
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36394-36400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16499]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9965-55-OECA]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) data 
system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance 
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act 
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The 
letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by date, office of 
issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word 
searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria 
Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at: 
malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions about individual 
applicability determinations 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. The 
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control 
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources 
may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to 
written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Section 
111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek 
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from 
the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f).
    The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly 
referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA 
responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP 
regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category.
    These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to 
which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. 
The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to 
as regulatory interpretations.
    The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In 
addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to 
the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The 
ADI is a data system on the Internet with over three thousand EPA 
letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and 
stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and 
memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control 
number, or by string word searches.
    Today's action comprises a summary of 31 such documents added to 
the ADI on July 21, 2017. This action 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 through the Resources and Guidance 
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act 
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI data system on July 21, 2017; the applicable 
category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 
(as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the 
document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This action 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 document 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 July 21, 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Control No.              Categories                   Subparts                          Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1600009.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Regulatory Interpretation on an
                                                                               Alternative Calibration Procedure
                                                                               for Hydrogen Sulfide Monitor at a
                                                                               Refinery.

[[Page 36395]]

 
1600010.............  NSPS.....................  Ec.........................  Alternate Monitoring Operating
                                                                               Parameter Limits for Two Waste
                                                                               Incinerators.
1600011.............  NSPS.....................  EEEE.......................  Alternative Operating Parameter
                                                                               Limits for Commercial
                                                                               Incinerator.
1600012.............  NSPS.....................  J, Ja......................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Hydrogen Sulfide in Portable
                                                                               Temporary Thermal Oxidizer Units
                                                                               at Refineries.
1600013.............  NSPS.....................  J, Ja......................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Hydrogen Sulfide in Portable
                                                                               Temporary Thermal Oxidizer Units
                                                                               at Refineries.
1600018.............  NSPS.....................  NNN, RRR...................  Regulatory Interpretation for a
                                                                               Biodiesel Manufacturing Facility.
1600027.............  NSPS.....................  A, Ja......................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Span Gas Concentration and High
                                                                               Range Validation Standards for
                                                                               H2S CEMS at a Refinery.
1600028.............  NSPS.....................  J..........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Revised Process Parameter Limits
                                                                               at a Refinery.
1600029.............  NSPS.....................  A, Ec......................  Alternative Monitoring Operating
                                                                               Parameter Limits for Air
                                                                               Pollution Control System at a
                                                                               Medical Waste Incinerator.
1600030.............  NSPS.....................  J..........................  Withdrawal of Alternative
                                                                               Monitoring Plan for Sulfur
                                                                               Loading Vent Stream at a
                                                                               Refinery.
1600031.............  NSPS.....................  J..........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                               Revision for Re-Routed Vent Gas
                                                                               Stream at a Refinery.
1600032.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Flares at a Refinery.
1600033.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for a
                                                                               Flare at a Refinery.
1600034.............  NSPS.....................  GG.........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               NOX Emissions during Startup from
                                                                               Stationary Gas Turbines.
1600035.............  NSPS.....................  JJJJ.......................  Performance Test Waiver for
                                                                               Stationary Spark Ignition
                                                                               Internal Combustion Engines.
1600036.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Bag Leak Detection System In Lieu
                                                                               of COMS at a Sand Reclamation
                                                                               Unit.
1600037.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Industrial Sand Dryer.
1600038.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Alternative Calibration Methods
                                                                               for Total Reduced Sulfur
                                                                               Analyzers at a Refinery.
1600039.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan In
                                                                               Lieu of COMS at a Sand
                                                                               Reclamation Unit.
1600040.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Request for Exemption to Opacity
                                                                               Monitoring Requirements for
                                                                               Thermal Sand Reclamation Units.
1600041.............  NSPS.....................  JJJJ.......................  Alternative Test Method for Spark
                                                                               Ignition Engines.
A160001.............  Asbestos, NESHAP.........  M..........................  Waiver Request from Asbestos
                                                                               Testing for Bare Concrete Deck
                                                                               Bridges.
A160002.............  Asbestos, NESHAP.........  M..........................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Airport Taxiways.
M160005.............  MACT.....................  XXXXXX.....................  Applicability Determination for a
                                                                               Steel Foundry.
M160007.............  MACT, NESHAP.............  JJJJ, SSSSS................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Mica Sheets Manufacturing.
M160009.............  MACT, NESHAP.............  VVVVVV.....................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
                                                                               Facility.
M160017.............  MACT.....................  JJJJ.......................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Web Coating Manufacturing
                                                                               Facility.
M160019.............  MACT, NSPS...............  J, UUU.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Wet Gas Scrubber at a Refinery.
M160020.............  MACT, GACT, NESHAP, NSPS.  AAa, YYYYY, ZZZZZ..........  Applicability Determination for a
                                                                               Steelmaking Facility.
M160021.............  MACT.....................  JJJ........................  Alternative Monitoring Method In
                                                                               Lieu of Continuous Flow Monitor
                                                                               for a Thermal Oxidizer.
Z160005.............  MACT, NESHAP.............  PPPPP, ZZZZ................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Engine Testing and Emissions
                                                                               Laboratory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1600009]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the use of the same calibration gas to 
perform quality assurance checks on both the low and the high ranges 
for a dual range hydrogen sulfide (H2S) continuous emission monitoring 
system subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Ergon Refinery in 
Vicksburg, Mississippi (Ergon)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Mississippi 
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the EPA believes that the 
Ergon's proposed monitoring alternative is acceptable to satisfy the QA 
checks on the high concentration range for the Sola II analyzer. EPA's 
guidance to MDEQ is based upon the expectation that the monitor's 
higher range will rarely be used to demonstrate compliance because the 
H2S concentration at the inlet of the Refinery Flare will need to be 
below the monitor span value to meet the NSPS Ja limits, the highly 
linear response of the monitor should yield accurate results for the 
whole range of operation, and the safety hazards to plant employees 
associated with keeping high concentration H2S calibration gas 
cylinders onsite being valid concerns due to H2S high toxicity.

Abstract for [1600010]

    Q: Does the EPA approve site-specific alternative monitoring 
operating parameter limits (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec for the 
operation of two hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI) 
at the Stericycle Springhill facility located in Sarepta, Louisiana 
(Stericycle)?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves Stericycle's alternative 
OPLs, which are consistent with the permit conditions, the equipment 
configuration of the incinerators, and the operation of the associated 
air pollution control devices. EPA approval is contingent on 
Stericycle's successful completion of performance testing on both HWIMI 
to demonstrate compliance with NSPS subpart Ec emission limits. 
Stericycle shall conduct a performance test on each HMIWI in accordance 
with 40 CFR 60.8 and consistent with the proposed performance test plan 
included in the EPA response letter. If performance testing shows that 
the facility is not in compliance with NSPS Ee emission limits, 
retesting will be required, and the OPLs established for this petition 
approval may require modification, and in the event that new or 
modified OPLs must be established, a revised OPL petition must be 
submitted prior to retesting, along with a revised test plan for review 
and approval.

Abstract for [1600011]

    Q: Does EPA approve the revision of alternative Operating Parameter 
Limits (OPLs) for additional control equipment used in lieu of a wet 
scrubber at a contraband incinerator operated by SW Border Incineration 
LLC, in McAllen,

[[Page 36396]]

Texas, which meets the criteria of an Other Solid Waste Incinerator 
(OSWI) unit under NSPS subpart EEEE?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the revision of alternative OPLs 
contingent on the successful completion of performance testing to 
demonstrate compliance with NSPS subpart EEEE emission limits. The 
previously approved and additional OPLs are consistent with the special 
conditions of Texas Air Permit, which the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality approved the test plan, along with the RATA 
protocols. If performance testing shows that the facility is not in 
compliance with NSPS EEEE emission limits, retesting will be required, 
and the OPLs established for this petition approval may require 
modification. If additional new or modified OPLs must be established to 
achieve and maintain compliance with NSPS EEEE, a revised OPL petition 
must be submitted prior to retesting, along with a revised test plan 
for review and approval.

Abstract for [1600012]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) in 
lieu of using a continuous emission monitoring system (CMS) for Event 
Corporation to monitor Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) during tank 
degassing and similar operations controlled by a portable temporary 
thermal oxidizer subject to NSPS subpart J and NSPS subpart Ja at 
refineries located in the EPA Region 3?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the AMP since installing and 
operating an H2S CMS would be technically impractical due to 
the short term nature of tank degassing and similar operations 
performed by Event at refineries located in EPA Region 3. EPA included 
the detailed AMP sampling steps and compliance demonstration procedures 
and conditions in the EPA final determination letter.

Abstract for [1600013]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) in 
lieu of using continuous emission monitoring system (CMS) for TriStar 
Global Energy Solution (Tristar) to monitor hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) during tank degassing and similar operations 
controlled by portable temporary thermal oxidizer units subject to NSPS 
subpart J and NSPS subpart Ja, at refineries located in EPA Region 3?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the AMP since installing and 
operating an H2S continuous emission monitoring system would be 
technically impractical due to the short term nature of tank degassing 
and similar operations performed by Tristar at refineries in EPA Region 
3. The EPA included the AMP detailed sampling steps, the compliance 
demonstration procedures and conditions in the final determination 
letter.

Abstract for [1600018]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that the proposed addition of a biodiesel 
manufacturing facility at a plant owned by Patriot Renewable Fuels 
(Patriot) and located in Annawan, Illinois is subject to 40 CFR part 60 
subpart RRR (VOC Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), the EPA believes that 
the proposed addition to the biodiesel plant would meet the 
applicability criteria of subpart RRR. Glycerol, is a chemical listed 
in 40 CFR 60.707. The EPA considers either of the following downstream 
uses as indicative of the production of a listed chemical as a 
``product'': (1) Production for sale of a listed chemical; or (2) use 
in another process where that listed chemical is needed. Glycerol is 
produced from com oil via a hydrolysis reaction during the manufacture 
of biodiesel. When sent to the fermenters, glycerol is used to increase 
the ethanol yield (i.e., it is needed in the process) and is, 
therefore, an intermediate (i.e., a compound that is produced for the 
use in the production of other compounds or chemicals) under 40 CFR 
60.700. Because the glycerol sent to the fermenters is an intermediate, 
the glycerol is a product. Therefore, our guidance to Illinois EPA is 
that the Patriot facility would be considered an affected facility 
subject to Subpart RRR after the addition of the proposed biodiesel 
plant.

Abstract for [1600027]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to use 
alternative concentrations of span gases used to check daily 
calibration drift, and as high range validation standards used during 
cylinder gas audits (CGAs) and relative accuracy test audits (RATAs), 
under NSPS subpart A for the No. 2 flare Continuous Emission Monitoring 
System (CEMS) at the Delek Refining (Delek) facility located in Tyler, 
Texas and covered under NSPS subpart Ja?
    A: Yes. Based on the process data and detector information 
submitted, the EPA conditionally approves Delek's AMP to reduce the 
concentrations of the calibration gas and validation standards to 
certain specified range values on the No. 2 Flare CEMS. Delek must 
conduct linearity analysis on the pulsed ultraviolet fluorescence 
(PUVF) detector once every three years to determine the detector's 
linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations of gas 
vent streams. The analysis must demonstrate that linearity is 
maintained for the specified vent gas stream hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 
concentration range. A report of each completed linearity analysis must 
be submitted to the EPA Region 6 and to the State, and records must be 
maintained on-site.

Abstract for [1600028]

    Q: Does the EPA approve revised process parameter limits for a 
previously approved Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the Valero 
Refining-Texas, LP facility (Valero) located in Corpus Christi, Texas 
and subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves revised process parameter 
limits that should not exceed the new upper value for total sulfur and 
the higher proposed temperature. Valero must continue to follow the 
steps outlined in the previously approved AMP for monitoring the vent 
stream. If refinery operations change such that the sulfur content of 
the vent stream changes from representations made for the AMP, then 
Valero must document the changes and follow the appropriate steps 
outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).

Abstract for [1600029]

    Q: Does the EPA conditionally approve revised alternative 
monitoring Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) for a pollution control 
system on a new medical waste incinerator subject to NSPS subpart Ec, 
which consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) followed by a carbon 
adsorber and cartridge filter, located at the University of Texas 
Medical Branch (UTMBG) in Galveston, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on process-specific information and data provided by 
UTMBG, the EPA conditionally approves the revised operating parameters 
for the WGS, carbon adsorber and cartridge filter. UTMBG must conduct a 
second representative performance test in order to establish revised 
numerical limits for the operating parameters conditionally approved. 
The follow up performance testing must be conducted in accordance with 
40 CFR 60.8 and State requirements, with no deviations from the EPA-
approved test methods or quality assurance protocols. Other OPLs 
specified by Table 3 of NSPS subpart Ec

[[Page 36397]]

and the facility's minor source air permit also must be included in the 
performance test if the changes affect those pollutants or operating 
limits. If performance testing shows that the facility is not in 
compliance with NSPS Ec emission limits, retesting will be required, 
and the OPLs established for this petition approval may require 
modification. If additional new or modified OPLs must be established to 
achieve and maintain compliance with NSPS Ee, a revised OPL petition 
must be submitted prior to retesting, along with a revised test plan 
for review and approval.

Abstract for [1600030]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the withdrawal of a previously approved 
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a sulfur loading vent stream at 
the Valero Mckee Refinery located in Sunray, Texas and covered under 
NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the AMP withdrawal of a previously 
approved AMP because emissions from the tail gas incinerators are 
monitored for compliance with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) limit 
of 40 CFR 60. 104(a)(2)(i) via a continuous emissions monitoring system 
(CEMS), in accordance with 60.105(a)(3) of NSPS J, as modified on June, 
24, 2008, and is consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 226 of 
the consent decree.

Abstract for [1600031]

    Q: Does the EPA approve revisions to an Alternative Monitoring Plan 
(AMP) that was previously conditionally approved for re-routing a 
refinery fuel gas vent stream to an alternate combustion device at the 
Valero Refining-Meraux LLC (Valero Meraux) facility located in Meraux, 
Louisiana subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the revisions to a previously 
conditionally approved AMP. Valero Meraux proposed re-routing the 
affected refinery fuel gas vent gas stream to a reformer recharge 
heater instead of combusting the stream at a stripper reboiler heater. 
Valero Meraux is required to continue monitoring and controlling the 
relevant process parameters as summarized in the EPA's previous 
conditional AMP approval. If refinery operations change such that the 
sulfur content of the vent stream changes from representations made for 
the AMP, then Valero must document the changes and follow the 
appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60. 105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).

Abstract for [1600032]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to 
use the data obtained from the total sulfur (TS) continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS) for one flare at plant 1 and one flare at 
plant 2 at the Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. (Suncor) Commerce City Refinery 
in Commerce City, Colorado subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves Suncor's AMP for flares at plants 1 and 2, 
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i), to use the data obtained from the TS CEMS 
low range two-point daily calibration drift and two-point quarterly 
audits, as well as a one-point challenge in the high range. Because 
Suncor is requesting this AMP based on a significant safety hazard to 
refinery personnel and because this monitoring is being performed to 
detect the threshold for a root cause analysis, not to monitor for 
compliance with an emission limit, the EPA will allow for minimal use 
of high concentration calibration gases. This approach avoids routine 
use of higher level calibration gases in the field; higher level gases 
are only used for quarterly audits and annual testing and could be 
brought on-site by a testing contractor and then removed after the 
test/audit.

Abstract for [1600033]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to 
use the data obtained from the total sulfur (TS) continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS) for a flare at plant 3 of the Suncor Energy 
(USA) Inc. (Suncor) Commerce City Refinery in Commerce City, Colorado 
subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves Suncor's AMP for a flare at plant 3, 
pursuant to 40 CFR. 40 CFR 60.13(i), to use the data obtained from the 
TS CEMS low range two-point daily calibration drift and two-point 
quarterly audits, as well as a one-point challenge in the high range. 
Because Suncor is requesting this AMP based on a significant safety 
hazard to refinery personnel and because this monitoring is being 
performed to detect the threshold for a root cause analysis, not to 
monitor for compliance with an emission limit, the EPA will allow for 
minimal use of high concentration calibration gases. This approach 
avoids routine use of higher level calibration gases in the field; 
higher level gases are only used for quarterly audits and annual 
testing and could be brought on-site by a testing contractor and then 
removed after the test/audit.

Abstract for [1600034]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 
40 CFR 60.13(i) for the monitoring of emissions using an emission 
factor to determine NOx emissions from two stationary gas combustion 
turbines located at the Power House (Plant) operated by the University 
of Colorado Boulder (UCB) in Boulder, Colorado, in lieu of determining 
emissions through Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) 
installed on the bypass stack, to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission limit under NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. Based on the most recent stack testing for NOx emissions 
during startup of turbine 1 and turbine 2, the EPA will allow UCB use 
of the 0.32 lb/MMBtu emission factor rather than determining emissions 
through CEMS installed on the bypass stack. The use of this emission 
factor provides a conservative emissions estimate and is consistent 
with UCB permit issued by the Colorado Department of Health and 
Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). The EPA or 
CDPHE APCD may require UCB to conduct additional testing of emissions 
at the bypass stack to verify the NOx concentrations during turbine 
startup.

Abstract for [1600035]

    Q: Does the EPA approve waiver of a performance testing requirement 
for six identical stationary engines subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
JJJJ at the Bio Town Ag facility in Reynolds, Indiana (Bio Town)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information Bio Town provided, the EPA 
approves the performance test waiver request for six identical 
stationary engines operated in the same manner, pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.8(b)(4). Specifically, EPA approves conducting a performance test 
every 8,760 hours or 3 years, whichever comes first, for the three 
engines that were constructed in 2011, and a performance test for the 
three engines that were constructed in 2014, in a staggered schedule as 
provided in the determination letter. Bio Town must meet Section VII. 2 
of the April 27, 2009, Clean Air Act National Stack Testing Guidance, 
which lists the conditions that must be met for approval of a 
performance test waiver for identical emissions units.

Abstract for [1600036]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the use of a bag leak detection system 
(BLDS) as an alternative monitoring method in lieu of a continuous 
opacity monitoring system

[[Page 36398]]

(COMS) for purposes of meeting the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 
part 60 subpart UUU, Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers 
in Mineral Industries, at the Waupaca Foundry, Inc. plant (Waupaca) 
located in Tell City, Indiana?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the Waupaca alternative 
monitoring method to use BLDS in lieu of a COMS or conducting daily 
Method 9 readings for the mechanical and thermal sand reclamation unit 
(P27) being installed at Waupaca's Plant 5. Waupaca will need to 
develop and prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for the BLDS 
installed under this alternative monitoring method and meet the 
conditions specified in the EPA response letter. In addition, Waupaca 
will need to revise its current major source construction permit for 
the sand reclamation project, as well as its Title V permit, to 
incorporate this alternative monitoring method. The approval of the 
proposed alternative monitoring method does not alter Waupaca's legal 
obligation to comply with all other applicable requirements associated 
with Subparts A and UUU, including meeting the opacity limit.

Abstract for [1600037]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine the start-up date of Northern Industrial 
Sand's (NIS) sand dryer located in Auburn, Wisconsin and subject to 40 
CFR part 60 subpart UUU is the date the construction permit was issued 
(June 18, 2015), or the date the sand dryer first processed sand (July 
17, 2015)?
    A1: The EPA determines that the initial start-up of NIS's sand 
dryer in question is July 17, 2015. ``Start-up'' is defined at 40 CFR 
60. 2 as the setting in operation of an ``affected facility'' for any 
purpose. Based on the information provided in your letter, the sand 
dryer at NIS first processed sand on July 17, 2015.
    Q2: For purposes of initial performance testing, does the EPA 
determine that the ``180 days after start-up'' requirement is based on 
consecutive days (including non-operational days) or operating days?
    A2: The EPA determines that the 180 days after start-up requirement 
is based on calendar days, not operating days. The General Provisions, 
at 40 CFR 60. 19(a), state ``For the purposes of this part, time 
periods specified in days shall be measured in calendar days, even if 
the word `calendar' is absent, unless otherwise specified in an 
applicable requirement.'' Neither the General Provisions, at 40 CFR60. 
8, nor the requirements of performance testing under subpart UUU, at 40 
CFR 60.732 and 60.736, define the time periods for performance testing 
as anything other than ``days''.
    Q3: Does the EPA recommend any other options for NIS to consider 
for initial performance testing under subpart UUU before the 180-day 
deadline expires?
    A3: Yes. The EPA suggests two testing options. Option 1: NIS may 
conduct initial performance testing of the sand dryer at its desired 
maximum throughput and store the processed sand until needed. Based on 
the information provided, NIS has more than adequate storage capacity 
for the processed sand to test under this option. Option 2: NIS may 
conduct performance testing of the sand dryer at less than its desired 
maximum throughput. However, if this option is selected, NIS will need 
to take operational restrictions to the reduced throughput at which it 
tested to show compliance with subpart UUU. The operational 
restrictions will need to be incorporated into a federally enforceable 
document (typically a federally enforceable construction or operating 
permit). If, at a later date, NIS is able to operate at an increased 
throughput and desires to operate at that increased throughput, it will 
need to revise its underlying federally enforceable document to 
accommodate the increased throughput. NIS will also be required to 
conduct another performance test at that increased rate and demonstrate 
compliance with applicable limits.
    Q4: What does the EPA determine are the monitoring requirements 
following initial performance testing for the sand dryer?
    A4: Based on the information NIS provided, the EPA determines that 
the sand dryer is an industrial sand fluid bed dryer. The monitoring 
requirements are therefore either: (a) Installation and operation of a 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), or (b) daily visible 
emission readings using U. S. EPA Reference Method 9 (for no less than 
18 minutes each day). The monitoring requirements of subpart UUU are 
found at 40 CFR 60.734(a-d).

Abstract for [1600038]

    Q1: Does EPA approve three alternative calibration methods for the 
total reduced sulfur (TRS) analyzers associated with three flares that 
are affected facilities under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Lima 
Refining Company (Lima Refining) refinery in Lima, Ohio?
    A1: Based on the information provided by Lima Refining, EPA 
approves two of the three alternative calibration methods requested for 
the TRS monitors to address safety concerns involving storage, 
handling, and life expectancy (short expiration dates) of high hydrogen 
sulfide (H2S) concentration gas cylinders on site. The two 
conditional approved calibration methods are: (1) The use of low H2S 
concentration cylinders to calibrate TRS monitors provided that 
laboratory analyses demonstrate the linearity of the instruments for 
the target compound used across the entire sulfur concentration range 
expected; and (2) the use of a sample dilution system in conjunction 
with the TRS monitoring systems being installed provided that the 
dilution system can be challenged at the ratio Lima Refining intends to 
use, and the capability of the analyzer to detect the lowest expected 
concentrations of the target compound(s) under typical operating 
conditions when the gas is diluted at the dilution ratio selected. EPA 
is disapproving the use of a surrogate gas to calibrate the TRS 
monitoring systems. This disapproval is based on the fact that the 
monitoring requirements of subpart Ja are TRS specific. Approvable 
calibration methodologies should be based on pollutant specific 
monitoring, when such options are available, rather than a surrogate 
gas. Since there are feasible pollutant specific options, EPA 
disapproves the use of a surrogate gas to calibrate the TRS monitors.
    Q2: Does EPA approve single point calibrations for each of the TRS 
analyzers associated with three flares that are affected facilities 
under subpart Ja?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves Lima Refining's request to use single point 
calibrations for the daily calibration requirements (zero and one other 
target compound(s) concentration). However, Lima Refining must conduct 
multi-point calibrations on at least a quarterly basis. Other 
conditions and requirements of this approval are included in the EPA 
response letter.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a reduced span to that required by subpart Ja 
for the TRS analyzer associated with the aromatics flare that is an 
affected facility under subpart Ja?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Lima Refining's request to 
reduce the instrument span from 5,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm for the 
aromatics flare (LIU flare) TRS monitoring system. This approval is 
based on the low expected TRS concentration from the aromatics flare. 
However, if readings associated with the aromatics flare exceed 1,000 
ppm, then Lima Refining will need to re-span the TRS monitor to a 
higher value which includes the higher concentration measured.

[[Page 36399]]

Abstract for [1600039]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of daily visible emission observations 
and baghouse pressure drop readings associated with the thermal sand 
reclamation unit in lieu of a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) to meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR subpart UUU 
(Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral 
Industries) at the Urschel Laboratories, Inc. (Urschel) in Valparaiso, 
IN?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring 
method to meet the monitoring requirements of subpart UUU at 40 CFR 
60.734. Urschel will need to evaluate and establish an appropriate 
range for the pressure drop across the baghouse based on a performance 
test at the thermal sand reclamation unit to ensure compliance with 
subpart UUU. The alternative monitoring program and associated 
recordkeeping and reporting approved through this letter must be 
incorporated into its federal enforceable state operating permit. 
Additional conditions and requirements of this approval are included in 
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1600040]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Urschel Laboratories, Inc. (Urschel) 
thermal sand reclamation unit located in Valparaiso, Indiana is exempt 
from the opacity monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart UUU 
(Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral 
Industries) since its particulate emissions are well below 11 tons per 
year?
    A: No. EPA determines that Urschel's thermal sand reclamation unit 
is an affected facility subject to subpart UUU and is therefore subject 
to the monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 60.734. Since the thermal sand 
reclamation unit is not one of the listed facilities under 40 CFR 
60.734(b) or (c) and does not use a wet control device (40 CFR 
60.734(d)), Urschel must install and operate a continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS). However, the General Provisions at 40 CFR 
60.13(i) provides an owner or operator of an affected facility the 
ability to request, among other things, alternative monitoring to that 
required by an applicable subpart.

Abstract for [1600041]

    Q: Does the EPA approve using an alternative test method ASTM D-
6348-12 in lieu of ASTM D-6348-03 for measuring pollutants in the 
engine exhaust per NSPS subpart JJJJ at Samson Resources Company's 
facilities on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in La Plata County, 
Colorado?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the use of the updated ASTM method, D-
6348-12 in lieu of D-6348-03 as prescribed in Table 2 to NSPS JJJJ for 
performance testing of engines at the requested facilities, pursuant to 
40 CFR 60.8(b)(2).

Abstract for [A160001]

    Q1: Does the EPA approve a waiver from asbestos testing 
requirements for bare concrete deck bridges under 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP), for the Kansas Department of 
Transportation?
    A1: No. Under the Asbestos NESHAP, there is no regulatory provision 
that allows the EPA to issue a waiver.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that bare concrete deck bridges are 
subject to the Asbestos NESHAP regulation?
    A2: Yes. The EPA determines that concrete is considered a building 
material and needs to be evaluated for asbestos-content. At a minimum, 
it must be thoroughly inspected.

Abstract for [A160002]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine that airport taxiways are subject to 40 
CFR part 61, subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP)?
    A1: Yes. The EPA indicated to the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MO DNR) that airport taxiways are a ``facility component'' 
as defined in 40 CFR 61.141 and therefore subject to the regulation. At 
a minimum, the taxiway is subject to the thorough inspection 
requirement of the regulation. Further, MO DNR asks that EPA reconsider 
a previous applicability determination which stated airport runways 
were not subject to the Asbestos NESHAP. This applicability 
determination supersedes the June 20, 1997 applicability determination 
with ADI Control No. A970006.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that repair operations on a taxiway are 
considered a renovation or demolition operation under the Asbestos 
NESHAP regulation?
    A2: Yes. The EPA determines if work is to be done on an airport 
taxiway, it is considered a renovation operation as there is no load-
supporting structural member being wrecked or taken out as defined 
under the demolition definition.

Abstract for [M160005]

    Q: Does EPA determine that McConway and Torley's Lawrenceville 
Foundry in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart XXXXXX (subpart 6X), NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and 
Finishing Source Categories?
    A: No. EPA has determined that subpart 6X does not apply to the 
Lawrenceville Foundry based on not meeting rule applicability 
requirements due to current operations, an evaluation of the SIC/NAICS 
codes associated with the facility, and the corresponding activities in 
which the facility is primarily engaged in that involves manufacturing 
of railroad car couplings.

Abstract for [M160007]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that the raw material used by Mica Company 
of Canada Incorporated (Mica Co.) at their Newport News, Virginia 
facility meets the definition of a ``web'' and that both manufacturing 
lines are subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ?
    A1: Based on the description provided by Mica Co., EPA determines 
that the raw material used by Mica Co. processing line 2 meets the 
definition of a ``web'' at 40 CFR 63.3300 since the mica paper is fed 
from a roll to the web coating line. Therefore, this processing line is 
subject to MACT subpart JJJJ. Processing line 1 does not meet the 
definition of web and is therefore not subject to MACT subpart JJJJ.
    Q2: Does EPA determine that the end products manufactured by Mica 
Co. meet the definition of a ``refractory product'' and that both 
processing lines are therefore subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSSS?
    A2: No. Based on the description provided by Mica Co., EPA 
determines that the mica sheet insulating products manufactured by Mica 
Co. do not meet the definition of a ``refractory product'' at 40 CFR 
63.9824; therefore, the manufacturing lines are not subject to MACT 
subpart SSSSS.

Abstract for [M160009]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 
Women's Health pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Cincinnati, 
Ohio (Teva) is subject to the NESHAP subpart VVVVVV Title V Permit 
requirement if the facility took operational limits on organic 
compounds to become an area source before the effective date of the 
rule and now operate control devices, but would still be an area source 
without the controls?
    A: No. EPA determines that the Teva pharmaceutical manufacturing 
operations at the Cincinnati facility are not currently subject to the 
Title V requirement in NESHAP subpart VVVVVV. Since the facility took 
operational limits to obtain area source status prior to the effective 
date of the rule, the Title V NESHAP subpart VVVVVV requirement does 
not apply, even if it now operates controls. The

[[Page 36400]]

facility does not rely on a control device to maintain HAP emissions 
below major source thresholds as was demonstrated with the potential to 
emit analysis.

Abstract for [M160017]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Owens Corning Insulating Systems, 
LLC (OC) a wool fiberglass products manufacturing plant located in 
Delmar, NY (Delmar), is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, NESHAP 
for Paper and Other Web Coating Manufacturing?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by OC, EPA determines 
that the Delmar plant still operates web coating lines after switching 
from a phenol-formaldehyde binder to a starch binder and thus remains 
subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, and that the subsequent non 
applicability determination for 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNN, the NESHAP 
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing due to the binder switch is 
irrelevant to the applicability status of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. 
This determination is consistent with the ``Once-In-Always-In'' policy. 
The Delmar plant has been required to comply with subpart JJJJ 
provisions (including emissions standards) since December 5, 2005, the 
first substantive compliance date of rule, based on 40 CFR 63.320(a) of 
the rule. The fact that OC chooses to comply with the subpart JJJJ 
emission standards at the Delmar plant using a method it was already 
using (i.e., the ``[u]se of `as-purchased' compliant coating 
materials'') prior to the first substantive compliance date is 
irrelevant to the applicability analysis.

Abstract for [M160019]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet 
Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 
subject to NSPS part 60 subpart J, and also NESHAP subpart UUU, for 
parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a Continuous 
Opacity Monitoring System, due to moisture interference on opacity 
readings in the stack at the Valero Refining Company (Valero) facility 
in Ardmore, Oklahoma (Valero)?
    A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process 
specific information and performance test results provided by Valero, 
EPA approves the AMP request and its operating parameter limits (OPLs) 
for demonstrating compliance under NESHAP subpart UUU, which included 
minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio, minimum water pressure to the quench/spray 
tower nozzles, and minimum pressure drop across the Agglo-filtering 
module. Valero shall incorporate the terms of this AMP approval into 
the facility's New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permits for federal 
enforceability. If refinery operations change, Valero shall conduct 
another performance test to establish new limits for the OPLs listed in 
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [M160020]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Ervin Amasteel facility in Adrian, 
Michigan should be classified as a steel foundry subject to 
requirements of the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Source, at 
40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZZ, and not the requirements under the NESHAP 
for Area Sources for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities, at 40 
CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY, and the Standards of Performance for Steel 
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 
Constructed After August 17, 1983, at 40 CFR part 60 Subpart AAa (NSPS 
AAa)?
    A: No. EPA determines that the Ervin Amasteel facility is not 
subject to the requirements of NESHAP subpart ZZZZZ because the 
facility is not an iron and steel foundry as defined in 40 CFR 63.10906 
of the rule. Therefore, the Ervin Amasteel facility remains subject to 
the applicable provisions of NESHAP subpart YYYYY and NSPS subpart AAa.

Abstract for [M160021]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring method for the bypass 
valve line associated with the thermal oxidizer in lieu of a continuous 
flow monitor or securing the bypass valve with a car seal or lock-and-
key type system to meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63 
subpart JJJ at the INEOS Barex USA LLC (INEOS) plant in Lima, Ohio?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by INEOS, including 
concerns about installation of a flow monitor on this particular bypass 
stream due to location and corrosion possibilities, EPA conditionally 
approves the alternative monitoring method that requires continuous 
monitoring of the bypass valve position associated with the thermal 
oxidizer in accordance with 40 CFR 63.8(f)(2) and (4). The 
recordkeeping and reporting conditions for approval are specified in 
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [Z160005]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that stationary engines being tested in a 
test cell at Maine Maritime Academy (MMA) in Castine, Maine would be 
subject to the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 
(RICE), 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
    A1: No. EPA determines that because the engines in question will be 
tested at a stationary RICE test cell as defined in Subpart PPPPP, they 
are not subject to subpart ZZZZ consistent with 40 CFR 63.6675 of 
subpart ZZZZ.
    Q2: Does EPA determine that the proposed engine test cell at MMA, 
which is an area source of hazardous air pollutants, would be subject 
to the NESHAP for Engine Test Cell/Stands, 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
PPPPP?
    A2: No. EPA determines that as long as MMA remains an area source 
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), it is not subject to subpart PPPPP, 
which applies to owners or operators of engine test cells/stands at a 
major source of HAPs.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
David A. Hindin,
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2017-16499 Filed 8-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


