
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9783-9791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03593]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9990-05-OECA]


Applicability Determination Index Data System Posting: EPA Formal 
Responses to Inquiries Concerning Compliance With Clean Air Act 
Stationary Source Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, 
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that 
Environmental Protection Agency (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, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division 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. 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 source or 
facility-specific 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 accessed via 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 author, date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, 
control number, or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 45 such documents added to 
the ADI on February 1, 2019. This notice lists the subject and header 
of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the 
content. 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 February 1, 2019 to the ADI data system; the 
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 
60, 61, 62, 63 and 82 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and 
the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the 
subject matter.
    Also included in this notice, is an abstract of each document 
identified with its control number. These abstracts are being provided 
to the public as possible items of interest and are not intended as 
substitutes for the contents of the original documents. This notice

[[Page 9784]]

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 February 1, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Control No.      Categories         Subparts              Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1500085......  NSPS............  Ec..............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Hospital/Medical/
                                                    Infectious Waste
                                                    Incinerator.
1700009......  NSPS............  OOOO............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Natural Gas
                                                    Processing Plant.
1700037......  NSPS............  A...............  Regulatory
                                                    Interpretation for
                                                    Continuous
                                                    Monitoring System
                                                    Downtime and
                                                    Emission Reporting.
1700038......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    CEMS Calibration Gas
                                                    at a Refinery.
1700039......  NSPS............  J...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Sulfur Loading Arm
                                                    Vent Streams at a
                                                    Refinery.
1700040......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Total Sulfur Monitor
                                                    on Flare at
                                                    Refinery.
1700041......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Monitoring Exemption
                                                    for Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    at a Refinery.
1700042......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Sulfur Loading Arm
                                                    Vent Streams at a
                                                    Refinery.
1700044......  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Request
                                                    for Distillation
                                                    Units.
1700045......  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Performance Test
                                                    Waiver and
                                                    Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Vent Gas Streams at
                                                    Synthetic Organic
                                                    Chemical
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
1700046......  NSPS............  Y...............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Coal Storage and
                                                    Transport Operation.
1700047......  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Vent Streams at
                                                    Synthetic Organic
                                                    Chemical
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
1700048......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Monitoring Exemption
                                                    for Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    in Fuel Gas Streams
                                                    at Refinery.
1700049......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Monitoring Exemption
                                                    for Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    in Fuel Gas Streams
                                                    at Refinery.
1700050......  NSPS............  OOO.............  Waiver of Opacity
                                                    Observation and
                                                    Alternative
                                                    Compliance Measure
                                                    at Non-Metallic
                                                    Mineral Processing
                                                    Plant.
1700052......  NSPS............  LL..............  Performance Test
                                                    Extension Request
                                                    for Dry Crushing
                                                    Operations at
                                                    Mineral Processing
                                                    Plant.
1700053......  MACT, NSPS......  AAAA, WWW.......  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Flare at a Municipal
                                                    Solid Waste
                                                    Landfill.
1700054......  NSPS............  GG..............  Alternative Testing
                                                    for Nitrogen Oxides
                                                    at Stationary Gas
                                                    Turbines.
1800001......  NSPS............  WWW.............  Alternative Tier 2
                                                    Calculation
                                                    Methodology for
                                                    Municipal Solid
                                                    Waste Landfill.
1800003......  NSPS............  CCCC............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Micro-Auto
                                                    Gasification System.
1800005......  NSPS............  J, Ja...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    during Tank
                                                    Degassing at
                                                    Refineries.
1800006......  NSPS............  A, Ja...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Request
                                                    for Flares at a
                                                    Refinery.
1800007......  NSPS............  A, OOO..........  Test Waiver and
                                                    Alternate Means of
                                                    Compliance for
                                                    Baghouses.
1800008......  MACT, NSPS......  CC, Kb..........  Regulatory
                                                    Interpretation for
                                                    Recordkeeping at
                                                    Storage Tanks.
1800009......  NSPS............  A, Ja...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    from Flares at
                                                    Refineries.
1800013......  MACT, NSPS......  BBBBBB, Kb, WW..  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Internal Floating
                                                    Roof Storage Tanks.
M170015......  MACT............  R...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Vapor Combustion
                                                    Unit at Gasoline
                                                    Distribution
                                                    Terminal.
M170016......  MACT............  F...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Heat Exchange System
                                                    at Synthetic Organic
                                                    Chemical
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M170019......  MACT............  ZZZZ............  Clarification of
                                                    Emergency and Non-
                                                    Emergency Generator
                                                    Use.
M170021......  MACT............  HHHHH...........  Design Evaluation and
                                                    Proposed Operating
                                                    Parameters for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M170022......  MACT............  JJJ, MMM........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring for
                                                    Pressure Relief
                                                    Devices on Portable
                                                    Containers.
M170023......  MACT............  A, EEEEE........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring for
                                                    Continuous Emissions
                                                    Monitoring System on
                                                    Automated Shakeout
                                                    Line at Iron
                                                    Foundry.
M170024......  MACT............  HHHHH...........  Design Evaluation and
                                                    Proposed Operating
                                                    Parameters for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M170025......  MACT............  LL..............  Compliance Date
                                                    Extension for Carbon
                                                    Adsorber System on
                                                    Pitch Storage Tank
                                                    at Paste Production
                                                    Plant.
M170026......  MACT, NESHAP....  JJJJJJ..........  Performance Test Time
                                                    Extension for Coal-
                                                    Fired Boiler.
M170027......  MACT............  OOO.............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Water Scrubber at a
                                                    Methylated Resin
                                                    Process.
M180001......  NESHAP..........  HHHHH...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M180002......  MACT, NESHAP,     X...............  Alternative
                NSPS.                               Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Reverberatory
                                                    Furnace.
M180004......  MACT, NESHAP....  LLLLL...........  Applicability
                                                    Determination and
                                                    Alternative
                                                    Monitoring for Mist
                                                    Eliminator for
                                                    Asphalt Storage
                                                    Tank.
M180005......  MACT............  S...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Closed Vent
                                                    Collection Systems
                                                    at a Paper Mill.
M180011......  NESHAP..........  HHHHH and SS....  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
WDS-149......  NSPS, Woodstoves  ................  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Wood-Burning and
                                                    Electric Sauna
                                                    Stoves.
WDS-150......  NSPS, Woodstoves  QQQQ............  Clarification on Test
                                                    Method 28 WHH-PTS
                                                    and Subpart QQQQ for
                                                    Hydronic Boiler
                                                    Certification Tests.
Z180001......  NESHAP, NSPS....  J, UUU..........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Wet Gas Scrubber at
                                                    a Refinery.
Z180002......  NESHAP, NSPS....  J, UUU..........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Wet Gas Scrubber at
                                                    a Refinery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9785]]

Abstracts

Abstract for [1500085]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that the exemption at 40 CFR 60.50c(f) for 
``any pyrolysis unit'' applies to the CoronaLux plasma assisted 
pyrolytic system to be installed at the eCycling International, LLC 
facility located in Ulmer, South Carolina?
    A1: No. The exemption at 40 CFR 60.50c(f) does not apply to the 
CoronaLux system because the definition of ``pyrolysis'' at 40 CFR 
60.51c is the ``endothermic gasification of hospital waste . . .'' and 
the CoronaLux system is not endothermic throughout the system.
    Q2: Does EPA determine that the CoronaLux system would be subject 
to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ec (hospital/medical/infectious waste 
incinerator (HMIWI) standards)?
    A2: Yes. The CoronaLux system, if constructed and operated as 
described, is a HMIWI, as defined in 40 CFR 60.51c. The EPA determines 
that the operation of the primary chamber conforms to the definition of 
``primary chamber'' in the HMIWI rule; in which the chamber receives 
waste material, in which waste is ignited, and from which it is 
removed. The low energy plasma chamber and the residence chamber are 
``secondary chambers'' under the rule because they receive combustion 
gases from the primary chamber and the combustion process is completed.

Abstract for [1700009]

    Q: Does EPA determine that Monell CO2, LLC's (Monell) 
CO2 Flex Plant, located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, that 
processes CO2 used in field stimulation is subject to NSPS OOOO, 
Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, 
Transmission and Distribution for which Construction, Modification or 
Reconstruction Commenced After August 23, 2011, and on or before 
September 18, 2015?
    A: Yes. The EPA determines that the Monell CO2 Flex 
Plant is a natural gas processing plant subject to NSPS OOOO. Per 40 
CFR 60.5430, the definition of natural gas processing plant includes 
the extraction of natural gas liquids (NGLs), and the Monell 
CO2 Flex Plant extracts NGLs.

Abstract for [1700037]

    Q1: Does EPA agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 
Quality's (ODEQ) interpretation for reporting of Continuous Monitoring 
System (CMS) downtime, and the methodology for calculating emissions 
based upon a valid hour of data collected?
    A1: Yes. EPA agrees with ODEQ on how CMS downtime and CMS reported 
emissions should be determined and reported.
    Q2: What interpretation for reporting of CMS downtime did EPA 
concur with ODEQ?
    A2: EPA agreed that each facility should record and report each 
period of CMS monitor downtime regardless of duration. EPA also 
clarified the intent of 40 CFR 60.7(d). Since minutes are used to 
assess opacity compliance, minutes must also be the unit of measure in 
determining downtime percentages of total operating time. Emission 
limitations other than opacity are typically based upon hourly block or 
rolling averages, so assessment of compliance and determining downtime 
percentages of total operating time needs to be on the same basis 
(i.e., hourly).
    Q3: What interpretation for calculating CMS downtime did EPA concur 
with ODEQ?
    A3: EPA agreed that the calculation of the hourly average emissions 
requires using each valid 1-minute reading within an hourly monitoring 
time, not four 15-minute averages within each hour. In accordance with 
40 CFR 60.13(h)(2)(v), all valid data points within the monitoring 
period must be used.

Abstract for [1700038]

    Q: Does EPA conditionally 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 NSPS subpart Ja at the Valero St. Charles refinery located in Norco, 
Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request provided that all 
other requirements of the monitoring procedures of NSPS Subpart Ja for 
total reduced sulfur (TRS) are followed. The alternative span gases 
will address safety concerns involving storage, handling, and 
engineering controls. EPA conditionally approved Valero's proposed 
calibration gas concentration ranges for conducting daily drift checks, 
relative accuracy test audits, and cylinder gas audits, using total 
sulfur ovens to continuously analyze and monitor TRS. Additionally, 
Valero must conduct a linearity analysis on the total sulfur ovens once 
every three years to determine linearity across the entire range of 
expected concentrations of acid gas vent streams.

Abstract for [1700039]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan to allow sulfur 
loading arm vent streams from sulfur recovery units (SRUs) to be 
combusted in the respective Tail Gas Incinerators (TGIs) under NSPS 
subpart J at the Valero Houston Refinery located in Houston, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that both SRUs are affected facilities under 
NSPS subpart J, and the TGIs have continuous emission monitors which 
comply with the applicable sulfur dioxide emission limit of 250 parts 
per million (ppm). The sulfur loading arm vent streams include small 
amounts of hydrogen sulfide vapor at low pressure. These streams are 
similar to sulfur pit vapors that are routed to the TGIs. EPA has 
previously determined that such vapors may be controlled by TGIs 
because sulfur pits are considered to be part of an SRU.

Abstract for [1700040]

    Q: Does EPA approve a modification to the July 21, 2016 prior 
approval of an 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 (U.S.A.) 
Incorporated (Suncor) Commerce City Refinery in Commerce City, Colorado 
subject to NSPS subpart Ja? Prior approval is at ADI Control Number 
1600033.
    A: Yes. EPA approves Suncor's AMP for a flare at Plant 3, 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 [1700041]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan for combusting an off-gas vent stream from a catalytic 
oxidizer unit as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under NSPS for 
Refineries part 60

[[Page 9786]]

subpart Ja at the Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s (Valero's) refinery 
located in Texas City, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on the process operating parameters and monitoring 
data submitted by Valero, EPA conditionally approves the exemption 
request. EPA determines that the Valero catalytic oxidizer unit vent 
stream is inherently low in sulfur according to 40 CFR 
60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur content or process operating 
parameters for the off-gas vent stream change from representations made 
for the exemption determination, the company must document the changes, 
re-evaluate the vent stream characteristics, and follow the appropriate 
steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.107a(b)(3). The exemption determination 
should also be referenced and attached to the facility's new source 
review and Title V permit for federal enforceability.

Abstract for [1700042]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan to allow sulfur 
loading arm vent streams from sulfur recovery plants (SRPs) to be 
combusted in the respective Tail Gas Incinerators (TGIs) under NSPS 
subpart J at the Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s refinery (Valero) 
located in Texas City, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP for both SRPs are affected 
facilities under NSPS Subpart J, and the TGIs have continuous emission 
monitors which comply with the applicable sulfur dioxide emission limit 
of 250 parts per million. The sulfur loading arm vent streams include 
small amounts of hydrogen sulfide vapor at low pressure. These streams 
are similar to sulfur pit vapors that are routed to the TGIs. EPA has 
previously determined that such vapors may be controlled by TGIs 
because sulfur pits are considered to be part of an SRP.

Abstract for [1700044]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request for the 
distillation units at the Albemarle Corporation Pasadena, Texas 
facility, which is covered under 40 CFR part 60, NSPS for Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations (Subpart NNN) 
and Reactor Processes (Subpart RRR)?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approved the request for meeting Subpart 
RRR requirements in lieu of those in Subpart NNN for testing, 
monitoring, and record-keeping, related specifically to the use of car 
seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow indicators for compliance 
with the standards of both Subparts. Subpart NNN requires flow 
indicators at each valve. Under Subpart RRR, in lieu of flow indicators 
each valve would be treated as a bypass line and must be secured with a 
car-seal or lock and key configuration. Each seal or closure mechanism 
must be visually inspected monthly and maintained in the closed 
position so that the vent stream is not diverted through the closed 
line. In addition, Albemarle must also comply with the associated 
record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 60.705(d)(2) and 40 CFR 60.705(s) 
in the initial report to the state agency and maintain a copy onsite 
for the life of the system to ensure that the affected vent streams are 
routed to appropriate control devices under this approval.

Abstract for [1700045]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring and Testing Waiver 
request for the vent gas streams from the Olefins Manufacturing Unit 
and Demethanizer Distillation Column Vents at the Eastman Chemical 
Company facility, located in Longview, Texas, which is covered under 40 
CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound 
(VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
(SOCMI) Distillation Operations (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes 
(subpart RRR)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for meeting subpart RRR in lieu of 
subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping for 
use of process boilers, furnaces and heaters as control devices for 
compliance with the standards of both subparts. The vent streams will 
be introduced with the primary fuel for each combustion device. None of 
the vents have bypasses directly to atmosphere. A copy of the schematic 
required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) is required with the initial report to the 
state agency and must be maintained on site for the life of the system 
to ensure that the affected vent streams are being routed to 
appropriate control devices without bypass.

Abstract for [1700046]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the coal storage and transport operation 
located at the Kinder Morgan Hickman Bulk Terminal in Blytheville, 
Arkansas is an affected coal preparation plant subject to the 
requirements of NSPS subpart Y?
    A: No. Based on Kinder Morgan's process description and review of 
support and guidance documents for subpart Y, EPA determines that 
although the Hickman Bulk Terminal stores, loads, and transports more 
than 200 tons per day of pre-processed coal and coke, no additional 
processing of coal that involves breaking, crushing, cleaning, or 
drying takes place at the facility.

Abstract for [1700047]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring request for the 
distillation unit at the Nova Molecular Technologies, Incorporated 
Pasadena, Texas facility, which is covered under 40 CFR part 60, 
Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions 
from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 
Distillation Operations (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes (subpart 
RRR)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request for meeting 
subpart RRR requirements in lieu of those in subpart NNN for testing, 
monitoring, and record-keeping, related specifically to the use of car 
seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow indicators for compliance 
with the standards of both subparts. NSPS subpart NNN requires flow 
indicators at each valve. Under subpart RRR, in lieu of flow indicators 
each valve would be treated as a bypass line and must be secured with a 
car-seal or lock and key configuration. Each seal or closure mechanism 
must be visually inspected monthly and maintained in the closed 
position so that the vent stream is not diverted through the closed 
line.

Abstract for [1700048]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan for combusting an off-gas vent stream from a lean amine 
tank as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under NSPS for 
Refineries part 60 subpart Ja at the Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s 
(Valero's) refinery located in Texas City, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on the process operating parameters and monitoring 
data submitted by Valero, EPA conditionally approves the exemption 
request. EPA determines that Valero's lean amine tank vent stream is 
inherently low in sulfur according to 60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur 
content or process operating parameters for the off-gas vent stream 
change from representations made for the exemption determination, the 
company must document the changes, re-evaluate the vent stream 
characteristics, and follow the appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 
60.107a(b)(3). The exemption determination should also be referenced 
and attached to the facility's new source review and Title V permit for 
federal enforceability.

[[Page 9787]]

Abstract for [1700049]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan for combusting the combined off-gas vent stream from 
API separators and vacuum truck loading as an inherently low-content 
sulfur stream under NSPS for Refineries part 60 subpart Ja at the 
Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s (Valero's) refinery located in Texas 
City, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on the process operating parameters and monitoring 
data submitted by Valero, EPA conditionally approves the exemption 
because Valero's API separator and vacuum truck loading combined vent 
stream is inherently low in sulfur according to 40 CFR 
60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur content or process operating 
parameters for the off-gas vent stream change from representations made 
for the exemption determination, the company must document the changes, 
re-evaluate the vent stream characteristics, and follow the appropriate 
steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.107a(b)(3). The exemption determination 
should also be referenced and attached to the facility's new source 
review and Title V permit for federal enforceability.

Abstract for [1700050]

    Q1: Does EPA approve United Taconite LLC (United) to use daily 
visible emission checks instead of a Method 9 opacity observation test 
for the intermittent, backup winter fluxstone unloading fugitive 
source, regulated by 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOO, at its fluxstone 
handling facility in Forbes, Minnesota?
    A1: No. EPA denies United's request to waive Method 9 testing on 
the winter fluxstone unloading facilities. United must comply with the 
requirements of subpart OOO by conducting the required testing.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement for Method 9 visible emission 
performance testing requirements for affected facilities inside 
United's fluxstone storage building?
    A2: No. EPA denies United's request to waive Method 9 testing on 
the fluxstone storage building. United must comply with the 
requirements of subpart OOO by conducting the required testing.
    Q3: Does EPA determine that United meets the testing requirements 
for its EQUI 173 and 174 emission units with a single test using the 
stack from the common control device?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves United's request to meet the testing 
requirements on summer unloading conveyors by conducting a combined 
emission test.
    Q4: Does EPA determine that the appropriate limit for the fabric 
filter control device controlling EQUI 173 and 174 is 0.014 grains per 
dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves United's request to comply with an emission 
limit of 0.014 gr/dcsf on the combined operations of both summer 
unloading conveyors and to demonstrate compliance at the fabric filter 
control device.
    Q5: Does EPA determine that a compliant performance test of EQUI 
173 and 174 is sufficient evidence to grant a testing requirement 
waiver for the EQUI 175 facility?
    A5: Yes. EPA conditionally approves United's request to waive the 
conveyor EQUI 175 testing requirement of an initial performance test at 
the fabric filter controlling the winter fluxstone unloading conveyor. 
United must first conduct testing to demonstrate the compliance of the 
fabric filter during the combined testing of the summer unloading 
conveyors STRU I and associated TREA 3 before EPA will waive the 
initial testing requirement.

Abstract for [1700052]

    Q: Does EPA approve Magnetation LLC's request for a performance 
test deadline extension for dry crushing operations at its Plant 2 
facility subject to NSPS subpart LL and located in Grand Rapids, 
Minnesota due to the fact that the dry crushing equipment was removed 
from the site prior to the performance test deadline?
    A: No. EPA denies the request for a performance test extension. 
However, since the dry crushing operations are no longer present at the 
facility, the requirement to conduct a performance test is no longer 
applicable. Any new dry crushing equipment will be subject to all 
applicable permit requirements, NSPS subpart LL, and the performance 
testing requirements of 40 CFR 60.8.

Abstract for [1700053]

    Q: Does EPA determine that a flare controlling the purge gas stream 
of a landfill gas treatment system siloxane removal process at the 
Liberty Landfill, Incorporated (Liberty) landfill located in 
Monticello, Indiana is subject to the control requirements of 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) under NSPS subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the purge gas stream at the Liberty 
landfill constitutes an ``atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 
system'' and is subject to the control requirements of 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B).

Abstract for [1700054]

    Q: Does EPA approve Halc[oacute]n Resources' request for nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) performance testing on turbines subject to NSPS 
subpart GG at three locations on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation 
in Dunn County, North Dakota to be allowed to test at 2 loads instead 
of 4 loads?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative testing request for the 
performance testing for NOX required under 40 CFR 60.335. 
The required tests may be conducted at an initial maximum load and a 
second load 15-25% lower than maximum load of each turbine for 42-
minute test run times, double the required 21-minute test run time 
outlined in Method 20, section 8.5. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), EPA 
waives the requirement under 40 CFR 60.335(b)(2) for Halc[oacute]n 
Resources to conduct the four evenly-spaced point load test for 
NOX emissions for gas turbines at the San Luis/Alamosito 
Pad, Sherman Pad and Yale Pad facilities contingent upon doubling the 
run times of each of the three tests.

Abstract for [1800001]

    Q1: Does EPA approve additional Tier 2 testing in the intervening 
months between when the landfill gas collection and control system 
(GCCS) Design Plan is due and when the GCCS is required to be 
operational at the Central Sanitary Landfill (CSL) located in Pierson, 
Michigan and subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart WWW?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that additional Tier 2 testing can be 
conducted after the Design Plan has been submitted and conditionally 
approves your proposed alternative testing methodology, which is 
consistent with previous determinations issued by EPA.
    Q2: Does EPA approve CSL to use alternative Tier 2 testing 
methodology where the actual flowrate data is measured from the header 
of its voluntary GCCS and the equation set forth in 40 CFR 60.754(b) in 
lieu of the procedure at 40 CFR 60.754(a)(1) so long as it can fully 
account for the total quantity of landfill gas being generated by the 
landfill?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative Tier 2 testing 
methodology based on CSL can demonstrate that it is collecting for the 
total quantity of landfill gas being generated by the landfill to the 
satisfaction of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Abstract for [1800003]

    Q: Does EPA determine that Dyno Nobel Incorporated's (Dyno) Micro-
Auto

[[Page 9788]]

Gasification System (``MAGS'') located at its Wolf Lake, Illinois 
facility is subject to the NSPS subpart CCCC, Standards of Performance 
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units?
    A: No. Based on the Dyno's description of the MAGS, EPA determines 
that the MAGS unit is not subject to NSPS subpart CCCC because does not 
combust solid waste as defined in 40 CFR part 241. The gasification 
unit does not meet the regulatory criterion of being ``any distinct 
operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts, 
or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste as that 
term is defined in 40 CFR part 241.''

Abstract for [1800005]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for O-Zone 
Industrial Services (O-Zone) to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring 
system, when performing tank degassing and other similar operations 
controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries that 
are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja?
    A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas 
streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring 
data furnished, EPA conditionally approves O-Zone's AMP for tank 
degassing and other temporary operations at various petroleum 
refineries located in the region. EPA is including proposed operating 
parameter limits and data which the refineries must furnish as part of 
the conditional approval.

Abstract for [1800006]

    Q: For flares subject to NSPS subpart Ja and which are normally 
recovering flare gases, does EPA approve BP Products North America, 
Incorporated's (BP's) request to conduct an enhanced cylinder gas audit 
(CGA) at its Whiting, Indiana refinery rather than a relative accuracy 
test audit (RATA) for the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) continuous emission 
monitoring systems (CEMS)?
    A: No. EPA determines that BP can conduct the RATA due to the 
location of its H2S CEMS and has not demonstrated why foregoing the 
RATA in lieu of an enhanced CGA is necessary or more beneficial than 
other alternative monitoring options.

Abstract for [1800007]

    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement to conduct a Method 
5 performance test under NSPS OOO, Standards of Performance for 
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, and demonstration of compliance 
by the use of Method 9 for baghouses located at the Unimin Corporation 
facility in Troup, Texas (Unimin)?
    A: Yes. EPA waives conducting Method 5 test on the baghouse that 
controls emissions from the silos and bagging operations due to the 
difficulty to complete the test due to the location and orientation of 
the baghouse stack outlets, and the intermittent nature of loading 
operations with little advance notice and very short durations, which 
are not sustained long enough to meet the sampling requirements of 
Method 5. Unimin's alternate compliance demonstration based on any two-
minute average of opacity from the baghouse stacks not exceeding five 
percent will provide adequate assurance of compliance with both the 
particulate concentration and opacity limits in subpart OOO. The Method 
9 testing must be conducted in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of NSPS subparts A and OOO.

Abstract for [1800008]

    Q1: Are tanks that meet the exemption levels of 40 CFR 60.110b(b) 
subject to any recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.116b, including 
40 CFR 60.116b(b), of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 
subpart Kb?
    A1: No. The EPA responded to the Oklahoma Department of 
Environmental Quality (OKDEQ) that if a tank meets the exemption 
requirement under 40 CFR 60.110b(b) or (d), the requirements under 40 
CFR 60.116b do not apply.
    Q2: Is an existing Group I or II storage tank that is an affected 
source under NSPS subpart Kb, but which meets the exemption levels of 
60.110b(b), required to comply with the recordkeeping requirement of 
NSPS subpart Kb?
    A2: No. The EPA responded to OKDEPQ that if a Group 1 or Group 2 
storage vessel can meet the exemption of NSPS subpart Kb, then the 
recordkeeping provisions of 40 CFR 60.116b do not apply. The exemptions 
at 40 CFR 60.110b(b) and (d) begin with the phrase ``This subpart does 
not apply to . . .'' 40 CFR 63.640(n)(1) states that if a Group 1 or 
Group 2 storage vessel under NESHAP subpart CC is part of an existing 
source, it is required to comply only with the requirements of NSPS 
subpart Kb. Since NESHAP subpart CC references NSPS Kb for existing 
sources, the exemption in subpart Kb takes precedence.

Abstract for [1800009]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to allow 
alternate span gas concentration values for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on 
total reduced sulfur (TRS) continuous emissions monitoring systems 
(CEMS) for six flares subject to NSPS subparts A and Ja, located at the 
HollyFrontier Navajo Refining Company's (HollyFrontier Navajo's) two 
petroleum refineries in Artesia and Lovington, New Mexico?
    A: Yes. Based on the process data and analyzer information 
submitted, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request with specified 
concentration ranges. HollyFrontier Navajo installed a ThermoFisher 
Scientific SOLA II pulsed ultraviolet fluorescence (PUVF) detector to 
continuously analyze and record the high span TRS concentrations at the 
flares. Holly Frontier Navajo must conduct linearity analysis on the 
SOLA II PUVF detector once every three years to determine the 
detector's linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations 
of acid gas vent streams. The analysis shall demonstrate that linearity 
is maintained for all six flares for the vent gas stream H2S 
concentrations. A report of each completed linearity analysis shall be 
submitted to EPA Region 6 and to the New Mexico Environmental 
Department, and maintained in each facility's on-site records.

Abstract for [1800013]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request 
for two internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks located at the 
Phillips 66 East Saint Louis, Illinois facility (Phillips 66) and 
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an AMP that allows Phillips 66 to conduct 
inspections of the IFR tank using a top-side in-service internal 
inspection methodology.

Abstract for [M170015]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under MACT 
subpart R for monitoring of alternative operating parameters at a 
thermal oxidation system in lieu of temperature monitoring at the 
firebox during loading of gasoline cargo tanks at the Magellan Pipeline 
Company, LP's (Magellan's) bulk gasoline distribution terminal located 
in Enid, Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP for monitoring of the presence of a 
pilot flame, operation of the assist-air blower, and operation of the 
vapor line valve for the thermal oxidation system. Magellan submitted 
results from a performance test conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 
63.425(b), demonstrating overall compliance with the emission standard. 
Additionally, Magellan proposed

[[Page 9789]]

monthly and semi-annual inspections to ensure efficient operation of 
the associated monitoring equipment.

Abstract for [M170016]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan to use a 
sampling technique which is different from that specified under 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart F for the heat exchange system at the Rubicon LLC 
facility located in Geismar, Louisiana?
    A: No. EPA denies the request based on lack of sufficient 
justification for using the alternate sampling method, including 
failing to sufficiently demonstrate that composite sample collection 
would achieve an equivalent level of monitoring as three sets of grab 
samples taken at the entrance and exit of the heat exchange system, as 
required by 40 CFR 63.104(b)(5).

Abstract for [M170019]

    Q: Does EPA determine that additional time needed for the Roche 
Diagnostic Operations, Incorporated (Roche) facility, located in 
Indianapolis, Indiana, to switch from the facility's emergency 
generators back to utility-provided power after a power outage has 
ended should be considered operation in an ``emergency situation'' 
under 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
    A: No. EPA determines that operation of the facility's emergency 
engines as a result of a power outage is operation in an emergency 
situation until the first available opportunity to be switched back to 
the local utility-provided power. Generally, any period of operation 
that occurs after Roche could have switched back to utility power but 
chose not to do so for operational convenience should not be considered 
operation in an emergency situation.

Abstract for [M170021]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Dow Chemical Company's (Dow's) proposal to use 
a carbon adsorption system to control emissions under 40 CFR part 63 
subpart HHHHH from the Structural Adhesives Process Unit at its 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facility in Midland, Michigan?
    A1: No. Dow did not submit sufficient information for EPA to 
evaluate the proposal to use a carbon adsorption system.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Dow's proposed operating parameter for the 
carbon adsorption system?
    A2: No. EPA determines that Dow's proposed operating parameter is 
insufficient to ensure that the carbon bed is operating properly at all 
times.

Abstract for [M170022]

    Q: Does EPA approve at Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan 
facility the use of alternative monitoring of pressure relief devices 
for portable containers per 40 CFR part 63 subparts JJJ and MMM?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided in Dow's request, EPA 
conditionally approves alternative monitoring to perform and document 
visual observations of the pressure release devices on the portable 
containers used to manage waste and wastewater. Dow demonstrated the 
infeasibility of using hardwire and wireless pressure release device 
technology to continuously monitor these technologies for portable 
containers that are moved frequently, primarily rented, in some cases 
are received from off-site locations, and not dedicated to specific 
regulated wastewater streams. The conditions for approval are included 
in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [M170023]

    Q: Does EPA approve Brembo North America, Incorporated's (Brembo's) 
request to use a Continuous Parametric Monitoring System in lieu of a 
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for monitoring Volatile 
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutant (VOHAP) emissions under 40 CFR part 63 
subpart EEEEE from an automated castings shakeout line at its grey iron 
foundry in Homer, Michigan?
    A: No. EPA determines that Brembo has not provided sufficient 
information to demonstrate that operating a VOHAP CEMS device on its 
shakeout line would be technically infeasible or impractical.

Abstract for [M170024]

    Q1: Does EPA approve The Dow Chemical Company's (Dow's) proposal to 
discontinue use of the Impinging Liquid Adsorption System and instead 
use a carbon adsorption system under 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH at 
its miscellaneous coating manufacturing facility in Midland, Michigan?
    A1: No. Dow did not submit sufficient information for EPA to 
evaluate the proposal to use a carbon adsorption system.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Dow's proposed operating parameter for the 
carbon adsorption system?
    A2: No. Dow's proposed operating parameter is insufficient to 
ensure that the carbon bed is operating properly at all times.

Abstract for [M170025]

    Q: Alcoa Warrick LLC (Alcoa) is in the process of restarting a 
smelter idled on March 31, 2016, and is requesting additional time 
under 40 CFR subpart LL for the installation of a carbon adsorber 
system necessary to meet the required POM removal rate at the pitch 
tank(s) located in the paste production plant in Newburgh, Indiana. 
Does EPA grant Alcoa's request for an additional 60 days to the October 
16, 2017 compliance date contained in 40 CFR 63.847(a)(2)(iii) for the 
pitch storage tank POM limit provisions of 40 CFR 63.843(d)?
    A: Yes. Since the additional 60 days is necessary for the 
installation of controls, EPA grants the limited extension in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A).

Abstract for [M170026]

    Q: Does EPA approve Associated Milk Producers, Incorporated's 
request for a performance test time extension under 40 CFR part 63 
subpart JJJJJJ, so that the facility, located in Jim Falls, Wisconsin, 
can perform the test concurrent with another state-required test to 
minimize the cost of testing?
    A: No. Based on the information provided, EPA determines that there 
are no grounds for an extension under NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ or 40 CFR 
63.7 (Performance Testing Requirements). The request involves a coal-
fired boiler, and the test is required to demonstrate compliance 
pursuant to NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ.

Abstract for [M170027]

    Q: Does EPA approve Allnex USA Incorporated's (Allnex's) 
alternative monitoring request to not monitor the pH of a water 
scrubber for a methylated resin process subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart OOO at its Kalamazoo, Michigan facility?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the requirement to monitor scrubber effluent pH 
for once-through water scrubber systems pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.1415(c)(2), which allows an owner or operator who uses one of the 
control devices included in 40 CFR 63.1415(b) (e.g., a scrubber) to 
request approval to monitor parameters other than those specified in 
Table 3 of Subpart OOO. Since methanol and formaldehyde are not acidic 
gases, are both highly soluble in water, and the scrubber is a once-
through system, the pH of the scrubber effluent does not affect the 
scrubber's removal efficiency.

Abstract for [M180001]

    Q: Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8000(d)(3) and 63.8075(c), does EPA 
approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) from The Dow Chemical 
Company (Dow) for use of alternative operating parameters in lieu. of 
the parameters identified in

[[Page 9790]]

40 CFR 63.990(c)(3) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH, for a carbon adsorption located at the twin extruder 
unit located at the coating manufacturing facility in Midland, 
Michigan?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted by Dow, EPA 
conditionally approves Dow's proposed AMP to monitor the instantaneous 
weight of each carbon bed and hourly average outlet temperature of each 
bed in the series, if the hourly average temperatures demonstrate that 
at least one of the beds is operating properly such that it can achieve 
at least 95 percent reduction in HAP emissions, no deviation of the 
temperature operating limit has occurred.

Abstract for [M180002]

    Q: Does EPA approve Quemetco Incorporated's (Quemetco) alternative 
monitoring plan (AMP) to use the furnace firing rate as a surrogate for 
temperature to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for 
total hydrocarbon (THC) and dioxins and furans (D/F) emissions 
standards for all furnace operating scenarios at its Indianapolis, 
Indiana facility subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart X?
    A: The Quemetco's AMP does not address the scenario for periods 
when only the electric furnace is in operation. Therefore, the EPA 
approves the use of furnace firing rate as a surrogate for temperature 
to demonstrate continuous compliance only for the reverberatory furnace 
when is in operation. For all other periods (i.e., when only the 
electric furnace is operating), Quemetco must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the THC and D/F through continuous temperature 
monitoring consistent with 40 CFR 63.548(j).

Abstract for [M180004]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that a mist eliminator controlling emissions 
from only a Group 2 tank needs to comply with item 3 or 4 of Table 5 of 
the NESHAP subpart LLLLL at the CertainTeed Corporation facility 
located in Shakopee, Minnesota?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that a mist eliminator needs to comply with 
item 4 of Table 5 of the NESHAP subpart LLLLL because a mist eliminator 
is not a combustion device.
    Q2: Does EPA approve of monitoring the mist eliminator to ensure a 
minimum pressure drop is met and performing daily visible emission 
checks to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standard?
    A2: No. EPA determines the mist eliminator must be monitored to 
ensure a pressure drop is maintained between a range and that the gas 
inlet temperature is maintained below a certain temperature established 
by the most recent stack test or according to the manufacturer's 
specifications.

Abstract for [M180005]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to change 
the fixed 30-day frequency for inspections required for closed-vent 
collection systems, subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart S, at the 
Clearwater Paper Corporation (Clearwater) Cypress Bend Mill in McGehee, 
AR?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Clearwater's AMP request to 
conduct inspections on a monthly basis rather than every thirty days. 
EPA accepts the proposed submittal of a site-specific Leak Detection 
and Repair (LDAR) plan, but does not approve the safety height 
threshold of four feet, referencing the requirement at 40 CFR 
63.148(h)(l), in which the safety height threshold is specified as 2 
meters (approximately 6 feet). EPA also conditionally approves 
alternative monitoring provisions for inspection and repair of 
inherently unsafe or inaccessible equipment, as part of the site-
specific plan. The submitted plan must incorporate the approved 
conditions outlined in EPA's response letter. Except for inherently 
unsafe or inaccessible equipment, the facility will satisfy all other 
applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.453(k) and (l).

Abstract for [M180011]

    Q: Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8000(d)(3) and 63.8075(c), does EPA 
approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) from The Dow Chemical 
Company (Dow) to use the weight of the carbon bed and outlet 
temperature of each bed in the series in lieu of using an organic 
monitoring device capable of providing a continuous record at its 
coating manufacturing for a carbon adsorption for the Structural 
Adhesives Process Unit located at its facility in Midland, Michigan, 
that is subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Dow's proposed AMP, including proposed 
parameters, operating limits and design evaluation, with clarifications 
relating to the proposed parameters.

Abstract for [WDS-149]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that the 2015 Wood Heater regulations 
(2015 Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New 
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (subpart AAA)) 
apply to the manufacture of Kuuma sauna stoves by Lamppa Manufacturing 
Incorporated (Lamppa) located in Tower, Minnesota?
    A: No. After review of the information on the and intended use of 
the sauna stoves, EPA determines that subpart AAA does not apply to 
Lamppa's sauna stoves since these do not meet the definition of wood 
heater. The sauna stoves as manufactured are intended solely for the 
purpose of heating a ``sauna hot-room'' and are not meant to be a heat 
source for any other area, including residential space (``homes or 
living quarters''). Subpart AAA defines a wood heater as ``an enclosed, 
wood burning-appliance capable of and intended for residential space 
heating or space heating and domestic water heating.'' For subpart AAA 
to be applicable, the wood heater would have to be meant for 
residential purposes. The term ``residential'' is commonly defined as a 
space designed and used for people to live in. Therefore, the Kuuma 
sauna stoves are intended to heat the sauna hot-room only and not to be 
used for residential use.

Abstract for [WDS-150]

    Q: If RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB uses Method 28 WHH-PTS 
when conducting certification tests for a hydronic boiler, does EPA 
determine that the method's startup phase measurement satisfies the 
first hour particulate matter (PM) emissions measurement as required by 
the 2015 Wood Heater Rule (the Rule), subpart QQQQ, at 40 CFR 
60.5476(c)(6))?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the Method 28 WHH-PTS startup phase 
measurement does meet the regulatory to measure PM first-hour emissions 
measurement requirement with startup conditions. The intent of the Rule 
to measure potentially higher emissions associated with startup 
conditions is obtained by the test method which separately captures the 
emissions from the explicitly defined startup phase. Test Method 28 
WHH-PTS not only measures PM emissions for the entire test duration, 
including the startup phase, the Method also clearly defines the 
startup phase ``as the period from the start of the test until 15 
percent of the test fuel charge is consumed.''

Abstract for [Z180001]

    Q: Does EPA approve Phillips 66 Company's request to modify a 
previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas

[[Page 9791]]

Scrubber (WGS) on a the No. 4 Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 
subject to NSPS part 60, subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP 
part 63, 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 its Ponca City 
Refinery, located in Ponca City, Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and EPA review of the 
test results and process specific supplemental information provided by 
Phillips 66 Company, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request for 
operating parameter limits for the WGS. The OPLs approved for 
demonstrating compliance with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas 
Ratio (L/G), minimum water pressure to the quench/spray tower nozzles, 
and minimum pressure drop across filter modules/cyclolabs. The revised 
AMP must include data in support of retaining the independent OPLs 
established for the scrubber under NSPS subpart J, based on a 
performance test under worst case expected operating conditions, which 
will also meet the newly added opacity monitoring requirements under 
MACT subpart UUU.

Abstract for [Z180002]

    Q: Does EPA approve Phillips 66 Company's request to modify a 
previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas 
Scrubber (WGS) on the No. 5 Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 
subject to NSPS part 60, subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP 
Part 63, 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 its Ponca City 
Refinery located in Ponca City Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. based upon the design of the WGS unit and EPA review of the 
test results and process specific supplemental information provided by 
Phillips 66 Company, EPA conditionally approves the request for 
operating parameter limits (OPLs) for the WGS. The OPLs approved for 
demonstrating compliance with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas 
Ratio (L/G), minimum water pressure to the quench/spray tower nozzles, 
and minimum pressure drop across filter modules/cyclolabs. The revised 
AMP must include data in support of retaining the independent OPLs 
established for the scrubber under NSPS subpart J, based on a 
performance test under worst case expected operating conditions, which 
will also meet the newly added opacity monitoring requirements under 
MACT subpart UUU.

    Dated: November 20, 2018.
John Dombrowski,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance.

    Editorial Note:  This document was received by the Federal 
Register on February 25, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2019-03593 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


