TAC 30 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AIR QUALITY PT 2 TCEQ

Is continuous monitoring required for boilers used as control devices, under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 63.453?

FEDERAL: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated that continuous monitoring is neither necessary nor appropriate for boilers or recovery furnaces which meet the following criteria: 1. the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission stream enters the boiler with the primary fuel or enters directly into the flame zone, or 2. the HAP emission stream is introduced with the combustion air into a boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input capacity greater than or equal to 44 megawatts (MW) (150 million British thermal units per hour). If the HAP emission stream is introduced with the combustion air into a boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input of less than 44 MW, the boiler must continuously monitor an appropriate operating parameter pursuant to § 63.453(m)

Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 115.421(a) [30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.421(a)] in part states: "These limitations are based on the daily weighted average of all coatings delivered to each coating line,.... For the purposes of this division (relating to Surface Coating Processes), daily weighted average means the total weight of VOC emissions from all coatings, divided by the total volume of all coatings (minus water and exempt solvent) delivered to the application system each day." For determining the daily weighted average, is it the weighted average of all volatile organic compounds (VOC) constituents in one coating in a single day, or the weighted average of every coating applied in a single da

Daily weighted average is the total weight of VOC emissions from all coatings subject to the same emission standard in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.421, divided by the total volume of those coatings (minus water and exempt solvent ) delivered to the application system each day. Coatings subject to different emission standards in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.421 shall not be combined for purposes of determining the daily weighted average. Furthermore, determination of compliance is also based on each individual coating line.

Is a hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI), which was constructed on or before June 20, 1996 and combusts only pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste (as defined in 30 TAC § 113.2070 and 40 CFR § 60.51c), required to apply for a federal operating permit (FOP) under Title V?

FEDERAL AND STATE: Under 30 TAC Chapter 113, 30 TAC Chapter 122, and 40 CFR 60 Subpart Ec, the owner or operator of an HMIWI unit that combusts only pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste is not required to submit an application for an FOP under Title V, if the only reason the unit would potentially be subject to Title V is the non-emissions control-related recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the exemptions for burning pathological, chemotherapeutic, and/or low-level radioactive waste. However, if the owner or operator does not comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Chapter 113, § 113.2076(e)(1) and (2), or 40 CFR § 60.50c(b)(1) and (2) as necessary to claim the exemption, the owner or operator of the HMIWI unit is required to file an application for an FOP under Title V. Title 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce contains only guidelines that have been implemented in Chapter 113, §§ 113.2070 - 113.2079, therefore does not apply to this facility. In addition 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ec, and specifically 40 CFR § 60.50c, apply only to HMIWI that were constructed after June 20, 1996. In addition, note that the HMIWI unit may trigger other applicable requirements under Chapter 122 (for example, a HMIWI unit which is a major source) which would require submittal of an FOP application

Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 117.205(h)(3) contains an exemption for boilers and industrial furnaces which were regulated as existing facilities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 266 (40 CFR Part 266), Subpart H, as was in effect on June 9, 1993. If a boiler or furnace burns hazardous waste for only a fraction of its operating time, and burns non-hazardous fuels for the remainder of the time, does this exemption apply during those times when the unit is burning non-hazardous fuels?

FEDERAL ONLY: Units regulated as existing facilities at 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H, as was in effect on June 9, 1993, are exempt from the 30 TAC § 117.205 emission specifications at all times, regardless of whether or not the unit is burning hazardous or non-hazardous waste.

For purposes of applicability to the operating permits program, is non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) considered an air pollutant when determining major source status of landfills not subject to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (40 CFR 60) NSPS Subpart WWW - Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills?

For purposes of applicability to the operating permits program, NMOC is considered a regulated air pollutant when determining major source status for all municipal solid waste landfills, regardless of whether or not the municipal solid waste landfill is subject to NSPS Subpart WWW. NMOC is not considered a regulated air pollutant for any other source category.

Determine the requirements of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) § 115.421(a)(9)(C), regarding the meaning of non-exempt solvent washing which are directed into containers that prevent evaporation into the atmosphere. Examples of compliant practices that avoid the need to add these solvents to the emission limitation calculation should be included. (Note: "Exempt solvent" is defined in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 101.1 as "Those carbon compounds or mixtures of carbon compounds used as solvents which have been excluded from the definition of volatile organic compound."

If the emissions from the solvent washing are not controlled, they must be included in the determination of compliance. However, if the solvent washing, prior to or after painting, is directed into an essentially closed container then the resulting emissions are not required to be included in the determination of compliance with the emission limitation listed in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.421(a)(9). The following is a list of some examples of compliant practices that avoid the need to add cleanup solvents to the emission limitation calculation: 1. Using brushes, rags, etc. with non-exempt solvent to clean parts prior to painting or to wash or clean up a coating application system or associated equipment such as spray booth walls. When not in use, the brushes, rags, and any used non-exempt solvent, used to clean parts, the coating application system, or associated equipment such as spray booth walls, are placed in a closed container for reuse or proper disposal. 2. Using non-exempt solvent to wash or clean up a coating application system employing a coating dipping system. Once the surplus coating has been removed from the dip tank and properly stored, solvent is used to remove any residual coating. The used solvent is then drained into an air tight container which is sealed until such time that the solvent is reused or disposed of properly. 3. Using non-exempt solvent to wash and purge a coating application system using spray guns. After any surplus coating has been removed from the spray gun and coating reservoir, solvent coated rags are used to clean the exterior of the spray gun/reservoir. The rags are then stored in an air tight container such that they do not create a fire safety hazard, until such time that the contents of the container can be disposed of properly. The spray gun/reservoir is then washed and purged with solvent. While washing and purging the supply lines and spray gun, the spray from the gun must be directed into a container which, when not in use, is capable of being closed air tight. All attempts should be made to limit the amount of solvent that escapes from the container as the spray gun is being purged. 4. Using non-exempt solvent in a remote reservoir cold solvent cleaner. After any surplus coating has been removed from the spray gun and coating reservoir, the outside of the spray gun is washed under running solvent. The solvent drains into the remote solvent reservoir. The coating reservoir is then purged with solvent, with the solvent being directed toward the drain which leads to the remote reservoir

If a change is made to an individual process unit at a refinery that is an existing source for purposes of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 63 Subpart CC, does the 40 CFR § 63.2 definition of reconstruction apply to the individual process unit or does it apply to the entire refinery?

STATE AND FEDERAL: In 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CC the affected source is the entire refinery. Therefore, the reconstruction must exceed 50 percent of the cost required to build a new affected facility or a whole new refinery.

What is the frequency of leak detection testing, nitrogen pressure decay field testing, and continuous performance pressure decay testing as defined in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 63.425(f) - (h) respectively as referenced from § 63.650(a).

STATE AND FEDERAL: The leak detection testing, nitrogen pressure decay field testing, and continuous performance pressure decay tests defined in § 63.425(f) - (h) do not specify frequency of testing, but can be administered at any time to insure the validity of the annual certification defined in § 63.425(e).

Is a hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI), which was constructed on or before June 20, 1996 and combusts only pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste (as defined in 30 TAC § 113.2070 and 40 CFR § 60.51c), required to apply for a federal operating permit (FOP) under Title V?

STATE AND FEDERAL: Under 30 TAC Chapter 113, 30 TAC Chapter 122, and 40 CFR 60 Subpart Ec, the owner or operator of an HMIWI unit that combusts only pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste is not required to submit an application for an FOP under Title V, if the only reason the unit would potentially be subject to Title V is the non-emissions control-related recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the exemptions for burning pathological, chemotherapeutic, and/or low-level radioactive waste. However, if the owner or operator does not comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Chapter 113, § 113.2076(e)(1) and (2), or 40 CFR § 60.50c(b)(1) and (2) as necessary to claim the exemption, the owner or operator of the HMIWI unit is required to file an application for an FOP under Title V. Title 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce contains only guidelines that have been implemented in Chapter 113, §§ 113.2070 - 113.2079, therefore does not apply to this facility. In addition 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ec, and specifically 40 CFR § 60.50c, apply only to HMIWI that were constructed after June 20, 1996. In addition, note that the HMIWI unit may trigger other applicable requirements under Chapter 122 (for example, a HMIWI unit which is a major source) which would require submittal of an FOP application.

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, §§ 115.131-139 (30 TAC §§ 115.131-139), to a volatile organic compound (VOC) water separator used in groundwater remediation.

STATE: A VOC water separator is subject to the Water Separation Rules (§§ 115.131-139) under 30 TAC Chapter 115. However, if a VOC water separator is used solely to separate VOC's that are recovered from a groundwater remediation project, then the separator is exempt under 30 TAC §§ 115.137(a)(3), (b)(5), and (c)(4).

Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 contains one set of volatile organic compounds (VOC) control requirements for process vents and another set of requirements for storage vessels. Many vessels used in industrial facilities are designed and/or utilized for process operations or for a combination of process and storage operations. This rule interpretation is being requested to clarify the difference between storage vessels and process vessels.

STATE: A determination of the applicability of 30 TAC Chapter 115 should be based on the primary function of the vessel at a given time. In general, if there is a fairly constant flow into and out of the vessel and the flow in roughly equals the flow out, the vessel should be considered a process vessel subject to the Vent Gas Control requirements of 30 TAC §§ 115.121-123, 115.125-127, and 115.129 and not a storage vessel.

What requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 117.209, relating to Initial Control Plans, apply to sites with no applicable combustion units listed under § 117.201, but with some combustion units listed as "exempt" under § 117.203 (E.g., dryers or ovens)?

STATE: A source that has no combustion units listed under 30 TAC § 117.201 is not subject to § 117.209.

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 116.110(a) (30 TAC § 116.110[a]) to jet engine test cells.

STATE: A. The first type is jet engines which are tested while attached to their aircraft. These are considered mobile sources and not subject to 30 TAC § 116.110(a). B. The second type includes engines removed from the aircraft and tested in the open. This type of unit is commonly referred to as "jet engine test cells." These units meet the definition of a facility and a stationary source. Therefore, these types of units are required to obtain authorization by permit or exemption to operate. C. The third type includes engines removed from the aircraft and tested in a structure or building. These structures or buildings and the equipment operated within them (jet engine test cells) constitute a facility and, therefore, should be considered stationary sources and require authorization by permit or exemption. It is important to note that under certain circumstances the building or enclosure may contain both stationary and mobile sources, but only the stationary sources should be considered for demonstrations of compliance with 30 TAC Chapter 116.

Under Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) § 116.133, signs must be posted at the site of a proposed facility during a permit application. According to 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.133(c), these signs "must be located within 10 feet of each (every) property line paralleling a street or other public thoroughfare." Does a river constitute a thoroughfare?

STATE: Based on long-standing Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) practice and the dictionary definition of the term "thoroughfare," Texas water bodies (lakes, rivers, streams) should not be considered public thoroughfares for purposes of determining sign posting requirements under 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.133(c).

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §§ 115.352-357 and 359 (Fugitive Monitoring Requirements at Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing, and Petrochemical Processes in Ozone Nonattainment Areas) to bulk terminals which store and distribute natural gas or fractionate natural gas liquids, and are located next to natural gas processing operations.

STATE: Because the bulk terminal facility is under common control or ownership and is located next to or near the natural gas processing facility, the two facilities are considered to be the same property (as defined in § 101.1) and are thus subject to the requirements of §§ 115.352-357 and 359. However, by the definition of a natural gas/gasoline processing facility, only the following sources at the bulk terminal facility would be considered to be subject to §§ 115.352-357 and 359: compressor stations; dehydration units; sweetening units; field treatment; underground storage; liquified natural gas units; and field gas gathering systems.

An external customer requested a determination if boiler fuel lines, loading/unloading lines, and feed lines at a synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI)/petrochemical facility are considered part of the process and subject to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §§ 115.352 - 115.357 and 115.359 fugitive emission control requirements

STATE: Boiler fuel lines, loading/unloading lines, and feed lines at a SOCMI/petrochemical facility are considered to be part of the manufacturing process and are thereby subject to the fugitive emission control requirements stated in §§ 115.352 - 115.357 and 115.359. However, please note that there are exemptions which might exempt the fuel lines, loading/unloading lines, and feed lines from the requirements of this division. As an example, § 115.357(6) exempts components at a SOCMI/petrochemical facility which contact a process fluid containing less than 10.0% of volatile organic compound by weight from the requirements of this division.

Fugitive emissions from compressor seals are collected and routed to a header that vents directly to the atmosphere. Are the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the header vent subject to the vent gas control requirements of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §§ 115.120 - 115.129 or the fugitive emission requirements of § 115.352 - 115.359

STATE: Compressor seal VOC emissions which are contained (meaning, no fugitive emissions are emitted at the component) and routed to a header that vents directly to the atmosphere are subject to the vent gas control requirements of §§ 115.120 - 115.129. However, note that a component which has a non-enclosed collection system (such as a hood) may be more appropriately subject to the §§ 115.352 - 115.359 fugitive emission requirements. Therefore, more information may need to be submitted for a component which has a nonenclosed collection system for a case-by-case evaluation.

Are dockside marine vessel emissions included in applicability determinations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment (NA), and Title V permit requirements?

STATE: Dockside vessel loading, unloading, cleaning, degassing, abrasive blasting and painting that serve the purpose of and are under the control of the onshore facilities must be included in applicability determinations for PSD, NA, and Title V permit requirements. Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 116 [§§ 116.12(4) and 116.160(a)] inadvertently cross-references or incorporates the vacated 1982 PSD and NA rules; therefore, we are initiating rulemaking to correct that cross-reference or incorporation. Please note, although our state rule contains incorrect citations, the federal requirements are required to be implemented as established by 1980 federal rules. Therefore this rule interpretation does not change the PSD or NA requirement but only clarifies the continued requirement to comply with the 1980 federal rules. However, since the issue was not explicitly addressed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 70 previously, pursuant to 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 122.130(c)(2), the applicant has one year from the date of this rule interpretation to submit an application for those sites that were not previously considered major but, based on inclusion of the dockside vessel emissions, now would be major

Does the definition of a "polymer or resin manufacturing process" which is contained in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 115.10 include a facility which generates a listed polymer (polystyrene) as a temporary, non-isolated intermediate? The polystyrene is produced as an intermediate in a series of chemical reactions, but undergoes subsequent reactions such that the final product of the series of reactions is not polystyrene

STATE: The 30 TAC § 115.10 definition of "polymer or resin manufacturing process" does not include polymer compounds which only exist as temporary non-isolated intermediates, and which are not sold or used as a raw material for another process.

Are dockside marine vessel emissions included in applicability determinations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment (NA), and Title V permit requirements?

STATE: Dockside vessel loading, unloading, cleaning, degassing, abrasive blasting and painting that serve the purpose of and are under the control of the onshore facilities must be included in applicability determinations for PSD, NA, and Title V permit requirements. Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 116 [§§ 116.12(4) and 116.160(a)] inadvertently cross-references or incorporates the vacated 1982 PSD and NA rules; therefore, we are initiating rulemaking to correct that cross-reference or incorporation. Please note, although our state rule contains incorrect citations, the federal requirements are required to be implemented as established by 1980 federal rules. Therefore this rule interpretation does not change the PSD or NA requirement but only clarifies the continued requirement to comply with the 1980 federal rules. However, since the issue was not explicitly addressed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 70 previously, pursuant to 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 122.130(c)(2), the applicant has one year from the date of this rule interpretation to submit an application for those sites that were not previously considered major but, based on inclusion of the dockside vessel emissions, now would be major.

What requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 116 are applicable to dockside marine vessel emissions?

STATE: Emissions from dockside marine vessel activities (loading, unloading, cleaning, degassing, abrasive blasting and painting) that are operated by the owner or operator of onshore facilities are subject to all the requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 116. All applications declared administratively complete after September 1, 2001 will be required to undergo a full state New Source Review (NSR) for dockside vessel emissions.

External customer wants to know if the Surface Coating Processes rules stated in 30 TAC Chapter 115 apply to stenciling operations.

STATE: External customer wants to know if the Surface Coating Processes rules of §§115.421-429 apply to his stenciling operation. The customer has an internal pipe coating facility. After the pipe is coated on the inside diameter, in a separate operation, the outside of the pipe is stenciled. The stenciling operation is used to identify the coated pipe part number, coating type, lot and batch number. The information stenciled on the outside of the pipe is used for inventory control and traceability purposes to track field failures.

Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 115.214(a)(3)(F) [30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.214(a)(3)(F)] requires fugitive emissions monitoring for all "shore based equipment" at marine terminals in the Houston/Galveston area. A determination is needed on how "shore based equipment" is defined, if product is unloaded or loaded directly to or from pipelines onto or off of ships or barges.

STATE: For situations in which product is unloaded or loaded directly to or from pipelines onto or off of ships or barges, "shore based equipment" is determined to be all piping and equipment located between the ship or barge and the pipeline. In the situation where liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is "tightlined" (i.e., unloaded or loaded directly to or from pipelines), shore based equipment would include such units as dehydration and refrigeration systems that are located between the ship/barge and the pipeline.

Determination of whether "gun barrels" should be classified as tanks or volatile organic compound (VOC) water separators.

STATE: Gun barrels should be considered as water separators and are subject to the water separation rules stated in 30 TAC §§115.131-139. In rare situations, a gun barrel may perform the storage of VOC containing liquids. If a gun barrel is used in this manner, then it should be considered a storage tank or container and would then be subject to Storage of VOC rules stated in §§115.112-119.

Determination of applicability of secondary seal requirements for external floating roof tanks storing waxy, high pour point crude oil.

STATE: If a storage tank meets the exemption in Section (§)115.117(a)(5) and the compound in the storage tank is not changed to a non-exempt compound, the storage tank would not be required to have a secondary seal of any kind.

Is an engine or turbine tested in a dedicated test cell (building, structure or location used solely for the purpose of testing engines and/or turbines) considered "stationary" and does it meet the definition of "stationary internal combustion engine" or "stationary gas turbine," contained in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 117.10, if no single engine or gas turbine remains at the facility for longer than 12 consecutive months? Specifically, does an engine that replaces a previous engine in the test cell have to be included in calculating the consecutive time period?

STATE: If, during the duration of the testing, a gas turbine is attached to a foundation (for any length of time) or is portable equipment operated at the site for more than 90 days in any 12-month period then the gas turbine meets the definition of a stationary gas turbine per 30 TAC § 117.10. Note that a gas turbine being tested may qualify for an exemption under 30 TAC § 117.203(6)(A) or (B), which exempt turbines used in research and testing or used for purposes of performance verification. An internal combustion engine being tested in a test cell meets the definition of a stationary internal combustion engine, per 30 TAC Chapter 117, if it remains at a single location for more than 12 consecutive months. When an engine replaces another engine in a test cell at that location, the 12 consecutive month time period is not evaluated based on the cumulative time of the engines being tested at that location. Rather, each engine is individually evaluated to determine the 12 month consecutive time period and whether the engine is a stationary internal combustion engine.

Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) § 116.110(a)(2)(B) requires that before actual work is begun on a facility, the conditions for a standard permit under the requirements in 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 321, Subchapter K, relating to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) must be satisfied. However, the CAFO rules have been moved to 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 321, Subchapter B. Should 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.110(a)(2)(B) reference 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 321, Subchapter B, instead of Subchapter K?

STATE: In May 1998, 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 321, Subchapter K was set aside by the 353d Judicial District of Travis County due to procedural defects. On August 19, 1998, 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 321, Subchapter B was adopted to replace Subchapter K. Therefore, 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.110(a)(2)(B) should reference 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 321, Subchapter B, instead of Subchapter K.

For the purpose of determining whether a facility is a synthetic organic chemical manufacturing (SOCMI) process, as defined in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC ) § 115.10, are products that are not isolated for further reuse or sale considered to be an intermediate or final product?

STATE: In general, when trying to determine whether a listed chemical, or mixture that contains a listed chemical, is considered an intermediate or final product, for purposes of assessing whether a facility is a SOCMI process, consider whether the listed chemical or mixture is produced for sale or is useable in another process. If the listed chemical or mixture that contains a listed chemical is produced for sale or is useable in another process, then the facility is considered a SOCMI process as defined in § 115.10

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Section (§)115.114(b)(2)-(4) (30 TAC 115.114[b][2]-[2][4]) for tanks with external floating roofs not required to have secondary seals

STATE: It was determined that secondary seal inspection rules are not applicable for the category of tanks in question because there is no requirement for having secondary seals

Is the emission reduction factor, identified in §112.9(b) applicable to the standard in §112.9(c)?

STATE: It was determined that since §112.9(b) is not listed as a subsection under 112.9(a) it carries the same weight as all others sections and, thus, should be applied to all of the standards listed within §112.9 including §112.9(c).

Is wastewater from laboratory facilities on the premises of refineries, chemical plants, etc. subject to the requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) §§ 115.140-149? The wastewater in question is generated from cleaning lab glassware and sample containers which contained samples of process volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

STATE: Lab-generated wastewater resulting from cleaning glassware and sample containers is not subject to the requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.140-149, because it is not covered by the definition of "VOC wastewater." However, if a lab at an affected source category generates wastewater which meets the definition of VOC wastewater, the lab wastewater would be subject to 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.140- 149.

Determine whether the provisions of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 115, §§ 115.140, 115.142-149 apply to wastewater generated during maintenance activities or to additional wastewater streams generated at a facility (rainfall runoff, equipment leaks, spills, etc). If these types of wastewater are not subject to 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.140, 115.142-149, then are the wastewater components subject to other provisions of 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 115 or would the exemption of 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.147(3) apply?

STATE: Maintenance wastewater, maintenance-turnaround wastewater, and wastewater generated by rainfall runoff, exigency use of water, once through non-contact cooling water, equipment leaks, and spills are not considered Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) wastewater as defined in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.140. Therefore, wastewater components processing maintenance wastewater, maintenance-turnaround wastewater, and wastewater generated by rainfall runoff, exigency use of water, once through non-contact cooling water, equipment leaks, and spills are not subject to the provisions of 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.140, 115.142-149, Industrial Wastewater. Since these components are not subject to the provisions of 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§115.140, 115.142-149, then the exemption given in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.147(3) does not apply and the wastewater components are potentially subject to other portions of 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 115.

Section 382.020 references the control of particulate matter from plants at which certain agricultural products are handled, loaded, unloaded, dried, manufactured, or processed. What constitutes a plant?

STATE: Only the emission points which are included in the manufacturing unit (those which handle, load, unload, dry, manufacture, or process grain, seed, legumes, or vegetable fibers) are exempt per 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 111.175 from 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 111.111 and the other related sections.

Determination of applicability of the loading and unloading of volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules (Title 30 Texas Administrative Code §§ 115.211 - 217, and § 115.219 [30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.211 - 217, and § 115.219]) to pigging activities conducted at marine terminals in which a pig is used to transfer remaining product in a transfer line to a marine vessel or a land-based storage tank.`

STATE: Pigging activities that are conducted to move remaining product from transfer lines at marine terminals into marine vessels are considered to be part of the marine loading operation and thus are subject to the loading and unloading of VOC rules (30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.211 - 217, and § 115.219) under 30 Tex. Admin. Code, Chapter 115. Please note that due to the exemptions given in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.217(a)(5)(A)(i), the marine loading requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.212(a) only apply to facilities that are loading into marine vessels located in the Houston/Galveston ozone non-attainment area. Unloading from a marine vessel is exempt from the requirements of § 30 Tex. Admin. Code 115.212(a). Also, for periods in which pigging is being conducted for maintenance reasons (e.g., cleaning, dewatering gas pipelines, hydro testing, etc.), loading operations are not being conducted. The rules for loading and unloading of VOC (30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.211-217, and §115.219) do not apply to pigging for maintenance

Are pilot lights used to comply with Title 16 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 3, § 3.95, Underground Storage of Liquid or Liquefied Hydrocarbons in Salt Formations, subject to the flare requirements contained in 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapters 111 and 117, and can they be used to satisfy the control requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 115?

STATE: Pilot lights used to comply with 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.95 are not flares; therefore, these pilot lights are not subject to the flare requirements contained in 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapters 111 and 117. For this same reason, pilot lights may not be used to satisfy 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 115 control requirements.

Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) §§ 116.116(c)(4) and (c)(5) reference 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.111(3), yet 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.111(3) does not exist. Is the correct citation 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.111(2)(C)?

STATE: The reference to 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.111(3) in 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 116.116(c)(4) and (c)(5) should instead be to 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.111(2)(C). Therefore, 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.116(c)(4) should read: "A request for a permit alteration shall include information sufficient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstration of compliance with the requirements of § 116.111(2)(C) of this title." Also, 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.116(c)(5) should read: "Permit alterations are not subject to the requirements §116.111(2)(C) of this title."

How does a responsible official certify compliance under 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code), Chapter 122 with the opacity requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 111.111(a)(1), (7), and (8)?

STATE: Please note that this request is not applicable to sources required to install a CEMS under 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 111.111(a) or to flares because these sources have separate and explicit compliance and recordkeeping requirements in 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 111. For purposes of the initial compliance certification under 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 122.132, the owner or operator must determine if visible emissions are present according to § 111.111(a). If visible emissions are not observed, then the responsible official can certify that the source is in compliance with the applicable opacity requirement in §§ 111.111(a)(1), (7), and (8). No documentation is required for observations where no visible emissions are present. However, if visible emissions are observed, then the owner or operator must determine if the specified source is in compliance with the applicable opacity requirement in §§ 111.111(a)(1), (7), and (8) using the applicable opacity test method given in §§ 111.111(a)(1), (7), and (8), depending on the specified source. The responsible official can then certify the compliance status of the source with respect to the applicable opacity requirement in §§ 111.111(a)(1), (7), and (8). For purposes of annual compliance certification, the owner or operator must base certification on compliance methods listed in the permit. The owner or operator must comply with the compliance certification requirements in § 122.146. Please note that to properly determine the presence of visible emissions, all sources must be in clear view of the observer. It is also recommended that the observer be at least 15 feet, but not more than 0.25 miles, away from the emission source during the observation. For outdoor locations, it is recommended that the observer select a position where the sun is not directly in the observer's eyes. Please remember that no documentation is required for observations where no visible emissions are present.

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) § 116.110(a) to locomotive load/smoke test facilities. The facility would not be enclosed in a building and the load/smoke test equipment would fit over the locomotive smokestack, so as not to restrict or control the emissions in any way.

STATE: Power plants which are tested while attached to a locomotive are considered to be part of a mobile source and not subject to 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 116. This would apply even if the load testing is conducted in a building or structure. In the event that the power plant is removed from the locomotive and then tested, this power plant would be considered to meet the definition of facility in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.10 because it would constitute a stationary source.

Question 1. Are the Texas Education Code reference citations of Title 19 Texas Administrative Code § 89.2(a) [19 TAC 89.2(a)] and 19 TAC § 89.2(g) in the above mentioned subsections and paragraphs of 30 TAC Chapters 122 and 116 incorrect? Are 19 TAC § 89.1205(a) and 19 TAC § 89.1205(g) the correct citations for bilingual education requirements ? Also, is the reference to Texas Education Code § 21.109 correct? Question 2. In addition, are the requirements for individual schools triggering the requirements (instead of the school district) correct as stated in 30 TAC § 122.322(a) and 30 TAC § 116.132(c)

STATE: Question 1. It is the Rule Interpretation Team's (RIT's) opinion that the correct citations in 30 TAC Chapters 122 and 116 for bilingual education should be 19 TAC §§ 89.1205(a), 89.1205(g), and Texas Education Code § 29.053. Question 2. The requirements specifying that the individual schools trigger the requirement for bilingual notice in 30 TAC § 122.322(a) and 30 TAC § 116.132(c) are correct and are consistent with the statutory requirements. Bilingual public notice requirements apply if the nearest elementary school or the nearest middle school provides a bilingual education program or has waived out of a required bilingual education program

Question 1. Are the Texas Education Code reference citations of Title 19 Texas Administrative Code § 89.2(a) [19 TAC 89.2(a)] and 19 TAC § 89.2(g) in the above mentioned subsections and paragraphs of 30 TAC Chapters 122 and 116 incorrect? Are 19 TAC § 89.1205(a) and 19 TAC § 89.1205(g) the correct citations for bilingual education requirements ? Also, is the reference to Texas Education Code § 21.109 correct? Question 2. In addition, are the requirements for individual schools triggering the requirements (instead of the school district) correct as stated in 30 TAC § 122.322(a) and 30 TAC § 116.132(c)?

STATE: Question 1. It is the Rule Interpretation Team's (RIT's) opinion that the correct citations in 30 TAC Chapters 122 and 116 for bilingual education should be 19 TAC §§ 89.1205(a), 89.1205(g), and Texas Education Code § 29.053. Question 2. The requirements specifying that the individual schools trigger the requirement for bilingual notice in 30 TAC § 122.322(a) and 30 TAC § 116.132(c) are correct and are consistent with the statutory requirements. Bilingual public notice requirements apply if the nearest elementary school or the nearest middle school provides a bilingual education program or has waived out of a required bilingual education program

Are sharps and other medical-related wastes that are generated and collected from households considered medical/infectious waste as defined in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) § 113.2070? Does an owner or operator of an incineration unit need to consider this type of waste as medical/infectious waste when determining whether the incinerator meets the exemption for co-fired combustors?

STATE: Sharps and other medical-related wastes derived from households are not included in the definition of medical/infectious waste contained in 30 TAC § 113.2070. Under this definition, household waste is specifically excluded under 30 TAC § 113.2070(H). Therefore, in determining whether an incinerator is a co-fired combustor in accordance with Table 1 (HMIWI Units Not Subject to Control Requirements) of 30 TAC § 113.2071(a), the household medical waste is not counted as medical/infectious waste when calculating the percentage of medical/infectious waste in the feed stream. However, to claim the exemption for a cofired combustor

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Section (§) 112.7 (30 TAC 112.7) when combusting the sulfur recovery unit's waste gas stream.

STATE: Since the purpose of this section is to limit SO2 emissions, instead of SRU discharges into another unit, an interpretation of this section to mean that the emission limits apply to a duct upstream of a control device, or that emission limits simply don't apply, would be illogical. Because no mention of it is made in either rule or preamble language, it was concluded that the existence of a control device does not modify the requirements of this section in any way, and the standards of §112.7 still apply downstream of the control device. It was noted that stack emissions from an SRU gas stream which is discharged to a combustion unit would be lower than direct emissions, when the combustion unit's destruction efficiency is accounted for

Determine if emissions from skimmer pits are subject to any requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 115?

STATE: Skimmer pits are subject to either the Water Separation Rules (§§ 115.131 - 139) or the Industrial Wastewater Rules (§§ 115.140 - 149), depending on their source category and geographic location, under 30 TAC Chapter 115. Please note there are exemptions in § 115.137 and § 115.147 that could exempt skimmer pits from the control requirements of § 115.132 and § 115.142.

Determine if Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60 (40 C.F.R. Part 60), Appendix A, Method 27-Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using Pressure-Vacuum Test is appropriate for tank-trucks operating above atmospheric pressures (e.g., 30 + pounds per square inch or greater) and propose rule language as necessary.

STATE: The Air Rule Interpretation Team (RIT) has reviewed the leak testing requirements of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 115.214(a)(1)(C) [30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.214(a)(1)(C)] and the test methods referenced in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.235-Approved Test Methods and believes that Method 27 is not appropriate for tank-trucks operating in liquified petroleum gas (LPG) service. Under 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.235(a)(4), a reference is made to 49 C.F.R. Part 180.407(h) as approved test methods, and the Air RIT believes the methods are appropriate for ensuring the vapor tightness of these tank trucks.

A facility operates under the primary Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 7389 (Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified) and the secondary SIC code 2869 (Industrial Organic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified). The facility is a batch operation and the wastewater streams are easily separated as to the process in which they are produced. When determining if the facility meets one of the exemptions listed in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) § 115.147(1) and (2), would the determination be based on the entire plant's wastewater streams (i.e., wastewater generated from both SIC code products) or just the wastewater that is generated when the batch process is producing product under SIC code 2869?

STATE: The Industrial Wastewater rule (30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 115.140, 142-149) is intended to regulate only those wastewater streams which are produced by affected source categories. A determination on the exemption from control requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 115.142 is based on the sum of the annual volatile organic compounds (VOC) loading in wastewater for each affected VOC wastewater stream for a plant (which includes all facilities included within the same Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission account number). The characteristics of a wastewater stream shall be determined before the wastewater stream is mixed with another wastewater stream. If an affected VOC wastewater stream is mixed or combined with a wastewater stream from a non-affected source category, then the combined industrial wastewater stream is subject to the requirements for treatment of affected VOC wastewater streams.

Determination of whether an incinerator may be defined as a furnace, and under what circumstances Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 112 (30 TAC 112) impacts

STATE: The Operating Permits Division requested to determine if an incinerator which is a pollution abatement device for a process waste vent stream of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and acid gases, and uses a supplemental liquid fuel to help burn the waste vent stream is required to meet only the allowable emission rates for: (1) sulfur dioxide under Section §112.9, and (2) the nitrogen oxide (NO x) emission rates under §117.209(c)(1).

1. Do internal floating roof storage tanks with secondary seals have to comply with §115.112(a)(2)(F)? 2. Do internal floating roof storage tanks with secondary seals have to comply with §115.114(a)?

STATE: The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has addressed these questions in past determinations (see attached memos). To summarize the memos, in accordance with the tables shown in §115.112, when an internal floating roof is required to comply with §115.112(a)(1), a secondary seal is not required for compliance. Therefore, since the secondary seal is not required, the facility is not required to comply with 30 TAC 115.112(a)(2)(F). The facility is required to comply with 30 TAC 115.114(a)(1) only with respect to the internal floating roof and the primary seal requirements.

Which definition applies to the term "major stationary source" as used in 30 TAC § 118.5? In addition, does the 100 ton per year emission criteria stated in § 118.5 only consider actual emissions, or does the 100 ton per year criteria also consider potential to emit?

STATE: The appropriate definition of "major stationary source" in § 118.5 is the definition of major facility/stationary source provided in 30 TAC § 116.12, which defines major sources in nonattainment areas. The 100 ton per year emission criteria stated in § 118.5 is for actual emissions, not potential to emit. Section 118.5 does not apply unless the source is a major stationary source and has actual emissions of a § 118.1 Table 1 air contaminant (or volatile organic compounds ) which meet or exceed 100 tons per year. In this context, tons per year means any 365-day period, and is not limited to the calendar year. In determining if a facility is a major stationary source, fugitive emissions are not included unless the source belongs to one of the categories of stationary sources listed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), § 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C). However, under the 100 ton per year emission criteria of 30 TAC § 118.5 fugitive emissions are always included

When an affected volatile organic compound (VOC) wastewater stream is generated at an affected source category, but is transferred to a third party for treatment instead of being treated on-site, which entity (the generator, or the third party) is responsible for demonstrating compliance with the rule?

STATE: The generator, not the third party, is responsible for rule compliance.

Do the exemptions in §115.117 grant an exemption from all of the requirements of the undesignated head?

STATE: The monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of §115.116(a)(1) and §115.116(b)(1) both mandate the exempted sources maintain records for the type of volatile organic compound stored and the average monthly true vapor pressure (TVP) of the stored liquid. This includes sources which meet the exemption but contain liquids with TVPs greater than 1.0 psia.

Would a tank equipped with an external floating roof by choice (i.e. not required by Regulation V) which also meets the criteria in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Section (§)115.116(a)(1) [30 TAC 115.116(a)(1)] and §115.116(b)(1) (i.e., meets the secondary seal exemption)] be required to keep the records stated in those two citations?

STATE: The recordkeeping requirements of §115.116(a)(1) and (b)(1) would not be applicable for a volatile organic compound (VOC), which is not required to be stored in a tank with a floating roof to meet the emission control requirements of §115.112, but is equipped with an external floating roof by choice. If a liquid VOC is placed in such a tank, which has a better emission control system than required by §115.112, Control Requirements, the recordkeeping requirements are determined by the applicable control system required for the liquid, as stated in §115.112, and not by the control system installed on the tank.

Does the term "volatile organic liquid" as used in the definition of "marine terminal" contained in 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 115, specifically § 115.10, include materials which are gaseous at standard temperature and pressure, but are liquified for purposes of storage and loading?

STATE: The term "volatile organic liquid" is not associated with a standard temperature or pressure. If a VOC material being loaded is in a liquid or partially liquid state, under actual loading conditions, then it is considered a volatile organic liquid, regardless of the material's properties at standard temperature and pressure.

Determination of whether an incinerator may be defined as a furnace, and under what circumstances Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 112 (30 TAC 112) impacts.

STATE: Title 30 TAC 112 applies to specific equipment and processes listed in the regulation (e.g., solid fossil fuel-fired steam generators and sulfur recovery plants) and may not necessarily apply to equipment used for emission control devices. Incinerators which are not associated with any piece of equipment or process regulated under 30 TAC 112 are not included in this regulation. Therefore, 30 TAC 112 does not apply to this type of incinerator burning waste process vent gases.

For purposes of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 106, 116, 117, and 122, is an engine that is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another, considered a stationary source? Are portable or transportable engines located at a single point for less than 12 consecutive months exempt from the maintenance notification requirements of 30 TAC § 101.211?

STATE: Title 30 TAC Chapter 106 and 116: A portable or transportable engine which remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months is not considered a stationary source and no authorization under 30 TAC Chapters 106 or 116 would be required. If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it is considered stationary and would be subject to 30 TAC Chapters 106 or116 requirements.

For purposes of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 106, 116, 117, and 122, is an engine that is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another, considered a stationary source? Are portable or transportable engines located at a single point for less than 12 consecutive months exempt from the maintenance notification requirements of 30 TAC § 101.211?

STATE: Title 30 TAC Chapter 106 and 116: A portable or transportable engine which remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months is not considered a stationary source and no authorization under 30 TAC Chapters 106 or 116 would be required. If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it is considered stationary and would be subject to 30 TAC Chapters 106 or116 requirements. Title 30 TAC Chapter 117: A portable or transportable engine which remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months is not considered a stationary source and will not be subject to Chapter 117. If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it would meet the § 117.10 definition of a stationary internal combustion engine and would therefore be subject to Chapter 117. Title 30 TAC Chapter 122: If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months, it meets the definition of a nonroad engine and is excluded by the Chapter 122 definition of stationary source. If the portable or transportable engine remains at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it would meet the definition of a stationary source and must be included when determining applicability of the Federal Operating Permit Program

For purposes of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 106, 116, 117, and 122, is an engine that is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another, considered a stationary source? Are portable or transportable engines located at a single point for less than 12 consecutive months exempt from the maintenance notification requirements of 30 TAC § 101.211?

STATE: Title 30 TAC Chapter 106 and 116: A portable or transportable engine which remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months is not considered a stationary source and no authorization under 30 TAC Chapters 106 or 116 would be required. If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it is considered stationary and would be subject to 30 TAC Chapters 106 or116 requirements. Title 30 TAC Chapter 117: A portable or transportable engine which remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months is not considered a stationary source and will not be subject to Chapter 117. If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it would meet the § 117.10 definition of a stationary internal combustion engine and would therefore be subject to Chapter 117. Title 30 TAC Chapter 122: If a portable or transportable engine remains or will remain at a single point or location for less than or equal to 12 consecutive months, it meets the definition of a nonroad engine and is excluded by the Chapter 122 definition of stationary source. If the portable or transportable engine remains at a single point or location for more than 12 consecutive months, it would meet the definition of a stationary source and must be included when determining applicability of the Federal Operating Permit Program.

Determination of applicability of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 to underground storage caverns (USC), brine ponds, and associated transfer equipment in petroleum storage service.

STATE: USCs USCs are considered to be reservoirs and are subject to the volatile organic compounds storage (VOC) rules in §§ 115.112-119. However, USCs which maintain working pressure sufficient at all times to prevent any vapor or gas loss to the atmosphere are only subject to the control requirements of either § 115.112(a)(1), (b)(1), (c)(1), or (c)(3). Brine Ponds Associated w/USCs Brine ponds are considered reservoirs under Chapter 115 and are subject to the VOC storage rules in §§ 115.112-119. However, exemptions found in § 115.117 for low vapor pressure VOCs may apply because the brine is primarily water and contains only small quantities of VOCs. USC/Brine Pond Transfer Equipment The open-end of the transfer pipe is considered to be a "process vent" and is therefore subject to the vent gas control rules in §§ 115.121-129. Please note that the exemption stated in § 115.127(a)(6) cannot be applicable to the transfer pipe because the pipe is considered to be a separate source (from a USC and a brine pond); and because no other rules under Chapter 115 apply to the transfer piping, the piping is only subject to the vent gas control rules in Chapter 115. However, exemptions as stated in § 115.127 for a vent gas stream with a low VOC concentration may apply

Are corpses and body parts of diseased animals, either naturally or intentionally infected, burned in an incinerator counted as "medical/infectious waste" for purposes of the 10% limit in the Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) § 113.2070(6) definition of a "co-fired incinerator?"

STATE: Under the 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 113.2070(6) definition of a "co-fired incinerator," corpses and body parts of animals, including infected or diseased animals, are considered "pathological waste" and are not counted as "medical/infectious waste" when calculating the percentage of medical/infectious waste in the feed stream.

Do fugitive emissions from underground storage caverns (USCs) and associated transfer operations in petroleum storage service have to be counted in determining major source status under Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin. Code) Chapter 122

STATE: Underground Storage Caverns and their associated transfer operations with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels do belong to the stationary source category petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels as specified in the definition of "major source." Therefore, the fugitive emissions from these facilities are required to be included in the determination of whether the site is a major source under 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 122. However, USCs with a total storage capacity less than 300,000 barrels do not belong to the stationary category petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels and do not have to include the fugitive emissions to determine whether the site is a major source. Furthermore, for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as listed in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), fugitive emissions from USCs and their associated transfer operations shall also be included when determining if a site is a major source under 30 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 122.

Determination of any applicable monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Section (§)115.136 (30 TAC 115.136) when claiming the exemptions in §§115.137(a)(3) and (c)(4).

STATE: VOC water separators claiming the exemption in §115.137(a)(3) are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of §115.136(a)(1) and §115.136(a)(4). For VOC water separators claiming the exemption in §115.137(c)(4), there are no recordkeeping requirements.

When wastewater is generated from the maintenance or cleaning of filters, do the emissions from the wastewater have any requirements under Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115, particularly related to volatile organic compound (VOC) Water Separation Sections (§ 115.131-139) and the Industrial Wastewater Sections (§ 115.140-149)

STATE: Wastewater resulting from filter maintenance activities and routed to a VOC water separator is categorically exempt from the Industrial Wastewater rules, but is subject to the Water Separation rules, §§ 115.131 - 139, except as provided by § 115.137

What is the definition of the term "extraction" as it is used in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (30 Tex. Admin. Code), § 115.10 to define "natural gas/gasoline processing?" Specifically, does extraction include forced and/or unforced processes that may remove natural gas liquids from field gas?

STATE: absorption, refrigerated absorption, refrigeration, compression, adsorption, cryogenic-Joule-Thomson, cryogenic-expander, absorption and refrigerated absorption, absorption and compression, refrigerated absorption and refrigeration, refrigerated absorption and adsorption, refrigerated absorption and cryogenic-expander, refrigeration and compression, refrigeration and cryogenic-Joule-Thomson, and cryogenic-Joule-Thomson and expander, refrigerated absorption and cryogenic-Joule-Thomson.

How is the emission standard of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 117.405 (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 117.405), which regulates "emissions of nitrogen oxides, calculated as nitrogen dioxide, from the absorber of any nitric acid production unit," applied to cases where supplemental controls are applied after absorption?

The emission standard of 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 117.405 still applies in cases where supplemental controls are applied after absorption. When additional emission controls are used after absorption, the emission standard of 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 117.405 applies to the emissions released to atmosphere after all pollution control has been applied. Therefore, 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 117.405 does not apply to pre-control emissions directly from the absorber.

When determining whether a site is a major source of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), can xylene isomers (o-xylene, m-xylene, and p-xylene) emissions be considered as separate HAPs, since they are assigned unique Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) HAP list [Section 112(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)]

When determining whether a site is a major source [as defined in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 122.10(8)(A) {30 Tex. Admin. Code § 122.10(8)(A)}], each single HAP as listed in § 112(b) of the FCAA is evaluated to determine the potential to emit. The major source threshold for any single HAP is 10 tons per year (tpy). Also, for any combination of HAPs, the major source threshold is 25 tpy. Since the xylene isomers including o-xylene, mxylene, and p-xylene as well as xylenes (isomers and mixture) are listed separately as individual HAPs, each should be compared to the 10 tpy threshold. Therefore, when evaluating HAP emissions from a mixture of xylenes, which includes xylene isomers, an owner or operator shall determine if the mixture of xylenes is equal to or greater than 10 tpy of xylenes (isomers and mixture) to determine major source for a single HAP. However, if a pure xylene isomer (not contained in a mixture) is present at the facility, it is evaluated as a single HAP which would be used to determine major source status. Therefore, the following guidance is provided for applicants: 1. It is assumed that the individual xylene isomers are listed as a single HAP under FCAA, § 112(b)(1) because there may be sources which either use or produce a material containing a single isomer. If a material contains a single xylene isomer, the single xylene isomer must be compared against the potential to emit threshold of 10 tpy for that single xylene isomer. 2. The xylenes mixture is included as a HAP under FCAA, § 112(b)(1) because there are sources which use solvents containing xylenes (being a mixture of the xylene isomers). In a listing of their contents, product composition information and/or the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) may specify the contents either as a xylenes mixture or it may specify the content of each individual xylene isomer. For a mixture, even if each individual xylene isomer is listed in the contents of the mixture, the individual isomers must be aggregated to find the total content of xylenes and compared to the 10 tpy threshold for a single HAP for xylenes (isomers and mixture). 3. If a source has a material containing a single isomer, o-xylene, m-xylene, or p-xylene and also has additional materials that are xylenes mixtures, the mixed materials (where the isomer contents are known) must be compared to the 10 tpy threshold for a single HAP for xylenes (isomers and mixture) and the single isomer must be compared to the 10 tpy threshold for a single HAP for the xylene isomer. Assuming the site has no other HAPs, the owner or operator can determine the 25 tpy major source threshold for a combination of HAPs by adding the emission from the single xylene isomer to the xylenes mixture. The same rationale and interpretation would result for cresols: cresols/cresylic acid (isomers and mixture), o-cresol, m-cresol, and p-cresol.