Each owner or operator that is subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the emission limitations set forth in this section on and after the date on which the initial performance test, required by § 60.8, is completed, but not later than 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, or 180 days after initial startup, whichever comes first.
(a) No owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall:
(1) Burn in any fuel gas combustion device any fuel gas that contains hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in excess of 230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from this paragraph.
(2) Discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere from any Claus sulfur recovery plant containing in excess of:
(i) For an oxidation control system or a reduction control system followed by incineration, 250 ppm by volume (dry basis) of sulfur dioxide (SO2) at zero percent excess air.
(ii) For a reduction control system not followed by incineration, 300 ppm by volume of reduced sulfur compounds and 10 ppm by volume of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), each calculated as ppm SO2 by volume (dry basis) at zero percent excess air.
(b) Each owner or operator that is subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with one of the following conditions for each affected fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator:
(1) With an add-on control device, reduce SO2 emissions to the atmosphere by 90 percent or maintain SO2 emissions to the atmosphere less than or equal to 50 ppm by volume (ppmv), whichever is less stringent; or
(2) Without the use of an add-on control device to reduce SO2 emission, maintain sulfur oxides emissions calculated as SO2 to the atmosphere less than or equal to 9.8 kg/Mg (20 lb/ton) coke burn-off; or
(3) Process in the fluid catalytic cracking unit fresh feed that has a total sulfur content no greater than 0.30 percent by weight.
(c) Compliance with paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section is determined daily on a 7-day rolling average basis using the appropriate procedures outlined in § 60.106.
(d) A minimum of 22 valid days of data shall be obtained every 30 rolling successive calendar days when complying with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
[43 FR 10869, Mar. 15, 1978, as amended at 54 FR 34027, Aug. 17, 1989; 55 FR 40175, Oct. 2, 1990; 65 FR 61754, Oct. 17, 2000; 73 FR 35866, June 24, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
· cites it 6× “This is identical to the restriction NSPS Subpart J restriction contained in 40 C.F.R. § 60.104 (b)(1). However, if Subpart J applied it would provide Chevron the choice of either complying with this standard or adhering to one of the two other pollution control options…”
St. Bernard Citizens for Env't Quality, Inc. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., 399 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. La. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Although 40 C.F.R. § 60.104 (a)(1) prohibits the burning of fuel gas that contains in excess of 230 mg/dsem, it exempts “[t]he combustion in a flare of process upset gases or fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency…”
Anderson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Kan. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In the five years prior to plaintiffs’ filing of their complaint, the Radco heater at Farmland’s Coffeyville Refinery discharged sulfur dioxide in amounts greater than the 20 ppm emission limit, set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 60.104 (a)(1), on 232 days. Farmland reported such…”
Star Enter. Texaco Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 235 F.3d 139 (3rd Cir. 2000).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 60.104 (a)(1). Compliance with this standard can be established either by monitoring the amount of H2S in the fuel being burned or by monitoring the amount of S02 emitted from the fuel gas combustion device in question.”
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2022).
· cites it 2× “”37 EPA chemical engineer Bill Peterson sent this task list to Defendant in order “to confirm Defendant’s claim that all continuous streams had been re-routed away from Defendant’s flares, including the Coker and CWP flares, and that only exempt streams pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §…”
United States v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (W.D. Wis. 2001).
· cites it 3× “If plaintiff is correct, the unit has been subject to New Source Performance Standards, which would require defendant both to limit its sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the sulfur recovery unit to the standard set out in 40 C.F.R. § 60.104 (a)(2) and to install an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.