[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27375-27387]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.

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.

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

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,

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?

    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.

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

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?

    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

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

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

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.

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