Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Etc., 68432-68439 [2013-27287]

Download as PDF TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 68432 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices Schedule A&B—2013 Revised (Bundled) to be effective 5/1/2013. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5039. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–315–000. Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company. Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits Cancellation of LCRA with CMEEC to be effective 1/ 1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5040. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–316–000 Applicants: Tampa Electric Company. Description: Tampa Electric Company submits Emergency Interchange Service Contract w_Southern Company—2013 Rev (Unbundled) to be effective 5/1/ 2013. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5041. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–317–000. Applicants: Tampa Electric Company. Description: Tampa Electric Company submits QF Transmission Agreement with Auburndale Pwr Partners—2013 Revised to be effective 5/1/2013. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5042. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–318–000. Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company. Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submits LCRA with CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5043. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–319–000. Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire. Description: Public Service Company of New Hampshire submits Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5059. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–320–000. Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company. Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5061. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–321–000. Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company. Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submits Localized VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 Cost Responsibility Agreement with Town of Wallingford to be effective 1/ 1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5067. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–322–000. Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire. Description: Public Service Company of New Hampshire submits Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with Town of Wallingford to be effective 1/ 1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5074. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–323–000. Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc. Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc. submits OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective 11/12/2013. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5078. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. Docket Numbers: ER14–324–000. Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company. Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits Localized cost responsibility agreement between Town of Wallingford and WMECO to be effective 1/1/2014. Filed Date: 11/5/13. Accession Number: 20131105–5079. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. The filings are accessible in the Commission’s eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number. Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Dated: November 5, 2013. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2013–27163 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ Docket No. EL13–90–000] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Initiation of Proceeding and Refund Effective Date On September 24, 2013, the Commission issued an order that initiated a proceeding in Docket No. EL13–90–000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2006), to determine the justness and reasonableness of the rate increase proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 144 FERC ¶ 61,277 (2013). The refund effective date in Docket No. EL13–90–000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Dated: November 7, 2013. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2013–27164 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9902–92–OECA] Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Etc. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Availability. AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 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. In addition, the ADI contains EPAissued 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. 68433 Today’s notice comprises a summary of 32 such documents added to the ADI on October 30, 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 October 30, 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 OCTOBER 30, 2013 Categories Subparts Title 1100013 .......................... NSPS ............................. A, OOO, UUU ................ 1100014 .......................... NSPS ............................. A, KKK, Kb .................... 1100015 .......................... MACT, NSPS ................. J, UUU ........................... 1100016 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1100019 .......................... MACT, NSPS ................. J, UUU ........................... 1100020 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1100021 .......................... NSPS ............................. Ja ................................... 1100023 .......................... TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Control No. NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1100024 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1100025 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1100026 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request to Extend Required Initial Performance Test due to Force Majeure. Applicability to Condensate Storage Tanks and a Backup Vapor Recovery Unit. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Opacity Monitoring—Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit Wet Gas Scrubber. Approval of Operating Parameters on an ExxonMobil Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas Scrubber for a Compliance Alternative. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas Scrubber. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas Scrubber. Request for Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Sulfur Bearing Fuel Gas Stream. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for a Wet Gas Scrubber on a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Hydrogen Sulfide Vent Stream Monitoring. Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Sulfur Vent Stream Combustion from a Catalytic Hydrodesulfurization Unit. Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Sulfur Vent Stream from a Catalytic Platinum Reformer Unit. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 68434 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON OCTOBER 30, 2013—Continued Control No. Categories Subparts Title 1200001 .......................... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... 1200002 .......................... NSPS ............................. EEEE ............................. 1200003 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200007 .......................... NSPS ............................. Db .................................. 1200008 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200010 .......................... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... 1200011 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200012 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200013 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200014 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200015 .......................... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... 1200022 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... 1200025 .......................... 1200028 .......................... NSPS ............................. NSPS ............................. J ..................................... EEEE, FFFF .................. 1200032 .......................... MACT, NSPS ................. JJJJ, ZZZZ ..................... A130001 ......................... Asbestos ........................ M .................................... A130002 ......................... Asbestos ........................ M .................................... A130003 ......................... M130001 ......................... Asbestos ........................ MACT ............................. M .................................... CC .................................. M130002 ......................... MACT ............................. FFFF, YY ....................... Z130001 .......................... NESHAP ........................ E .................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Vent Stream Flow Monitoring for a Distillation Column and Associated Flare. Request for Clarification of Other Solid Waste Incinerators Exclusion For Prescription Drugs Returned through Voluntary Program. Request for Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Monitoring of Multiple Low Sulfur Vent Streams from a Coker Disulfide Separator and Reformer. Request for Use of Alternate Span Value for NOX CEMS on a Boiler. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Monitoring a Wet Gas Scrubber on a Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. Alternative Monitoring Plan and Test Waiver Request for Vent Stream Flow Monitoring. Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Monitoring Three Low Sulfur Vent Streams from Combustion a Catalytic Hydrodesulfurization Unit. Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Sulfur Vent Stream Combustion from a Cumene Depropanizer Unit. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Wet Gas Scrubbers on a Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan for Vent Stream Combustion from a Catalytic Reformer Unit in a Flare. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for the Use of Car Seals on Closed Bypass Valves. Request for Clarification of Marine Vessel Loading Vapors as Fuel Gas. Request for Use of Alternate Span Value for O2 CEMS. Alternative Emission Control Request to use Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) in Lieu of using a Wet Scrubber. Determination of Applicability for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. Determination of the Use of Foam to Meet the Adequately Wet Requirement. Removal of Buried Pipe Wrapped with Asbestos-Containing Material. Encapsulating Wall Board with Spray Foam. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for use of a Video Camera for Verification of Flare Pilot Light. Determination of Applicability of NESHAP to Propane Dehydrogenation Plant. Determination of Applicability of NESHAP to an Integrated Biosolids Management System. TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstracts Abstract for [1100013]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100013.pdf. Q: Will EPA consider as force majeure certain contract disputes between a company and its contractor over production testing and plant operation at a facility that prevented stack tests from being conducted before the compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and UUU, at the Cadre Material Products crusher and calciner facility in Voca, Texas? A: No. EPA disagreed that the events described in the request letter met the criteria of force majeure under 40 CFR 60.8(a), because the contract dispute was not beyond the company’s ability to control. EPA disapproved the request for an eight week extension to conduct VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 required performance testing and submit the necessary reports; however, EPA granted a one-week extension for adverse weather conditions that occurred and did meet force majeure criteria. Abstract for [1100014]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100014.pdf. Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and KKK apply to a backup vapor recovery unit (BU–VRU) compressor at the Marathon Petroleum (Marathon) Indian Basin Gas Plant (IBGP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico? A1: Yes. EPA determined that the BU–VRU compressor unit is considered to be in VOC service. Even though the compressor is associated with pollution control equipment, the pollution control exemption of 40 CFR 60.14(e) of the General Provisions cannot apply PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 because of a direct conflict with the applicability provisions of NSPS subpart KKK. The provisions of 40 CFR 60.630 supersede any exemptions in 40 CFR 60.14. Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and Kb apply to two stabilized condensate storage tanks at the Marathon IBGP near Carlsbad, New Mexico? A2: Yes. EPA determined that the two storage tanks are located after the point of custody transfer since these are located in the natural gas processing plant, which is upstream of the IBGP. Therefore, both tanks are subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart Kb because the custody transfer exemption of 40 CFR § 60.110b(d)(4) does not apply. E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices Abstract for [1100015]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100015.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil’s Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) and 63.8(4)(i) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 2, in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) and parameter monitoring requirements of 40 CFR § 63.1564(b)(1) at ExxonMobil’s Baytown, Texas refinery (ExxonMobil)? A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ExxonMobil’s AMP based on its approval of the two scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs) established under performance testing at representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the two OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ExxonMobil’s 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, and flow meters were not reliable for measuring WGS scrubber liquid recirculation rates. In the response letter, EPA also clarified that ongoing compliance demonstration for each approved OPL is to be based on a three hour rolling average period. Abstract for [1100016]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100016.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips’ Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 4, in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips’ Ponca City, Oklahoma refinery? A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ConocoPhillips’ AMP request established under performance testing at representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the two OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ConocoPhillips’ AMP request because 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. As described in the response letter, EPA also required continued periodic testing VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 to confirm OPLs for ongoing compliance demonstration beyond the termination of the existing Consent Decree. Abstract for [1100019]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100019.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips’ Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 5, in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips’ Ponca City, Oklahoma refinery? A: Yes. EPA granted final approval to ConocoPhillips’ AMP request established under performance testing at representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ConocoPhillips’ 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. As described in the response letter, EPA also required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs for ongoing compliance demonstration. Abstract for [1100020]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100020.pdf. Q: Will EPA approve Motiva’s Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (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) at Motiva’s Convent, Louisiana refinery? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Motiva’s AMP 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. The conditions for approval require that Motiva establish three Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) under performance testing at representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS, whereby worst-case emissions are anticipated. EPA identified the three OPLs to ensure that the WGSs function as intended and emissions from the FCCU will meet the regulatory requirements for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and opacity. Abstract for [1100021]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100021.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68435 Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of a previously submitted Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request for combusting a vent stream from an alkylation unit in a dedicated process flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja, at Valero Refining’s Ardmore, Oklahoma refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the Alkylation Unit vent stream, and voided the AMP request. Based upon review of the information provided, EPA agreed that the dedicated process flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105a(g) because the vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.107a(a)(3)(iii). The effective date of the exemption is the effective date of the reissued final rule and lift of stay, November 13, 2012. EPA also clarified that the exemption determination should be referenced and attached to the facility’s new source review and Title V permit for federal enforceability. Abstract for [1100023]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100023.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve Marathon Petroleum’s (Marathon) 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) at Marathon’s Texas City, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of Marathon’s AMP request based on the approval of the three scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs) established under performance testing at representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, EPA had conditionally approved Marathon’s 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. In the response letter, EPA also clarified that compliance demonstration for each OPL was to be based on a three hour rolling average period, and required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs for ongoing compliance demonstration. E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 68436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices Abstract for [1100024]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100024.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve Motiva’s Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) vent stream combusted in a crude charge heater, in lieu of a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide (H2S) monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4) under NSPS subpart J, at Motiva’s Convent, Louisiana refinery? A: No. EPA determined that Motiva’s AMP request is not acceptable because it has not submitted sufficient information to justify it. EPA requires that at least two critical independent Operating Limit Parameters (OPLs) be proposed for the caustic pre-wash tower to be able to obtain EPA’s approval for using a daily ‘‘doctor test’’ (ASTM Method D4952–09) to monitor total sulfur and sulfides in the tower outlet effluent, in lieu of installing a H2S CEMS. Therefore, the requirement to install a CEMS for monitoring H2S in the vent stream combusted in the Crude Charge Heater under 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4) shall continue to apply. Abstract for [1100025]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100025.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of a previously approved Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the vent stream from a catalytic Hydrodesulfurization unit (CHD No. 1) at a process heater as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ExxonMobil’s Beaumont, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring exemption for the catalytic hydrodesulfurization vent stream, and voided ExxonMobil’s AMP request based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). The vent stream combusted in the heater meets the conditions and exemption criteria of 40 CFR 60.105(b)(1)(i)–(v), and therefore has been demonstrated to be inherently low in sulfur since it meets the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA agreed that the process heater is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). If refinery operations change from representations made for this exemption determination, then ExxonMobil must document the change(s) and follow the appropriate VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)– (iii). Abstract for [1100026]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100026.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the combined vent stream from a catalytic platinum reformer unit (PtR–4) in two heaters or a low pressure flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the combined vent stream, and voided the AMP request based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the heaters and flare that burn the vent stream are exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The combined vent stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations change such that the sulfur content of the off-gas vent stream changes from representations made for this exemption determination, then ExxonMobil must document the change(s) and follow the appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)– (iii). Abstract for [1200001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200001.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent stream flow monitoring for a distillation column and associated flare 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 the Advanced Aromatics facility in Baytown, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves Advanced Aromatics’ 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 a distillation column vent stream routed to a flare without any by-pass lines. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to appropriate control devices, Advanced Aromatics is required to maintain a schematic diagram of the affected vent PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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). EPA noted that small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance events are not exempt under 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 [1200002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200002.pdf. Q: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality requests guidance from EPA on whether prescription drugs collected by the police department during community voluntary take back programs in Arkansas meet the definition of confiscated contraband under 40 CFR 60.2887(p), in order to claim an exclusion from NSPS subpart EEEE requirements for other solid waste incinerators (OSWI)? A: No. EPA does not consider prescription drugs collected from households during a community take back program to be illegal or prohibited drugs; therefore, they are not ‘‘contraband.’’ As described in the preamble to the OSWI final rule (69 FR 71483), such drugs are clearly not confiscated, since they are voluntarily collected. Abstract for [1200003]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200003.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve exemptions in lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMP) for combusting multiple vent streams from a coker, disulfide separator, and reformer in various combustion devices as inherently lowsulfur streams under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Valero Refining Texas City, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA approves a monitoring exemption for the vent streams, and voided the original AMP request based on review of the information provided by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the combustion devices are exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The two vent streams combusted are inherently low in sulfur because they are produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meet the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content of below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices refinery operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then Valero must document the change and determine if the stream remains exempt. Abstract for [1200007]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200007.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to use a lower alternate span value for a nitrogen oxide (NOX) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) than what is required in 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) on a boiler required to meet more stringent NOX emission limit under Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and subject to NSPS subpart Db, at ConocoPhillips’ Westlake, Louisiana facility? A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhilip’s AMP to lower the Boiler NOX CEMS span setting from 500 ppm to 100 ppm for the existing facility operations. The use of BACT may lower stack gas concentrations such that the span value of 500 ppm for NOX CEMS specified by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) may be too high to ensure accurate and reliable reporting of compliance with a more stringent NOX emission limit. The proposed lower span setting should ensure accuracy in measuring actual NOX concentrations in the boiler stack gases so that compliance can be demonstrated with adequate confidence levels. Abstract for [1200008]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200008.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips’ 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) at ConocoPhillips’ Sweeny, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ConocoPhillips’ AMP request based on approval of the three scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs) CHD No. 1 established under performance testing at representative operating conditions. The establishment of the three OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, EPA had conditionally approved the AMP 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. Abstract for [1200010]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200010.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request and a performance test waiver for two ethylene distillation columns vent VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 streams being introduced with the primary fuel into associated boilers and process heaters without any bypass lines, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(b), and as provided by 40 CFR 60.704(b)(5), to implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN, at the Chevron Phillips facility in Port Arthur, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves Chevron Phillips’ AMP request to implement the NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions, in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to the appropriate control devices, Chevron Phillips facility is required to maintain a schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s), fuel systems, and control devices as part of the initial report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b). Abstract for [1200011]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200011.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting three vent streams from a catalytic hydrodesulfurization unit as inherently low-sulfur streams under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus Christi, Texas East refinery (Citgo)? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the specified Hydrar vent streams, and voided the original AMP request in light of the changes of the revised rule dated June 24, 2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that combustion devices which burn the streams are exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent streams combusted are inherently low in sulfur because they are produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meet the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then Citgo must document the change and determine if the stream remains exempt. If it is determined that the streams are no longer exempt, continuous monitoring at each combustion device must begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Abstract for [1200012]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200012.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68437 Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a cumene depropanizer unit as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus Christi, Texas East refinery (Citgo)? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the vent stream from a cumene depropanizer unit, and voided the original Citgo’s AMP in the light of the changes of the revised rule dated June 24, 2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that combustion devices that burn the vent stream are exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then Citgo must document the change and determine if the stream remains exempt. If it is determined that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous monitoring at each combustion device must begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Abstract for [1200013]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200013.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (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) at Citgo Petroleum’s (Citgo) Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery? A: EPA conditionally approves Citgo’s AMP request. The AMP approval is conditioned on Citgo conducting another performance test (PT) to properly evaluate under representative operating conditions and establish the three operating parameter limits (OPLs) for each WGS to ensure these scrubbers function as intended, and that the PT results indicate that emissions from the FCCU meet the particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and opacity standards. Abstract for [1200014]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200014.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a catalytic reformer unit in a flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 68438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the catalytic reformer unit vent stream, and voided the original AMP in light of the changes made in the revised rule dated June 24, 2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that the flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If other sulfur/sulfide bearing streams not from catalytic reformers enter the stripper and become part of the waste fuel gas stream, ConocoPhillips must apply for an AMP on the stripper, and propose at least three independent process parameters to ensure a low sulfur/ sulfide stream going to the flare. EPA clarify that any significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide concentration detected in the stream would initiate continuous monitoring under 40 CFR 60.1 05(a)(3) or (4). Abstract for [1200015]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200015.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement under NSPS subpart NNN at 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2), and to implement the alternative monitoring requirements of NSPS subpart RRR at 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, at the ConocoPhillips East Vacuum Liquid Recovery/CO2 Plant in Lea County, New Mexico? A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips’ AMP request for a waiver of the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2) to implement the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, which will allow for the use of car seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow indicators. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to appropriate control devices, ConocoPhillips 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). Abstract for [1200022]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200022.pdf. Q: Are marine vessel loading vapors that are inherently low in sulfur, collected by a Marine Vapor Recovery (MVR) system and routed to an airassisted marine flare vapor combustor, VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 at the ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas refinery, subject to MACT subpart Y requirements under 40 CFR 63.562, also subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Refineries, part 60, subpart J? A: No. EPA determines that if the vent stream is collected to comply with the provisions for marine tank vessel loading under 40 CFR 63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651, it does not meet the definition of a fuel gas, as defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). EPA evaluated ExxonMobil’s request in light of changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008, which modified the definition of fuel gas to specifically exclude vapors collected and combusted to comply with provisions of 40 CFR 63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651. Abstract for [1200025]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200025.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for an alternate lower span setting of 10 percent for the oxygen (O2) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) on sulfur recovery units (SRU) subject to NSPS subpart J at the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) East and West Refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas? A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP request for the proposed lower span setting of 10 percent for the specified CEMS since it satisfied criteria established in Performance Specification 2 of subpart 60, Appendix B. Based on the information provided in your AMP request, the lower span setting on specified CEMS should ensure accuracy in measuring actual pollutant concentrations in stack gases so that compliance can be demonstrated with adequate confidence levels. Abstract for [1200028]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200028.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve a petition to use Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) to limit emissions in lieu of using a wet scrubber for a dual chamber commercial other solid waste incinerator (OSWI) unit, which destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and other law enforcement agencies, under NSPS subpart FFFF, located at Kippur Corporation’s (Kippur) El Paso, Texas facility? A: No. EPA denies Kippur’s petition due to a lack of information pertaining to the recent modification made to increase the design capacity of the OWSI unit, as well as a lack of information pertaining to both the proper characterization of material fired to the OSWI Unit and the proper operation, performance testing established under representative operating conditions, and subsequent PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 monitoring of the OSWI unit proposed OPLs to demonstrate compliance with the rule. As described in the EPA response letter, this information is needed to be able to evaluate the petition under the appropriate rule that applies to the modified OSWI unit. If a modification occurred, then according to 40 CFR 60.2992, the OSWI unit becomes subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE and 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF no longer applies. Abstract for [1200032]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200032.pdf. Q1: The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) requests guidance from EPA on whether engines with: (1) A maximum engine power equal to or greater than 75 KW (100 HP), except gasoline and rich burn engines that use liquid petroleum gas, which were manufactured between 06/12/2006 and 07/01/2007, and for which the owner or operator commenced construction after 06/12/2006; and (2) lean-burning maximum engine power equal to or greater than 500 HP but less than 1,350 HP, manufactured between 06/12/2006 and 01/01/2008, and for which the owner or operator commenced construction after 06/12/ 2006; are subject to requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE MACT) and 40 CFR part 60 subpart JJJJ for stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines (SSIICE)? A1: No. EPA concurs with ODEQ that the specified engines do not meet the criteria of 40 CFR 60.4230(a), and consequently have no applicable requirements under the SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT rules. Q2: What are the streamlined compliance requirements for various categories of engines in relation to the SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT? A2: EPA notes that if an engine specifically identified in 40 CFR 63.6590(c) is not subject to any requirements in the NSPS SSIICE, then no further action is necessary for the specified engine under the RICE MACT. However, all other engines must meet additional requirements if so delineated in the RICE MACT. Q3: What are the key factors in determining whether an owner/operator has any additional requirements to meet under the RICE MACT when the engine is not subject to NSPS SSIICE? A3: The key factors in determining if there are additional requirements to meet under the RICE MACT, when the engine is not subject to the SSIICE NSPS, are engine size and whether or E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1 TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices not the engine is located at a major source or area source. Abstract for [A130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130001.pdf. Q: The Asbestos Institute request clarification from EPA on whether the use of foam meet the ‘‘adequately wet’’ standard, as stated in the Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: EPA determines that as long as the foam is applied as a liquid and sufficiently mixes with or penetrates the asbestos-containing material and prevents visible emissions, the use of such foam is acceptable in meeting the adequately wet requirement under the Asbestos NEHSAP M. The response is limited to this question regarding foam as a wetting agent. It is the responsibility of the owner or operator to meet other asbestos emission control requirements (also known as ‘‘work practice standards’’) during the demolition or renovation operation, as described in the EPA response letter. Abstract for [A130002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130002.pdf. Q1: Cantey Hanger LLP request a determination for a client on whether only removing a 1500 foot section of the asbestos-containing material (ACM)wrapped pipeline in a pipeline renovation project, while leaving the remainder of the non-friable ACMwrapped pipeline in the ground, transform the site into a waste disposal site under 40 CFR 61.154 of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP)? A1: No. The Asbestos NESHAP does not apply to undisturbed pipelines coated with ACM that remain in the ground following a renovation project, which is the described scenario in your request, as long as no asbestoscontaining waste material is deposited in the recently renovated area. This is consistent with a previously EPA issued applicability determination, ADI Control Number A030001 dated March 6, 2003. Q2: If no additional ACM is deposited at the site for a year, would the site become an inactive waste disposal site per 40 CFR 61.154(g)? A2: Yes. If the renovated area does not receive asbestos-containing waste material, the site is not subject to the active waste disposal regulation at 40 CFR 61.154, in general and 40 CFR 61.154(g), specifically. Therefore, the inactive waste disposal requirement at 40 CFR 61.151 of the Asbestos NESHAP does not apply. Abstract for [A130003]: C:\Documents and VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 Nov 13, 2013 Jkt 232001 Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130003.pdf. Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP) apply to encapsulating wall board with spray foam insulation if the surface of the wall board will not be disturbed? A: EPA is unable to comment on whether encapsulating wall board with spray foam insulation would be compliant with the Asbestos NESHAP based on the limited on site-specific information provided in the request. However, if the work you are contemplating does not involve wrecking or taking out load-bearing structures (demolition) or altering one or more facility components, including stripping or removing regulated asbestos-containing material (renovation), then the Asbestos NESHAP for demolition and renovation operations does not apply to the proposed action. Abstract for [M130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130001.pdf. Q: Does EPA approve Valero Refinery’s (Valero) Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for using a video camera to monitor a flare pilot flame in a control room and record the observation, in lieu of having an ultraviolet (UV) flame detector, as required by 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC, at Valero’s Three Rivers refinery in Texas? A: No. EPA does not approve Valero’s AMP since it determined that the equivalence of using a video camera that must be monitored by operations personnel in lieu of a continuous recording thermocouple or equivalent device was not demonstrated under 40 CFR 60.18(1)(2). 40 CFR 63.644(a)(2) requires that a device that continuously detects the presence of a pilot flame must be used when the controlling device is a flare. 40 CFR 63.11(b)(5) requires that the monitoring device must be a thermocouple or equivalent device. A thermocouple has a continuous recording mechanism that is not dependent on operation or monitoring by personnel. Abstract for [M130002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130002.pdf. Q: Is the propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plant located at the Dow Chemical Company, Texas Operations (Dow) site subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart YY (MON NESHAP) or subpart FFFF (GMACT and Ethylene MACT)? A: EPA determines that Dow’s process is subject to the MON NESHAP, as it did not meet the criteria of an ethylene PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68439 production process as defined by the Ethylene MACT due to the natural gas liquid feed stream and process conditions including temperature. Abstract for [Z130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local Settings\Temp\wzc696\Z130001.pdf. Q: Is the integrated biosolids management system (IBMS), which uses dried biosolids as a feedstock in the gasifier to produce syngas for heat energy to be transferred to the indirect sludge dryer, located at the MaxWest South Sanford Water Resources Center (MaxWest) in Sanford, Florida, subject to 40 CFR part 61 subpart E? A: EPA determines that Subpart E is applicable to sludge gasifier and integrated thermal oxidizer portions and not to the sludge dryer portion of MaxWest’s IBMS system. 40 CFR part 61 subpart E does not apply to MaxWest’s IBMS sludge dryer portion because it does not meet the definition of ‘‘sludge’’ dryer in 40 CFR part 61 subpart E since it being indirectly heated by thermal transfer fluid with no contact with combustion gases. 40 CFR part 61 subpart E applies to MaxWest’s combination of the gasifier and thermal oxidizer as together they comprise a sewage sludge incinerator of a two-steps process, one that produces the gases through the heating of sewage sludge, and a follow up unit in which the gases are combusted and emissions vented to the atmosphere. Dated: October 24, 2013. Lisa Lund, Director, Office of Compliance. [FR Doc. 2013–27287 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0490; FRL–9902–61] FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Rescheduled Public Meeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Agency is issuing this notice to reschedule the 3-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review, Scientific Uncertainties Associated with Corn Rootworm Resistance Monitoring for Bt Corn Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs). The meeting was announced in the Federal Register on August 9, 2013. The Agency issued a notice of cancellation in the Federal Register on October 28, 2013. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM 14NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68432-68439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9902-92-OECA]


Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent 
Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring 
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of 
Performance for New Stationary Sources, Etc.

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

[[Page 68433]]

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 Sec. Sec.  60.5 and 61.06. 
Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] and Sec.  111(d) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing 
that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA also 
responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 
and Sec.  111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to 
seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different 
from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these 
inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. 
Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of 
NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole 
source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type 
of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the 
regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly 
referred to as regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them to the ADI. 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 32 such documents added to 
the ADI on October 30, 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 October 30, 2013; the 
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title 
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject 
matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA Sec.  307(b)(1). For 
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination 
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport 
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

                                 ADI Determinations Uploaded on October 30, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Control No.                    Categories               Subparts                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1100013............................  NSPS..................  A, OOO, UUU...........  Request to Extend Required
                                                                                      Initial Performance Test
                                                                                      due to Force Majeure.
1100014............................  NSPS..................  A, KKK, Kb............  Applicability to Condensate
                                                                                      Storage Tanks and a Backup
                                                                                      Vapor Recovery Unit.
1100015............................  MACT, NSPS............  J, UUU................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Opacity Monitoring--
                                                                                      Fluidized Catalytic
                                                                                      Cracking Unit Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubber.
1100016............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Approval of Operating
                                                                                      Parameters on an
                                                                                      ExxonMobil Low Energy Jet
                                                                                      Ejector Venturi (JEV) Wet
                                                                                      Gas Scrubber for a
                                                                                      Compliance Alternative.
1100019............................  MACT, NSPS............  J, UUU................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Low Energy Jet Ejector
                                                                                      Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubber.
1100020............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Low Energy Jet Ejector
                                                                                      Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubber.
1100021............................  NSPS..................  Ja....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      lieu of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Low
                                                                                      Sulfur Bearing Fuel Gas
                                                                                      Stream.
1100023............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for a Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubber on a Fluid
                                                                                      Catalytic Cracking Unit.
1100024............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for Hydrogen
                                                                                      Sulfide Vent Stream
                                                                                      Monitoring.
1100025............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request Exemption in lieu
                                                                                      of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Low
                                                                                      Sulfur Vent Stream
                                                                                      Combustion from a
                                                                                      Catalytic
                                                                                      Hydrodesulfurization Unit.
1100026............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request Exemption in lieu
                                                                                      of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Low
                                                                                      Sulfur Vent Stream from a
                                                                                      Catalytic Platinum
                                                                                      Reformer Unit.

[[Page 68434]]

 
1200001............................  NSPS..................  NNN, RRR..............  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for Vent Stream
                                                                                      Flow Monitoring for a
                                                                                      Distillation Column and
                                                                                      Associated Flare.
1200002............................  NSPS..................  EEEE..................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Other Solid Waste
                                                                                      Incinerators Exclusion For
                                                                                      Prescription Drugs
                                                                                      Returned through Voluntary
                                                                                      Program.
1200003............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      lieu of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                      Monitoring of Multiple Low
                                                                                      Sulfur Vent Streams from a
                                                                                      Coker Disulfide Separator
                                                                                      and Reformer.
1200007............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Request for Use of
                                                                                      Alternate Span Value for
                                                                                      NOX CEMS on a Boiler.
1200008............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for Monitoring a
                                                                                      Wet Gas Scrubber on a
                                                                                      Refinery Fluid Catalytic
                                                                                      Cracking Unit.
1200010............................  NSPS..................  NNN, RRR..............  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      and Test Waiver Request
                                                                                      for Vent Stream Flow
                                                                                      Monitoring.
1200011............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request Exemption in lieu
                                                                                      of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                      Monitoring Three Low
                                                                                      Sulfur Vent Streams from
                                                                                      Combustion a Catalytic
                                                                                      Hydrodesulfurization Unit.
1200012............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request Exemption in lieu
                                                                                      of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Low
                                                                                      Sulfur Vent Stream
                                                                                      Combustion from a Cumene
                                                                                      Depropanizer Unit.
1200013............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for Wet Gas
                                                                                      Scrubbers on a Refinery
                                                                                      Fluid Catalytic Cracking
                                                                                      Unit.
1200014............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request Exemption in lieu
                                                                                      of an Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Vent
                                                                                      Stream Combustion from a
                                                                                      Catalytic Reformer Unit in
                                                                                      a Flare.
1200015............................  NSPS..................  NNN, RRR..............  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for the Use of Car
                                                                                      Seals on Closed Bypass
                                                                                      Valves.
1200022............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Marine Vessel Loading
                                                                                      Vapors as Fuel Gas.
1200025............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Use of
                                                                                      Alternate Span Value for
                                                                                      O2 CEMS.
1200028............................  NSPS..................  EEEE, FFFF............  Alternative Emission
                                                                                      Control Request to use
                                                                                      Operating Parameter Limits
                                                                                      (OPLs) in Lieu of using a
                                                                                      Wet Scrubber.
1200032............................  MACT, NSPS............  JJJJ, ZZZZ............  Determination of
                                                                                      Applicability for
                                                                                      Stationary Spark Ignition
                                                                                      Internal Combustion
                                                                                      Engines.
A130001............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Determination of the Use of
                                                                                      Foam to Meet the
                                                                                      Adequately Wet
                                                                                      Requirement.
A130002............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Removal of Buried Pipe
                                                                                      Wrapped with Asbestos-
                                                                                      Containing Material.
A130003............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Encapsulating Wall Board
                                                                                      with Spray Foam.
M130001............................  MACT..................  CC....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Request for use of a Video
                                                                                      Camera for Verification of
                                                                                      Flare Pilot Light.
M130002............................  MACT..................  FFFF, YY..............  Determination of
                                                                                      Applicability of NESHAP to
                                                                                      Propane Dehydrogenation
                                                                                      Plant.
Z130001............................  NESHAP................  E.....................  Determination of
                                                                                      Applicability of NESHAP to
                                                                                      an Integrated Biosolids
                                                                                      Management System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

    Abstract for [1100013]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100013.pdf.
    Q: Will EPA consider as force majeure certain contract disputes 
between a company and its contractor over production testing and plant 
operation at a facility that prevented stack tests from being conducted 
before the compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and 
UUU, at the Cadre Material Products crusher and calciner facility in 
Voca, Texas?
    A: No. EPA disagreed that the events described in the request 
letter met the criteria of force majeure under 40 CFR 60.8(a), because 
the contract dispute was not beyond the company's ability to control. 
EPA disapproved the request for an eight week extension to conduct 
required performance testing and submit the necessary reports; however, 
EPA granted a one-week extension for adverse weather conditions that 
occurred and did meet force majeure criteria.
    Abstract for [1100014]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100014.pdf.
    Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and KKK apply to a backup vapor 
recovery unit (BU-VRU) compressor at the Marathon Petroleum (Marathon) 
Indian Basin Gas Plant (IBGP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico?
    A1: Yes. EPA determined that the BU-VRU compressor unit is 
considered to be in VOC service. Even though the compressor is 
associated with pollution control equipment, the pollution control 
exemption of 40 CFR 60.14(e) of the General Provisions cannot apply 
because of a direct conflict with the applicability provisions of NSPS 
subpart KKK. The provisions of 40 CFR 60.630 supersede any exemptions 
in 40 CFR 60.14.
    Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and Kb apply to two stabilized 
condensate storage tanks at the Marathon IBGP near Carlsbad, New 
Mexico?
    A2: Yes. EPA determined that the two storage tanks are located 
after the point of custody transfer since these are located in the 
natural gas processing plant, which is upstream of the IBGP. Therefore, 
both tanks are subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart Kb because 
the custody transfer exemption of 40 CFR Sec.  60.110b(d)(4) does not 
apply.

[[Page 68435]]

    Abstract for [1100015]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100015.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 
under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) and 63.8(4)(i) for monitoring a wet gas 
scrubber (WGS) on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 2, 
in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits under 40 CFR 
60.102(a)(2) and parameter monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Sec.  
63.1564(b)(1) at ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas refinery (ExxonMobil)?
    A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ExxonMobil's AMP based on its 
approval of the two scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs) 
established under performance testing at representative operating 
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the two OPLs 
and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. 
Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ExxonMobil's 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, and flow meters were not reliable for 
measuring WGS scrubber liquid recirculation rates. In the response 
letter, EPA also clarified that ongoing compliance demonstration for 
each approved OPL is to be based on a three hour rolling average 
period.
    Abstract for [1100016]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100016.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips' Alternative Monitoring Plan 
(AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) 
on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 4, in lieu of a 
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance 
with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips' 
Ponca City, Oklahoma refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ConocoPhillips' AMP request 
established under performance testing at representative operating 
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the two OPLs 
and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. 
Previously, EPA had conditionally approved ConocoPhillips' AMP request 
because 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. As described in the response letter, EPA 
also required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs for ongoing 
compliance demonstration beyond the termination of the existing Consent 
Decree.
    Abstract for [1100019]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100019.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips' Alternative Monitoring Plan 
(AMP) under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) 
on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) No. 5, in lieu of a 
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), to demonstrate compliance 
with the opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips' 
Ponca City, Oklahoma refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA granted final approval to ConocoPhillips' AMP request 
established under performance testing at representative operating 
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the OPLs and 
their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, 
EPA had conditionally approved ConocoPhillips' 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. As described in the response letter, EPA also 
required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs for ongoing 
compliance demonstration.
    Abstract for [1100020]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100020.pdf.
    Q: Will EPA approve Motiva's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 
under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (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) at Motiva's Convent, Louisiana 
refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Motiva's AMP 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. The conditions for approval require that Motiva establish 
three Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) under performance testing at 
representative operating conditions for the FCCU and each WGS, whereby 
worst-case emissions are anticipated. EPA identified the three OPLs to 
ensure that the WGSs function as intended and emissions from the FCCU 
will meet the regulatory requirements for particulate matter, sulfur 
dioxide and opacity.
    Abstract for [1100021]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100021.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of a previously submitted 
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request for combusting a vent stream 
from an alkylation unit in a dedicated process flare as an inherently 
low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja, at Valero Refining's 
Ardmore, Oklahoma refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the Alkylation Unit vent stream, and voided the AMP request. Based 
upon review of the information provided, EPA agreed that the dedicated 
process flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105a(g) because the vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently 
low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to 
sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption 
criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 
60.107a(a)(3)(iii). The effective date of the exemption is the 
effective date of the reissued final rule and lift of stay, November 
13, 2012. EPA also clarified that the exemption determination should be 
referenced and attached to the facility's new source review and Title V 
permit for federal enforceability.
    Abstract for [1100023]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100023.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve Marathon Petroleum's (Marathon) 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) at 
Marathon's Texas City, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of Marathon's AMP request based 
on the approval of the three scrubber operating parameter limits (OPLs) 
established under performance testing at representative operating 
conditions for the FCCU and each WGS. The establishment of the OPLs and 
their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. Previously, 
EPA had conditionally approved Marathon's 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. In the response letter, EPA also clarified that compliance 
demonstration for each OPL was to be based on a three hour rolling 
average period, and required continued periodic testing to confirm OPLs 
for ongoing compliance demonstration.

[[Page 68436]]

    Abstract for [1100024]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100024.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve Motiva's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 
under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) vent stream combusted in a crude charge heater, in 
lieu of a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), to demonstrate 
compliance with the sulfur dioxide (H2S) monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4) under NSPS subpart J, at 
Motiva's Convent, Louisiana refinery?
    A: No. EPA determined that Motiva's AMP request is not acceptable 
because it has not submitted sufficient information to justify it. EPA 
requires that at least two critical independent Operating Limit 
Parameters (OPLs) be proposed for the caustic pre-wash tower to be able 
to obtain EPA's approval for using a daily ``doctor test'' (ASTM Method 
D4952-09) to monitor total sulfur and sulfides in the tower outlet 
effluent, in lieu of installing a H2S CEMS. Therefore, the 
requirement to install a CEMS for monitoring H2S in the vent 
stream combusted in the Crude Charge Heater under 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4) 
shall continue to apply.
    Abstract for [1100025]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100025.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of a previously approved 
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the vent stream from a 
catalytic Hydrodesulfurization unit (CHD No. 1) at a process heater as 
an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the 
ExxonMobil's Beaumont, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring exemption for the catalytic 
hydrodesulfurization vent stream, and voided ExxonMobil's AMP request 
based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted 
by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 
2008 (73 FR 35866). The vent stream combusted in the heater meets the 
conditions and exemption criteria of 40 CFR 60.105(b)(1)(i)-(v), and 
therefore has been demonstrated to be inherently low in sulfur since it 
meets the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 
parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA agreed that the 
process heater is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) and (4). If refinery operations change from 
representations made for this exemption determination, then ExxonMobil 
must document the change(s) and follow the appropriate steps outlined 
in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).
    Abstract for [1100026]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100026.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the combined vent stream from a 
catalytic platinum reformer unit (PtR-4) in two heaters or a low 
pressure flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 
subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the combined vent stream, and voided the AMP request based on the 
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the 
company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 
FR 35866). EPA agreed that the heaters and flare that burn the vent 
stream are exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) 
and (4). The combined vent stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur 
because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur 
contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and exemption criteria of 
sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). 
If refinery operations change such that the sulfur content of the off-
gas vent stream changes from representations made for this exemption 
determination, then ExxonMobil must document the change(s) and follow 
the appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).
    Abstract for [1200001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200001.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent 
stream flow monitoring for a distillation column and associated flare 
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 the Advanced Aromatics facility in Baytown, 
Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Advanced Aromatics' 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 a distillation column vent stream routed to a flare without any by-
pass lines. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to 
appropriate control devices, Advanced Aromatics 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). EPA noted 
that small vent and drain valves utilized for maintenance events are 
not exempt under 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 [1200002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200002.pdf.
    Q: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality requests 
guidance from EPA on whether prescription drugs collected by the police 
department during community voluntary take back programs in Arkansas 
meet the definition of confiscated contraband under 40 CFR 60.2887(p), 
in order to claim an exclusion from NSPS subpart EEEE requirements for 
other solid waste incinerators (OSWI)?
    A: No. EPA does not consider prescription drugs collected from 
households during a community take back program to be illegal or 
prohibited drugs; therefore, they are not ``contraband.'' As described 
in the preamble to the OSWI final rule (69 FR 71483), such drugs are 
clearly not confiscated, since they are voluntarily collected.
    Abstract for [1200003]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200003.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve exemptions in lieu of Alternative Monitoring 
Plans (AMP) for combusting multiple vent streams from a coker, 
disulfide separator, and reformer in various combustion devices as 
inherently low-sulfur streams under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the 
Valero Refining Texas City, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a monitoring exemption for the vent streams, 
and voided the original AMP request based on review of the information 
provided by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on 
June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the combustion devices are 
exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The 
two vent streams combusted are inherently low in sulfur because they 
are produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and 
thus, meet the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content of 
below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If

[[Page 68437]]

refinery operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then 
Valero must document the change and determine if the stream remains 
exempt.
    Abstract for [1200007]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200007.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to use a 
lower alternate span value for a nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) than what is required in 
40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) on a boiler required to meet more stringent 
NOX emission limit under Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT) and subject to NSPS subpart Db, at ConocoPhillips' Westlake, 
Louisiana facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhilip's AMP to lower the Boiler 
NOX CEMS span setting from 500 ppm to 100 ppm for the 
existing facility operations. The use of BACT may lower stack gas 
concentrations such that the span value of 500 ppm for NOX 
CEMS specified by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) may be too high to ensure 
accurate and reliable reporting of compliance with a more stringent 
NOX emission limit. The proposed lower span setting should 
ensure accuracy in measuring actual NOX concentrations in 
the boiler stack gases so that compliance can be demonstrated with 
adequate confidence levels.
    Abstract for [1200008]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200008.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips' 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) at ConocoPhillips' 
Sweeny, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of ConocoPhillips' AMP request 
based on approval of the three scrubber operating parameter limits 
(OPLs) CHD No. 1 established under performance testing at 
representative operating conditions. The establishment of the three 
OPLs and their approval by EPA were conditions in a prior approval. 
Previously, EPA had conditionally approved the AMP 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.
    Abstract for [1200010]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200010.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request 
and a performance test waiver for two ethylene distillation columns 
vent streams being introduced with the primary fuel into associated 
boilers and process heaters without any bypass lines, in accordance 
with 40 CFR 60.8(b), and as provided by 40 CFR 60.704(b)(5), to 
implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
provisions in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS 
subpart NNN, at the Chevron Phillips facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Chevron Phillips' AMP request to implement the 
NSPS subpart RRR for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping provisions, 
in lieu of complying with corresponding provisions of NSPS subpart NNN. 
To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to the appropriate 
control devices, Chevron Phillips facility is required to maintain a 
schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s), 
fuel systems, and control devices as part of the initial report 
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b).
    Abstract for [1200011]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200011.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting three vent streams from a 
catalytic hydrodesulfurization unit as inherently low-sulfur streams 
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus Christi, 
Texas East refinery (Citgo)?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the specified Hydrar vent streams, and voided the original AMP 
request in light of the changes of the revised rule dated June 24, 
2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that 
combustion devices which burn the streams are exempt from the 
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent 
streams combusted are inherently low in sulfur because they are 
produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and 
thus, meet the conditions and exemption criteria of sulfur content 
below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery 
operations cause a change in an exempt stream status, then Citgo must 
document the change and determine if the stream remains exempt. If it 
is determined that the streams are no longer exempt, continuous 
monitoring at each combustion device must begin within 15 days of the 
change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).
    Abstract for [1200012]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200012.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a cumene 
depropanizer unit as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 
60 subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus Christi, Texas East 
refinery (Citgo)?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the vent stream from a cumene depropanizer unit, and voided the 
original Citgo's AMP in the light of the changes of the revised rule 
dated June 24, 2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA 
agreed that combustion devices that burn the vent stream are exempt 
from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent 
stream combusted is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in 
a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the 
exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations cause a change in an 
exempt stream status, then Citgo must document the change and determine 
if the stream remains exempt. If it is determined that the stream is no 
longer exempt, continuous monitoring at each combustion device must 
begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv).
    Abstract for [1200013]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200013.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 
CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas scrubbers (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) at Citgo Petroleum's (Citgo) Lake 
Charles, Louisiana refinery?
    A: EPA conditionally approves Citgo's AMP request. The AMP approval 
is conditioned on Citgo conducting another performance test (PT) to 
properly evaluate under representative operating conditions and 
establish the three operating parameter limits (OPLs) for each WGS to 
ensure these scrubbers function as intended, and that the PT results 
indicate that emissions from the FCCU meet the particulate matter, 
sulfur dioxide and opacity standards.
    Abstract for [1200014]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200014.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a catalytic 
reformer unit in a flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream

[[Page 68438]]

under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas 
refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the catalytic reformer unit vent stream, and voided the original 
AMP in light of the changes made in the revised rule dated June 24, 
2008. Based on a review of the information provided, EPA agreed that 
the flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is 
inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit 
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the conditions and 
exemption criteria of sulfur content below 5 parts per million in 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If other sulfur/sulfide bearing streams not 
from catalytic reformers enter the stripper and become part of the 
waste fuel gas stream, ConocoPhillips must apply for an AMP on the 
stripper, and propose at least three independent process parameters to 
ensure a low sulfur/sulfide stream going to the flare. EPA clarify that 
any significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide concentration detected 
in the stream would initiate continuous monitoring under 40 CFR 60.1 
05(a)(3) or (4).
    Abstract for [1200015]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200015.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement under NSPS subpart 
NNN at 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2), and to implement the alternative monitoring 
requirements of NSPS subpart RRR at 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, at 
the ConocoPhillips East Vacuum Liquid Recovery/CO2 Plant in Lea County, 
New Mexico?
    A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips' AMP request for a waiver of 
the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2) to implement the 
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, which will 
allow for the use of car seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow 
indicators. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to 
appropriate control devices, ConocoPhillips 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).
    Abstract for [1200022]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200022.pdf.
    Q: Are marine vessel loading vapors that are inherently low in 
sulfur, collected by a Marine Vapor Recovery (MVR) system and routed to 
an air-assisted marine flare vapor combustor, at the ExxonMobil 
Beaumont, Texas refinery, subject to MACT subpart Y requirements under 
40 CFR 63.562, also subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 
for Refineries, part 60, subpart J?
    A: No. EPA determines that if the vent stream is collected to 
comply with the provisions for marine tank vessel loading under 40 CFR 
63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651, it does not meet the definition of a fuel gas, 
as defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). EPA evaluated ExxonMobil's request in 
light of changes made to NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008, which 
modified the definition of fuel gas to specifically exclude vapors 
collected and combusted to comply with provisions of 40 CFR 63.562 or 
40 CFR 63.651.
    Abstract for [1200025]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200025.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for an 
alternate lower span setting of 10 percent for the oxygen (O2) 
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) on sulfur recovery units 
(SRU) subject to NSPS subpart J at the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) East 
and West Refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP request for the proposed lower span 
setting of 10 percent for the specified CEMS since it satisfied 
criteria established in Performance Specification 2 of subpart 60, 
Appendix B. Based on the information provided in your AMP request, the 
lower span setting on specified CEMS should ensure accuracy in 
measuring actual pollutant concentrations in stack gases so that 
compliance can be demonstrated with adequate confidence levels.
    Abstract for [1200028]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200028.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve a petition to use Operating Parameter Limits 
(OPLs) to limit emissions in lieu of using a wet scrubber for a dual 
chamber commercial other solid waste incinerator (OSWI) unit, which 
destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and other law enforcement 
agencies, under NSPS subpart FFFF, located at Kippur Corporation's 
(Kippur) El Paso, Texas facility?
    A: No. EPA denies Kippur's petition due to a lack of information 
pertaining to the recent modification made to increase the design 
capacity of the OWSI unit, as well as a lack of information pertaining 
to both the proper characterization of material fired to the OSWI Unit 
and the proper operation, performance testing established under 
representative operating conditions, and subsequent monitoring of the 
OSWI unit proposed OPLs to demonstrate compliance with the rule. As 
described in the EPA response letter, this information is needed to be 
able to evaluate the petition under the appropriate rule that applies 
to the modified OSWI unit. If a modification occurred, then according 
to 40 CFR 60.2992, the OSWI unit becomes subject to 40 CFR part 60 
subpart EEEE and 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF no longer applies.
    Abstract for [1200032]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200032.pdf.
    Q1: The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 
requests guidance from EPA on whether engines with: (1) A maximum 
engine power equal to or greater than 75 KW (100 HP), except gasoline 
and rich burn engines that use liquid petroleum gas, which were 
manufactured between 06/12/2006 and 07/01/2007, and for which the owner 
or operator commenced construction after 06/12/2006; and (2) lean-
burning maximum engine power equal to or greater than 500 HP but less 
than 1,350 HP, manufactured between 06/12/2006 and 01/01/2008, and for 
which the owner or operator commenced construction after 06/12/2006; 
are subject to requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ for 
reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE MACT) and 40 CFR part 
60 subpart JJJJ for stationary spark ignition internal combustion 
engines (SSIICE)?
    A1: No. EPA concurs with ODEQ that the specified engines do not 
meet the criteria of 40 CFR 60.4230(a), and consequently have no 
applicable requirements under the SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT rules.
    Q2: What are the streamlined compliance requirements for various 
categories of engines in relation to the SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT?
    A2: EPA notes that if an engine specifically identified in 40 CFR 
63.6590(c) is not subject to any requirements in the NSPS SSIICE, then 
no further action is necessary for the specified engine under the RICE 
MACT. However, all other engines must meet additional requirements if 
so delineated in the RICE MACT.
    Q3: What are the key factors in determining whether an owner/
operator has any additional requirements to meet under the RICE MACT 
when the engine is not subject to NSPS SSIICE?
    A3: The key factors in determining if there are additional 
requirements to meet under the RICE MACT, when the engine is not 
subject to the SSIICE NSPS, are engine size and whether or

[[Page 68439]]

not the engine is located at a major source or area source.
    Abstract for [A130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130001.pdf.
    Q: The Asbestos Institute request clarification from EPA on whether 
the use of foam meet the ``adequately wet'' standard, as stated in the 
Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A: EPA determines that as long as the foam is applied as a liquid 
and sufficiently mixes with or penetrates the asbestos-containing 
material and prevents visible emissions, the use of such foam is 
acceptable in meeting the adequately wet requirement under the Asbestos 
NEHSAP M. The response is limited to this question regarding foam as a 
wetting agent. It is the responsibility of the owner or operator to 
meet other asbestos emission control requirements (also known as ``work 
practice standards'') during the demolition or renovation operation, as 
described in the EPA response letter.
    Abstract for [A130002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130002.pdf.
    Q1: Cantey Hanger LLP request a determination for a client on 
whether only removing a 1500 foot section of the asbestos-containing 
material (ACM)-wrapped pipeline in a pipeline renovation project, while 
leaving the remainder of the non-friable ACM-wrapped pipeline in the 
ground, transform the site into a waste disposal site under 40 CFR 
61.154 of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP)?
    A1: No. The Asbestos NESHAP does not apply to undisturbed pipelines 
coated with ACM that remain in the ground following a renovation 
project, which is the described scenario in your request, as long as no 
asbestos-containing waste material is deposited in the recently 
renovated area. This is consistent with a previously EPA issued 
applicability determination, ADI Control Number A030001 dated March 6, 
2003.
    Q2: If no additional ACM is deposited at the site for a year, would 
the site become an inactive waste disposal site per 40 CFR 61.154(g)?
    A2: Yes. If the renovated area does not receive asbestos-containing 
waste material, the site is not subject to the active waste disposal 
regulation at 40 CFR 61.154, in general and 40 CFR 61.154(g), 
specifically. Therefore, the inactive waste disposal requirement at 40 
CFR 61.151 of the Asbestos NESHAP does not apply.
    Abstract for [A130003]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130003.pdf.
    Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP) apply to 
encapsulating wall board with spray foam insulation if the surface of 
the wall board will not be disturbed?
    A: EPA is unable to comment on whether encapsulating wall board 
with spray foam insulation would be compliant with the Asbestos NESHAP 
based on the limited on site-specific information provided in the 
request. However, if the work you are contemplating does not involve 
wrecking or taking out load-bearing structures (demolition) or altering 
one or more facility components, including stripping or removing 
regulated asbestos-containing material (renovation), then the Asbestos 
NESHAP for demolition and renovation operations does not apply to the 
proposed action.
    Abstract for [M130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130001.pdf.
    Q: Does EPA approve Valero Refinery's (Valero) Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for using a video camera to monitor a flare pilot 
flame in a control room and record the observation, in lieu of having 
an ultraviolet (UV) flame detector, as required by 40 CFR part 63 
subpart CC, at Valero's Three Rivers refinery in Texas?
    A: No. EPA does not approve Valero's AMP since it determined that 
the equivalence of using a video camera that must be monitored by 
operations personnel in lieu of a continuous recording thermocouple or 
equivalent device was not demonstrated under 40 CFR 60.18(1)(2). 40 CFR 
63.644(a)(2) requires that a device that continuously detects the 
presence of a pilot flame must be used when the controlling device is a 
flare. 40 CFR 63.11(b)(5) requires that the monitoring device must be a 
thermocouple or equivalent device. A thermocouple has a continuous 
recording mechanism that is not dependent on operation or monitoring by 
personnel.
    Abstract for [M130002]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130002.pdf.
    Q: Is the propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plant located at the Dow 
Chemical Company, Texas Operations (Dow) site subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart YY (MON NESHAP) or subpart FFFF (GMACT and Ethylene MACT)?
    A: EPA determines that Dow's process is subject to the MON NESHAP, 
as it did not meet the criteria of an ethylene production process as 
defined by the Ethylene MACT due to the natural gas liquid feed stream 
and process conditions including temperature.
    Abstract for [Z130001]: C:\Documents and Settings\mmalave\Local 
Settings\Temp\wzc696\Z130001.pdf.
    Q: Is the integrated biosolids management system (IBMS), which uses 
dried biosolids as a feedstock in the gasifier to produce syngas for 
heat energy to be transferred to the indirect sludge dryer, located at 
the MaxWest South Sanford Water Resources Center (MaxWest) in Sanford, 
Florida, subject to 40 CFR part 61 subpart E?
    A: EPA determines that Subpart E is applicable to sludge gasifier 
and integrated thermal oxidizer portions and not to the sludge dryer 
portion of MaxWest's IBMS system. 40 CFR part 61 subpart E does not 
apply to MaxWest's IBMS sludge dryer portion because it does not meet 
the definition of ``sludge'' dryer in 40 CFR part 61 subpart E since it 
being indirectly heated by thermal transfer fluid with no contact with 
combustion gases. 40 CFR part 61 subpart E applies to MaxWest's 
combination of the gasifier and thermal oxidizer as together they 
comprise a sewage sludge incinerator of a two-steps process, one that 
produces the gases through the heating of sewage sludge, and a follow 
up unit in which the gases are combusted and emissions vented to the 
atmosphere.

    Dated: October 24, 2013.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-27287 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P