United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2248A) EPA 300-N-00-014 (revised) Enforcement Alert Volumes, Number9 Office of Regulatory Enforcement October 2000 Frequent, Routine Flaring May Cause Excessive, Uncontrolled Sulfur Dioxide Releases Practice Not Considered 'Good Pollution Control Practice'; May Violate Clean Air Act Flaring is an engineering practice that provides for process equip- ment to immediately release gases to a About Enforcement Alert "Enforcement Alert" \ published periodically by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement to inform and educate the public and regulated community of important environmental enforcement issues, recent trends and significant enforcement actions. This information should help the regulated community anticipate and prevent violations of federal environmental law that could otherwise lead to enforcement action. Reproduction and wide dissemination of this publication are encouraged. For information on obtaining additional copies of this publication, contact the editor listed below. Eric V. Schaeffer Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement Editor: Virginia Bueno (202) 564-8684 bueno.virginia@epamail.epa.gov (Please Email all address and name changes or subscription requests for this newsletter.) device (a flare) where they can be quickly and safely in- cinerated. The proper use of flares is a good engineering practice because flares can prevent damages, fires and explo- sions, and inju- ries to employ- ees. Flar- ing also converts noxious and odorous gases re- leased in emergencies to less hazardous and objectionable emissions by the burning of the gases. But EPA investigations sug- gest that flaring frequently occurs in routine, nonemergency situations or is used to bypass pollution con- trol equipment. This results in unacceptably high releases of sulfur dioxide and other noxious pol- lutants and may violate the requirement that companies operate their facilities Editor's Note: To clarify sulfur dioxide re- porting requirements, this issue contains slight revisions to the sections, "Diagnos- ing, Preventing Excess Flaring," located on page 3 and "EPCRA Reporting Re- quirements for Flaring Incidents" on page 4. Please disregard the earlier is- sue. Frequent and routine use of flares may not be good air pollution control practice for reducing emissions. (Photograph courtesy of Kaldair Inc.) in a manner consistent with good air pollution practices for minimizing emis- sions. New "clean fuels" requirements will lead to the removal of even greater Continued on page 2 .ation is found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/enfalert ------- Enforcement Alert Continued from page 1 amounts of sulfur from feed stocks. Companies should ensure they have ad- equate capacity to treat these pollut- ants without resorting to excess flar- ing. Good pollution control practices in- clude: 1. Procedures to diagnose and prevent malfunctions; and 2. Adequate capacity at the back end of the refinery to process acid gas. At petroleum refineries, flares are used in a variety of process areas to prevent hydrocarbons and waste gases from being released directly to the at- mosphere. Since hydrocarbons are the primary product at refineries, compa- nies should make every effort to avoid sending their products up in flames. Flares, however, are also used to com- bust acid gas—a highly concentrated waste stream of hydrogen sulfide gas (up to 90 percent pure)—and sour wa- ter stripper gas (about 30 percent pure). Sulfur Recovery Plants (SRPs) nor- mally process hydrogen sulfide gas and sour water stripper gas. A sulfur re- covery plant is a refinery process for producing elemental sulfur for sale but is also a part of the refinery's air pollu- tion control systems. The process con- verts 95 percent or more of these hy- drogen sulfide gases into elemental sul- fur while reducing emissions to insig- nificant levels. Use of a flare for com- busting acid gas instead of processing it in the SRP produces very large un- controlled releases of sulfur dioxide (S02) and effectively bypasses the per- mitted and monitored SRP emission point. While the flare is designed to pre- vent the direct release of the very toxic Hydrocarbon Flaring Considered Fuel Gas Combustion Subject to NSPS The NSPS defines "fuel gas" to be any gas generated and combusted at a refinery and identifies flares as NSPS affected facilities. EPA's letter to Koch Petroleum Company (Dec. 2,1999) provides a detailed explanation of the various types of gases subject that are to NSPS requirements because they meet the definition of fuel gas (see http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed). The NSPS exempts flaring of fuel gas from the standards for sulfur ox- ides and monitoring requirements only when there is a process upset or an emergency malfunction. (40 C.F.R.Section 60.104(a)(1)). This "plain En- glish" exemption applies only to true emergencies, and the Agency ex- pects other flaring to be monitored and comply with applicable emission limits. EPA believes that many affected facilities at petroleum refineries may not be in compliance with applicable NSPS requirements (fuel gas monitor- ing and emission limits for fuel gas combustion devices) because of their routine reliance on flaring to control releases of hydrocarbons. The Agency also believes that, as with acid gas flaring, good air pollution control prac- tices include investigating the causes of flaring events and taking corrective action to avoid or reduce the probability of their recurrence. One way to address these potential compliance issues may be through the proper de- sign, operation and maintenance of flare gas recovery systems. and odoriferous hydrogen sulfide dur- ing malfunctions at the SRP, EPA has documented situations of regular or rou- tine use of flares for acid gas incinera- tion instead of the expected reliance on the flare only for emergencies. One day of acid gas flaring can eas- ily release more S02 than is released in a single year of permitted SRP activity. On numerous occasions, EPA has un- covered information on acid gas flar- ing incidents that shows that 100 tons or more of SO2 can be released in such flaring within a 24-hour period. A moderately sized Claus sulfur recov- ery plant (approximately 100 long tons of sulfur recovered per day capacity) that is subject to the New Source Per- formance Standards and properly op- erated with its pollution control device should emit no more than 250 parts per million of S02, a rate that corre- sponds to a little less than 100 tons annually. Health Dangers From Sulfur Dioxide Flaring H2S can produce high am- bient concentrations of S02. Short-term exposures to elevated S02 levels while at moderate exertion may result in re- duced lung function accompanied by such symptoms as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath in asth- matic children and adults. Other effects associated with longer-term exposures to high concentrations of S02 com- bined with high levels of particulate mat- ter, can result in respiratory illness, al- terations in the lungs' defenses, and ag- gravation of existing cardiovascular dis- ease. Those at risk include individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease, as well as children and the elderly. Acid Gas Flaring Routine or nonemergency "flaring Continued on page 3 October 2000 ------- Enforcement Alert Continued from page 2 of acid gas" is directing that gas away from the recovery plant, combusting it at a flare and releasing sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere. Acid gas flaring is not a federally permitted operation and should typically only occur during a malfunction (a "sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of equipment or processes to operate in a normal or usual manner") (40 C.F.R. Section 60.2). In EPA's experience, fre- quent and repetitive acid gas flaring is often not due to malfunctions. Acid gas flaring that is routine or preventable vio- lates the NSPS requirement for operat- ing consistent with 'Good Air Pollution Control Practices' to minimize emis- sions at refineries with NSPS fuel gas combustion devices and affected facili- ties including SRPs (40 C.F.R. Section Chain Reaction: Upstream Upsets May Result in Downstream Malfunctions Properly designed, operated and maintained SRPs can typically receive and treat all acid gas produced at the refinery (most also are designed to treat sour water stripper gas). These gases should not be flared except under emer- gency or malfunction conditions. Upsets in upstream process equip- The Agency also believes that, as with acid gas flaring, good air pollution control practices include investigating the causes of flaring events and taking corrective action to avoid or reduce the probability of their recurrence. ment may result in hydrocarbons or other contaminants entering the acid gas stream. Hydrocarbons can be very dis- ruptive to the short- and long-term op- eration of the SRP. Historically, not much effort has been put into investi- gating and correcting the root cause of contamination or upsets. Instead, inci- dents have been simply reported as "malfunctions." EPA, believes that re- peated malfunctions for the same cause, generally, could be predicted and pre- vented. If flaring results from a pre- ventable upset, EPA believes that it does not represent good air pollution control practices and that it may violate the CAA. Diagnosing, Preventing Excess Flaring Repeated or regularly occurring in- cidents of flaring can be anticipated and should not be classified as 'malfunc- tions.' For example, regularly switch- ing between high and low sulfur crude may cause fluctuations of the acid gas feed to the SRP. This can create opera- tional problems for the SRP and/or its pollution control equipment, resulting in a perceived need to flare. These up- sets should be addressed through im- proved operational control systems, im- proved and frequent training of opera- tors, and continued optimal perfor- mance of the SRP, not by bypassing or flaring acid gas and sour water strip- per gas. Another cause of flaring is inad- equate capacity of the SRP and its as- sociated tail gas unit (TGU) to process all the acid gas at the refinery. Refiner- ies should ensure that their units have the capacity and can handle variable vol- umes that may occur during different production levels. Refineries should implement the fol- lowing procedures to ensure that flar- ing results only from a true emergency or malfunction: BP Amoco Reduces SO2 Emissions from Flaring Nearly 75% From 1993 to 1995, the BP Amoco facility in Oregon, Ohio, experienced an annual av- erage of 16 flaring incidents and released approximately 180 tons of SO2. Underthe procedures out- lined in a Consent Decree with EPA, BP Amoco has been able to reduce that amount to an insignifi- cant number (three flaring events in 1999 released a total of 49 tons of SO2) and each event was attrib- utable to a true "malfunction" as defined in NSPS. This was accom- plished through equipment and op- erational changes that eliminated the root causes of such flaring. The protocol in the consent decree (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed) serves as a model in balancing the concerns of Good Engineering Practice and good Pollution Con- trol Practices for any flaring of acid gas or sour water stripper gas. October 2000 • Conduct a root-cause analysis of each flaring incident to identify if any equipment and/or operational changes are necessary to eliminate or minimize that cause so as to reduce or avoid fu- ture flaring events. As appropriate, cor- rective measures should be taken and implemented. If the analysis shows that the same cause has happened before, the incident should not be considered a malfunction and corrective measures should be taken to prevent future oc- currences; • Ensure there is adequate ca- pacity at the SRP and TGU. Redun- dant units can prevent flaring by allow- Continued on page 4 __ 3 ------- wEFA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Regulatory Enforcement (2248A) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 'Enforcement Alert' newsletter Continued from page 3 ing one unit to operate if the other needs to be shut down for maintenance or an upset; and • Prepare an accurate estimate of the total S02 released (using clear calculation procedures) for each acid gas flaring incident. Identifying the root cause of the flar- ing incident gives the refinery the op- portunity to fix the problem before it happens again. It also enables the facil- ity to assess whether the flaring inci- dent was caused by a true malfunction, which is considered acceptable engi- neering practices. A reference procedure for evaluat- ing if good air pollution practices are being used when future acid gas flar- ing events occur can be found in the Consent Decree, C.A. No. 3:97CV7790 N.D. Ohio, entered May 5, 1999 (see http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed). For more information, contact Patric McCoy at U.S. EPA's Region 5 office in Chicago at (312) 886-6869, EPCRA Reporting Requirements for Flaring Incidents EPCRA Section 304 requires that unpermitted releases of extremely haz- ardous substances in excess of their reportable quantity be reported immedi- ately to the State Emergency Response Commission and Local Emergency Planning Committee.The flaring of hydrogen sulfide may require reporting if more than 500 pounds (the reportable quantity) of SO2are released within a 24-hour period. The Clean Air Act recognizes that accidents, malfunctions, start ups and shut downs may cause excess emissions even when the facil- ity has implemented reasonable measures to avoid them. However, it is still important to alert emergency response personnel when these releases occur, as even short periods of flaring can emit large quantities of SO2. Forexample, a medium-sized refinery with an SRP that processes 500 tons of acid gas each day could release as much as 40 tons of SO2 at the flare in only one hour, more than 150 times the reportable quantity. E-mail: mccoy.patric@epa.gov; and regarding federally permitted release questions, contact Ginny Phillips, Of- fice of Regulatory Enforcement, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division at (202) 564-6139,Email: ph illips. ginny@epa. gov. Useful Corrmliance Assistance Resources CAA Applicability Determination Index: http://www.epa.gov/oeca/eptdd/adi.html Technology Transfer Network http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ Office of Regulatory Enforcement: http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/ RCRA Online: http://www.epa.gov/rcraonline/ Compliance Assistance Centers: http://www.epa.gov/oeca/mfcac.html Audit Policy Information: http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/ apolguid.html Small Business Gateway: http://www.epa.gov/smallbusiness/ " Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paperthat contains at least 30% recycled fiber ------- |