Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27375 

Dated: March 1, 2013. 

Debra B. Walsh, 

Acting Director, National Center for 

Environmental Assessment. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11198 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9811–2] 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources, National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, and the Stratospheric 

Ozone Protection Program: Recent 

Posting to the Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) Database 

System of Agency Applicability 

Determinations, Alternative Monitoring 

Decisions, and Regulatory 

Interpretations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

applicability determinations, alternative 

monitoring decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations that EPA has made 

under the New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS); the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP); and/or the 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Program. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An 

electronic copy of each complete 

document posted on the Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) database 

system is available on the Internet 

through the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site 

at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The 

letters and memoranda on the ADI may 

be located by control number, date, 

author, subpart, or subject search. For 

questions about the ADI or this notice, 

contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone 

at: (202) 564–7027, or by email at: 

malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical 

questions about individual applicability 

determinations or monitoring decisions, 

refer to the contact person identified in 

the individual documents, or in the 

absence of a contact person, refer to the 

author of the document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The General Provisions of the NSPS 

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 60 and the General Provisions of 

the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide 

that a source owner or operator may 

request a determination of whether 

certain intended actions constitute the 

commencement of construction, 

reconstruction, or modification. 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27376 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON MARCH XX, 2013—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

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—Alternate 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27377 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON MARCH XX, 2013—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

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 sitespecific and are decided on a case-bycase 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27378 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27379 

yet may not result in a decrease in the 

liquid flow rate. In such instances, 

where the absorber is operating less 

efficiently and only liquid flow rate is 

monitored, it is possible to exceed the 

emission standard while still 

demonstrating compliance by meeting 

the minimum flow rate. 

Abstract for [M120011] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a modification 

of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) to remove the 3 percent upper 

caustic concentration operating limit 

parameter (OPL) on a scrubber used to 

control hydrochloric acid (HCl) 

emissions at the Dow Chemical 

Company mercaptan derivative process 

located in Freeport (Dow Freeport), 

Texas, subject to MACT subpart 

NNNNN? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

modification of the AMP that allows a 

waiver of the 3 percent upper caustic 

concentration limit for the Dow Freeport 

mercaptan derivative process. EPA 

agrees that it is unnecessary to maintain 

an upper limit for caustic concentration 

to demonstrate compliance, as more 

caustic concentration would provide 

greater potential to reduce HCl 

emissions. Therefore, the waiver is 

approved as long as the scrubber 

recirculation caustic concentration is at 

a minimum of 1.6 percent of sodium 

hydroxide and the minimum flow rate 

is at 45 gallons per minute. 

Abstract for [1200019] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent stream 

flow monitoring for specific distillation 

columns and associated flares used as a 

control device to implement NSPS 

subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping provisions in lieu of 

complying with corresponding 

provisions of NSPS subpart NNN, with 

the exception of small vent and drain 

valves utilized for maintenance events, 

for Equistar Chemicals facility 

(Equistar), Channelview Chemical 

Complex, located in Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the Equistar AMP request to implement 

NSPS subpart RRR for testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN for specific distillation 

columns vent streams routed to unit 

flares without any by-pass lines. In 

order to ensure that affected vent 

streams are routed to appropriate 

control devices, Equistar Channelview 

Chemical Complex is required to 

maintain a schematic diagram of the 

affected vent streams, collection 

system(s), fuel systems, control devices, 

and bypass systems as part of the initial 

report submitted in accordance with 40 

CFR section 60.705(b) of subpart RRR. 

EPA noted in its approval that the small 

vent and drain valves utilized by 

Equistar Channelview Chemical 

Complex for maintenance events are not 

an exception under either NSPS subpart 

NNN or NSPS Subpart RRR. Therefore, 

flow must be monitored during 

maintenance events at these locations in 

accordance with NSPS subpart RRR, 

because such components act as bypass 

valves during such events (i.e., flow is 

diverted away from the control device). 

Abstract for [1200020] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent stream 

flow monitoring for specific distillation 

columns and associated flares to 

implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN, with the exception of 

small vent and drain valves utilized for 

maintenance events, for Equistar 

Chemicals (Equistar) at the LaPorte 

Chemical Complex, located in Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the Equistar AMP request to implement 

NSPS subpart RRR for testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN for specific distillation 

columns vent streams routed to unit 

flares without any by-pass lines. In 

order to ensure that affected vent 

streams are routed to appropriate 

control devices, Equistar LaPorte 

Chemical Complex facility is required to 

maintain a schematic diagram of the 

affected vent streams, collection 

system(s), fuel systems, control devices, 

and bypass systems as part of the initial 

report submitted in accordance with 40 

CFR 60.705(b) of subpart RRR. EPA 

noted in its approval that the small vent 

and drain valves utilized by Equistar for 

maintenance events are not an 

exception under either NSPS subpart 

NNN or subpart RRR. Therefore, flow 

must be monitored during maintenance 

events at these locations in accordance 

with NSPS subpart RRR, because such 

components act as bypass valves during 

such events (i.e., flow is diverted away 

from the control device). 

Abstract for [1200021] 

Q1: Does EPA approve modifications 

to an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) for a distillation column and 

associated flare to add flexibility of 

routing vent streams to other control 

equipment as backup to the flare (i.e., 

incinerator, boiler or process heater), 

and to implement NSPS subpart RRR 

testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN for compliance with both 

subparts, for Equistar Chemicals 

(Equistar) at the LaPorte Chemical 

Complex, located in Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the Equistar AMP request to modify an 

approved AMP for testing, monitoring, 

and recordkeeping provisions in NSPS 

subpart RRR in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN for specific distillation 

columns vent streams when routed to 

unit flares and other backup control 

devices to the flare at the Equistar 

LaPorte Chemical Complex. The 

conditions of the original AMP approval 

also still apply and are specified in the 

EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M120014] 

Q1: Does EPA approve modifying a 

prior approved Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP), pertaining to parametric 

monitoring of the fluid catalytic 

cracking unit (FCCU) No. 3 wet gas 

scrubber (WGS) in lieu of monitoring 

opacity via continuous opacity 

monitoring system (COMS), due to 

moisture interference on opacity 

readings in the stack, at the Exon Mobil 

Refinery located in Baytown, Texas? 

Modification is necessary in order to 

allow nominal flow to a bypass stack 

during CO Boilers maintenance prior to 

plant turnaround. 

A1: Yes. EPA will conditionally 

approve a modified AMP to allow 

nominal flow to the Bypass stack for the 

4-month period necessary for 

maintenance on two of three CO Boilers. 

The plant turnaround is removing the 

Bypass Stack and the modified AMP 

will incorporate this temporary 

alteration for two of the three boilers. 

However, due to the number of other 

requested modifications to the prior 

approved AMP, EPA will address 

multiple issues associated with the prior 

approved AMP for both the FCCU No. 

2 and the FCCU No. 3 WGS units. A 

new performance test is necessary to 

establish new Operating Parameter 

Limits (OPLs) for the WGS. Details 

pertaining to the modified AMP are 

included in the enclosure of the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [Z120002] 

Q1: Are sour water streams managed 

upstream of a refinery sour water 

stripper at the Flint Hills Resources 

(FHR) East Refinery in Corpus Christi, 

Texas, subject to the Benzene Waste 

Operations NESHAP (BWOP), subpart 

FF? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27380 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27381 

Abstract for [M120019] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for site-specific 

monitoring parameters to be used in 

daily monitoring for a biological 

treatment system for Potlatch Forest 

Products (PFP) Corporation Cypress 

Bend Mill facility located in McGehee, 

Arkansas, subject to NESHAP subpart S 

applicable to the pulp and paper 

industry? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the PFP AMP request for site-specific 

monitoring parameters to be used in the 

daily monitoring of the open biological 

treatment system at your pulp and paper 

Cypress Bend Mill facility. To maintain 

compliance with the Title V permit, PFP 

must incorporate the site-specific 

parameters into its Title V permit for the 

Cypress Bend Mill facility. 

Abstract for [1200036] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) request to allow 

use of continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) in lieu of a continuous 

opacity monitoring system (COMS) 

required by 40 CFR 60.45(a) at a steam 

electric generating unit subject to NSPS 

subpart D when firing lignite coal, 

owned by the American Electric Power 

(AEP) located at the Southwestern 

Electric Power Company’s (SWEPCO) 

H.W. Pirkey Power Station (Pirkey), 

near Hallsville and Marshall, Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AEP AMP request to address an 

upgrade of the amount of Sulfur Dioxide 

(S02) removal planned for Unit l’s Wet 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (WFGD) 

system resulting in increased SO2 and 

interference with the opacity readings 

taken by the stack-located COMS. This 

is based on AEP’s description of the 

arrangement of the boiler’s parallel 

duct-work and the relationship between 

the stack-located continuous opacity 

monitoring system (COMS) and the 

proposed continuous monitoring system 

(CMS), which has replaced the stacklocated 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27382 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

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 nowclosed 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 nowclosed 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? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27383 

A1: Yes. EPA evaluated your sitespecific 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 lowcontent 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27384 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27385 

AMPs are no longer necessary for the 

specified fuel gas streams since the vent 

streams are considered inherently low 

in sulfur since they are produced in 

process units intolerant to sulfur 

contamination and meet the exemption 

requirement of 40 CFR 

60.l05(a)(4)(iv)(C). Therefore, the fuel 

gas combustion devices do not need to 

meet the monitoring requirements of 

either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 

60.105(a)(4). 

Abstract for [1200077] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption 

in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP) for combusting a Sulfur 

Collection Header (39FA1006) fuel gas 

stream from the C-Train Sulfur Recovery 

Unit (SRU) under New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for 

Refineries part 60 subpart J, at Valero 

Refining Texas, Houston Plant (Valero 

Houston), Houston, Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero 

Houston AMP request in light of 

changes included in the final 

amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 

24, 2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined 

that an AMP is not needed since the 

rule requirements for the Sulfur 

Collection Header (39FA1006) fuel gas 

stream from the C-Train SRU are being 

met. The C-Train SRU is a Claus sulfur 

recovery plant with oxidation control 

systems followed by incineration, 

therefore the fuel gas stream is subject 

to the continuous monitoring required 

by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5). 

Abstract for [1200078] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption 

in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP) for combusting Sulfur 

Storage Tank (39FB1001) and Sulfur 

Loading Arm fuel gas streams from the 

C-Train Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) 

under New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for Refineries part 60 

subpart J, at Valero Refining Texas, 

Houston Plant (Valero Houston), 

Houston, Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero 

Houston AMP request in light of 

changes included in the final 

amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 

24, 2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined 

that an AMP is not necessary for the 

specified fuel gas streams since the 

NSPS subpart J requirements for the 

Sulfur Storage Tank (39FB1001) and 

Sulfur Loading Arm fuel gas streams 

from the C-Train SRU are being met. 

The C-Train SRU is a Claus sulfur 

recovery plant with oxidation control 

systems followed by incineration, 

therefore the fuel gas streams are subject 

to the continuous monitoring required 

by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5). 

Abstract for [1200079] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption 

in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP) be approved for combusting 

Sulfur Pit (46AD6202) and Sulfur 

Loading Arm (46LO6201) fuel gas 

streams from the B-Train Sulfur 

Recovery Unit (SRU) under New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for 

Refineries part 60 subpart J, at Valero 

Refining Texas, Houston Plant (Valero 

Houston), Houston, Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Valero 

Houston AMP request in light of 

changes included in the final 

amendment to NSPS subpart J on June 

24, 2008 (73 FR 35840) and determined 

that an AMP is not necessary since the 

NSPS subpart J requirements for the 

Sulfur Pit (46AD6202) and Sulfur 

Loading Arm (46LO6201) fuel gas 

streams from the B-Train are being met. 

The B-Train SRU is a Claus sulfur 

recovery plant with oxidation control 

systems followed by incineration, 

therefore the fuel gas streams are subject 

to the continuous monitoring required 

by 40 CFR 60.105(a)(5) and not subject 

to the monitoring requirements of 40 

CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.101(a)(4). 

Abstract for [1200081] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an exemption 

in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent 

stream from a hydrogen plant pressure 

swing absorber (PSA) as an inherently 

low-content sulfur stream under New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for Refineries part 60 subpart J, at 

Western Refining Company, L.P. 

(Western Refining) Hydrogen Plant 

located in El Paso, Texas? 

A1: Yes. EPA evaluated the Western 

Refining AMP request in light of 

changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 

24, 2008 (73 FR 35866), and determined 

that the AMP request was no longer 

necessary, because the refinery’s 

Hydrogen Plant PSA vent gas stream is 

inherently low in sulfur and therefore 

appeared to meet the exemption criteria 

of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C), and it is 

combusted in the steam reformer heater 

and Rheniformer flare. As such, the fuel 

gas combustion devices do not need to 

meet the monitoring requirements of 

either 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 

60.105(a)(4) for this stream. The 

effective date of the exemption is June 

24, 2008. If refinery operations change 

such that Western Refinery determines 

that the stream is no longer exempt, 

continuous monitoring must begin 

within 15 days of the change in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(4)(iv). 

Abstract for [1200084] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a request for 

an alternative monitoring procedure 

(AMP) for two new proposed kilns 

(known collectively as EU 056) located 

at the 3M Cottage Grove facility in 

Minnesota (3M), since it is expected that 

the wet scrubbing system for EU 056 

will achieve a particulate matter (PM) 

emission rate an order of magnitude 

below the emission rate required under 

NSPS subpart UUU Standards of 

Performance for Calciners and Dryers in 

Mineral Industries, and based on 

performance testing conducted on a 

similar system? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves the 3M AMP 

request since EPA believes that 

monitoring and recording the scrubbing 

liquid pressure is a reasonable 

alternative to monitoring and recording 

the pressure loss of the gas through the 

scrubber required in 40 CFR 60.734(d) 

of subpart UUU, and that it is similar to 

and based on previous EPA AMP 

approvals. EPA agrees with the 3M 

recommendation that a deviation is any 

instance where the scrubbing liquid 

supply pressure is more than 20 percent 

below the average value determined, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 60.736(c), 

during a recently-conducted 

performance test of EU 056 that 

demonstrates compliance with the PM 

standard. 

Abstract for [1200085] 

Q1: Is EU 028, a mixer/dryer that 

processes a very wet (greater than 50 

percent moisture) alumina slurry 

located significantly upstream of kilns, 

subject to NSPS subpart UUU, at the 3M 

facility in Cottage Grove, Minnesota? 

A1: No. EPA has determined that the 

mixer/dryer EU 028 is not subject to 

NSPS subpart UUU requirements 

because it does not meet the definition 

of mineral processing plant under the 

rule since it processes alumina slurry 

that contains less than 50 percent 

alumina. 

Abstract for [M120025] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for use of 

quarterly comparative temperature 

monitoring in lieu of the quarterly 

calibration verification requirements for 

thermocouples, which are located below 

the catalyst bed in each of two oxidizers 

required under the Paper and Other 

Web Coating NESHAP, at the 3M facility 

in Cottage Grove, Minnesota? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves of the use of 

quarterly comparison of thermocouple 

temperature readings in lieu of the 

calibration verification requirements in 

40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9). EPA believes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27386 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

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 CTrain 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 CTrain 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 MontanaDakota 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27387 

Abstract for [WDS–145] 

Q: Does EPA approve the alternative 

testing request to allow sources subject 

to the New Source Performance 

Standard for New Residential Wood 

Heaters at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, 

to use the Canadian test protocol CSA 

B415, to determine thermal energy 

efficiency ratings for wood stoves and 

pellet stoves per the guidelines at 40 

CFR part 60.636(i)(3) in lieu of the 

default efficiency ratings (63 percent for 

noncatalytic wood heaters, 72 percent 

for catalytic wood heaters, and 78 

percent for pellet stoves)? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

testing for manufacturers of wood 

heaters and pellets to use CSA B415 to 

determine thermal efficiency ratings for 

compliance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAA. The CSA B415 testing 

must be conducted by an EPA 

accredited laboratory and use the higher 

heating value of the fuel. 

Dated: April 17, 2013. 

Lisa Lund, 

Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11204 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9812–5; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD– 

2013–0357] 

Notice of Workshop and Call for 

Information on Integrated Science 

Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Workshop; Call for 

Information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA Office of 

Research and Development’s National 

Center for Environmental Assessment 

(NCEA) is preparing an Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA) as part of the 

review of the primary National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

oxides of sulfur (SOX) (for which the 

indicator is sulfur dioxide [SO2]). This 

ISA will update the scientific 

assessment presented in the Integrated 

Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides— 

Health Criteria (EPA 600/R–08/047F), 

published in September 2008. Interested 

parties are invited to assist the EPA in 

developing and refining the scientific 

information base for the review of the 

NAAQS for SOX by submitting recent 

research studies that have been 

published, accepted for publication, or 

presented at a public scientific meeting. 

The EPA is also announcing that a 

workshop entitled ‘‘Kickoff Workshop 

to Inform EPA’s Review of the Primary 

SO2 NAAQS’’ is being organized by 

NCEA and the EPA Office of Air and 

Radiation’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The 

workshop will be held June 12–13, 

2013, in Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. The workshop will be open to 

attendance by interested public 

observers on a first-come, first-served 

basis up to the limits of available space. 

Additionally, in the near future, the 

EPA Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) 

will be forming a Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC) panel for 

the SO2 NAAQS health review. 

DATES: The workshop will be held on 

June 12–13, 2013. All communications 

and information submitted in response 

to the call for information should be 

received by EPA by June 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held 

at U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

An EPA contractor, ICF International, is 

providing logistical support for the 

workshop. Please register by going to 

https://sites.google.com/site/ 

soxkickoffworkshop/. The preregistration deadline is May 31, 2013. 

Please direct questions regarding 

workshop registration or logistics to 

Whitney Kihlstrom at 

EPA_NAAQS_Workshop@icfi.com or by 

phone at 919–293–1646. For specific 

questions regarding technical aspects of 

the workshop see the section of this 

notice entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Information in response to the call for 

information may be submitted 

electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 

by hand delivery/courier. Please follow 

the detailed instructions as provided in 

the section of this notice entitled 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

details on the period for submission of 

research information from the public, 

contact the Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket; telephone: 

202–566–1752; facsimile: 202–566– 

9744; or email: Docket_ORD@epa.gov. 

For technical information, contact Tom 

Long, Ph.D., NCEA; telephone: 919– 

541–1880; facsimile: 919–541–2985; or 

email: long.tom@epa.gov or Amy 

Lamson, Ph.D., OAQPS; telephone: 919– 

541–4383 or email: 

lamson.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Information About the Project 

Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act 

directs the Administrator to issue ‘‘air 

quality criteria’’ for certain air 

pollutants. These air quality criteria are 

to ‘‘accurately reflect the latest scientific 

knowledge useful in indicating the kind 

and extent of all identifiable effects on 

public health or welfare, which may be 

expected from the presence of such 

pollutant in the ambient air. . . .’’ 

Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is 

then to establish National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each 

pollutant for which EPA has issued 

criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act 

requires EPA to review periodically, 

and, if appropriate, to revise existing air 

quality criteria to reflect advances in 

scientific knowledge on the effects of 

the pollutant on public health and 

welfare. EPA is also to determine 

whether it is appropriate to revise the 

NAAQS based on the revised air quality 

criteria. 

Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) are one of six 

‘‘criteria’’ pollutants for which EPA has 

established NAAQS. Periodically, EPA 

reviews the scientific basis for these 

standards by preparing an Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA). The ISA, 

along with additional technical and 

policy assessments conducted by 

OAQPS, form the scientific and 

technical bases for EPA decisions on the 

adequacy of the SO2 NAAQS and the 

appropriateness of revising that 

standard. 

At the start of a NAAQS review, EPA 

issues an announcement of the review 

and notes the initiation of the 

development of the ISA. At that time, 

EPA also issues a request that the public 

submit scientific literature that they 

want to bring to the attention of the 

Agency for consideration in the review 

process. CASAC, an independent 

scientific advisory committee whose 

role is mandated by the Clean Air Act, 

is charged with independent expert 

scientific review of EPA’s draft ISAs. As 

the process proceeds, the public will 

have opportunities to review and 

comment on draft SOX ISAs. These 

opportunities will also be announced in 

the Federal Register. 

For the review of the primary SO2

NAAQS being initiated by this notice, 

the Agency is interested in obtaining 

additional new information, particularly 

concerning toxicological studies of 

effects of controlled exposure to SOX on 

laboratory animals, humans, and in 

vitro systems as well as epidemiologic 

(observational) studies of health effects 

associated with ambient exposures of 

human populations to SOX. EPA also 

seeks recent information in other areas 

of SOX research such as chemistry and 

physics, sources and emissions, 

analytical methodology, transport and 

transformation in the environment, and 

ambient concentrations. This and other 

selected literature relevant to a review 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES