[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27375-27387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11204]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9811-2]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The letters and memoranda 
on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or 
subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact 
Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at: 
[email protected]. For technical questions about individual 
applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the 
contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the 
absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a 
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the 
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. 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 Sec.  111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources 
may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written 
inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Sec.  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). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly 
referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, 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. 
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and 
NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, 
and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a 
quarterly 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 an electronic index on the Internet with 
over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the 
applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 
the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search 
for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number, or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 63 such documents added to 
the ADI on March XX, 2013. 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 through the OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on March XX, 2013; the 
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title 
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject 
matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA Sec.  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 March xx, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Control No.                   Categories                     Subparts                     Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M120002.....................  MACT........................  LLL.........................  Performance Test
                                                                                           Frequency Waiver
                                                                                           Request.
M120003.....................  MACT........................  RRR.........................  Performance Test
                                                                                           Waiver Request--Group
                                                                                           1 Furnace.
M120005.....................  MACT........................  DDDD........................  Request For Routine
                                                                                           Control Device
                                                                                           Maintenance
                                                                                           Exemption.
M120006.....................  MACT........................  DDDD........................  Performance Test
                                                                                           Waiver Requests.
M120007.....................  MACT, NESHAP................  HH, V.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan For Ethylene
                                                                                           Glycol Service.
M120008.....................  NSPS, MACT..................  J, UUU......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan For Opacity at
                                                                                           Fluid Catalytic
                                                                                           Cracking Units.
1200005.....................  NSPS........................  H...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Opacity at--
                                                                                           Sulfuric Acid Plant.
1200006.....................  NSPS........................  A, J........................  Alternate Span Values
                                                                                           for Sulfur Dioxide
                                                                                           Continuous Emission
                                                                                           Monitoring Systems.
1200016.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Platformer
                                                                                           Regeneration Process.

[[Page 27376]]

 
1200017.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Refining
                                                                                           Tank Truck Loading
                                                                                           Rack Vent Stream.
1200018.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Hydrogen
                                                                                           Sulfide in Refining-
                                                                                           Wastewater API
                                                                                           Separator Off-Gas
                                                                                           Vent Stream.
M120010.....................  MACT........................  NNNNN.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan For pH for Water
                                                                                           Absorbers at Aqueous
                                                                                           Hydrochloric Acid
                                                                                           Production.
M120011.....................  MACT........................  NNNNN.......................  Modification of an
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan For
                                                                                           Caustic Scrubber.
1200019.....................  NSPS........................  NNN, RRR....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Vent Stream
                                                                                           Flow Monitoring
                                                                                           Requirements at
                                                                                           Distillation Columns--
                                                                                           Implementing
                                                                                           Provisions of NSPS
                                                                                           Subpart RRR in Lieu
                                                                                           of Subpart NNN.
1200020.....................  NSPS........................  NNN, RRR....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Vent Steam
                                                                                           Flow Monitoring
                                                                                           Requirements at
                                                                                           Distillation Columns--
                                                                                           Implementing
                                                                                           Provisions of NSPS
                                                                                           Subpart RRR in Lieu
                                                                                           of Subpart NNN.
1200021.....................  NSPS........................  NNN, RRR....................  Modification to an
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Vent Stream Flow
                                                                                           Monitoring
                                                                                           Requirements at
                                                                                           Distillation Columns--
                                                                                           Implementing
                                                                                           Provisions of NSPS
                                                                                           Subpart RRR in Lieu
                                                                                           of Subpart NNN.
M120014.....................  NSPS, MACT..................  J, UUU......................  Modification of an
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan For
                                                                                           Opacity at Fluid
                                                                                           Catalytic Cracking
                                                                                           Units.
Z120002.....................  NESHAP......................  FF..........................  Wastewater Upstream of
                                                                                           Sour Water Stripper.
1200026.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan For Opacity at
                                                                                           Fluid Catalytic
                                                                                           Cracking Units.
M120016.....................  MACT........................  TTTTTT......................  Performance Testing
                                                                                           Waiver for an
                                                                                           Identical Process
                                                                                           Control Equipment.
1200029.....................  NSPS........................  NNN.........................  Flow Monitoring
                                                                                           Requirements--Alterna
                                                                                           te Control Devices
                                                                                           Under Subpart NNN.
1200034.....................  NSPS........................  CCCC........................  Applicability to a
                                                                                           Thermal Desorption
                                                                                           System for the
                                                                                           Treatment of Diesel
                                                                                           Contaminated Drill
                                                                                           Cuttings from Deep
                                                                                           Natural Gas Wells.
1200035.....................  NSPS........................  D...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Opacity.
M120019.....................  MACT........................  S...........................  Alternate Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Condensate
                                                                                           Treatment.
1200036.....................  NSPS........................  D...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Opacity.
1200037.....................  NSPS........................  NNN, RRR....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan-Flow Monitoring
                                                                                           Requirements for Vent
                                                                                           Stream at
                                                                                           Distillation Column--
                                                                                           Implementing
                                                                                           Provisions of NSPS
                                                                                           Subpart RRR in Lieu
                                                                                           of Subpart NNN.
1200045.....................  NSPS........................  A, UUU......................  Applicability to
                                                                                           Kaolin Processing and
                                                                                           Catalyst Production.
1200050.....................  NSPS........................  Y...........................  Applicability to
                                                                                           Mechanical Vents on
                                                                                           Buildings.
1200051.....................  NSPS........................  Dc..........................  Applicability to
                                                                                           Boiler Derate.
1200054.....................  NSPS........................  WWW.........................  Request for
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Compliance Remedy/
                                                                                           Schedule for Landfill
                                                                                           Methane Surface
                                                                                           Emissions.
1200055.....................  NSPS........................  WWW.........................  Request for
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Compliance Remedy/
                                                                                           Schedule for Landfill
                                                                                           Methane Surface
                                                                                           Emissions.
1200060.....................  NSPS, NESHAP................  J, UUU......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan for Opacity
                                                                                           Monitoring System.
1200061.....................  NSPS........................  A...........................  Alternate RATA
                                                                                           Protocol in Relation
                                                                                           to Flares Vent
                                                                                           Streams--Withdrawal
                                                                                           of Previous Approval.
1200063.....................  NSPS........................  Kb..........................  Requirements for
                                                                                           Degassing and
                                                                                           Inspecting Floating
                                                                                           Roof Tanks.
M120022.....................  MACT........................  DDDDD.......................  Site-specific Fuel
                                                                                           Analysis for Utility
                                                                                           Boiler.
1200065.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low-Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes Refinery
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Hot Oil Drum Off-Gas
                                                                                           Vent Stream.
1200066.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low-Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes Refinery
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan--for
                                                                                           Knock-out Drum Off-
                                                                                           Gas Vent Stream.
1200067.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low-Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes Refinery
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for a
                                                                                           Caustic Oxidation
                                                                                           Unit Off-Gas Vent
                                                                                           Stream.
1200068.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low-Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes Refinery
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Loading Racks Off-Gas
                                                                                           Vent Streams.
1200069.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low-Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes Refinery
                                                                                           Approved Refinery
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for a
                                                                                           Benzene Recovery Unit
                                                                                           Off-Gas Vent Stream.
1200070.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low-Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes Refinery
                                                                                           Approved Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan--for
                                                                                           Refinery Marine
                                                                                           Vessel Loading
                                                                                           Vapors.
M120023.....................  MACT........................  BBBBBB......................  Applicability of Rule
                                                                                           to Storage and
                                                                                           Transfer of Transmix.
1200071.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption for Process
                                                                                           Unit Vent Streams
                                                                                           Combusted in Flare.
M120024.....................  MACT, NSPS..................  CC, G, Kb...................  Request for
                                                                                           Interpretation of
                                                                                           Recordkeeping
                                                                                           Requirements as
                                                                                           Applied to Storage
                                                                                           Tanks Inspections.
1200072.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan Request for a
                                                                                           Refinery Flare 2.
1200073.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Truck and Railcar
                                                                                           Loading Vent Off-Gas
                                                                                           Stream.
1200076.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Vent Streams.
1200077.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Refinery Pit
                                                                                           Collection Header
                                                                                           Vent Stream.
1200078.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Refinery Storage Tank
                                                                                           and Loading Arm Vent
                                                                                           Streams.
1200079.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Refinery Pit and
                                                                                           Loading Arm Vent
                                                                                           Streams.
1200081.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Refinery Pressure
                                                                                           Swing Absorber Vent
                                                                                           Stream.
1200084.....................  NSPS........................  UUU.........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Request For Proposed
                                                                                           Kilns.
1200085.....................  NSPS........................  UUU.........................  Applicability to Mixer/
                                                                                           Dryer Processing a
                                                                                           Very Wet Alumina
                                                                                           Slurry.

[[Page 27377]]

 
M120025.....................  MACT........................  JJJJ........................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Request to Meet
                                                                                           Calibration
                                                                                           Verification
                                                                                           Requirements for
                                                                                           Catalytic Oxidizers.
M120028.....................  MACT, NSPS..................  A, A, CC....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Request of Acoustic
                                                                                           Flare Pilot Flame at
                                                                                           Utility Flare.
M120030.....................  MACT........................  WWWWWW......................  Applicability to
                                                                                           Chrome Etching
                                                                                           Process Meeting
                                                                                           Definition of
                                                                                           Electropolishing.
1200089.....................  NSPS........................  J...........................  Low Sulfur Rule
                                                                                           Exemption Approval
                                                                                           Supersedes
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                           Refinery Pit
                                                                                           Collection Header
                                                                                           Vent Stream.
M120031.....................  MACT........................  UUUU........................  Categorization of Coal-
                                                                                           Fired Utility Steam
                                                                                           Engines.
M120032.....................  MACT........................  RRR.........................  Applicability to
                                                                                           Secondary Aluminum
                                                                                           Production Furnace
                                                                                           Switching Operating
                                                                                           Category From Group 1
                                                                                           to Group 2.
1200091.....................  NSPS........................  AAA.........................  Regulatory
                                                                                           Interpretation on
                                                                                           Wood Heater Remote
                                                                                           Certification
                                                                                           Testing.
Z120004.....................  MACT, NESHAP................  ZZZZ........................  RICE NESHAP One-Year
                                                                                           Compliance Extension
                                                                                           for Diesel Engines.
1200092.....................  NSPS........................  IIII........................  National Security
                                                                                           Exemption for Non-
                                                                                           Road Diesel Engines
                                                                                           at Air Force Base.
WDS-145.....................  Woodstoves..................  ............................  Canadian Standards
                                                                                           Administration B415.1
                                                                                           Alternative Test
                                                                                           Method Request for
                                                                                           Generating Thermal
                                                                                           Efficiency Ratings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [M120002]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Alamo Cement Company's (Alamo) waiver request 
of the next performance test for monitoring of dioxin/furans (D/F) at 
the Alamo facility located in San Antonio, Texas, since similar 
requests have been approved for other facilities?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve Alamo's performance test waiver 
request based upon the facility's specific circumstances. EPA notes 
that applicability determinations are site-specific and are decided on 
a case-by-case basis.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver for less frequent testing, at five-
year intervals instead of the 30-month interval required by 40 CFR 
63.1349(d) of NESHAP subpart LLL, based on economic impracticality of 
the frequency of testing and consideration of previous performance test 
data demonstrating high performance compliance?
    A2: No. The EPA does not approve conducting performance tests for 
dioxin/furans at a frequency less than the 30-month interval required 
under the final rule. This frequency is necessary to determine actual 
D/F levels and assess compliance. The emission testing is also 
necessary to establish operating temperature limits.

Abstract for [M120003]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver for a 90-day time extension for 
conducting a performance test, required under NESHAP MACT 40 CFR part 
63 subpart RRR, at the Alumax Mill Products facility (Alumax), located 
in Texarkana, Texas based on availability of scrap and changes in 
ambient temperature only?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve Alumax's request for a 90-day time 
extension to conduct performance testing in accordance with 40 CFR part 
63 subpart RRR at the Texarkana facility, as the rationale provided 
does not justify its approval. Alumax should have been able to obtain 
sufficient amounts of the type of scrap normally melted in the furnaces 
to be able to test prior to the May 2009 deadline. Also, any change in 
ambient temperatures between May and August should have minimal effect 
on the inlet temperatures at the lime-injected fabric filters, since 
the temperatures are measured after the furnaces.

Abstract for [M120005]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a routine control device maintenance exemption 
(RCDME) under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDD, at the Boise Florien Plywood 
Plant (Boise) in Florien, Louisiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves a RCDME for Boise under NESHAP subpart DDDD 
based on the specific information submitted to justify the request, as 
explained in the EPA response letter, and it being submitted 30 days 
before the compliance date of October 1, 2007, for NESHAP subpart DDDD. 
The approved RCDME must be incorporated by reference and attached to 
the facility's Title V permit.

Abstract for [M120006]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a performance test waiver for existing 
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) at Boise Florien and Oakdale 
Plywood Plants (Boise) in Louisiana subject to MACT subpart DDDD?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the performance test waiver for the RTOs 
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7(2)(e)(iv) and 63.7(h)(2) of the General 
Provisions. Based upon the information submitted, EPA determined that 
the 2003 performance tests satisfy the MACT requirements.

Abstract for [M120007]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 
consisting of quarterly visual inspections of ancillary equipment in 
the cooling jacket water service, addressing a mixture of ethylene 
glycol and water, in lieu of conducting EPA Reference Method 21 field 
analyzer measurements for BP America Production Company Compressor 
Station in Sunray, Texas, subject to NESHAP subpart HH?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the AMP for ancillary equipment for the 
cooling jacket water service at the Sunray Compressor Station. The 
request is justified since it is difficult to obtain a reproducible and 
useful response factor as required in Method 21 due to ethylene 
glycol's low volatility (vapor pressure 0.06 mm Hg at 20 degrees C), as 
described in EPA report EPA-453/R-95-017, Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Emission Estimates. It is an acceptable alternative monitoring to meet 
NESHAP subpart HH requirements since visual evidence of ethylene glycol 
liquid on or dripping from the equipment would indicate an equipment 
leak, and repair would be conducted to meet requirements of NESHAP part 
61, subpart V.

Abstract for [M120008]

    Q1: Will EPA modify the prior approved alternative monitoring plan 
(AMP), pertaining to the use of parametric monitoring of the Fluid 
Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) in lieu of 
monitoring opacity via continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), due 
to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack for the 
Chalmette Refining facility in Louisiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA will conditionally approve a modified AMP to 
incorporate changes necessary, due to the physical changes to occur in 
accordance with the

[[Page 27378]]

consent decree. However, a new performance test is necessary to 
establish new Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) for the WGS. The 
performance test will be conducted at representative operating 
conditions for the FCCU Regenerator and WGS, whereby worst-case 
emissions are anticipated.
    Q2: Will EPA consider further adjustment to the OPLs for the 
scrubber due to turndown operations, where the gas flow rate from the 
FCCU Regenerator to the WGS decreases?
    A2: Yes. EPA will consider setting OPLs that will account for 
turndown operations decreased gas flow. OPLs will be set based upon 
performance test results.

Abstract for [1200005]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
conducting alternate opacity measurements during maintenance flushing 
of a sulfur dioxide (SO2) wet scrubber at Chemtrade's 
Sulfuric Acid Plant located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, subject to NSPS subpart 
H?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the proposed AMP to monitor sulfuric 
acid concentration during scrubber flushing, and to conduct Method 9 
opacity readings if the COMS showed measurements above 10 percent. 
Under 40 CFR 60.83, emissions that ``exhibit 10 percent opacity, or 
greater'' are considered a violation. In addition, Chemtrade did not 
provide the necessary process unit and scrubber operating data to 
establish a direct correlation of production process acid 
concentrations to opacity readings at the scrubber stack. This decision 
does not preclude Chemtrade from considering the provision of 40 CFR 
60.11(e)(8) to pursue approval of an alternative opacity limitation 
during scrubber flushing via performance testing. To establish an 
appropriate alternate opacity standard for the scrubber during 
flushing, a performance test would include mass emission rate 
determinations for SO2 and acid mist during typical 
operation and during scrubber flushing to demonstrate compliance with 
NSPS subpart H emission standards at all times.

Abstract for [1200006]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternate span value for a sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for wet 
gas scrubbers (WGS) on a fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) at 
the CITGO Petroleum Corporation refinery at Lake Charles in Louisiana, 
subject to NSPS Subparts A and J?
    A1: Yes. EPA, in coordination with Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality, conditionally approves the change of each FCCU 
WGS Sulfur Dioxide (S02) CEMS span value from 600 to 100 
ppmv, for the CITGO's Lake Charles Refinery. This alternative is 
acceptable because Citgo determined that the actual, lower outlet 
SO2 concentrations at the FCCU WGSs would warrant a 
reduction of the span value to 100 ppmvd, so that the SO2 
CEMS could pass the annual relative accuracy test audits (RATA) 
required by NSPS Subpart A Appendix F. Citgo will comply with 40 CFR 
60.1 04(b Xl) of NSPS subpart J by maintaining emissions to the 
atmosphere from the outlet (stack) of each FCCU's wet gas scrubber 
(WGS) below 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This and other 
conditions for the AMP approval are specified in the EPA response 
letter.

Abstract for [1200016]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for the Platformer 
Regeneration Process vent stream at the Delek Refining plant located in 
Tyler, Texas, subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP for the off-gas vent 
stream from the Platformer Regenerator that is vented to a hydrochloric 
acid (HCl) scrubber, and then routed to the burners in the heater. The 
vent stream is inherently low in sulfur content due to the feed stream 
characteristics and operational controls used in the Platformer 
Regenerator Process. The parametric monitoring conditions for AMP 
approval are specified in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1200017]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) at the Delek Refining Tank 
Truck Loading Rack Flare at the Tyler, Texas refinery, subject to NSPS 
subpart J?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP for the Tank Truck 
Loading Rack off-gas vent stream. In accordance with EPA's Alternative 
Monitoring Plan for NSPS subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas Guidance, Delek 
provided data and information that demonstrated the vent stream is 
inherently low in sulfur content. Delek does not anticipate any new 
product specifications with sulfur content higher than the ranges 
provided to EPA in their AMP submittal. The EPA response letter 
specifies the parametric monitoring conditions for AMP approval.

Abstract for [1200018]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for Wastewater API 
Separator Unit Operations off-gas vent streams that are combusted in 
the wastewater API separator flare at the Delek Refining facility in 
Tyler, Texas, subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve Delek's proposed AMP for the off-gas 
vent streams from the Wastewater API separator Unit Operations. Delek's 
proposed AMP does not meet the AMP requirements under NSPS subpart J-
Refinery Fuel Gas Guidance. Delek did not provide the necessary data 
and information to justify the AMP request. Specifically, Delek did not 
provide a correlation between inherently low and stable H2S 
content in the exhaust gas steam in relation to those process 
parameters proposed in the AMP for the treated wastewater streams. 
Piping and instrumentation drawings were not provided, as requested, to 
differentiate between the various wastewater streams and to show 
specific sampling points being utilized and proposed. Additionally, 
Delek did not provide the information for all process parameters 
monitored for the various process units to ensure inherently low and 
stable H2S content of the off-gas vent stream to be 
combusted at the flare. The high target levels of measured 
H2S in the wastewater were excessive for consideration of an 
AMP for the off-gas vent stream.

Abstract for [M120010]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver to monitor only the liquid flow rate 
and not pH through absorbers used to control hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
emissions at the Dow Chemical Company Aqueous Hydrochloric Acid 
Production facility in Freeport, Texas, subject to MACT subpart NNNNN?
    A1: No. EPA disapproves the waiver request based on insufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that monitoring liquid flow alone is sufficient 
to determine the effectiveness of the absorbers. EPA believes that more 
than one parameter should be monitored to provide a more complete 
determination of control performance. For example, corrosion or erosion 
of the spray nozzles and channeling within the packing could affect 
gas-liquid distribution within an absorber, which decreases its 
efficiency,

[[Page 27379]]

yet may not result in a decrease in the liquid flow rate. In such 
instances, where the absorber is operating less efficiently and only 
liquid flow rate is monitored, it is possible to exceed the emission 
standard while still demonstrating compliance by meeting the minimum 
flow rate.

Abstract for [M120011]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a modification of an Alternative Monitoring 
Plan (AMP) to remove the 3 percent upper caustic concentration 
operating limit parameter (OPL) on a scrubber used to control 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions at the Dow Chemical Company mercaptan 
derivative process located in Freeport (Dow Freeport), Texas, subject 
to MACT subpart NNNNN?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves modification of the AMP that 
allows a waiver of the 3 percent upper caustic concentration limit for 
the Dow Freeport mercaptan derivative process. EPA agrees that it is 
unnecessary to maintain an upper limit for caustic concentration to 
demonstrate compliance, as more caustic concentration would provide 
greater potential to reduce HCl emissions. Therefore, the waiver is 
approved as long as the scrubber recirculation caustic concentration is 
at a minimum of 1.6 percent of sodium hydroxide and the minimum flow 
rate is at 45 gallons per minute.

Abstract for [1200019]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent 
stream flow monitoring for specific distillation columns and associated 
flares used as a control device to implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, 
monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions in lieu of complying with 
corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN, with the exception of 
small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance events, for 
Equistar Chemicals facility (Equistar), Channelview Chemical Complex, 
located in Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the Equistar AMP request to 
implement NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS 
subpart NNN for specific distillation columns vent streams routed to 
unit flares without any by-pass lines. In order to ensure that affected 
vent streams are routed to appropriate control devices, Equistar 
Channelview Chemical Complex is required to maintain a schematic 
diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s), fuel 
systems, control devices, and bypass systems as part of the initial 
report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR section 60.705(b) of subpart 
RRR. EPA noted in its approval that the small vent and drain valves 
utilized by Equistar Channelview Chemical Complex for maintenance 
events are not an exception under either NSPS subpart NNN or NSPS 
Subpart RRR. Therefore, flow must be monitored during maintenance 
events at these locations in accordance with NSPS subpart RRR, because 
such components act as bypass valves during such events (i.e., flow is 
diverted away from the control device).

Abstract for [1200020]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent 
stream flow monitoring for specific distillation columns and associated 
flares to implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding 
provisions of NSPS subpart NNN, with the exception of small vent and 
drain valves utilized for maintenance events, for Equistar Chemicals 
(Equistar) at the LaPorte Chemical Complex, located in Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the Equistar AMP request to 
implement NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS 
subpart NNN for specific distillation columns vent streams routed to 
unit flares without any by-pass lines. In order to ensure that affected 
vent streams are routed to appropriate control devices, Equistar 
LaPorte Chemical Complex facility is required to maintain a schematic 
diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s), fuel 
systems, control devices, and bypass systems as part of the initial 
report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b) of subpart RRR. 
EPA noted in its approval that the small vent and drain valves utilized 
by Equistar for maintenance events are not an exception under either 
NSPS subpart NNN or subpart RRR. Therefore, flow must be monitored 
during maintenance events at these locations in accordance with NSPS 
subpart RRR, because such components act as bypass valves during such 
events (i.e., flow is diverted away from the control device).

Abstract for [1200021]

    Q1: Does EPA approve modifications to an Alternative Monitoring 
Plan (AMP) for a distillation column and associated flare to add 
flexibility of routing vent streams to other control equipment as 
backup to the flare (i.e., incinerator, boiler or process heater), and 
to implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS 
subpart NNN for compliance with both subparts, for Equistar Chemicals 
(Equistar) at the LaPorte Chemical Complex, located in Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the Equistar AMP request to 
modify an approved AMP for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
provisions in NSPS subpart RRR in lieu of complying with corresponding 
provisions of NSPS subpart NNN for specific distillation columns vent 
streams when routed to unit flares and other backup control devices to 
the flare at the Equistar LaPorte Chemical Complex. The conditions of 
the original AMP approval also still apply and are specified in the EPA 
response letter.

Abstract for [M120014]

    Q1: Does EPA approve modifying a prior approved Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP), pertaining to parametric monitoring of the fluid 
catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) No. 3 wet gas scrubber (WGS) in lieu of 
monitoring opacity via continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), due 
to moisture interference on opacity readings in the stack, at the Exon 
Mobil Refinery located in Baytown, Texas? Modification is necessary in 
order to allow nominal flow to a bypass stack during CO Boilers 
maintenance prior to plant turnaround.
    A1: Yes. EPA will conditionally approve a modified AMP to allow 
nominal flow to the Bypass stack for the 4-month period necessary for 
maintenance on two of three CO Boilers. The plant turnaround is 
removing the Bypass Stack and the modified AMP will incorporate this 
temporary alteration for two of the three boilers. However, due to the 
number of other requested modifications to the prior approved AMP, EPA 
will address multiple issues associated with the prior approved AMP for 
both the FCCU No. 2 and the FCCU No. 3 WGS units. A new performance 
test is necessary to establish new Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) 
for the WGS. Details pertaining to the modified AMP are included in the 
enclosure of the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [Z120002]

    Q1: Are sour water streams managed upstream of a refinery sour 
water stripper at the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) East Refinery in 
Corpus Christi, Texas, subject to the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP 
(BWOP), subpart FF?

[[Page 27380]]

    A1: Yes. The application of 40 CFR 61.355 in NESHAP subpart FF does 
not change the point of generation, but rather changes the location 
where the owner or operator measures the benzene quantity of sour water 
streams for the purpose of determining the total annual benzene 
quantity from the facility. EPA determined that the FHR East Refinery 
must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 61.342(c)-(h) for sour 
water streams managed upstream of a sour water stripper exit, based on 
the characteristics of the waste streams at their points of generation, 
assuming the facility's total annual benzene is calculated to be 10 
megagrams per year (MG/yr) or greater, and the waste stream does not 
meet one of the exemptions of 40 CFR 61.340(c)-(d).

Abstract for [1200026]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for wet 
gas scrubber (WGS) parametric monitoring in lieu of a continuous 
opacity monitoring system (COMS) on a fluidized catalytic cracking unit 
(FCCU) covered under NSPS subpart J for the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) 
facility located at the Corpus Christi complex, in Texas?
    A1: Yes. Based on the particular WGS design, the process specific 
parameters chosen, and the performance test data, EPA approves the AMP 
to allow that no COM need be installed for the purpose of monitoring 
the opacity at the West Refinery FCCU flue gas scrubber exit. Instead, 
the parameters as detailed in the EPA response letter will be monitored 
and recorded.

Abstract for [M120016]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a performance test waiver specific to 
particulate matter (PM) testing for certain source emissions and 
control equipment subject to MACT subpart TTTTTT for Secondary 
Nonferrous Metals Processing, at two of Gulf Reduction Corporation 
(GRC) facilities (i.e., Dust Manufacturing Division and Metal Division 
facilities) located in Houston, Texas, based on the premise of 
``identical'' source emissions and control equipment located at the 
same facility?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a performance test waiver at 
each GRC facility for PM testing at specifics source emissions and 
control equipment on the premise that these are considered 
``identical'' sources of emissions and control equipment at the 
facilities to demonstrate initial compliance with NESHAP subpart 
TTTTTT. However, PM test data for certain source units and their 
associated air pollution control equipment will be used in lieu of 
testing other ``identical'' emission sources for PM in order to 
demonstrate compliance with the standard. EPA conditional approval is 
based on the review and consideration of a timely submittal of a 
facility-specific test proposal for multiple identical sources (i.e., 
identical in terms of manufacturer, design and construction, 
operational parameters, and maintenance protocols), and provides a 
testing proposal that is technically sufficient and representative of 
worst-case emissions in demonstrating compliance at each facility, as 
detailed in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1200029]

    Q1: Are a thermal oxidizer (TO) unit and a vapor combustor (VC) 
used as control devices for the off-gas vent stream from a hydrogen 
cyanide/acrylonitrile (HCN/ACRN) absorber column at the Lucite 
International, Inc. (Lucite) facility located in Beaumont, Texas, 
considered alternate control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.663(f) of 
NSPS subpart NNN?
    A1: No. EPA has determined that the particular process units 
identified in the Lucite request are not considered ``alternate control 
devices'' under 40 CFR 60.663(f) of subpart NNN. Instead, we have 
determined that the TO is a ``boiler'' and that the VC is an 
``incinerator'' as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 60.661, and are 
subject to the compliance testing, continuous monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements applicable to each such 
designated unit as specified in NSPS part 60 subpart NNN. Subsequently, 
40 CFR 63.l10(d) of NESHAP subpart G should be consulted for ensuring 
proper implementation of any NSPS and NESHAP overlapping requirements.

Abstract for [1200034]

    Q1: Is a thermal desorption system with thermal oxidizer for the 
treatment of diesel contaminated drill cuttings from deep natural 
wells, which is being constructed by Pollution Management, Inc. (PMI) 
in Beebe, Arkansas, subject to NSPS subpart CCCC?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the PMI thermal desorption equipment is 
not subject to the NSPS subpart CCCC because it does not meet the 
definition of ``Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration 
(CISWI) unit'' in NSPS subpart CCCC published on December 1, 2000, at 
65 FR 7533, which states that a CISWI unit ``means any combustion 
device that combusts commercial and industrial waste . . . does not 
include air pollution control equipment or the stack''. In addition, 
the system designed to volatilize rather than combust since combustion 
will take place in a thermal oxidizer followed by a baghouse for PM 
emissions control, meets the definition of thermal desorption found in 
the U.S. EPA Engineering Bulletin on Thermal Desorption Treatment 
(Superfund, EPA/540/S-94/501, February, 1994), which states that 
``thermal desorption is not incineration, since the destruction of 
organic contaminants is not the desired result.'' EPA notes that if the 
material, which the facility accepts, changes, you may be subject to 
additional regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act. In addition, the facility remains subject to all applicable State 
and Federal permitting requirements.

Abstract for [1200035]

    Q1: Does EPA extend a prior approved alternative monitoring request 
for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in lieu of a 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required by 40 CFR 60.45(a) 
at the NO. 4 unit to all four steam electric generating units located 
at the Coal Fired Electrical Power Plant Public Service Company of New 
Mexico (PNM) San Juan Generating Station, subject to NSPS subpart D and 
A?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the PNM alternative monitoring 
request that includes use of each re-located COMS in each of the 
originally proposed positions, but with the addition of other monitored 
operational parameters, and your requested program for certification of 
your proposed CPMS for all four units in a scheduled environmental 
upgrade program. The approval of an AMP applies to Units No. 4, 3, 2, 
and 1, of which only Units No. 4, 3, and 1 are subject to NSPS part 60, 
subpart D, and of which Units No.4, 3, 2, and 1 are subject to 
applicable requirements of PNM's 2007 federally enforceable air permit. 
The terms and conditions for the CPMS certification test and on key 
CPMS data collection and analysis provisions, such as monitoring 
frequency, averaging time, and compliance levels for the monitored 
operational parameters, are detailed in the Enclosure to the EPA 
response letter. EPA notes that the New Mexico Environment Department 
(NMED) may use our AMP approval for each unit in the implementation of 
its federally enforceable state rules, applicable federally enforceable 
air permit conditions, and, at its discretion, its state enforceable 
Consent Decree for each unit, if it chooses to do so.

[[Page 27381]]

Abstract for [M120019]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for site-
specific monitoring parameters to be used in daily monitoring for a 
biological treatment system for Potlatch Forest Products (PFP) 
Corporation Cypress Bend Mill facility located in McGehee, Arkansas, 
subject to NESHAP subpart S applicable to the pulp and paper industry?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the PFP AMP request for site-
specific monitoring parameters to be used in the daily monitoring of 
the open biological treatment system at your pulp and paper Cypress 
Bend Mill facility. To maintain compliance with the Title V permit, PFP 
must incorporate the site-specific parameters into its Title V permit 
for the Cypress Bend Mill facility.

Abstract for [1200036]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request 
to allow use of continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in lieu 
of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required by 40 CFR 
60.45(a) at a steam electric generating unit subject to NSPS subpart D 
when firing lignite coal, owned by the American Electric Power (AEP) 
located at the Southwestern Electric Power Company's (SWEPCO) H.W. 
Pirkey Power Station (Pirkey), near Hallsville and Marshall, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AEP AMP request to address 
an upgrade of the amount of Sulfur Dioxide (S02) removal planned for 
Unit l's Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (WFGD) system resulting in 
increased SO2 and interference with the opacity readings taken by the 
stack-located COMS. This is based on AEP's description of the 
arrangement of the boiler's parallel duct-work and the relationship 
between the stack-located continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) 
and the proposed continuous monitoring system (CMS), which has replaced 
the stack-located COMS. EPA accepts the use of the ``combiner 
equation'' to convert opacity data recorded at each of the duct-work 
COMS devices to equivalent stack opacity data, and accepts the use of 
induction fan current (in amps) to determine duct-work gas flow rates 
at each of the COMS devices. If AEP intends to pursue approval of a 
CPMS, AEP is required to meet specific criteria specified in the EPA 
response letter, including submittal of the proposed monitored 
operational parameters for the proposed CPMS to the EPA and the state 
for review, no later than 90 days prior to conducting a PM and Opacity 
performance test and prior to conducting a CPMS certification. If AEP 
does not opt to develop CPMS, AEP may alternatively propose to use a 
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system (PM-CEMS). The 
terms and conditions for the CPMS certification test and on key CPMS 
data collection and analysis provisions, such as monitoring frequency, 
averaging time, and compliance levels for the monitored operational 
parameters, are detailed in the Enclosure to the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1200037]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a 
distillation column and associated equipment to implement NSPS subpart 
RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions in lieu of 
complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN for flow 
monitoring requirements of Distillation Column C-5222 and associated 
equipment at Texmark Chemicals, Incorporated (Texmark) located in 
Galena Park, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the Texmark AMP request to 
implement NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS 
subpart NNN for Distillation Column C-5222 vent streams routed to unit 
flares without any by-pass lines. To ensure that the affected vent 
streams are routed to appropriate control devices, Texmark is required 
to maintain a schematic diagram required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) in its 
initial report to the jurisdictional State Agency, and must maintain a 
copy on site for the life of the equipment to ensure that affected vent 
streams are routed to a control device without bypass lines. EPA also 
approves the request to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 
40 CFR 705(c)(4) in lieu of the recordkeeping requirements of NSPS 
subpart NNN since these recordkeeping requirements correspond directly 
to those monitoring requirements to be implemented for the distillation 
vents under NSPS subpart RRR.

Abstract for [1200045]

    Q1: Do NSPS subparts UUU and A apply to calciners and/or dryers 
used in the processing of kaolin and the production of a catalyst at 
the W.R. Grace Davison's Lake Charles facility, located in Calcasieu 
Parish, Louisiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that NSPS subpart UUU and A apply to kaolin 
processing and production facilities if commencement of construction, 
completion of modification, or completion of reconstruction of these 
facilities occurred after April 23, 1986, and they meet the definition 
of ``mineral processing plant'' at 40 CFR 60.731: It processes kaolin 
clay (a listed mineral); it has the ability to load more than fifty 
percent of the products mixed with listed minerals, either one at a 
time or in combination; and, it does not produce any listed minerals, 
but only processes one or more listed minerals.

Abstract for [1200050]

    Q1: Does the particulate matter (PM) concentration limit in 40 CFR 
60.254(b)(2) of NSPS subpart Y for mechanical vents exhausting 
emissions apply to certain buildings at the Duke Energy Cliffside Steam 
Station in North Carolina? Specifically, does the PM concentration 
limit apply to mechanical vents which are used for general ventilation 
on buildings which contain affected facilities.
    A1: EPA determines that the PM concentration limit in 40 CFR 
60.254(b)(2) does not apply to emissions from mechanical vents which 
are used for general ventilation from a building containing affected 
facilities.
    Q2: Is a waiver request of the PM concentration performance testing 
requirement for a mechanical vent that collects emissions from the coal 
crushers at the Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station acceptable if no 
visible emissions are detected over a one-hour period when EPA Method 9 
readings are made at the stack exit?
    A2: No. EPA determines that the Duke Energy request for a waiver of 
the requirement to conduct an initial performance test under provisions 
in 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) is not justify since it would need to demonstrate 
compliance through other means that are acceptable. The difficulty 
associated with testing is not a factor that EPA considers in 
evaluating the request. 40 CFR 60.8(e) requires the owner or operator 
of an affected facility to provide performance testing facilities which 
include test ports, sampling platforms, safe access to the platform(s), 
and utilities needed for testing.

Abstract for [1200051]

    Q: Is Henkel Corporation proposed request to derate the capacity of 
two boilers at its Enoree, South Carolina facility in order that they 
will no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, acceptable? 
The proposal includes the replacement of the existing burner of each 
boiler with a new lower-rated burner to reduce the heat input capacity 
to 8.4 million Btu/hour.
    A: EPA determines that Henkel Corporation proposed derate method

[[Page 27382]]

complies with EPA's criteria on derates. An acceptable derate must 
consist of a permanent physical change which prevents the boiler from 
operating at a capacity greater than the derated value. The physical 
change cannot be easily undone, and a system shutdown must be required 
to make the change or to reverse it. Since the capacity of the boiler 
must be reduced to constitute an appropriate derate, changes which are 
made only to fuel feed systems are not acceptable. If the facility 
wants to increase the capacity of the boilers after they have been 
derated, a notification of the proposed modifications must be submitted 
to the EPA.

Abstract for [1200054]

    Q1: Does EPA allow Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (WMIL), as 
the permitted operator of the now-closed Settler's Hill Recycling and 
Disposal Facility and Midway Landfill in Batavia, Illinois, subject to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, to conduct, to implement an alternate 
remedy consisting of installing a liquid and gas extraction trench and 
enhancing the landfill cap, and an alternative compliance schedule to 
address surface scan emissions exceedances that occurred during the 
2011 annual surface emissions monitoring event that could not be 
corrected within the regulatory?
    A1: EPA does not need to approve the new trench remedy and 
corresponding compliance timeline for locations designated as EX-3, 4, 
7, 8, 9, as it follows the requirements of corrective action in NSPS 
subpart WWW at 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4) and will be performed within the 120 
calendar day time frame requirement at 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4)(v). EPA 
approves the request for alternative remedy to the exceedances for 
locations designated as EX-2 and EX-6 via cap enhancement at the Midway 
Landfill facility such that the remedy eliminates methane exceedances 
at both EX-2 and EX-6. WMIL stated that the cap enhancement has been 
completed as of March 27, 2012, which is within 120 calendar days of 
the initial exceedance. EPA additionally approves the corresponding 
timeline for the requested alternative remedy because it matches the 
timeline required in 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4)(v).

Abstract for [1200055]

    Q1: Does EPA allow Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (WMIL), as 
the permitted operator of the now-closed Settler's Hill Recycling and 
Disposal Facility and Midway Landfill in Batavia, Illinois, subject to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, to conduct the alternate remedies of 
installing a liquid and gas extraction trench and the enhancement of 
the landfill cap and corresponding compliance schedules for surface 
scan emissions exceedances that occurred during the March 2012 
quarterly surface emissions monitoring event that could not be 
corrected within the regulatory?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves WMIL's request for an 
alternative remedy, which includes the separation of the gas control 
and two collection systems serving the two landfills, upgrade of the 
blower and motor serving the Midway utility flare, and subsequent re-
tuning of the wellfield to address the exceedances at locations EX-4, 5 
and 10 of the Midway Landfill. EPA approves these alternative methods 
as they are consistent with alternative remedies suggested at 40 CFR 
60.755(c)(4)(v) and the alternative timeline as it matches the 120 
calendar day time frame provided by 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4)(v). WMIL must 
continue the quarterly monitoring of surface emissions until it can 
demonstrate no emission exceedances for three consecutive quarterly 
monitoring periods, as required in 40 CFR 60.756(f) of NSPS subpart WW.

Abstract for [1200060]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Citgo Petroleum Corporation (Citgo) 
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for 
monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on a refinery Fluid Catalytic 
Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 
(COMS), to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 
60.102(a)(2) Citgo's Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex (LCMC) in 
Louisiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the Citgo AMP request since 
moisture in the FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered with the ability 
of the COMS to take accurate readings, due to excessive water at the 
point of measurement. EPA granted final conditional approval of the AMP 
based on the three scrubber operating limits (OPLs). EPA also clarified 
that compliance demonstration for each OPL was to be based on a three 
hour, hourly rolling average basis.

Abstract for [1200061]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the Conoco Phillips request to use an 
alternate performance specification (PS) and alternate span value for 
conducting relative accuracy checks (RATA) on the Ponca City Refinery 
East Plant Flare hydrogen sulfide (H2S) continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS) of the CEMS?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the request to use PS-9 in lieu of PS-
7 as part of an Alternative RATA Protocol, since it is unacceptable to 
switch from a more stringent to less stringent PS for demonstrating 
acceptable performance of the H2S CEMS. Since Conoco Phillips did not 
provide the requested data, including historical measured flare vent 
stream H2S concentration data, and data on moisture content, types and 
expected concentrations of sulfur compounds besides H2S, and the 
expected sulfur dioxide concentration in the vent stream, and since the 
use of PS-7 and Method 15 provides sampling and calibration check 
alternatives to allow viable sampling and testing, EPA withdraws the 
previous approval issued to Conoco Philips on August 19, 2011, and 
disapproved the proposed Alternative RATA Protocol for future 
monitoring efforts.

Abstract for [1200063]

    Q1: Source Environmental Services, Inc. (SES) requests a 
clarification from EPA on whether NSPS subpart Kb requires that all 
floating roof tanks to be degassed every time they are emptied?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the term ``completed empty'' in NSPS 
subpart Kb does not mean that the tank must be degassed and dried each 
time it is completely emptied. The standard allows for the roof to rest 
on legs for a short period of time while the tank is being emptied and 
subsequently refilled. The EPA response letter references a 
determination to a similar question dated October 22, 1993, which is 
available on the ADI Web site. (See ADI number 9400015).
    Q2: SES request a clarification from EPA on whether NSPS subpart Kb 
require all floating roof tanks to be inspected every time they are 
emptied?
    A2: No. EPA determines that the final NSPS subpart Kb regulation 
does not require an inspection when a tank is emptied and then 
refilled, although such requirement was initially included in the 
proposed regulation.

Abstract for [M120022]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a site-specific fuel analysis plan for a 
chemical process fuel gas stream for combustion in utility Boiler No. 
15, burning natural gas and a chemical process gas routed from several 
on-site processes, subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and institutional Boilers 
and Process Heaters (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD) located at the 
Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman), located in Longview, Texas?

[[Page 27383]]

    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated your site-specific fuel analysis plan and 
approves the plan pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7521(f) in NESHAP subpart 
DDDDD.

Abstract for [1200065]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting an off-gas vent stream from a heat 
transfer hot oil drum (D-703) as an inherently low-content sulfur 
stream under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries 
part 60 subpart J, at ExxonMobil Baytown Complex, Texas Refinery?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated ExxonMobil's AMP request in light of changes 
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and determined 
that the AMP request was no longer valid, because the vent streams now 
appear to meet one of the exemption criteria of 60.105(a)(4)(iv). 
Instead, EPA reviewed the information submitted as an application for 
exemption under 60.105(b)(1). Since the vent stream was demonstrated to 
be inherently low in sulfur according to 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the fuel 
gas combustion devices did not need to meet the monitoring requirements 
of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). The exemption was 
conditionally approved based on the process operating parameters and 
monitoring data submitted by the company. The effective date of the 
exemption is the effective date of the rule change, June 24, 2008. 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 [1200066]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting an off-gas vent stream from bonnet 
and spool vents associated with large motor operated valves (MOVs) as 
an inherently low-content sulfur stream under NSPS for Refineries part 
60 subpart J, at ExxonMobil Baytown Complex, Texas Refinery?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated ExxonMobil's AMP request in light of changes 
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and determined 
that the AMP request was no longer valid, because the vent streams now 
appeared to meet one of the exemption criteria of 60.105(a)(4)(iv). 
Instead, EPA reviewed the information submitted as an application for 
exemption under 60.105(b)(1). Since the vent stream was demonstrated to 
be inherently low in sulfur according to 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C), the fuel 
gas combustion device did not need to meet the monitoring requirements 
of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). The exemption was 
conditionally approved based on the process operating parameters and 
monitoring data submitted by the company. The effective date of the 
exemption is the effective date of the rule change, June 24, 2008. 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 [1200067]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) be approved for combusting an off-gas vent stream 
from a caustic oxidation unit (COU) knock out drum (D-42) as an 
inherently low-content sulfur stream under New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) for Refineries part 60 subpart J, at ExxonMobil 
Baytown Complex, Texas Refinery?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the ExxonMobil AMP request in light of 
changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and 
determined that the AMP request was no longer valid, because the vent 
streams now appeared to meet one of the exemption criteria of 
60.105(a)(4)(iv). Instead, EPA reviewed the information submitted as an 
application for exemption under 40 CFR 60.105(b)(1). Since the vent 
stream was demonstrated to be inherently low in sulfur according to 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the fuel gas combustion device did not need to 
meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 
60.105(a)(4). The exemption was conditionally approved based on the 
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the 
company. The effective date of the exemption is the effective date of 
the rule change, June 24, 2008. 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 [1200068]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) be approved for combusting an off-gas vent stream 
from a loading rack vapor recovery unit knock out drum (V-201) at a 
thermal oxidizer (TC-301) as an inherently low-content sulfur stream 
under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries part 60 
subpart J, at ExxonMobil Baytown Complex, Texas Refinery?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the ExxonMobil AMP request in light of 
changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and 
determined that the AMP request was no longer valid, because the vent 
streams now appeared to meet one of the exemption criteria of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv). Instead, EPA reviewed the information submitted as an 
application for exemption under 40 CFR 60.105(b)(1). Since the vent 
stream was demonstrated to be inherently low in sulfur according to 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the fuel gas combustion device did not need to 
meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4). The exemption was conditionally approved based on the 
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the 
company. The effective date of the exemption is the effective date of 
the rule change, June 24, 2008. 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 [1200069]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) be approved for combusting an off-gas vent stream 
from a benzene recovery unit in a crude unit heater as an inherently 
low-content sulfur stream under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 
for Refineries part 60 subpart J at ExxonMobil Beaumont Complex, Texas 
Refinery?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the ExxonMobil AMP request in light of 
changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and 
determined that the AMP request was no longer valid, because the vent 
streams now appeared to meet one of the exemption criteria of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv). Instead, EPA reviewed the information submitted as an 
application for exemption under 40 CFR 60.105(b)(1). Since the vent 
stream was demonstrated to be inherently low in sulfur according to 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the fuel gas combustion device did not need to 
meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 
60.105(a)(4). The exemption was conditionally approved based on the 
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the 
company. The effective date of the exemption is the effective date of 
the rule change, June 24, 2008. 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 [1200070]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
combusting

[[Page 27384]]

vapors inherently low-content sulfur stream from marine loading 
operations of marine vessels, under New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for Refineries part 60 subpart J at ExxonMobil Beaumont Complex, 
Texas Refinery?
    A1: EPA evaluated the ExxonMobil request in light of the June 24, 
2008, changes to NSPS Subpart J (73 FR 35866), and determined that the 
AMP request is no longer necessary. The definition of fuel gas had been 
modified to specifically exclude vapors collected and combusted to 
comply with marine tank vessel loading provisions of MACT subpart Y at 
40 CFR 63.562 or 63.651. Therefore, the fuel gas combustion devices do 
not need to meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4).

Abstract for [M120023]

    Q1: Does the NESHAP for Gasoline, subpart BBBBBB, applies to the 
Intergulf Strang Road Terminal (Intergulf) located in La Porte, Texas?
    A1: No. EPA determined that NESHAP subpart BBBBBB does not apply to 
Intergulf since the individual gasoline blendstocks and other petroleum 
products handled at the Intergulf Strang Road Terminal meet the 
definition of transmix. Transmix is defined as a mixture of gasoline 
and other petroleum distillates that typically contain between 35 and 
65 percent gasoline, and with higher concentrations, may have a Reid 
vapor pressure above the 27.6 kilopascals threshold in the definition 
of ``gasoline'', as specified in 40 CFR 63.11100. Since transmix is not 
used as fuel for internal combustion engines, it does not meet the 
definition of gasoline as defined in 40 CFR 63.11100 and therefore does 
not trigger applicability of NESHAP BBBBBB.

Abstract for [1200071]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption be approved for combusting fuel 
gas streams from the Udex Process Unit as inherently low-content sulfur 
streams under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries 
part 60 subpart J, at Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, (Marathon), 
located in Texas City, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Marathon AMP request in light of changes 
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and determined 
that the fuel gas streams appeared to meet exemption criteria of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D). As such, the fuel gas combustion device and the 
Main Plant Flare, do not need to meet the monitoring requirements of 
either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4) for these streams. The 
effective date of the exemption is October 28, 2010, the date the 
application for exemption was submitted. If the refinery conditions 
change and it is determined that any of the streams are no longer 
exempt, continuous monitoring shall begin within 15 days of the change 
in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). 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 [M120024]

    Q1: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) request an 
EPA interpretation of the recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 63.654 
of NESHAP subpart G and 40 CFR 60.115b of NSPS subpart Kb, as it 
applies to a regulated entity with several external floating roof 
storage tanks subject to these requirements. One of the requirements 
the regulated entity must fulfill is the maintenance of records of raw 
data obtained in the inspection of storage tank. Should the regulated 
entity keep the original field notes on site, or may it discard them 
after transferring the data to the electronic form?
    A1: EPA determines that any original field notes should be kept on 
site. The transferring of raw data from field notes into an electronic 
database can introduce additional error when data transcription and 
entry occur, and therefore destroying the field data sheets is not an 
acceptable practice. This determination is consistent with previously 
EPA published guidance that addresses air pollution measurement systems 
and the quality assurance procedures associated with such systems. The 
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems 
indicates that the original field data sheets must be preserved 
whenever any sort of emissions sampling or equipment testing, such as 
measuring seal gaps in a storage tank, is performed.

Abstract for [1200072]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous 
emission monitoring system (CEMS) at a refinery loading dock flare 
covered under NSPS subpart J at the TOTAL Petrochemicals USA Inc., Port 
Arthur Refinery (TOTAL Refiner), Texas?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve TOTAL Petrochemicals AMP request. This 
determination is made after several attempts over the past few years to 
allow the company adequate time to submit sufficient process 
information about its operation and characteristics of the loading dock 
vent gas streams, and after subsequently determining that the company 
could not ascertain whether or not the AMP request was still necessary.

Abstract for [1200073]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting vent streams from a truck and 
railcar loading rack as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries part 60 subpart 
J, for the Valero Three Rivers Refinery (Valero) facility in Live Oak 
County, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero AMP request in light of changes 
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and determined 
that the AMP request was no longer necessary, because the pilot and 
assist gas vent streams appeared to meet exemption criteria of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(A), the refined benzene, gasoline and diesel vapors 
appeared to meet the criteria of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(B), and the 
light cycle oil (LCO) vapors appeared to meet the criteria of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D). As such, the fuel gas combustion device does not 
need to meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) 
or 60.105(a)(4) for these streams. The effective date of the exemption 
is June 24, 2008. If refinery operations change such that Valero 
determines that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous monitoring 
shall begin within 15 days of the change in accordance with 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv). For the LCO stream exempted under 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), instead refer to the procedures in 40 CFR 
60.105(b)(3)(i-iii) if changes in operating conditions or stream 
composition occur.

Abstract for [1200076]

    Q1: Does EPA approve exemptions in lieu of two approved Alternative 
Monitoring Plans (AMPs) for vent streams from Steam Methane Reformer 
Pressure Swing Adsorption Off-Gas and Catalytic Reformer Unit Fuel Gas 
Drums, as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries, part 60, subpart J, at 
Valero Refining Corpus Christi West Plant (Valero CC West) in Nueces 
County, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated Valero CC West request in light of changes 
made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and determined 
that the

[[Page 27385]]

AMPs are no longer necessary for the specified fuel gas streams since 
the vent streams are considered inherently low in sulfur since they are 
produced in process units intolerant to sulfur contamination and meet 
the exemption requirement of 40 CFR 60.l05(a)(4)(iv)(C). Therefore, the 
fuel gas combustion devices do not need to meet the monitoring 
requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4).

Abstract for [1200077]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a Sulfur Collection Header 
(39FA1006) fuel gas stream from the C-Train Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) 
under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries part 60 
subpart J, at Valero Refining Texas, Houston Plant (Valero Houston), 
Houston, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero Houston AMP request in light of 
changes included in the final amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 
2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined that an AMP is not needed since the 
rule requirements for the Sulfur Collection Header (39FA1006) fuel gas 
stream from the C-Train SRU are being met. The C-Train SRU is a Claus 
sulfur recovery plant with oxidation control systems followed by 
incineration, therefore the fuel gas stream is subject to the 
continuous monitoring required by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5).

Abstract for [1200078]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting Sulfur Storage Tank (39FB1001) and 
Sulfur Loading Arm fuel gas streams from the C-Train Sulfur Recovery 
Unit (SRU) under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries 
part 60 subpart J, at Valero Refining Texas, Houston Plant (Valero 
Houston), Houston, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero Houston AMP request in light of 
changes included in the final amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 
2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined that an AMP is not necessary for the 
specified fuel gas streams since the NSPS subpart J requirements for 
the Sulfur Storage Tank (39FB1001) and Sulfur Loading Arm fuel gas 
streams from the C-Train SRU are being met. The C-Train SRU is a Claus 
sulfur recovery plant with oxidation control systems followed by 
incineration, therefore the fuel gas streams are subject to the 
continuous monitoring required by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5).

Abstract for [1200079]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) be approved for combusting Sulfur Pit (46AD6202) 
and Sulfur Loading Arm (46LO6201) fuel gas streams from the B-Train 
Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) under New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for Refineries part 60 subpart J, at Valero Refining Texas, 
Houston Plant (Valero Houston), Houston, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero Houston AMP request in light of 
changes included in the final amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 
2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined that an AMP is not necessary since 
the NSPS subpart J requirements for the Sulfur Pit (46AD6202) and 
Sulfur Loading Arm (46LO6201) fuel gas streams from the B-Train are 
being met. The B-Train SRU is a Claus sulfur recovery plant with 
oxidation control systems followed by incineration, therefore the fuel 
gas streams are subject to the continuous monitoring required by 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(5) and not subject to the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) or 60.101(a)(4).

Abstract for [1200081]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a hydrogen 
plant pressure swing absorber (PSA) as an inherently low-content sulfur 
stream under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries 
part 60 subpart J, at Western Refining Company, L.P. (Western Refining) 
Hydrogen Plant located in El Paso, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Western Refining AMP request in light of 
changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and 
determined that the AMP request was no longer necessary, because the 
refinery's Hydrogen Plant PSA vent gas stream is inherently low in 
sulfur and therefore appeared to meet the exemption criteria of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C), and it is combusted in the steam reformer heater 
and Rheniformer flare. As such, the fuel gas combustion devices do not 
need to meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) 
or 60.105(a)(4) for this stream. The effective date of the exemption is 
June 24, 2008. If refinery operations change such that Western Refinery 
determines that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous monitoring 
must begin within 15 days of the change in accordance with 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200084]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring 
procedure (AMP) for two new proposed kilns (known collectively as EU 
056) located at the 3M Cottage Grove facility in Minnesota (3M), since 
it is expected that the wet scrubbing system for EU 056 will achieve a 
particulate matter (PM) emission rate an order of magnitude below the 
emission rate required under NSPS subpart UUU Standards of Performance 
for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries, and based on 
performance testing conducted on a similar system?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the 3M AMP request since EPA believes that 
monitoring and recording the scrubbing liquid pressure is a reasonable 
alternative to monitoring and recording the pressure loss of the gas 
through the scrubber required in 40 CFR 60.734(d) of subpart UUU, and 
that it is similar to and based on previous EPA AMP approvals. EPA 
agrees with the 3M recommendation that a deviation is any instance 
where the scrubbing liquid supply pressure is more than 20 percent 
below the average value determined, in accordance with 40 CFR 
60.736(c), during a recently-conducted performance test of EU 056 that 
demonstrates compliance with the PM standard.

Abstract for [1200085]

    Q1: Is EU 028, a mixer/dryer that processes a very wet (greater 
than 50 percent moisture) alumina slurry located significantly upstream 
of kilns, subject to NSPS subpart UUU, at the 3M facility in Cottage 
Grove, Minnesota?
    A1: No. EPA has determined that the mixer/dryer EU 028 is not 
subject to NSPS subpart UUU requirements because it does not meet the 
definition of mineral processing plant under the rule since it 
processes alumina slurry that contains less than 50 percent alumina.

Abstract for [M120025]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for use 
of quarterly comparative temperature monitoring in lieu of the 
quarterly calibration verification requirements for thermocouples, 
which are located below the catalyst bed in each of two oxidizers 
required under the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, at the 3M 
facility in Cottage Grove, Minnesota?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves of the use of quarterly comparison of 
thermocouple temperature readings in lieu of the calibration 
verification requirements in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9). EPA believes

[[Page 27386]]

monitoring and recording the scrubbing liquid pressure is a reasonable 
alternative to monitoring and recording the pressure loss of the gas 
through the scrubber. EPA also concurs with the 3M recommendation that 
a deviation is any instance where the scrubbing liquid supply pressure 
is more than 20 percent below the average value determined, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 60.736(c), during a recently-conducted 
performance test of EU 056 that demonstrates compliance with the PM 
standard.

Abstract for [M120028]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for use 
of an acoustic monitor capable of detecting the presence of a flare 
pilot flame in lieu of a thermocouple for demonstrating compliance with 
the NSPS subpart A, and NESHAP Subparts A and CC at Utility Flare 84ME-
27 at the Flint Hills Resources--Pine Bend Refinery (Flint Refinery)?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the Flint Refinery AMP request based on the 
information provided, including a noise survey at the site. EPA has 
determined that the acoustic monitor is appropriate for detecting the 
presence of a flare pilot flame given the ambient background noise 
magnitude and profile created by nearby operating equipment.

Abstract for [M120030]

    Q1: Is a metal etching process using chromic acid and an electrical 
current, though in the reverse of the typical plating process (i.e., 
with the metal part serving as the anode), to be installed at the 
Teikuro Corporation Springfield facility in Ohio (Teikuro), subject to 
the NESHAP for Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing 
Operations, subpart WWWWWW?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that Teikuro planned etching process meets 
the definition of electropolishing in 40 CFR 63.11504(a)(vi) because 
the process you described involves an electrolytic process with the 
metal part serving as the anode and a bath containing chromium. 
Therefore, the planned etching process is required to meet the NESHAP 
subpart WWWWWW rule requirements.

Abstract for [1200089]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
combusting a Sulfur Collection Header (39FA1006) fuel gas stream from 
the C-Train Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) under New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) for Refineries part 60 subpart J, at Valero Refining 
Texas, Houston Plant (Valero Houston), Houston, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero Houston AMP request in light of 
changes included in the final amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 
2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined that an AMP is not necessary since 
the NSPS subpart J requirements for combusting a Sulfur Collection 
Header (39FA1006) fuel gas stream from the C-Train SRU are being met. 
The stream is combusted in the SRU Tail Gas Incinerator 39CB2001, which 
is equipped with continuous monitoring required by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5). 
The C-Train SRU is a Claus sulfur recovery plant with oxidation control 
systems followed by incineration, therefore, the fuel gas stream is 
subject to the continuous monitoring required by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5) 
and not subject to the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) 
or 60.101(a)(4).

Abstract for [M120031]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Montana-Dakota Utilities Company request for 
confirmation of status of R. M. Heskett Station Units 1 and 2 in ``unit 
designed for low rank virgin coal'' subcategory under the Mercury and 
Air Toxics (MATS) NESHAP rule, subpart UUUUU?
    A1: Yes. Based on review with the Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards and the MATS rule applicable to coal and oil-fired 
electric utility steam generating units, EPA confirmed the referenced 
units are in the subcategory.

Abstract for [M120032]

    Q: Can, and under what conditions may, a secondary aluminum 
production reverberatory furnace change its classification from Group 1 
to Group 2 under the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP subpart RRR rule, at the 
Kalamazoo facility located in Michigan?
    A: Yes. EPA concludes that the Kalamazoo facility may change the 
furnace classification upon approval by the regulatory authority and 
upon meeting the conditions established in the EPA response letter, 
consistent with NESHAP subpart RRR requirements. The furnace must be 
operated within one (and only one) of the three proposed operating 
modes for the entirety of a given melt cycle, which are: Group 1 
furnace with add-on air pollution control devices; Group 1 furnace 
without add-on air pollution control devices; and Group 2 furnace.

Abstract for [1200091]

    Q: Intertek Testing Services (Intertek) request guidance on whether 
EPA allows certification testing for wood heating appliances subject to 
the New Source Performance Standard for New Residential Wood Heating 
Appliances, NSPS subpart AAA, to be conducted at manufacturing 
facilities?
    A: EPA clarifies to Intertek that certification testing for 
compliance with the NSPS subpart AAA may be conducted at a 
manufacturing facility, provided staff from EPA accredited laboratories 
conduct the testing and follow the offsite testing guidelines testing 
guidelines included as an attachment to the EPA response letter. Only 
equipment purchased, calibrated and used by the EPA accredited 
laboratory may be used to conduct the testing.

Abstract for [Z120004]

    Q: Does EPA grant Magellan Pipeline Company (Magellan) a one-year 
compliance extension from the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 
(RICE) NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ to install 
emission controls at 26 diesel RICE located in Oklahoma, Missouri, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota?
    A: Yes. Per 40 CFR part 63(i)(4) and (6), EPA extends the 
compliance date from May 3, 2013 to May 3, 2014 to allow Magellan 
Pipeline additional time to install emission controls at 26 diesel RICE 
and thereby comply with the RICE NESHAP regulations at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart ZZZZ. The extension is granted under the conditions, which 
support compliance with the RICE NESHAP regulations and are outlined in 
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1200092]

    Q: Does EPA grant a National Security Exemption (NSE) for 240 
Cummins Model 6T8.3-G2 diesel engines to be used at an Intercontinental 
Ballistic Missile (ICBM) facility at W. E Air Force Base?
    A: Yes. EPA grants the NSE for the 240 Cummins Model 6T8.3-G2 
diesel engines. These engines will provide backup and emergency power 
to the ICBM Minuteman III Launch Facilities (LFs) and Missile Alert 
Facilities (MAFs) in the event of commercial power loss. The NSE is 
granted because the electronic fuel controls used by these engines to 
comply with the Compression Ignition Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engine (RICE) regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII are 
susceptible to electromagnetic pulse and shock which may occur during 
nuclear attack under wartime conditions and, therefore, cannot be used 
in this application.

[[Page 27387]]

Abstract for [WDS-145]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative testing request to allow 
sources subject to the New Source Performance Standard for New 
Residential Wood Heaters at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, to use the 
Canadian test protocol CSA B415, to determine thermal energy efficiency 
ratings for wood stoves and pellet stoves per the guidelines at 40 CFR 
part 60.636(i)(3) in lieu of the default efficiency ratings (63 percent 
for noncatalytic wood heaters, 72 percent for catalytic wood heaters, 
and 78 percent for pellet stoves)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative testing for manufacturers of 
wood heaters and pellets to use CSA B415 to determine thermal 
efficiency ratings for compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA. The 
CSA B415 testing must be conducted by an EPA accredited laboratory and 
use the higher heating value of the fuel.

    Dated: April 17, 2013.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-11204 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P