetts? The SSI is question are part of an unloading and Emissions Guidelines and Compliance
expected to be subject to the federal storage operation regulated under 40 Timelines for Existing Sewage Sludge
standards to be promulgated under 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUU (MACT Incineration (SSI) Units (SSI EG Rule)
CFR part 62 subpart LLL, Federal Plan UUUU), NESHAP for Cellulose Products applies to a sewage sludge gasifier
Requirements for Sewage Sludge Manufacturing, and the tanks do not owned by MaxWest Environmental
Incineration Units Constructed on or have gaseous emissions. Systems Inc. (MaxWest) and located in
Before October 14, 2010. A: No. The EPA determines that the Sanford, Florida?
A1: Yes. The EPA approves Lynn’s storage tanks in question that store CS2, A: No. EPA determines that the SSI
site-specific mercury emission control a volatile organic liquid, are not EG Rule, does not apply to the Maxwest
and monitoring plan for the carbon regulated under NSPS Kb based on the sewage sludge gasifier and thermal
adsorber. SSIs located in states that did language in Section VI.G.2 of the EPA oxidizer process heater. According to
not develop plans by March 21, 2016, as memorandum from William Schrock, the SSI EG Rule, an SSI unit is an
required by subpart MMMM, will be OAQPS/ESD/OCG to Docket No. A–99– ‘‘enclosed device or devices using
subject to the Federal plan requirements 39, Summary of Public Comments and controlled flame combustion that burns
of Subpart LLL, until such time as the Responses on the Proposed NESHAP for sewage sludge for the purpose of
state develops a plan that is approved Cellulosic Products Manufacturing, reducing the volume of sewage sludge
by EPA. Moreover, the Clean Air Act at dated February 15, 2002. The two CS2 by removing combustible matter.’’ The
42 U.S.C. 7429(f)(2) states that storage tanks are not the type of storage MaxWest system has no flame and it is
performance standards for existing SSIs vessels in terms of their physical siting not a sewage sludge incinerator. Next,
shall be in effect no later than five years and operational design that were while the syngas which results from the
after the date the emission guidelines intended to be regulated under NSPS gasifier is combusted, the SSI EG rule
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
were promulgated, that is by March 21, Subpart Kb, even when these tanks meet defines sewage sludge as ‘‘solid,
2016. the vapor pressure and designed semisolid, or liquid residue generated
Q2: Does the EPA approve Lynn’s capacity under the NSPS rule. The tanks during the treatment of domestic sludge
request for an Alternative Monitoring in question are completely submerged in treatment works.’’ Since the syngas is
Plan (AMP) for the wet electrostatic in a common water bath and have no air a gas and not a solid, semisolid, or
precipitator (WESP) used to control space within the tanks due to having a liquid, it does not meet the definition of
particulate from the incinerator? water layer above the CS2 layer at all sewage sludge in the SSI EG rule (even
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices 22671
though it is derived from sewage hazardous waste landfill cell to overlay Q3: Does the EPA determine that the
sludge). it since it has met the approval criteria flare is exempt from the sulfur dioxide
established at 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(v), (SO2) monitoring requirements at 40
Abstract for [1700008]
including: (1) The Landfills are ‘‘a CFR 60.105(a) if the fuel gas streams are
Q: Does the EPA approve an alternate closed landfill[s]; (2) demonstrated that ‘‘inherently low in sulfur’’?
Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) the NMOC gas production rate is less A3: Yes. Based on the information
frequency for two carbon monoxide than 50 Mg/yr; and (3) demonstrated provided to the EPA about the gas
(CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that the GCCS has been in operation for streams directed to the flare, they are
Continuous Emissions Monitoring at least 15 years, as well as the required inherently low in sulfur and therefore
Systems (CEMS) on two turbines located removal report is described in 40 CFR the facility is exempt from the SO2
at the Associated Electric Cooperative, 60.757(e). Details behind this decision monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
Inc. (AECI) Dell Power Plant in Dell, are included in the EPA determination 60.105(a).
Arkansas? letter.
A: Yes. The EPA approves AECI’s Q2: Can a landfill cap and remove its Abstract for [1700014]
request to follow the part 75 RATA GCCS prior to the 15-year control period Q: Does the EPA determine that well
frequency requirements for both NOx if a GCCS was operational prior to the completions performed by CountryMark
and CO CEMS, in accordance with start of the 15-year control period, but Energy Resources, LLC (CountryMark)
similar prior approvals allowing a not in compliance with the Landfill meet the definition of hydraulic
reduction in RATA frequency NSPS and the Landfill Federal Plan fracturing at 40 CFR 60.5430a and are
requirements for NOx and CO CEMS design criteria? subject to subpart OOOOa?
under part 60 Appendix F. The AECI A2: No. WDI may cap or remove its A: Yes. The EPA determines that
turbines operate infrequently, and part GCCS at the remaining Landfills after CountryMark’s operations meet the
60 RATA frequency requirements do not October 6, 2017, since all conditions per definition of hydraulic fracturing at 40
take into account the frequency of the 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(v) for landfill CFR 60.5430a, and are therefore subject
unit operations. closure will be met on that date. A to applicable requirements of subpart
landfill is required to do a performance OOOOa, including but not limited to the
Abstract for [1700010] test when a GCCS is installed to ensure standards for well affected facilities at
Q: Is the proposed pilot gasification that it is in compliance with the Landfill 40 CFR 60.5375a. EPA concludes that
unit at the Carbon Black Global LLC Federal Plan or Landfill NSPS, the formations within the Illinois Basin
(CBG) facility in Dunlap, Tennessee whichever is applicable, which is one of that CountryMark has identified are
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC the criteria. Once the GCCS is considered ‘‘tight formations’’ because it
(Standards of Performance for determined to be in compliance with is necessary to inject pressurized fluids
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste design criteria in the Landfill NSPS and into the formations to ‘‘increase the flow
Incineration (CISWI NSPS)? The pilot the Federal plan, the 15-year control of hydrocarbons to the wellhead’’.
‘‘scaled-down’’ unit will be used to period begins. Based on the information
optimize and research the gasification of Abstract for [1700015]
provided, WDI has not yet satisfied the
a variety of carbon-based waste 15-year requirement and must maintain Q: Does EPA determine that water and
feedstocks for clients. The resultant operation of the GCCS until October 6, fuel injection data associated with the
syngas will be flared. 2017. startup and shutdown of a combustion
A: No. The proposed CBG’s operation turbine at the Marshfield Utilities
of the pilot unit is not a CISWI unit as Abstract for [1700012] electric power generation facility be
defined in § 60.2265 and is therefore not Q1: Does the EPA determine that the included in the 4-hour rolling average
subject to the CISWI NSPS because the purchase order for a flare at the Linde calculation used to determine
resultant syngas will not be in a Gas North America hydrogen reformer compliance with the nitrogen oxide
container when combusted in the flare. facility, located in Romeoville, Illinois, (NOx) emission limitations for
While operation of the pilot unit by CBG signed prior to the applicability stationary combustion turbines and for
is not subject to the CISWI NSPS, deadline for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, reporting excess emissions under 40
combustion of syngas produced by the establish that the facility ‘‘commenced CFR part 60 subpart KKKK?
gasification of other wastes, by CBG construction’’ of the flare? A: Yes. Subpart KKKK requires that
clients, should be evaluated by the A1: Yes. The signed purchase order all unit operating hours, including
appropriate delegated permitting agency established a contractual obligation to periods of startup, shutdown and
for potential applicability under section construct the flare and therefore the malfunction be included in the 4-hour
129 or section 112 (in the case of facility had commenced construction rolling average steam or water to fuel
hazardous waste rules). prior to the subpart J applicability ratio calculation in accordance with 40
deadline. CFR 60.4335(a) and 40 CFR 60.4375(a),
Abstract for [1700011] Q2: Does the EPA determine that gas and any excess emissions must be
Q1: Does the EPA give permission to streams routed to the flare for reported under 40 CFR 60.4380(a)(l).
remove the Site No. 1, Site No. 2, Fons combustion are exempt from the However, such excess emissions would
and Old Wayne landfills’ (the Landfills) hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emission limit at not constitute a violation of subpart
landfill gas (LFG) gas collection and 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1) if the streams result KKKK if they occurred as a result of
control system (GCCS) at a Wayne from startup, shutdown, upset or startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Disposal Inc. (WDI) site in Belleville, malfunction of the plant or are due to
Michigan that is subject to the relief valve leakage or other emergency Abstract for [1700016]
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Federal malfunctions? Q: Does the EPA approve an
Plan at 40 CFR part 62 subpart GGG A2: Yes. Process upset gases and gases Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to
(Landfill Federal Plan)? released as a result of relief valve monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in
A1: Yes. The EPA grants permission leakage or other emergency refinery fuel gas during TRiSTAR/
for WDI to cap or remove its LFG GCCS malfunctions are exempt from this H2S Global Vapor Control, Inc.’s (TRiSTAR)
from a specific cell to allow a new emission limit. temporary vapor control events, such as
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/4.svg)
![22672 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
tank degassing and cleaning operations A: Yes. The EPA conditionally design of the vent gas controls, and the
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J at approves the request provided that all H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA
refineries in Region 5? other requirements of the monitoring conditionally approves a combined
A: Yes. The EPA approves TRiSTAR’s procedures of NSPS subpart Ja for total AMP for the portable fuel combustion
AMP at refineries in Region 5 since reduced sulfur (TRS) and hydrogen devices used at both refineries. EPA
installing and operating an H2S CMS sulfide (H2S) are followed. The included proposed operating parameter
would be technically impractical due to alternative span gases will address limits (OPLs), and data which the
the short term nature of tank degassing safety concerns involving storage, refineries must retain and obtain from
and similar operations. handling, and engineering controls. The contractors, as part of the conditional
EPA conditionally approves a approval. The AMP is only for the
Abstract for [1700017] calibration gas concentration range of portable fuel combustion devices at the
Q: Does the EPA determine that 0–85 percent for conducting daily drift aforementioned Flint Hills Refineries.
sodium gluconate produced at the PMP checks, relative accuracy test audits, Separate, similar AMP requests for the
Fermentation Products, Inc. facility in and cylinder gas audits, using a mass same company must be approved by the
Peoria, Illinois is classified as a spectrometer to continuously analyze EPA region.
nonmetallic mineral under NSPS and monitor H2S and TRS, provided
Subpart OOO? that Alon conducts linearity analysis on Abstract for [1700023]
A. Yes. The EPA determines that the mass spectrometer once every three Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative
sodium gluconate meets the definition years to determine linearity across the Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring
of nonmetallic mineral established in entire range of expected concentrations hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in refinery fuel
NSPS subpart OOO. of acid gas vent streams. gas streams at the Magellan Midstream
Abstract for [1700018] Abstract for [1700021] Partners, L.P.’s (Magellan) facility in
Corpus Christi, Texas which are subject
Q: Does the EPA approve an Q: Does the EPA approve an to 40 CFR part 60 subparts J or Ja?
expansion of the previously approved Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
A: Yes. Based on the information
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for various refineries located in EPA Region
provided by Magellan, the facility uses
the Flint Hills Resources refinery to 6 and operated by Debusk Service
a vapor combustion unit (VCU) to
monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and Group to conduct monitoring of
control emissions from degassing,
sulfur dioxide (SO2) when using hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in
cleaning, and maintenance activities
portable flares and fuel gas combustion lieu of installing a continuous emission
associated with tanks, vessels, pipes,
devices to reduce volatile organic monitoring system (CEMS), when
and LPG trucks. Because the VCU will
compound (VOC) emissions from performing tank degassing and other
be used infrequently, and for short
vessels and pipes subject to 40 CFR part similar operations controlled by
periods, installation of an H2S
60 subpart J or Ja? portable, temporary thermal oxidizers,
continuous emission monitoring system
A: Yes. The EPA approves that the that are subject to 40 CFR part 60
(CEMS) as required under NSPS Subpart
previously-approved AMP, to monitor subparts J or Ja?
A: Yes. Based on the description of Ja is not economically feasible. The EPA
H2S and SO2 in flares and fuel gas
the process, the vent gas streams, the approves use of colorimetric stain tubes
combustion devices used to treat VOC
design of the vent gas controls, and the to determine the concentration of H2S in
emissions from petroleum refinery
storage tank degassing and cleaning H2S monitoring data furnished, the EPA three fuel gas grab samples prior to
operations subject to NSPS subparts J conditionally approves the AMP. The entering the VCU. Magellan must record
and Ja. EPA included proposed operating the results of each grab sample, the key
parameter limits (OPLs) and data which activities completed with each
Abstract for [1700019] the refineries must furnish as part of the operation, and any other relevant
Q: Does the EPA approve Calumet conditional approval. The AMP is only information associated with degassing,
Superior’s alternative monitoring for degassing operations conducted at cleaning, and maintenance activities.
proposal to use a static default moisture refineries in EPA Region 6. Separate, Abstract for [1700024]
correction to correct the sulfur dioxide similar AMP requests for the same
CEMS data to a dry basis, for a sulfur company to conduct degassing Q: Does the EPA approve an
recovery plant located in Superior, operations at refineries in states in other Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
Wisconsin, subject to 40 CFR part 60 EPA regions must be approved by those Flint Hill Resources in Rosemount,
subpart Ja? EPA regions. Minnesota, to monitor hydrogen sulfide
A: No. NSPS subpart Ja at 40 CFR (H2S) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in flares
60.l06a(a)(l) and the Performance Abstract for [1700022] for flares and fuel gas combustion
Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60 Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative devices used to treat volatile organic
allow for the data to be monitored either Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the two Flint compound (VOC) emissions from
on a dry basis, or to be corrected to a Hills Resources Corpus Christi refineries petroleum refinery storage tank
dry basis using continuously monitored (Flint Hills Refineries) to conduct degassing and cleaning operations
moisture data. monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) subject to the New Source Performance
emissions, in lieu of installing a Standards for Petroleum Refineries, 40
Abstract for [1700020] continuous emission monitoring system CFR part 60 subparts J and Ja (NSPS
Q: Does the EPA approve a request to subparts J and Ja)?
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
(CEMS), when performing tank
reduce the concentrations of the degassing and other similar operations A: Yes. The EPA approves an AMP to
calibration gas and validation standards controlled by portable, temporary monitor H2S and SO2 in flares for flares
on the continuous emission monitoring thermal oxidizers and other fuel and fuel gas combustion devices used to
system (CEMS) for several flares subject combustion devices that are subject to treat VOC emissions from petroleum
to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Alon 40 CFR part 60 subparts J or Ja? refinery storage tank degassing and
USA (Alon) Big Spring refinery located A: Yes. Based on the description of cleaning operations subject to NSPS
in Big Spring, Texas? the process, the vent gas streams, the subparts J and Ja.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices 22673
Abstract for [1700025] subject to 40 CFR part 60, Standards of in Ardmore, Oklahoma, is still
Q: Does the EPA approve an Performance for Volatile Organic necessary if the flare is a control device
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Compound Emissions from Synthetic subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
GEM Mobile Treatment Services to Organic Chemical Manufacturing A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP
monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in Industry Distillation Operations is no longer necessary. The Final Rule
refinery fuel gas during temporary vapor (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk
control events subject NSPS Subparts J (subpart RRR)? and Technology Review, issued
and Ja, such as tank degassing, at A1: Yes. EPA waives the initial December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part
refineries in EPA Region 5? performance test for the specific vents 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions
A: Yes. The EPA approves an AMP to associated with the two units, both for flares equipped with water seals.
monitor H2S in refinery fuel gas for subject to NSPS Subparts RRR and Q2: What does the revised rule now
mobile combustion devices flares and NNN, as these are being introduced with require?
fuel gas combustion devices used to the primary fuel into a boiler or process A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows
treat emissions from temporary vapor heater in accordance with 40 CFR alternative monitoring with pressure
control events, such as tank degassing. 60.8(b) and as provided for in sensors for flares that have flow meters
Separate, similar AMP requests for § 60.704(b)(5) of subpart RRR. To ensure which do not have measurement
facilities located in other EPA regions that affected vent streams are routed to accuracies within ±20 percent over a
must be approved by the appropriate appropriate control devices, subpart velocity range of 0.1–1 feet per second
EPA region. RRR requires that the facility maintain (fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow
a schematic diagram of the affected vent velocities exceeding 1 fps.
Abstract for [1700026] streams, collection system(s), fuel Abstract for [1700031]
Q: Does the EPA approve Flint Hills systems, control devices, and bypass
Resources (FHR) to use a span of 0–50 systems, and include the diagram in the Q1: Does the EPA find that the
ppmvd for the nitrogen oxides (NOX) initial report submitted in accordance Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMPs) to
continuous emission monitoring system with 40 CFR 60.705(b). modify the flow sensor measurement
(CEMS) at two heaters located at the Q2: Does EPA approve a substitution accuracy of flares during extremely low
Pine Ben Refinery located in Saint Paul of NSPS subpart NNN for NSPS subpart flow conditions at the Valero Refining,
Minnesota, subject to 40 CFR part 60 RRR as an alternative flow and Texas L.P.’s Corpus Christi West Plant
subpart Ja? temperature monitoring for the vent and Corpus Christi East Plant Refineries
A: No. EPA disapproves the streams associated with two new in Corpus Christi, Texas, are still
Alternative Monitoring Proposal to demethanizer distillation columns? necessary if the flares are control
allow the analyzers spans of 0–50 A2: Yes. The EPA approves the devices subject to 40 CFR
ppmvd as this range does not cover the alternative request for meeting subpart 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
applicable emission limit of 60 ppmvd. RRR in lieu of subpart NNN A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMPs
However, the EPA conditionally requirements for testing, monitoring, are no longer necessary. The Final Rule
approves a span of 0–60 ppmvd rather and recordkeeping for boilers and for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk
than the 120–180 ppmdv required by 40 process heaters, part of the fuel gas and Technology Review, issued
CFR 60.107a(c)(1) for the NOX CEMS. system, to comply with the standards of December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part
The specific conditions are specified in both subparts. 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions
the EPA response letter. for flares equipped with water seals.
Abstract for [1700029] Q2: What does the revised rule now
Abstract for [1700027] Q: Does the EPA re-approve the May require?
Q: Does the EPA approve an 2011 AMP to comply with new opacity A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to requirements for a wet gas scrubbers alternative monitoring with pressure
reduce the concentration of calibration (WGS) on the Fluid Catalytic Cracking sensors for flares that have flow meters
gas used to perform daily validations Unit (FCCU) at Motiva’s Convent, which do not have measurement
and quarterly cylinder gas audits (CGA) Louisiana refinery, subject to NSPS accuracies within ±20 percent over a
of the Total Reduced Sulfur monitor for subpart J and NESHAP subpart UUU, for velocity range of 0.1–1 feet per second
the flare gas system at the HollyFrontier continued parametric monitoring of (fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow
El Dorado Refining LLC refinery opacity at the WGS in lieu of a velocities exceeding 1 fps.
(HFEDR) in El Dorado, Kansas, as Continuous Opacity Monitoring Abstract for [1700032]
required pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(d) System?
and 40 CFR 60, Appendix F, A: Yes. Based on the previously Q1: Does the EPA find that the
respectively? established operating parameter limits Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally for the scrubbers, the EPA agrees that modify flow sensor measurement
approves the HFEDR AMP due to the the monitoring provisions of the accuracy for multiple flares during
safety concerns associated with previously approved AMP were at least extremely low flow conditions at the
handling gases with high concentrations as stringent as the new FCCUs Valero Refining Company’s Texas City
of hydrogen disulfide (H2S). The requirements in both rules amended Refinery in Texas City, Texas, is still
conditions are listed in the EPA December 1, 2015, and therefore re- necessary, if the flares are control
determination letter. approves the AMP under the new rules. devices subject to 40 CFR
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
Abstract for [1700028] Abstract for [1700030] A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP
Q1: Does the EPA approve a waiver of Q1: Does the EPA find that the is no longer necessary. The Final Rule
the initial performance test for the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk
Olefins Manufacturing Unit and modify a flare’s flow sensor and Technology Review, issued
Demethanizer Distillation Column measurement accuracy during extremely December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part
Vents, at the Eastman Chemical low flow conditions at the Valero 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions
Company, Longview, Texas facility, Refining Company’s Ardmore Refinery for flares equipped with water seals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/6.svg)
![22674 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
Q2: What does the revised rule now Appendix B, Performance Specification Abstract for [A170001]
require? 2, and the moisture fraction value from Q: Is there a requirement that Wayne
A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows the most recent stack test. County treat vermiculite material
alternative monitoring with pressure containing less than one percent
sensors for flares that have flow meters Abstract for [1700035]
asbestos by Polarized Light Microscopy
which do not have measurement Q: Does the EPA approve WRB (PLM) and/or Transmission Electron
accuracies within ±20 percent over a Refining LP’s (WRB) Alternative Microscopy (TEM) as regulated
velocity range of 0.1–1 feet per second Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring asbestos-containing material (RACM)
(fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur under 40 CFR part 61 subpart M
velocities exceeding 1 fps. dioxide (SO2) emissions from portable (Asbestos NESHAP)? The Wayne
Abstract for [1700033] flares and fuel gas combustion devices County Airport demolition of Building
used to control emissions from storage 715 involves suspect asbestos-
Q1: Does the EPA find that an
tank, process unit vessel and piping containing material (ACM) consisting of
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to
degassing for maintenance and cleaning spray-applied fireproofing on the
modify flow sensor measurement
events at the Wood River Refinery in primary roof structure that contains
accuracy for multiple flares during
Roxana, Illinois refinery subject to 40 vermiculite.
extremely low flow conditions at Valero A: The EPA recommends, but does
Refining Company’s Three Rivers CFR part 60 subparts J and Ja?
not require, that the regulated
Refinery in Three Rivers, Texas, is still A: Yes. The EPA conditionally
community assume vermiculite material
necessary if the flares are control approves WRB’s AMP request since it
is asbestos-containing material (ACM)
devices subject to 40 CFR agrees that it is impractical to
and treat it accordingly. However, if
60.107a(f)(1)(ii)? continuously monitor the H2S in and vermiculite material is present in
A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP SO2 emissions from gases going to building materials at a facility (as either
is no longer necessary. The Final Rule portable flares and fuel gas combustion friable or Category I or II nonfriable
for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk devices during the infrequent and material that could become regulated),
and Technology Review, issued temporary events when storage tanks, then the facility must be thoroughly
December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part process unit vessels and piping are inspected and any suspect vermiculite
60 subpart Ja to address such conditions degassed for maintenance and cleaning material must be sampled and analyzed
for flares equipped with water seals. operations, and approves the AMP. The like any other suspect asbestos-
Q2: What does the revised rule now conditions are specified in the EPA containing friable or nonfriable material
require? determination letter. unless it is assumed to be ACM and
A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows
Abstract for [1700036] treated accordingly. Based on the site-
alternative monitoring with pressure
specific test results provided by the
sensors for flares that have flow meters Q: Does the EPA grant 3M’s request to Wayne County Airport, the spray-
which do not have measurement waive the initial performance testing applied fire proofing tested at Building
accuracies within ±20 percent over a requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart 715 is not ACM, and is not subject to the
velocity range of 0.1–1 feet per second FFF, Standards of Performance for federal Asbestos NESHAP.
(fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating
velocities exceeding 1 fps. Abstract for [M170001]
and Printing (NSPS subpart FFF) for
Abstract for [1700034] 3M’s 3L and 6L lines at its Hutchinson, Q: Does the EPA determine that the
Minnesota facility, which are controlled Magna DexSys facility in Lansing,
Q: Does the EPA approve an Michigan (Lansing facility) is a major
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for by separate thermal oxidizers?
source of hazardous air pollutants
determining sulfur dioxide (SO2) and A: No. The EPA does not waive the
(HAPs) for purposes of applicability of
oxygen (O2) concentrations on a dry initial performance testing requirements the NESHAP for Surface Coating of
basis, using wet basis concentration data for 3M’s 3L and 6L lines under NSPS Plastic Parts and Products, at 40 CFR
from continuous emission monitoring subpart FFF for two reasons. First, the part 63 subpart PPPP?
systems (CEMS) at a sulfur recovery unit capture and destruction efficiency A: Yes. Based upon the information
(SRU) incinerator at the Valero Refining- testing on which 3M wants the waiver provided, the EPA determines that
Meraux LLC (Valero) petroleum to rely were not conducted at the same Magna DexSys is a major source as
refinery, located in Meraux, Louisiana, time. NSPS subpart FFF requires ‘‘a defined under Section 112 of the Clean
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja and performance test to determine overall Air Act and is, therefore, subject to the
40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU? VOC control efficiency’’ which implies requirements of subpart PPPP. The
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally simultaneous testing of both capture Lansing facility’s permitted xylene
approves Valero’s AMP on the No. 3 efficiency and destruction efficiency at emission limits have always been, and
SRU incinerator while the new dry basis the same time to demonstrate are still, above the major source
SO2 and O2 CEMS are installed and compliance. Second, even if separate threshold. Furthermore, Magna DexSys
commissioned before the AMP testing of capture and destruction lacks the data necessary to calculate
expiration date of August 1, 2017. efficiency was allowed by NSPS subpart uncontrolled HAP emissions at the
Valero proposed programming the FFF, the tests identified by 3M for facility, and there are no federally
refinery’s process control and data demonstrating compliance were enforceable physical or operational
acquisition system to perform real time conducted years apart (3 and 10 years
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
limitations in place to limit emissions
moisture corrections of the vent stream for the 3L and 6L lines, respectively). from the facility to less than 10 tons per
concentrations at the SRU incinerator. Such long time periods between testing year for a single HAP or 25 tons per year
The EPA approves Valero’s request to cannot provide assurance that for any combination of HAP.
use a methodology to mathematically compliance was achieved, and cannot
correct the measured wet basis provide assurance that operational Abstract for [M170002]
concentrations to dry basis using conditions during each test were Q: Does the EPA determine that the
Equation 2–1, from 40 CFR part 60, identical. vapor combustor in the Plant 2 loading
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices 22675
area at the Suncor Energy Inc. Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 2003. However, the cost of passive
petroleum refinery in Commerce City, from Hazardous Waste Combustors measurement and control
Colorado is considered a flare under 40 (HWC MACT)? instrumentation and electronics is
CFR part 63 subpart CC, NESHAP from A: Yes. EPA concludes that Vertellus excluded from affected source
Petroleum Refineries, and, therefore, may use the alternative RA procedure in reconstruction calculations as explained
subject to the flare requirements of 40 the context of either the BIF Rule or the in 40 CFR 63.9290.
CFR 63.670 and 63.671? HWC MACT. The EPA previously
A: No. The EPA determines that the approved the use of the alternative RA Abstract for [M170008]
vapor combustor described in the March procedure in Appendix IX of 40 CFR Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of
10, 2017 letter does not meet the part 266 for the hazardous waste liquid either of the calibration options
definition of a flare at 40 CFR 63.641 of fuel boilers under the BIF rule at provided at 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(i) or (ii)
subpart CC. Therefore, the vapor Vertellus. The EPA believes that the under the National Emission Standards
combustor is not subject to the alternative RA procedures in Appendix for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 and A of the HWC MACT are acceptable Petroleum Refineries at 40 CFR part 63,
63.671. However, the combustor needs procedures for a hazardous waste subpart CC (NESHAP subpart CC) for its
to be tested, and operating parameters burning liquid fuel boiler. gas chromatograph (GC), if the current
established and monitored, to assure configuration of the GC does not allow
compliance with the subpart CC Abstract for [M170006]
it to identify 1,3 butadiene? The
emission limits. Q: Does EPA approve the use of the Calumet Superior, LLC. refinery plant in
‘R Boiler’ as an alternative control Superior, Wisconsin (Calumet) uses a
Abstract for [M170004]
device to comply with the ‘‘emission gas chromatograph (GC) to monitor the
Q: Does the EPA determine that the rate with add-on controls’’ compliance flare vent gas composition to assess
glycol dehydration unit reboiler at El option under 40 CFR part 63 subpart compliance with the operating limits in
Paso Natural Gas’ southern New Mexico PPPP (the NESHAP for Surface Coating 40 CFR 63.670(e).
facility, which is subject to the National of Plastic Parts and Products) for two A1: No. 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(i) of
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air plastic parts and products coating NESHAP subpart CC is not an option
Pollutants for Natural Gas Transmission production lines at the SABIC
and Storage Facilities (NESHAP subpart because the current flare vent gas GC
Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC configuration does not allow it to
HHH), is also subject to the NESHAP for (SABIC) facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana?
Industrial, Commercial, and identify 1,3 butadiene. Therefore,
A: Yes. Based on the information Calumet can only use the calibration
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters provided by SABIC, and the fact that
(NESHAP subpart DDDDD)? option provided at 40 CFR
SABIC intends to conduct a 63.671(e)(2)(ii) since it allows the use of
A: Yes. The EPA determines that performance test to determine the
although the glycol dehydration reboiler a surrogate calibration gas to cover all
organic HAP destruction efficiency of compounds in the flare vent gas stream.
is subject to NESHAP subpart HHH, the the ‘R Boiler’, the EPA approves
reboiler is also subject to NESHAP Q2: Does the EPA determine that the
SABIC’s request for this boiler to serve
subpart DDDDD. The reboiler is current configuration of the flare vent
as an add-on control device under the
considered a process heater subject to GC that does not allow it to identify 1,3
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic
NESHAP subpart DDDDD because the butadiene meets the requirements of the
Parts and Products since it is consistent
gaseous fuel fired to the unit is not NESHAP subpart CC to assess
with the subpart PPPP MACT
regulated under another subpart, and compliance with the operating limits in
requirements for demonstrating
the exhaust gas from the reboiler 40 CFR 63.670(e)? Calumet has collected
continuous compliance thermal oxidizer
combustion chamber is uncontrolled and analyzed flare vent gas samples for
as a control device.
(i.e. the emissions vent directly to 1,3 butadiene. The results of this
atmosphere). The EPA noted that Abstract for [M170007] sampling detected 1, 3 butadiene at
process vent standards under NESHAP Q1: Does the EPA determine that concentrations levels below the
subpart HHH only apply to the Caterpillar Inc.’s (Caterpillar’s) existing threshold expected to have an impact on
dehydrator reboiler still vent and flash test cells/stands at its Lafayette facility the net heating value of the flare vent
tank emissions. A flare is the control are a reconstructed affected source gas in the combustion zone.
device for these emissions under under 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP? A2: Yes. Based on the information
NESHAP subpart HHH. However, A1: No. EPA determines that many of Calumet provided and pursuant to 40
NESHAP subpart HHH does not apply the test cells/stands components that CFR 63.670(j)(1) and 63.67l(e), the EPA
to the reboiler combustion chamber were added or replaced were not linked determines that the current
emissions because the reboiler itself is together by a single planning decision, configuration of the flare vent gas GC
not a control device being used to and therefore cannot be aggregated meets the requirements of the NESHAP
comply with another NESHAP (in this together as a single project. The cost of subpart CC.
case, subpart HHH). Caterpillar’s component replacements or Abstract for [M170009]
component additions to the affected
Abstract for [M170005] Q: The Michigan South Central Power
source that could conceivably be
Q: Does EPA approve a request for an aggregated together are well below the Agency’s Endicott Generating Station
alternative relative accuracy (RA) 50% of the cost of constructing a new (Endicott) has a source with an
procedure for three hazardous waste emergency scrubber bypass duct subject
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
comparable facility.
liquid fuel boilers at Vertellus Q2: Has the EPA further defined the to the Mercury Air Toxics Standards
Agriculture & Nutrition Specialties, LLC terms ‘‘passive measurement and (MATS) at 40 CFR part 63 subpart
(Vertellus), in Indianapolis, Indiana, control limitations’’ as used in subpart UUUUU. Is this source eligible to
subject to 40 CFR part 266 subpart H PPPPP? pursue Low Emitting electric utility
(the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces A2: The EPA has not provided further steam generating unit (LEE) status for
Rule or BIF rule) and 40 CFR part 63 definition of these terms since sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions in
subpart EEE, the National Emission promulgating the subpart PPPPP rule in accordance with 40 CFR 63.10000?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/8.svg)
![22676 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
A: Yes. In accordance with the 30 at Union Carbide Corporation’s (MCM rule) at MCM when the adhesive
technical corrections to MATS Hahnville, Louisiana facility, for the compound is shipped off-site?
promulgated in April 2016, Endicott purpose of determining mercury levels A1: The MON rule applies to
may pursue LEE status for its source. to classify boiler and heater fuel sources Processes 1 when the adhesive
Pursuant to 40 CFR as Other Gas 1 or 2 under 40 CFR part compound is shipped off-site. The MCM
63.10000(c)(1)(i)(C)(1), if a source’s 63 subpart DDDDD? does not apply to Process 1 when the
control device bypass emissions are A: Yes. Based on the information adhesive compound is shipped off-site.
measured in the bypass stack or duct or submitted, the EPA approves the fuel Process 1 is a miscellaneous organic
the source’s control device bypass analysis plans. chemical manufacturing process that
exhaust is routed through the electric produces an adhesive product classified
Abstract for [M170013] by NAICS 325, and process or uses
utility steam generating unit main stack
so that emissions are measured during Q: Does the EPA approve SABIC organic HAP, and is therefore a process
the bypass event, then the source may Innovative Plastics’ (SABIC’s) request to that is contemplated by 63.2435(b).
pursue LEE status. replace EPA Method 30B mercury Q2: Are Processes 2, referred to as
analysis breakthrough Quality ‘‘mogul based adhesive compounding’’,
Abstract for [M170010] Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) located at the 3M’s Hutchinson and
Q: Does the EPA determine that the requirements with Relative Accuracy Knoxville facilities subject to the MON
replacement pump engines at the Lake Test Audit (RATA) criteria and/or waive or the MCM when the mogul based
Borgne Basin Levee District in St. the breakthrough QA/QC for a test adhesive compound is shipped off-site?
Bernard Parish, Louisiana are existing conducted in April 2016, for the A2: The MON applies to Processes 2
emergency stationary Reciprocating purposes of complying with 40 CFR part when the mogul based adhesive
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) that 60 subpart DDDDD? compound is shipped off-site. The MCM
are not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart A: No. The EPA does not approve does not apply to Processes 2 when the
ZZZZ? SABIC’s request. There are substantive mogul based adhesive compound is
A: No. Based upon the information reasons why the criteria are different for shipped off-site. 3M described the first
provided and the description of the compliance testing versus RATA testing. step which involves a chemical reaction
engine use, the EPA determines that the The EPA does find however, that while of non-HAP containing raw materials.
engines at the Lake Borgne Pump the breakthrough criterion was not met The first step is completed by
Station do not meet the definition of in several instances during the tests, it quenching the reaction, without storage
existing emergency stationary RICE at appears that the remaining data quality after the first step. The second step,
40 CFR 63.6675. Since construction or objectives were met and there is no HAP containing raw materials were
reconstruction of the stationary engines reason to reject the QA/QC data. added to the same vessel with the
began after June 12, 2006, and the material from the first step. Because
Abstract for [M170014] there is no storage after step 1, we
engines are located in an area source of
emissions, the engines are subject to 40 Q: Does the EPA approve Calumet believe that both steps of Process 2 are
CFR part 60 subpart IIII (Compression Superior, LLC’s (Calumet’s) alternative part of one miscellaneous organic
Ignition NSPS). monitoring request to maintain the chemical manufacturing process to
hourly oxygen concentration in the produce a product described by NAICS
Abstract for [M170011] exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator 325.
Q: Does the EPA approve a waiver of at or above one percent by volume on Q3: Are Processes 1 and 2 located at
the volumetric flow rate determination a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis the 3M’s Hutchinson and Knoxville
required as part of the performance test as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU facilities exempt from the MON as
for a flare under 40 CFR part 63 subparts at the Superior, Wisconsin refinery? ‘‘affiliated operations’’ when making the
G and FFFF at the Lyondell Chemical A: Yes. The EPA approves Calumets’ adhesive compound and mogul based
(Lyondell) Bayport Choate Plant (Plant) alternative monitoring request for use of adhesive compound, respectively, at the
in Pasadena, Texas? wet basis analyzer readings to same facility that is subject to Subpart
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally demonstrate compliance with the one JJJJ (POWC)?
approves a waiver of the requirement to percent by volume oxygen A3: Yes. Processes 1 and 2 meet the
determine the volumetric flow rate concentration limit in 40 CFR exemption for affiliated operations
using EPA Method 2 during initial 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) for periods of startup, under the MON when making the
performance testing of a flare at the shutdown, and hot standby. Calumet adhesive and mogul based adhesive,
Plant. The volumetric flow rate can be provided information that indicates respectively, at the same facility where
calculated using existing flow catalyst fines can plug an analyzer that they are used in a POWC affected
measurement devices upstream of the measures on a dry basis. In addition, the facility. The definitions of affiliated
flare and estimated flows based on oxygen concentration on a wet basis operations in both the MON and the
process knowledge from all minor will always yield a lower reading versus preamble to the POWC contain the
streams that may be routed to the flare a dry basis oxygen reading. broad language to define the exemption.
on an interim basis. Lyondell must Therefore, we interpret these broad
Abstract for [M170017]
install flow meters for the flare and terms to include the actual production
must demonstrate compliance with flare Q1: Are Processes 1, referred to as of the product that meets the definition
exit velocity requirements using the ‘‘adhesive compounding’’, located at the of ‘‘coating’’ under the rule.
3M’s Hutchinson, Minnesota
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
approved process-based engineering
(‘‘Hutchinson’’) and Knoxville, Iowa Abstract for [WDS–146]
calculation protocol for volumetric flow
rate. (‘‘Knoxville’’) facilities subject to the 40 Q: Blaze King Industries Incorporated
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the is seeking EPA clarification on the steps
Abstract for [M170012] Miscellaneous Organic Chemical for adequately demonstrating
Q: Does EPA approve site specific fuel Manufacturing (MON rule) or 40 CFR replacement catalyst equivalency for
analysis plans to be conducted in part 63, subpart HHHHH, the catalyst-equipped wood heaters subject
accordance with approved EPA Method Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing to the 2015 Standards of Performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices 22677
for New Residential Wood Heaters, New manufacturer if they submit a full test Abstract for [WDS–148]
Residential Hydronic Heaters, and report and a complete application. Q: Does EPA determine that the wood
Forced-Air Furnaces, (40 CFR part 60 Q5: Are the certifications of
heater regulations at 40 CFR part 60
subpart AAA) (2015 NSPS Standards). conformity that an EPA-accredited test
subparts AAA apply to the wood-
A: The 2015 NSPS standards requires laboratory submits to the EPA ‘‘de facto
burning sauna heaters manufactured by
that, to have a catalyst deemed suitable temporary certificates of compliance’’
Harvia Oy?
for replacement, equivalency testing be because they are not required for the
A: No. Based upon the information
conducted by an EPA-approved test EPA to issue a temporary certificate of
provided and the specific circumstances
laboratory. Consistent with the 2015 compliance to a manufacturer?
described in Harvia Oy’s letters to the
Standards, the manufacturer must notify A5: No. As provided in 40 CFR
EPA, the EPA determines that the wood
the EPA of the date that certification 60.533(e), a conditional, temporary
heater subpart AAA standards do not
testing (catalyst equivalency testing) is certificate of compliance may only be
apply to Harvia Oy’s wood-burning
scheduled to begin as stated in 40 CFR granted by the EPA provided that the
sauna heaters since these do not meet
60.534(g). This notice must be received manufacturer submits a complete
the definition of wood heaters. The
by the EPA at least 30 days before the certification application that meets all
sauna heaters are intended to heat the
start of testing. the requirements in 40 CFR 60.533(b).
Q6: Does submission of a certificate of sauna room only and not to be used for
Abstract for [WDS–147] conformity with a complete certification residential heating.
This letter is in response to the three package (i.e., application and full test Abstract for [Z170001]
November 20, 2015 letters (which the report), prior to May 16, 2016, make a
Q: Does the EPA determine that the
EPA is consolidating into one response) manufacturer requesting certification
Exide Technologies secondary lead
from OMNI-Test Laboratories, Inc. ineligible to receive a temporary
smelting facility in Vernon, CA, which
(OMNI) requesting clarification of certificate of compliance?
A6: No. The manufacturer may has been permanently shut down and is
several issues under 2015 Standards of being dismantled, is subject to 40 CFR
Performance for New Residential Wood receive a conditional, temporary
certificate of compliance under 40 CFR part 63 subpart X?
Heaters (subpart AAA) and New A: No. The EPA determines that the
Residential Hydronic Heaters and 60.533(e) until the EPA’s review of the
application is complete. facility is no longer a ‘‘secondary lead
Forced-Air Furnaces (subpart QQQQ) smelter’’ for purposes of subpart X
(collectively referred to as the ‘‘2015 Q7: What are the requirements for
quality assurance audits for model lines because it can no longer physically or
NSPS Standards’’) legally operate as a secondary lead
Q1: Do the 2015 NSPS Standards that are deemed certified under 40 CFR
60.533(h)(1)? smelter. In addition, the California
allow unsealing of a wood heater, for Department of Toxic Substances Control
which a full certification test series has A7: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(m),
‘‘the manufacturer of a model line with (DTSC) approved Exide’s Final Closure
not been completed, for further testing? Plan on December 8, 2016.
a compliance certification under
A1: The 2015 NSPS Standards do not
paragraph (h)(1) of this section must Abstract for [Z170002]
specifically allow for unsealing of a
conduct a quality assurance program
wood heater for which a test laboratory Q: Does the EPA approve Futamura
that satisfies the requirements of this
has suspended a compliance test. USA, Incorporated’s (Futamura’s)
paragraph (m) by May 16, 2016.’’
However, EPA interprets some sections request to use an alternative test method
Q8: Are manufacturers required to
of the 2015 NSPS Standards to allow the using a mass spectrometer (MS)
contract the services of a third-party
unsealing of a wood heater for the continuous emissions monitoring
certifier to conduct quality assurance
purpose of further testing in specific system (CEMS) to measure specific
audits?
circumstances. A8: Yes. Manufacturers are required sulfur compound emissions from
Q2: Can the manufacturer provide by 40 CFR 60.533(m) to contract the process vents on the cellulose
new parts or make simple modifications services of a third-party certifier to manufacturing process and alternative
to the sealed wood heater in lieu of conduct quality assurance audits. monitoring method that would
making and shipping a new prototype? Q9: What are the requirements for eliminate the need to collect and report
A2: Yes. However, the wood heater deemed certified wood heaters under 40 carbon disulfide (CS2) Recovery Plan
must remain sealed until the operation CFR 60.533(m)? operating data based on the availability
and test data obtained from the A9: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(m), of the emissions data from the proposed
suspended test is submitted and by May 16, 2016, manufacturers must MS CEMS to demonstrate compliance
reviewed by the EPA. have in place a quality assurance with the National Emission Standards
Q3: Does a wood heater that has program that satisfies the requirements for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
undergone an incomplete test under 40 CFR 60.533(m)(1) through (5). Cellulose Products Manufacturing
certification have to be sealed and Q10: Does a certificate of compliance (NESHAP subpart UUUU), at its
archived in perpetuity? issued prior to May 15, 2015, at an Tecumseh, Kansas facility?
A3: No. However, when the wood emission level less than or equal to the A: Yes. Based on the information
heater is sealed per 40 CFR 2015 emission standard need to be provided, the EPA conditionally grants
60.535(a)(2)(vii) and 60.5477(a)(2)(vii), renewed before May 15, 2020? temporary approval for the alternative
the wood heater must remain sealed A10: No. Manufacturers of model test method and monitoring method to
until the operation and test data lines that are deemed certified per 40 allow Futamura to demonstrate the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
obtained from the suspended test is CFR 60.533(h)(1) and for which a ability to document compliance with
submitted and reviewed by the EPA. certificate of compliance has been NESHAP UUUU by using a MS CEMS.
Q4: What are the certification issued prior to May 15, 2015, showing This temporary approval expires one
requirements under 40 CFR 60.533(e)? an emission level less than or equal to year from June 16, 2017. At least 60
A4: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(e), the 2015 emission standards, do not days prior to this expiration date,
the EPA may issue a conditional, need to renew their certificates until Futamura is required to make a request
temporary certificate of compliance to a May 15, 2020. to EPA for continue and permanent use
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/10.svg)
![22678 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
of the CS. In addition, the CS CEMS first-come, first served basis. Pre- comments before the Monday, May 28,
needs to successfully pass the required registration is required. 2018, deadline.
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and DATES: The NEJAC will convene a
A. Public Comment
meet additional conditions outline in Thursday, May 31, 2018, starting at 3:30
the determination letter for EPA p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting Individuals or groups making remarks
approval. discussion will focus on several topics during the public comment period will
including, but not limited to, the be limited to seven (7) minutes. To
Abstract for [Z170003]
discussion and deliberation of the final accommodate the number of people
Q: Does the EPA approve BP Product report from the NEJAC Youth who want to address the NEJAC, only
North America’s (BP) alternative Perspectives on Climate Change Work one representative of a particular
monitoring request to maintain the Group. One public comment period community, organization, or group will
hourly oxygen concentration in the relevant to the specific issues being be allowed to speak. Written comments
exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator considered by the NEJAC (see can also be submitted for the record.
at or above one percent by volume on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is The suggested format for individuals
a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis scheduled for Thursday, May 31, 2018, providing public comments is as
as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU starting at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. follows: Name of speaker; name of
at the Whiting, Indiana refinery? Members of the public who wish to organization/community; city and state;
A: Yes. The EPA approves the request participate during the public comment and email address; brief description of
to maintain the hourly oxygen period are highly encouraged to pre- the concern, and what you want the
concentration in the exhaust gas from register by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written
the catalyst regenerator at or above one Monday, May 28, 2018. comments received by registration
percent by volume on a wet basis during FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: deadline, will be included in the
periods of startup, shutdown, and hot Questions or correspondence materials distributed to the NEJAC prior
standby. BP provided information that concerning the public meeting should to the teleconference. Written comments
indicates catalyst fines can plug an be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. received after that time will be provided
analyzer that measures on a dry basis. Environmental Protection Agency, by to the NEJAC as time allows. All written
In addition, the oxygen concentration mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW comments should be sent to Karen L.
on a wet basis will always yield a lower (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by Martin, EPA, via email at
reading versus a dry basis oxygen telephone at 202–564–0203; via email at martin.karenl@epa.gov.
reading. martin.karenl@epa.gov; or by fax at B. Information About Services for
Dated: May 7, 2018. 202–564–1624. Additional information Individuals With Disabilities or
David A. Hindin, about the NEJAC is available at https:// Requiring English Language Translation
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ Assistance
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. national-environmental-justice-
[FR Doc. 2018–10463 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am] advisory-council. For information about access or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The services for individuals requiring
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Charter of the NEJAC states that the assistance, please contact Karen L.
advisory committee ‘‘will provide Martin, at (202) 564–0203 or via email
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION independent advice and at martin.karenl@epa.gov. To request
AGENCY recommendations to the Administrator special accommodations for a disability
about broad, crosscutting issues related or other assistance, please submit your
[FRL–9977–09–OECA] request at least fourteen (14) working
to environmental justice. The NEJAC’s
efforts will include evaluation of a days prior to the meeting, to give EPA
National Environmental Justice sufficient time to process your request.
Advisory Council; Notification of broad range of strategic, scientific,
technological, regulatory, community All requests should be sent to the
Public Teleconference and Public address, email, or phone/fax number
Comment engagement and economic issues related
to environmental justice.’’ listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
AGENCY: Environmental Protection CONTACT section.
Agency (EPA). Registration
Dated: April 25, 2018.
ACTION: Notification of public meeting. Registration for the May 31, 2018, Matthew Tejada,
public teleconference will be processed Designated Federal Officer, National
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal at https://nejac-may-31-2018-public- Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the teleconference.eventbrite.com. Pre- [FR Doc. 2018–09556 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registration is required. Registration for BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
(EPA) hereby provides notice that the the May 31, 2018, meeting closes at
National Environmental Justice 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Monday,
Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on May 28, 2018. The deadline to sign up ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the dates and times described below. All to speak during the public comment AGENCY
meetings are open to the public. period, or to submit written public
Members of the public are encouraged comments, is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time
[CWA–05–2016–0014; FRL–9977–83–OARM]
to provide comments relevant to the on Monday, May 28, 2018. When
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
specific issues being considered by the registering, please provide your name, Notice of Order Denying Petition To
NEJAC. For additional information organization, city and state, email Set Aside Consent Agreement and
about registering to attend the meeting address, and telephone number for Proposed Final Order
or to provide public comment, please follow up. Please also indicate whether
see Registration under SUPPLEMENTARY you would like to provide public AGENCY: Office of Administrative Law
INFORMATION. Due to a limited number of comment during the meeting, and Judges, Environmental Protection
telephone lines, attendance will be on a whether you are submitting written Agency (EPA).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22763/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-02 09:13:58
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 09:13:58
| 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) data system is available on the internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring website under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/ compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by author, date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at: [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 | 83 FR 22668 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR