Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31235/applicability-determination-index-adi-data-system-recent-posting-agency-applicability-determinations
Timestamp: 2018-03-24 21:53:40
Document Index: 563228551

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 60', 'art 61', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63']

A Notice by the Environmental Protection Agency on 12/28/2016
81 FR 95585
95585-95591 (7 pages)
Abstract for [1500007]
Abstract for [1500050]
Abstract for [1500053]
Abstract for [1500061]
Abstract for [1500075]
Abstract for [1500076]
Abstract for [1500077]
Abstract for [1500078]
Abstract for [1500079]
Abstract for [1500080]
Abstract for [1500084]
Abstract for [1600001]
Abstract for [1600002]
Abstract for [1600005]
Abstract for [1600006]
Abstract for [1600007]
Abstract for [1600008]
Abstract for [M150035]
Abstract for [M150038]
Abstract for [M150039]
Abstract for [M150040]
Abstract for [M160001]
Abstract for [M160002]
Abstract for [M160003]
Abstract for [M160004]
Abstract for [Z150003]
Abstract for [Z150007]
Abstract for [Z150008]
Abstract for [Z150012]
Abstract for [Z160001]
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31235 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31235
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 95585
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, monitoring decisions or regulatory interpretations, 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.
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.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 30 such documents added to the ADI on December 6, 2016. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under “Air” at: https://www2.epa.gov/​compliance/​resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.
We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is “of nationwide scope or effect” for purposes of CAA 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.
1500007 NSPS Eb Waiver of System Operational Limits During Performance Test.
1500050 MACT, NESHAP, NSPS A, Db, JJJJJJ Extension Request for Initial Performance Test at Coal-Fired Boiler.
1500053 NSPS Ja Alternative Monitoring Plan for Flares at a Petroleum Refinery.
1500061 NSPS IIII Regulatory Interpretation for Bi-fuel Engine Kits.
1500075 NSPS KKK, OOOO, VV, VVa Applicability Determination for a Natural Gas Processing Plant.
1500076 NSPS Ja Applicability Determination for a Condensate Splitter Processing Facility.
1500077 NSPS CCCC, DDDD Applicability Determination for Thermal Oxidizer.
Start Printed Page 95586
1500078 NSPS OOO Applicability Determination for Equipment Replacement at Salt Recovery Production Line.
1500079 NSPS DD Applicability Determination for Wire Screen Column Dryers.
1500080 NSPS JJJ Applicability Determination for Closed Loop Dry to Dry Cleaning Equipment.
1500084 NSPS KKK, NNN, OOOO, RRR Alternative Monitoring for Vent Streams Flow Monitoring and Pilot Light Monitoring.
1600001 GACT, MACT, NESHAP, NSPS CCCC, DDDDD, JJJJJJ Applicability Determination for a Stoker Boiler.
1600002 NSPS OOO Extension Request for Performance Test at Sand Mine.
1600005 NSPS LLLL Alternative Monitoring for Granular Activated Carbon and Fugitive Ash Monitoring at Sewage Sludge Incinerator.
1600006 NSPS LLLL Alternative Monitoring for Wet Electrostatic Precipitator at Sewage Sludge Incinerator.
1600007 NSPS Ja Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Flares at Chemical Plant.
1600008 NSPS J, Ja Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Portable Temporary Thermal Oxidizer Units at Refinery Degassing Operations.
M150035 MACT, NESHAP HHHHHHH Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber at Polyvinyl Chloride Plant.
M150038 MACT, NESHAP N Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Air Pollution Control Device at Chrome Plating Facility.
M150039 MACT, NESHAP DDDDD Alternative Monitoring for Wet Scrubbers at Pulp and Paper Mill.
M150040 MACT, NESHAP DDDDD Alternative Monitoring for Wet Venturi Scrubber and Power Boiler.
M160001 MACT, NESHAP RRR Applicability Determination for an Aluminum Chip Dryer.
M160002 MACT, NESHAP DDDD, DDDDD Applicability Determination for Drying Kilns and Boilers.
M160003 MACT, NESHAP DDDDD Applicability Determination for a Biomass Boiler Sub-Categorization.
M160004 MACT, NESHAP BBBBB Applicability Determination for Semiconductor Facility.
Z150003 MACT, NESHAP BBBBBB Alternative Monitoring for Internal Floating Roof Tanks.
Z150007 MACT, NESHAP ZZZZ Regulatory Interpretation of Duke Energy Emergency Generator Programs.
Z150008 MACT, NESHAP, NSPS IIII, JJJJ, ZZZZ Regulatory Interpretation on Stack Testing for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
Z150012 GACT, MACT, NESHAP JJJJJJ Regulatory Interpretation of Emissions Test Data for Wood-Fired Boilers.
Z160001 GACT, MACT, NESHAP DDDDDDD Clarification of Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule.
A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request does not meet the definition of a “force majeure event”. The EPA cannot conclude that the delay in full operation of B6A in sufficient time to conduct the required initial performance tests was beyond the control of the EAFB; therefore, the EPA is denying the EAFB's request to extend the April 26, 2015, deadline for conducting the initial performance testing of B6A.
Q1: Does the installation of the bi-fuel kit on new U.S. EPA-certified units at engines at the USR Corporation in Virginia subject to NSPS subpart IIII affect the manufacturer's certification? Start Printed Page 95587In other words, is the unit still a certified unit?
Q2: What value should the Ignacio Gas Plant use for “B” in the equation for determining whether a “capital expenditure” has occurred, and thus a modification under subpart OOOO at the Ignacio Gas Plant?
A2: For determining whether a modification has occurred at the Ignacio Gas Plant under subpart OOOO, in the equation for capital expenditure in 40 CFR 60.481(a), the value to be used for “B” is 4.5 and the value to be used for “X” is 2011 minus the year of construction.
Q2: Does the EPA determine that a fluorinated liquid organic chemical byproduct from a chemical manufacturing process unit at the facility which is atomized in the thermal oxidizer is not a “solid waste” as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265?
Q1: Does the EPA determine that the “like-for-like” replacement exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d) is applicable to the replacement of affected facilities on production lines that were constructed after August 31, 1983 at the 3M Company salt recovery production line located in Elyria, Ohio?
A1: Yes. The EPA determines that the “like-for-like” replacement exemption in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(1) of subpart OOO is applicable to “affected facilities” (those constructed after August 31, 1983) with regards to the subpart OOO amendments promulgated on April 28, 2009 based on 3M's description that the Weigh Conveyors A and B are equal or smaller in size to and perform the same function as the original conveyors, and emissions at the conveyors did not increase, and as long as the remaining affected facilities in the salt recovery production line have not been replaced since April 22, 2008.
Q2: What emission standards apply to a production line constructed after August 31, 1983 that includes affected facilities constructed as a “like-for-like” replacement after April 22, 2008, assuming that all of the affected facilities on the production line have not been replaced as provided in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(3)?
A2: A production line constructed after August 31, 1983 that includes affected facilities constructed as a “like-for-like” replacement after April 22, 2008 is subject to the original subpart OOO rule standards promulgated on August 1, 1985, and not the 2009 subpart OOO rule standards, as long as all affected facilities on the production line have not been replaced.
A: No. The EPA determines that although the Riceland facility is a grain terminal elevator subject to subpart DD, the column dryers in question are a new subcategory of grain dryers not subject to subpart DD due to its differences in size, type and class of column dryers. The EPA has stated this position in the July 9, 2014 proposed rule for subpart DD and in a new proposed subpart DDa Start Printed Page 95588rule, which now includes a definition for “wire screen column dryers”.
A: No. The EPA determines that the dry to dry closed loop machines installed at Parrot Cleaners do not meet the definition of a “petroleum dry cleaner,” in that they do not use solvent in a “combination of washers, dryers, filters, stills, and settling tanks” since these are single unit machines. The EPA intent to regulate dry cleaning machines with separate units (i.e., transfer machines with separate washers and dryers) in subpart JJJ is evidenced by the equipment standard requiring separate “solvent recovery dryers” in section 60.622 and in the testing procedures in section 60.624, as well as in other EPA statements regarding the petroleum solvent drycleaning industry. Therefore, subpart JJJ does not apply to the dry to dry machines installed at the facility.
Q5: If Fibrominn submits a formal application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to amend Fibrominn's existing Title V permit in order to take a synthetic minor limit, and Fibrominn submits the application to the MPCA prior to January 31, 2016, the compliance date for the Major Source Boiler MACT, does this constitute Fibrominn's “taking a synthetic minor limit” in terms of eligibility to avoid being subject to the Major Source Boiler MACT?
A: No. The EPA determines that the event described in the request does not meet the definition of a “force majeure event” under 40 CFR 60.2.
A1: Yes. The EPA approves Mattabassett's AMP for the carbon bed under 40 CFR 60.13(i) for the granular activated carbon adsorption system (“carbon bed”) used to control mercury emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator subject to subpart LLLL. The alternative monitoring plan that Mattabassett has proposed, combined with the facilities construction permit, meets the requirement of a similar type of monitoring application for carbon Start Printed Page 95589beds used to control mercury under 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.
Q: Does the EPA approve of alternative work practice and monitoring procedures for the three enclosed hard chromium plating tanks to be installed that will be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart N at the Har-Conn Chrome Company (Har-Conn) facility in West Hartford, Connecticut?
A: Yes. The EPA approves the Har-Conn alternative monitoring procedures to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the operation and maintenance (“O&M”) practices and monitoring specified in Table 1 of 63.342 as they are not feasible for the application to the Palm Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE) used by the enclosed hard chromium tanks. Har-Conn will use the operation and maintenance (O&M) practices and manual recommended by the manufacturer of the Palm Technology Emission Eliminating Devices (EEE), as well as daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual compliance monitoring logs for the EED.
A2: Yes. The EPA approves the request to allow the unit to operate without engaging the wet scrubber and to exclude parameter monitoring data during periods when only natural gas is fired, provided that Verso can demonstrate through existing data or emissions testing that the unit complies Start Printed Page 95590with the PM, Hg, and HCl emissions standards while firing only natural gas.
Q: Would an aluminum chip drying process at the Remelt Scientific facility (Remelt) in Port Charlotte, Florida, that is used to remove water meet the definition of “thermal chip dryer” in 40 CFR part 63 subpart RRR?
A: No. Remelt's chip drying process does the not meet the definition of “thermal chip dryer” and is therefore not subject to subpart RRR. Based on the description that the process operates at temperatures of 200F and 235F, and the oil that remains on the chips has an evaporation temperature of over 300F, we believe that the process would be used solely to remove water from the aluminum chips since it would not be operating at temperatures sufficient to remove the machining oil that remains on the chips.
Q3: Does the EPA determine that if the wood-fired boilers' exhaust is routed to the lumber kiln(s) and used to dry lumber the boilers would be an “affected source” under the PCWP MACT and subject to the rule?
A3: The EPA determines that if Arbortech becomes a major source of HAPs, and if ArborTech sent 100 percent of the exhaust from its wood-fired boilers to its lumber drying kiln(s) to help dry lumber, then the boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD (the Major Source Boiler MACT), but would instead be subject to the PCWP MACT.
A: Yes. Based on the information submitted on the design and operation of the Boiler No. 9, the EPA determines that it meets the definition of “hybrid suspension grate boiler” found in 40 CFR 63.7575. Therefore, Boiler No. 9 will be subject to the rule as it pertains to existing hybrid suspension grate boilers.
A: Yes. The EPA determines that the FAB facility, currently owned and operated by Truesense, is and continues to be an existing source with compliance required as of 2006 and must continue to comply with the Semiconductor MACT, even after a sale, as long as the source otherwise continues to meet the definition of an affected facility (i.e., major source status not withstanding) consistent with the “Once In Always In” policy.
A: Yes. In accordance with 40 CFR 60.13 and 63.8(f), EPA approves MIPC alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service internal inspection methodology for the IFR storage tanks subject to NSPS Kb and GD GACT specified in the AMP request (tanks that have geodesic dome roofs equipped with skylights for enhanced natural lighting and aluminum honeycomb panel decks constructed decks with mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals liquid surface) to meet the internal out-of-service inspection required at intervals no greater than 10 years by the applicable regulations. MIPC will be able to have visual access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the top side of the IFR for the specified storage tanks, as well as properly inspect and repair the requisite components while these tanks are still in-service, consistent with the inspection and repair requirements established under NSPS subpart Kb. In addition, MIPC internal inspection methodology includes identifying and addressing any gaps of more than 1/8 inch between any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal; complying with the fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time frame requirement in NSPS subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and implementing a full top-side and bottom-side out-of-service inspection of the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for Start Printed Page 95591any reason, and keep records for at least five years.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) participating in two Duke Energy Carolinas nonresidential demand response programs meet the definition of “emergency stationary RICE” in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (“RICE NESHAP”)?
A: No. The EPA determines that the terms of Duke's demand response programs do not meet all of the operational limits on emergency engines in the RICE NESHAP. The terms of the programs are consistent with the limitations on emergency demand response. However, an engine must also comply with the definition of “emergency stationary RICE” and all of the operational restrictions in 40 CFR 63.6640(f) to be considered RICE NESHAP emergency engines.
A2: No. The Farabee Mechanical facility was approved to use single-point sampling at NSPS subpart JJJJ sources in lieu of Method 1 for their engines. Single point sampling without a stratification test for nitrogen oxide emissions using Alternative Test Method 87 is allowed under 40 CFR 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ. However, single point sampling for carbon monoxide at NESHAP subpart ZZZZ sources have not yet been broadly approved. Therefore, when Method 1 is not met, a stratification test is to be conducted to show if the site is acceptable to perform the test.
Q: Does the EPA approve the use of the results of a particulate matter emission test conducted on December 2014 for two new wood-fired boilers at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ as being representative of “initial conditions” because the first test, conducted in February 2014, was not conducted under normal operating conditions?
[FR Doc. 2016-31235 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]