Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8023 

11EPA has also preliminarily determined that a 

change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel in the Birmingham Area 

would not interfere with maintenance of the 

Annual PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3 given the 

results of Alabama’s mobile source modeling and 

the fact that the Area is currently attaining the PM10

standard. Because PM2.5 is a component of PM10, 

this preliminary determination is further supported 

by the downward trend in PM2.5 identified above. 

TABLE 5—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES—Continued 

Year 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

North Birmingham ............................................................................................ 29 27 26 24 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS: 15 μg/m3. 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS: 35 μg/m3. 

Given the current PM2.5

concentrations and downward trend of 

these concentrations in the Area and the 

results of Alabama’s mobile source 

modeling, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP 

fuel in the Birmingham Area would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area.11

d. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS 

On February 17, 2012, EPA 

designated all counties in Alabama as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. Based on 

the technical analysis in Alabama’s 

November 14, 2014, SIP revision, the 

potential increase in NOX emissions 

associated with the change to 9.0 psi 

RVP fuel in the Birmingham Area is 

approximately 24 tons during high 

ozone season. As discussed in section 

V.a, above, the slight projected increase 

in mobile source NOX emissions due to 

the fuel switch will be negated by a 

decrease in tailpipe emissions due to 

fleet turnover. Given the current 

unclassifiable/attainment designation 

and the results of Alabama’s mobile 

source modeling, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP 

fuel in the Birmingham Area would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in the Area. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of Alabama’s noninterference 

demonstration, submitted on November 

14, 2014, in support of the State’s 

request that EPA change the Federal 

RVP requirements for the Birmingham 

Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to find 

that this change in the RVP 

requirements for the Birmingham Area 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS or with any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that Alabama’s November 14, 2014, SIP 

revision, containing the noninterference 

demonstration associated with the 

State’s request for the change of the 

Federal RVP requirements is consistent 

with the applicable provisions of the 

CAA. EPA is not proposing action today 

to remove the Birmingham Area from 

the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement. 

Any such proposal will occur in a 

separate and subsequent rulemaking. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not propose to impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 4, 2015. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02942 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738; FRL 9922–91– 

OAR] 

Receipt of Approval Requests for the 

Operation of Pressure-Assisted MultiPoint Ground Flare Technology 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: On August 5, 2014, The Dow 

Chemical Company (Dow) requested an 

Alternative Means of Emission 

Limitation (AMEL) under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) in order to operate pressureassisted multi-point ground flares at its 

Propane Dehydrogenation Plant and its 

Light Hydrocarbons Plant at its Texas 

Operations site located in Freeport, 

Texas. On October 21, 2014, 

ExxonMobil Chemical Company 

(ExxonMobil) requested an AMEL under 

the CAA for its pressure-assisted multipoint ground flares at its’ Olefins Plant 

in Baytown, Texas, and its’ Plastics 

Plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas. In this 

document, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting 

comment on all aspects of the AMEL 

requests and the resulting alternative 

operating conditions that are necessary 

to achieve a reduction in emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) at least 

equivalent to the reduction in emissions 

required by various standards in 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61 and 63 that apply to 

emission sources controlled by these 

pressure-assisted multi-point ground 

flares. These standards point to the 

operating requirements for flares in the 

General Provisions to parts 60 and 63, 

respectively, to comply with the 

emission reduction requirements. 

Because pressure-assisted multi-point 

ground flares cannot meet the velocity 

requirements in these General 

Provisions, Dow and ExxonMobil are 

seeking an AMEL. 

DATES: Comments. Written comments 

must be received on or before March 30, 

2015. 

Public Hearing. If requested by 

February 18, 2015, we will hold a public 

hearing on March 2, 2015, from 1:00 

p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 

p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at EPA’s 

Campus located in Research Triangle 

Park, NC. We will provide details on the 

public hearing on our Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

groundflares/groundflarespg.html. To be 

clear, a public hearing will not be held 

unless someone specifically requests 

that the EPA hold a public hearing 

regarding these requests. Please contact 

Ms. Virginia Hunt of the Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–01), Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–0832; 

email address: hunt.virginia@epa.gov; to 

request a public hearing, to register to 

speak at the public hearing or to inquire 

as to whether or not a public hearing 

will be held. The last day to pre-register 

in advance to speak at the public 

hearing will be February 25, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA OAR– 

2014–0738, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0738. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0738. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Attention Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0738, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0738. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0738. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3608; fax number: (919) 541–0246; and 

email address: shine.brenda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

We use multiple acronyms and terms 

in this document. While this list may 

not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of 

this document and for reference 

purposes, the EPA defines the following 

terms and acronyms here: 

AMEL alternative means of emission 

limitation 

BOP Baytown Olefins Plant 

Btu/scf British thermal units per standard 

cubic feet 

LFL lower flammability limit 

LFLcz combustion zone lower flammability 

limit 

LHC Light Hydrocarbons Unit 

LRGO Linear relief gas oxidizer 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MBPP Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant 

MPGF multi-point ground flare 

NESHAP national emission standard for 

hazardous air pollutants 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8025 

1EPA prepared Table 1 using the information 

provided in the requests, corrected as appropriate 

based on its own review of the regulations. 

However, the EPA has not independently verified 

whether Table 1 includes all of the regulatory 

requirements with which these plants must comply. 

NHV net heating value 

NHVcz combustion zone net heating value 

NSPS new source performance standards 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

PDH Propylene Dehydrogenation Unit 

PFTIR passive fourier transform infrared 

SKEC steam-assisted kinetic energy 

combustor 

Organization of This Document. The 

information in this document is 

organized as follows: 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

A. Flare Operating Requirements 

B. Alternative Means of Emission 

Limitation 

II. Requests for Alternative Means of 

Emission Limitation 

A. Dow AMEL 

B. ExxonMobil AMEL 

C. EPA’s Analysis of MPGF Burner 

Emission Tests 

III. AMEL for Pressure-Assisted MPGF 

IV. Request for Comments 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

A. Flare Operating Requirements 

In their requests, Dow and 

ExxonMobil cite various regulatory 

requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 

63 that will apply to the different vent 

gas streams that will be collected and 

routed to their pressure-assisted multipoint ground flares (MPGF) at each 

plant. These requirements are included 

in Table 1.1 In all cases, these rules 

reference the flare operating 

requirements located in 40 CFR 60.18 

and 40 CFR 63.11. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE RULES THAT MAY APPLY TO VENTS STREAMS CONTROLLED BY PRESSURE-ASSISTED

MULTI-POINT GROUND FLARES

Applicable 

rules with 

vent streams 

going to 

control 

device 

Dow propane 

dehydrogenation 

(PDH) plant 

Dow light 

hydro-carbons 

(LHC) plant 

Exxon-Mobil 

Baytown Olefins 

plant 

Exxon-Mobil Mont 

Belvieu plastics 

plant 

Emission reduction 

required and 

rule citation 

Provisions for 

alternative means 

of emission 

limitation 

NSPS Subpart Kb............................... X X .............................. 60.112b(a)(3)(ii)—Reduce VOC inlet emissions by 95%; If a 

flare is used as a 

control device, flare 

must meet requirements of 60.18.

60.114b allows for 

AMEL. 

NSPS Subparts VV/

Vva.

X X X .............................. 60.482–10a—Reduce 

VOC emissions by 

95% or greater; flare 

used to comply with 

subpart must meet 

requirements of 

60.18.

*Note—Under Dow 

PDH Plant column, 

NSPS subpart VVa 

applies, but DOW is 

opting to comply with 

40 CFR part 63, subpart H (as referenced 

by Miscellaneous Organic 

NESHAP(MON) 

which should satisfy 

requirements in subpart VVa.

60.484(a) allows 

for AMEL 

NSPS Subpart DDD............................... .............................. .............................. X 60.562–1—Reduce 

emissions of Total 

Organic Carbon 

(TOC) by 98%, or 

combust in a flare 

that meets the requirements of 60.18.

CAA section 

111(h)(3) allows 

for AMEL. 

NSPS Subpart NNN.X X X X 60.662- Reduce emissions of TOC by 

98%, or combust in a 

flare that meets the 

requirements of 

60.18.

CAA section 

111(h)(3) allows 

for AMEL. 

NSPS Subpart RRR.X X X X 60.702—Reduce emissions of TOC by 

98%, or combust in a 

flare that meets the 

requirements of 

60.18.

CAA section 

111(h)(3) allows 

for AMEL. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE RULES THAT MAY APPLY TO VENTS STREAMS CONTROLLED BY PRESSURE-ASSISTED

MULTI-POINT GROUND FLARES—Continued 

Applicable 

rules with 

vent streams 

going to 

control 

device 

Dow propane 

dehydrogenation 

(PDH) plant 

Dow light hydrocarbons (LHC) 

plant 

Exxon-Mobil 

Baytown Olefins 

plant 

Exxon-Mobil Mont 

Belvieu plastics 

plant 

Emission reduction 

required and 

rule citation 

Provisions for 

alternative means 

of emission 

limitation 

NESHAP 

Subpart V.

.............................. .............................. X .............................. 61.242–11(d)—flares 

used to comply with 

subpart V must comply with 60.18.

61.244 allows for 

AMEL; also see 

61.12(d). 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

FF.

.............................. X X .............................. 61.349(a)—reduce organic emissions vented to control device 

by 95%; a flare shall 

comply with the requirements of 60.18.

61.353 allows for 

AMEL; also see 

61.12(d). 

NESHAP 

Subparts 

F, G.

.............................. .............................. X .............................. 63.102, 63.113, 

63.126—Reduce 

emissions of Total 

Organic HAP 

(TOHAP) by 98%, or 

combust in a flare 

that meets the requirements of 

63.11(b).

63.120—Combust in 

flare meeting 63.11. 

63.139—Reduce 

emissions of TOHAP 

by 95%, or combust 

in a flare that meets 

the requirements of 

63.11(b). 63.145(j)— 

Points to sections of 

63.11(b) for flare control.

63.102(b) allows 

for AMEL. 

NESHAP 

Subpart H.

X .............................. X .............................. 63.172—Reduce organic HAP or VOC 

by 95%; flares used 

to comply must meet 

requirements of 

63.11(b).

63.177 allows for 

AMEL. 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

SS.

X X X X 63.982(b) and 

63.987(a) require that 

a flare meets the requirements in 

63.11(b).

CAA section 

112(h)(3) allows 

for AMEL. 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

UU.

.............................. X .............................. .............................. 63.1034—Nonflare control devices shall reduce emissions by 

95%; flares shall 

comply with subpart 

SS.

63.1021 allows for 

AMEL. 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

XX.

.............................. X .............................. .............................. 63.1091 requires compliance with subpart 

FF, which requires 

compliance with 

60.18.

61.353 allows for 

AMEL; also see 

61.12(d). 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

YY.

.............................. X X .............................. Table 7 references subpart SS, which requires compliance 

with 60.18.

63.1113 allows for 

AMEL. 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

EEEE.

.............................. .............................. X X 63.2378(a) references 

subpart SS, which requires compliance 

with 60.18.

63.2346(g) allows 

for AMEL; also 

see Table 12 

which makes 

63.6(g) applicable to this subpart. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8027 

2While Dow and ExxonMobil describe their flares 

as ‘‘pressure-assisted,’’ these flares qualify as ‘‘nonassisted’’ flares under 40 CFR 60.18(b) or 63.11(b) 

because they do not employ assist gas. 

3These requirements are not all inclusive. There 

are other requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11 

relating to monitoring and testing that are not 

described here. 

4CAA section 111(h)(3) states: ‘‘If after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, any person 

establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator 

that an alternative means of emission limitation 

will achieve a reduction in emissions of any air 

pollutant at least equivalent to the reduction in 

emissions of such air pollutant achieved under the 

requirements of paragraph (1), the Administrator 

shall permit the use of such alternative by the 

source for purposes of compliance with this section 

with respect to such pollutant.’’ Section 112(h)(3) 

contains almost identical language. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE RULES THAT MAY APPLY TO VENTS STREAMS CONTROLLED BY PRESSURE-ASSISTED

MULTI-POINT GROUND FLARES—Continued 

Applicable 

rules with 

vent streams 

going to 

control 

device 

Dow propane 

dehydrogenation 

(PDH) plant 

Dow light hydrocarbons (LHC) 

plant 

Exxon-Mobil 

Baytown Olefins 

plant 

Exxon-Mobil Mont 

Belvieu plastics 

plant 

Emission reduction 

required and 

rule citation 

Provisions for 

alternative means 

of emission 

limitation 

NESHAP 

Subpart 

FFFF.

X .............................. .............................. X 63.2450 requires compliance with limits in 

Tables 1–7, which include reducing total 

organic HAP in vent 

streams by either 

95% or 98%, and 

provide an option for 

control using a flare 

meeting requirements 

of 63.982(b) which 

requires meeting 

63.987, which requires a flare to meet 

the requirements of 

63.11(b).

63.2540 and Table 

12 allow for 

AMEL by making 63.6(g) applicable to this 

subpart. 

As shown in Table 1, the applicable 

rules require that control devices 

achieve destruction efficiencies of either 

95 percent or 98 percent either directly, 

or by reference, or allow control by 

flares meeting the flare operating 

requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11. 

The flare operating requirements in 40 

CFR 60.18 and 63.11 specify that flares 

shall be: (1) Steam-assisted air-assisted, 

or non-assisted; 2 (2) operated at all 

times when emissions may be vented to 

them; (3) designed for and operated 

with no visible emissions (except for 

periods not to exceed a total of 5 

minutes during any 2 consecutive 

hours); and (4) operated with the 

presence of a pilot flame at all times. 

The flare operating requirements in 40 

CFR 60.18 and 63.11 also specify 

requirements for both the minimum 

heat content of gas combusted in the 

flare and the maximum exit velocity at 

the flare tip.3 These provisions specify 

maximum flare tip velocities based on 

flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted 

or air-assisted) and the net heating value 

of the flare vent gas (see 40 CFR 

60.18(c)(3), 63.11(b)(6)). These 

maximum flare tip velocities are 

required to ensure that the flame does 

not ‘‘lift off’’ or separate from the flare 

tip, which could cause flame instability 

and/or potentially result in a portion of 

the flare gas being released without 

proper combustion. Proper combustion 

for flares is considered to be 98 percent 

destruction efficiency or greater for 

HAPs and VOCs, as discussed in our 

recent proposal titled ’’Petroleum 

Refinery Sector Risk and Technology 

Review and New Source Performance 

Standards,’’ 79 FR 36,880, 36,904– 

36,912 (June 30, 2014). 

The MPGF proposed by both Dow and 

ExxonMobil are conceptually similar yet 

inherently different in both flare head 

design and operation than the more 

traditional steam-assisted, air-assisted 

and non-assisted flare types currently 

able to comply with the flare operating 

requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11. 

The MPGF technology operates by using 

the pressure upstream of each 

individual flare tip burner to enhance 

mixing with air at the flare tip due to 

high exit velocity, which allows the 

MPGF to operate with smokeless 

burning. The MPGF are constructed 

differently than normal elevated flares 

in that they consist of many rows of 

individual flare tips which are 

approximately 8 feet above ground 

level. The ground flare staging system 

opens and closes staging valves 

according to gas pressure such that 

stages containing multiple burners are 

activated as the flow and pressure 

increase or decrease in the header. 

While information supplied by Dow, 

and relied on by both Dow and 

ExxonMobil, indicates that the flare tips 

operate smokelessly and achieve high 

destruction efficiencies, the MPGF 

cannot meet the exit velocity 

requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 

CFR 63.11, which limit the exit velocity 

at the flare tip to a maximum of 400 feet 

per second. The exit velocities from 

MPGF typically range from 600 feet per 

second up to sonic velocity (which 

ranges from 700 to 1,400 feet per second 

for common hydrocarbon gases), or 

Mach =1 conditions. As a result, Dow 

and ExxonMobil are seeking an 

alternative means of complying with the 

flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 

60.18 and 63.11; specifically, the exit 

velocity requirements in 40 CFR 

60.18(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) and in 40 

CFR 63.11(b)(6),(b)(7) and (b)(8). 

B. Alternative Means of Emission 

Limitation 

As noted in Table 1, the specific rules 

in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, or the 

General Provisions for parts 60, 61 and 

63 of the CAA 4 allow a facility to 

request an AMEL. These provisions 

allow the Administrator to permit the 

use of an alternative means of 

complying with an applicable standard, 

if the requestor demonstrates that the 

alternative achieves at least an 

equivalent reduction in emissions. The 

EPA must provide notice of the request 

and an opportunity for a public hearing 

on the request. After considering 

comments received, the EPA will issue 

a notice permitting the use of an 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

alternative means of emission 

limitation, if the Administrator 

determines that the alternative will 

achieve an equivalent reduction in 

emissions. 

II. Requests for Alternative Means of 

Emission Limitation 

A. Dow AMEL 

In its August 5, 2014, request, Dow 

indicates that it plans to construct and 

operate two new MPGFs at its Texas 

Operations site in Freeport, TX. One 

MPGF would be located at Dow’s 

Propane Dehydrogenation Plant (PDH– 

1), scheduled to start-up in early 2015 

and whose primary product is 

propylene. The other MPGF would be 

located at Dow’s Light Hydrocarbons 

Plant (LHC–9), scheduled to start-up in 

early 2017 and whose primary product 

is ethylene. 

The flare systems proposed for use by 

Dow at both plants consist of a staged 

design concept. The first stage, which is 

not at issue nor specifically part of the 

notice requesting an AMEL because it 

can meet the flare operating 

requirements of 40 CFR of 60.18 and 

63.11, is a steam-assisted ground flare 

which has the primary function of 

controlling waste gases during periods 

of normal operation. The remaining 

stages consist of arrays of pressureassisted flare tips (the MPGFs) and will 

control waste gases during periods of 

upset, maintenance, startup and 

shutdown (high-pressure, high flow 

periods). Pressure-assisted flares are 

also known as sonic flares because the 

exit velocity during periods of highpressure feeds is at sonic velocities. 

At Dow, Stage 1 is the low pressure 

stage in which the flare acts as a steamassisted flare. Stages 2 and beyond are 

activated for high-pressure/high exit 

velocity flows. The flare system is 

surrounded by a panel type fence to 

protect nearby workers from the radiant 

heat from the flare system. At various 

times ranging from 2 hours for startup 

of processing equipment to 160 hours 

for a complete plant shutdown, Dow 

will have emissions from the MPGF for 

the following maintenance, start-up and 

shutdown (MSS) activities: Perform 

plant start-up and shutdown, process 

equipment startup and shutdown, offspec flaring, non-routine clearing and 

commissioning of process equipment 

and piping, fuel purging and flaring to 

maintain pressure of the net-gas system. 

Dow conducted testing on the two 

types of individual flare tips in its 

MPGF design to demonstrate that the 

MPGF can achieve good combustion 

efficiency under certain conditions and 

has proposed operating requirements for 

these MPGF that can achieve the 

emissions standards in the applicable 

NSPS and NESHAP. These proposed 

operating requirements are contained in 

Dow’s request dated August 5, 2014, 

located in the docket for this document. 

A summary of test data and a complete 

copy of the emission testing report and 

appendices are available in the docket. 

The tests were conducted on individual 

flare tips because it is not possible to 

test the full field of MPGF because of 

the size and configuration of the fullscale MPGF installation (there are 

approximately 300 flare tips in the 

proposed array pattern that cover the 

size approximately equivalent to that of 

a football field in the actual 

installations). Although two flare tip 

types were tested during the effort, the 

results of one burner type, a steamassisted flare burner, John Zink model 

SKEC, are not discussed further as Dow 

is not seeking an AMEL for this burner 

because it operates at lower velocity 

and, thus, can meet the existing flare 

operating requirements. 

B. ExxonMobil AMEL 

In its October 21, 2014, request, 

ExxonMobil indicates it plans to 

construct and operate two MPGFs, one 

at its Baytown Olefins Plant (BOP) in 

Baytown, TX, and the other at its Mont 

Belvieu Plastics Plant (MBPP) in Mont 

Belview, TX. Both of the proposed 

control strategies will be designed such 

that vent gases are routed to either a low 

pressure system, or in infrequent cases 

where high-pressure/high flow events 

occur, the high pressure MPGF. Both 

low pressure control systems at the BOP 

and MBPP consist of an elevated flare, 

but the MBPP low pressure control 

system also consists of three flameless 

thermal oxidizers. The elevated flares at 

both the BOP and MBPP will comply 

with 40 CFR 60.18 and/or 40 CFR 63.11, 

as applicable. 

ExxonMobil did not supply any 

additional test data, but rather is relying 

on a series of publically available MPGF 

emissions tests, among them the 2013 

test submitted by Dow, a 2012 test done 

by Marathon Petroleum Corporation, LP, 

a 2006 pipeline burner test done by 

Dow, and two earlier tests conducted by 

the EPA in the 1980s. ExxonMobil 

indicates that the BOP and MBPP 

burner tip designs will have comparable 

performance to the burners recently 

tested and submitted December 14, 

2014, supplemental application 

containing additional information on 

plans to use the John Zink LRGO 

burners for the MPGF installation at the 

MBPP, and ZEECO burners at the BOP. 

ExxonMobil asserts that the ZEECO 

burner design provides equivalent 

combustion efficiency and flame 

stability as that of the John Zink burners 

tested, although ExxonMobil has not 

supplied any data or information that 

could confirm this assertion of 

equivalency. We are requesting 

comment on this assertion as well as 

specifically soliciting data and 

comments from the public on burner 

design and performance of these MPGF 

burners. 

C. EPA’s Analysis of MPGF Burner 

Emission Tests 

Dow and ExxonMobil are proposing 

to follow all of the flare operating 

requirements contained in either 40 CFR 

60.18 or 63.11, except for the exit 

velocity requirements. They are 

proposing to operate their high pressure 

MPGFs at higher velocity than the 

current requirements because their data 

indicate that these burners can operate 

with a stable flame at higher velocities 

and still achieve good combustion and 

destruction efficiencies. Instead of 

complying with the exit velocity 

requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 

63.11, Dow and ExxonMobil are 

requesting that EPA grant their AMEL 

requests to allow them to operate the 

high pressure sections of their MPGFs 

such that the vent gas flowing to the 

flare tips is maintained with a net 

heating value that has been 

demonstrated to be equal to or greater 

than the values that were determined to 

achieve a reduction in emissions of 

pollutants being controlled by a steamassisted, air-assisted or non-assisted 

flare complying with the requirements 

of either 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 

60.18(b) during the burner emission 

tests. 

In the emission tests, the high 

pressure burners were subjected to a 

number of different operating 

conditions, and each set of conditions 

represented a separate test series. For 

purposes of this discussion, the relevant 

test results are those from Dow’s 2013 

test report, which are comprised of runs 

from test series P1 through P4 and were 

tested on John Zink’s pressure assisted 

flare burner model LRGO–HC, as well as 

emissions data reported in Marathon’s 

2012 test report, which are from test 

series PA1 and PA2 and were tested on 

John Zink’s pressure assisted flare 

burner model LRGO–D. These tests used 

the analytical technique of passive 

fourier transform infrared (PFTIR) 

spectroscopy to assess combustion 

efficiency. Dow’s 2013 test report also 

presents data collected using an 

extractive method where flue gas was 

extracted from a collection hood that 

was suspended above the burner tip and 

analyzed using standard EPA methods. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8029 

The Marathon 2012 test report (see 

‘‘Performance Test of Steam-Assisted 

and Pressure-Assisted Ground Flare 

Burners with Passive FTIR—Garyville’’) 

and the Dow 2013 test report (see 

‘‘Report on Emissions Testing of 

Pressure Assisted LRGO–HC and Steam 

Assisted SKEC Burners’’) are provided 

in the docket. 

The results of the PFTIR testing 

indicated that when a flame was present 

on the pressure-assisted flare burners 

tested that an average combustion 

efficiency of 99 percent or greater was 

always achieved. Each set of operating 

conditions tested by both Dow and 

Marathon for both combustion 

efficiency and flame stability generally 

consisted of a series of triplicate runs. 

In all, a total of 34 test runs were 

analyzed from these two tests (21 from 

Dow’s P1 through P3 test series and 13 

from Marathon’s PA1 and PA2 test 

series). For test series P4, which was 

conducted as part of Dow’s 2013 test 

using a 90 volume percent hydrogen/10 

volume percent natural gas mixture, no 

combustion efficiency test was 

conducted; instead, a qualitative 

indication that the flame was stable at 

the conditions tested was made. We 

note that in Dow’s 2013 test report that 

three of the 21 test runs were aborted 

because of loss of flame (which we refer 

to as flameout); only two of the three 

test runs (one in the P2H series and one 

in the P2L series) produced enough 

information before flameout to be 

analyzed in more detail. We requested 

more detailed information from Dow on 

the conditions that resulted in this loss 

of flame as it informs us of the 

conditions that would create a failure of 

the burners to sustain a stable flame and 

achieve good combustion. This 

document is included in the docket 

titled ‘‘Supplement 1 to Dow report.’’ 

Additionally, we also note that in 

Marathon’s 2012 test report that two of 

the 13 test runs also experienced loss of 

flame (test PA1 Runs 4(2) and 4(4)). The 

results of all of these test runs are 

discussed in the memorandum titled 

‘‘Review of Available Test Data on 

Multipoint Ground Flares,’’ located in 

the docket. 

There are two general conclusions 

from these test reports that are 

consistent with the earlier EPA 1985 

study done on pressure-assisted flares 

(see conclusions on pages 2–19 and 2– 

22 in September 1985 EPA report titled 

‘‘Evaluation of the efficiency of 

industrial flares: Flare head design and 

gas composition’’). The first is that 

‘‘flare head design can influence the 

flame stability curve.’’ This is evident in 

Figures 2–3 and 2–5 of the 1985 EPA 

report where different stability curves 

were generated for the different flare 

heads (burners) tested over a range of 

differing exit velocities and flare gas net 

heating values. When comparing the 

current maximum flare tip velocity 

requirements in the general provisions 

with those tested on pressure-assisted 

flare burners, this conclusion still holds 

true. The agency’s current requirements 

would require that flares meet an 

increasing minimum net heating value 

with increasing velocity, all the way up 

to a minimum waste gas net heating 

value of 1,000 BTU/scf and maximum 

velocity of 400 feet per second. 

However, the recent test reports on 

pressure-assisted burners show that 

flame stability can be achieved at 

significantly higher velocities (i.e., sonic 

velocity) with waste gas net heating 

values below 1,000 BTU/scf. The second 

general conclusion made from EPA’s 

1985 study is that ‘‘stable flare flames 

and high (>98–99) combustion and 

destruction efficiencies are attained 

when flares are operated within 

operating envelopes specific to each 

flare burner and gas mixture tested. 

Operation beyond the edge of the 

operating envelope can result in rapid 

flame de-stabilization and a decrease in 

combustion and destruction 

efficiencies.’’ The data where flameout 

of the burners occurred from test runs 

in both the Marathon 2012 test report 

and the Dow 2013 test report showed 

that the flare operating envelope was 

different for the different gas mixtures 

tested. Additionally, it was observed 

that combustion degradation beyond the 

edge of the operating envelope for 

pressure-assisted MPGF burners was so 

rapid that when a flame was present, the 

flare would still achieve a high level of 

combustion efficiency right up until the 

point of flameout. 

In order to assess the proper operating 

envelope for these flare types, the EPA 

evaluated both the net heating value (in 

BTU/scf), which is how the 40 CFR part 

60 and 63 General Provisions currently 

address combustion zone properties, as 

well as the lower flammability limit 

(LFL) because the LFL may be a better 

indicator of performance than net 

heating value for some flare vent gas 

streams, notably those with the 

potential for high hydrogen content. 

Hydrogen is relatively flammable, but 

its net heating value is low on a BTU/ 

scf basis when compared to other 

hydrocarbons. By using LFL, we 

eliminate the need to correct the 

hydrogen heat content or to select a 

lower BTU/scf limit for high hydrogen 

cases. Although Dow has requested 

operating limits in the form of BTU/scf 

and has presented the test data in BTU/ 

scf, we believe it is important to 

consider both types of operating limits. 

Our review indicates that the LRGO 

burners tested achieve a high level of 

combustion efficiency when the lower 

flammability limit of waste gases burned 

in the flare is less than 6.5 volume 

percent (vol%) LFL or above 800 BTU/ 

scf. We suggest the 6.5 vol% LFL based 

on the flammability of the stream during 

the flame out conditions experienced 

during the high pressure test run P2H1 

(at 6.6 vol% LFL). The corresponding 

BTU content of the waste gas at this 

value was 789 BTU/scf (according to 

Dow, the gas chromatograph analysis 

indicated this value was 746 BTU/scf, 

although the John Zink report based on 

measured flow rates indicated it was 

789 BTU/scf). Dow’s proposed operating 

conditions included startup/shutdown 

cases where the waste gas heat content 

could be as low as 690 BTU/scf and as 

high as 6.9 vol% LFL, and data from 

these tests indicate that good 

combustion can occur at these 

conditions. However, to establish the 

alternative operating requirements at a 

level that ensures good combustion and 

flame stability at all times under all 

operating conditions, we believe it is 

reasonable to establish the heat content 

requirements for BTU/scf above which 

there were no flame out observations. 

For LFL, that level would be set below 

which there are no flame out 

observations. This is because gas 

mixtures with a relatively high LFL are 

less flammable when released to the air 

than mixtures with a relatively low LFL. 

A gas mixture with a relatively high LFL 

requires a larger volume of the mixture 

to burn in a specific volume of air, than 

would a mixture of gases with a 

relatively low LFL being combusted in 

that same volume of air. We believe the 

flame out observations establish the 

limiting case because a flameout is a 

complete failure of the burner, 

indicating zero-percent combustion. 

Because of the quantity of waste gases 

potentially flared in the high-pressure 

zones of these MPGF, we believe it 

would be prudent to establish limits on 

the conservative side to prevent air 

emissions of unburned waste gas. 

We also reviewed whether we should 

consider velocity or burner operating 

pressure in describing conditions that 

should be met during the MPGF 

operation and whether we should 

require some testing to ensure that the 

individual burners will ignite properly 

when a new stage goes into service. Dow 

provided information on its process 

control system and indicated that crosslight testing (testing of burner ignition 

from pilots) of individual burners at its 

off-site test facility has been conducted 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and the burners performed as expected. 

This discussion, titled ‘‘Process control 

system overview-multipoint ground 

flare system,’’ is in the docket for this 

action. At this time, we are not 

considering any requirements for 

additional process control or ignition 

testing. However, we believe it would be 

important to require that cameras are 

installed and operated such that 

operators have a visual indication of 

flames from the flare at all times that the 

MPGF is operating and that this footage 

be available for inspection by the 

permitting agency, along with 

operational records of the waste gas 

flowrate, pressure in header and stages, 

pilot and waste gas composition. 

Because these flares are located at 

ground level, it is possible that ambient 

concentrations of pollutants could be 

higher than they would be under an 

alternative scenario where waste gases 

would be flared in an elevated flare, 

enabling greater dispersion and 

potentially lessening the impact to 

neighboring communities. To that end, 

we are soliciting comment on whether 

additional ambient monitoring is 

warranted to provide for immediate 

notification to emergency planning 

officials and the community during 

significant events and malfunctions of 

the system. 

III. AMEL for Pressure-Assisted MPGF 

Considering the above requests from 

both Dow and ExxonMobil, we are 

seeking the public’s input on the 

operating requirements for the proposed 

pressure-assisted MPGFs that would be 

used by both companies which would 

establish an AMEL that will achieve a 

reduction in emissions at least 

equivalent to the reduction in emissions 

being controlled by a steam-assisted, airassisted or non-assisted flare complying 

with the requirements of either 40 CFR 

63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b). Information 

provided in the AMEL requests and the 

available emissions test data from the 

test reports described above indicate 

that the following list of operating 

requirements for pressure-assisted 

MPGF result in destruction efficiencies 

at least equivalent to destruction 

efficiencies expected from complying 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 

63.11(b) and 40 CFR 60.18(b) for the 

pressure-assisted MPGF being proposed 

for use by both Dow and ExxonMobil: 

1. The flare system must be designed 

and operated such that the net heating 

value of the combustion zone gas 

(NHVcz) for the pressure assisted flare 

burners meets a minimum heating value 

of 800 BTU/scf or a lower flammability 

limit of the combustion zone gas (LFLcz) 

of less than or equal to 6.5 percent by 

volume under all conditions. We would 

expect owners or operators to calculate 

NHVcz and LFLcz in a manner similar to 

those in the currently proposed 

requirements of 79 FR 36980–40 CFR 

63.670(l)–(m). 

2. The flare system must be operated 

with a flame present at all times when 

in use. Each row of flare burners must 

have at least one pilot with a constant 

pilot flame. The pilot flame(s) must be 

continuously monitored by a 

thermocouple. The time, date and 

duration of any loss of pilot flame must 

be recorded. Each monitoring device 

must be maintained or replaced at a 

frequency in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

3. The flare system must be operated 

with no visible emissions except for 

periods not to exceed a total of 5 

minutes during any 2 consecutive 

hours. A video camera can be used in 

order to conduct visible emission 

observations since operating personnel 

cannot enter the fenced area while the 

MPGF is operating. 

4. The operator must install and 

operate an on-line vent gas flow meter 

and an on-line gas chromatograph to 

measure the flow and composition of 

the vent gas to each flare. We would 

expect the operator to comply with 

similar monitoring and testing 

requirements and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for these 

monitoring systems as currently 

proposed in 79 FR 36980–40 CFR 

63.670(i)–(j) and (l)–(m). 

5. The operator should install and 

operate pressure and/or flow monitors 

on each stage of the flare. We would 

expect the operator to comply with 

similar applicable monitoring and 

testing requirements and recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for these 

monitoring systems as currently 

proposed in 79 FR 36980–40 CFR 

63.670(i). 

IV. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on all aspects of 

these requests for an AMEL. We 

specifically seek comment regarding 

whether or not the potential alternative 

operating requirements listed in section 

III above would be adequate for 

ensuring that the MPGF will achieve 

good combustion at all times and enable 

the facilities to meet their applicable 

emission standards. Additionally, 

several other entities have indicated to 

us that they intend to make similar 

requests for the ability to operate 

pressure-assisted MPGFs. We are also 

soliciting comment on whether the 

requirements listed above, if followed 

by these other entities, could enable 

these other facilities to receive approval 

of their own AMELs. As noted in 

section II.B above, we also solicit 

comment and data on other pressureassisted flare burner types. Commenters 

should include data or specific 

examples in support of their comments. 

Dated: February 3, 2015. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03064 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

42 CFR Part 11 

[Docket Number NIH–2011–0003] 

RIN 0925–AA52 

Clinical Trials Registration and Results 

Submission 

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) is extending the 

public comment period for the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on 

Clinical Trials Registration and Results 

Submission. The proposed rule was 

published on November 21, 2014 (79 FR 

69566) with a deadline for public 

comments of February 19, 2015. The 

comment period is being extended to 

provide additional time for commenters 

to prepare their responses. The 

comment period will close at 5 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 

23, 2015. 

DATES: Comments on the NPRM must be 

received before 5 p.m. EST on March 23, 

2015 in order to ensure we will be able 

to consider the comments when 

preparing the final rule and policy. 

ADDRESSES: Individuals and 

organizations interested in submitting 

comments on the NPRM, identified by 

RIN 0925–AA52 and Docket Number 

NIH–2011–0003, may do so by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Use 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

NIH is no longer accepting comments 

submitted directly by email. The NIH 

encourages you to continue to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS