[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: [email protected]. For technical
questions about individual applicability determinations or monitoring
decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual
documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author
of the document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. 40 CFR
60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions in part 60 also apply to Federal
and EPA-approved state plans for existing sources in 40 CFR part 62.
See 40 CFR 62.02(b)(2). The EPA's written responses to 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