EPA Standards for HAP RefineriesNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for...

8/3/2019 EPA Standards for HAP RefineriesNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reformi

1/45

Wednesday,

February 9, 2005

Part II

EnvironmentalProtection Agency40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants for PetroleumRefineries: Catalytic Cracking Units,Catalytic Reforming Units, and SulfurRecovery Units; Final Rule and ProposedRule

VerDate jul2003 18:26 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09FER2.SGM 09FER2


2/45

6930 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005/ Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR20020033; ADFRL79699]

RIN 2060AK51

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for PetroleumRefineries: Catalytic Cracking Units,Catalytic Reforming Units, and SulfurRecovery Units

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On April 11, 2002, pursuantto section 112 of the Clean Air Act(CAA), the EPA issued nationalemission standards to control hazardousair pollutants emitted from catalyticcracking units, catalytic reforming units,and sulfur recovery units at petroleum

refineries. This action promulgatesamendments to several sections of theexisting standards. The amendmentswill change the affected sourcedesignations and add new complianceoptions for catalytic reforming units thatuse different types of emission controlsystems, new monitoring alternatives forcatalytic cracking units and catalyticreforming units, and a new procedurefor determining the metal or totalchloride concentration on catalystparticles. The amendments will alsodefer technical requirements for mostcontinuous parameter monitoring

systems, clarify testing and monitoringrequirements, and make editorialcorrections.

DATES: The final amendments will beeffective on April 11, 2005, unless wereceive significant adverse comments byMarch 11, 2005, or by March 28, 2005if a public hearing is requested. If suchcomments are received, we will publisha timely withdrawal in the FederalRegister indicating which amendments,paragraph, or section will becomeeffective and which amendments,paragraph, or section are beingwithdrawn due to adverse comment.

Any distinct amendment, paragraph, orsection of the direct final amendmentsfor which we do not receive adverse

comment will become effective on April11, 2005.ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit yourcomments, identified by Docket ID No.OAR20020033, by one of thefollowing methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-lineinstructions for submitting comments.

Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPAselectronic public docket and commentsystem, is EPAs preferred method forreceiving comments. Follow the on-lineinstructions for submitting comments.

E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: (202) 5661741. Mail: National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)for Petroleum Refineries: CatalyticCracking Units, Catalytic ReformingUnits, and Sulfur Recovery UnitsDocket, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,DC 20460. Please include a total of twocopies.

Hand Delivery: EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1301 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Room B102, Washington,DC 20460. Such deliveries are onlyaccepted during the Dockets normalhours of operation, and specialarrangements should be made fordeliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments toDocket ID No. OAR20020033. TheEPAs policy is that all commentsreceived will be included in the publicdocket without change and may be

made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including anypersonal information provided, unlessthe comment includes informationclaimed to be Confidential BusinessInformation (CBI) or other informationwhose disclosure is restricted by statute.Do not submit information that youconsider to be CBI or otherwiseprotected through EDOCKET,regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPAEDOCKET and the Federalregulations.gov Web sites areanonymous access systems, whichmeans EPA will not know your identity

or contact information unless youprovide it in the body of your comment.If you send an e-mail comment directly

to EPA without going throughEDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automaticallycaptured and included as part of thecomment that is placed in the publicdocket and made available on theInternet. If you submit an electroniccomment, EPA recommends that youinclude your name and other contact

information in the body of yourcomment and with any disk or CDROMyou submit. If EPA cannot read yourcomment due to technical difficultiesand cannot contact you for clarification,EPA may not be able to consider yourcomment. Electronic files should avoidthe use of special characters, any formof encryption, and be free of any defectsor viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docketare listed in the EDOCKET index athttp://www.epa.gov/edocket. Althoughlisted in the index, some information isnot publicly available, i.e., CBI or otherinformation whose disclosure isrestricted by statute. Certain otherinformation, such as copyrightedmaterials, is not placed on the Internetand will be publicly available only inhard copy form. Publicly availabledocket materials are available eitherelectronically in EDOCKET or in hardcopy form in Docket ID No. OAR20020033 (or A9736), EPA/DC, EPA West,Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,NW., Washington, DC. The PublicReading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The telephone

number for the Public Reading Room is(202) 5661744, and the telephonenumber for the Air Docket is (202) 5661742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Robert B. Lucas, Emission StandardsDivision (C43903), Office of AirQuality Planning and Standards,Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,telephone number (919) 5410884, faxnumber (919) 5413470, e-mail address:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

Entities. Categories and entitiespotentially regulated by this actioninclude:

Category NAICS code1 Examples of regulated entities

Industry ....................................................................................... 32411 Petroleum refineries that operate catalytic cracking units, cata-lytic reforming units, or sulfur recovery units.

Federal government ................................................................... ........................ Not affected.State/local/tribal government ...................................................... ........................ Not affected.

1North American Industry Classification System.

http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edocketmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edocketmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.epa.gov/edockethttp://www.regulations.gov/


3/45

6931Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005/ Rules and Regulations

This table is not intended to beexhaustive, but rather provides a guidefor readers regarding entities likely to beregulated by this action. To determinewhether your facility is regulated by thisaction, you should examine theapplicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1561of the NESHAP for petroleum refineries:Catalytic cracking units, catalytic

reforming units, and sulfur recoveryunits. If you have questions regardingthe applicability of this action to aparticular entity, consult the contactperson listed in the preceding FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In additionto being available in the docket, anelectronic copy of todays direct finalrule amendments will also be availableon the Worldwide Web (WWW) throughthe Technology Transfer Network(TTN). Following the Administratorssignature, a copy of the direct final ruleamendments will be placed on the

TTNs policy and guidance page fornewly proposed or promulgated rules athttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTNprovides information and technologyexchange in various areas of airpollution control. If more informationregarding the TTN is needed, call theTTN HELP line at (919) 5415384.

Judicial Review. Under section307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review ofthe direct final amendments is availableonly by filing a petition for review inthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit by April 11, 2005.Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,only an objection to the final

amendments that was raised withreasonable specificity during the periodfor public comment can be raised duringjudicial review. Moreover, under section307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirementsestablished by the final amendmentsmay not be challenged separately in anycivil or criminal proceedings brought bythe EPA to enforce these requirements.

Comments. We are publishing theamendments as a direct final rulewithout prior proposal because we viewthe amendments as noncontroversialand do not anticipate adversecomments. However, in the Proposed

Rules section of this Federal Register,we are publishing a separate documentthat will serve as the proposal for theamendments contained in this directfinal rule in the event that significantadverse comments are filed. If wereceive any significant adversecomments on one or more distinctamendments, we will publish a timelywithdrawal in the Federal Registerinforming the public which provisionswill become effective and whichprovisions are being withdrawn due toadverse comment. We will address all

public comments in a subsequent finalrule based on the proposed rule. Wewill not institute a second commentperiod on this direct final rule. Anyparties interested in commenting mustdo so at this time.

Outline. The information presented inthis preamble is organized as follows:

I. BackgroundII. Summary of the Direct Final Rule

AmendmentsA. How are we changing the affected

source designations?B. How are we changing the testing and

monitoring requirements for catalyticcracking units?

C. What new procedure is available fordetermining the metal or total chlorideconcentration on catalyst particles?

D. What new alternative is available forcalculating the volumetric flow rate ofexhaust gases from catalytic crackingunits?

E. What new monitoring alternative isavailable for a catalytic cracking unitwith a wet scrubber if the unit is subject

to the new source performance standardsfor petroleum refineries?

F. How are we clarifying the emissionlimitations for catalytic reforming units?

G. How are we changing the monitoringrequirements for catalytic reformingunits?

H. What new options are available for acatalytic reforming unit with an internalscrubbing system?

I. What new options are available for acatalytic reforming unit with a differenttype of control system?

J. How are we changing the requirementsfor continuous parameter monitoringsystems?

K. What corrections are we making?

III. Summary of Non-Air Health,Environmental, Energy, and Cost Impacts

IV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsA. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and ReviewB. Paperwork Reduction ActC. Regulatory Flexibility ActD. Unfunded Mandates Reform ActE. Executive Order 13132: FederalismF. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental Health &Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or UseI. National Technology Transfer

Advancement ActJ. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

On April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17762), weissued the national emission standardsfor hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)for catalytic cracking units (CCU),catalytic reforming units (CRU), andsulfur recovery units (SRU) at petroleumrefineries (40 CFR part 63, subpartUUU). The NESHAP establish emissions

limits for hazardous air pollutants(HAP) emitted from vents on the threetypes of process units, as well as workpractice standards for by-pass lines. TheNESHAP implement section 112(d) ofthe CAA by requiring all petroleumrefineries that are major sources to meetstandards reflecting the application ofthe maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).After publication of the NESHAP, two

industry trade associations and variousindividual refineries raised issues andquestions regarding the applicability ofthe NESHAP and the technicalrequirements for installation, operation,and maintenance of continuousparameter monitoring systems (CPMS).The industry representatives and acontrol technology manufacturer alsorequested that we clarify therequirements for CRU depressurizingand purging, add more complianceprovisions for CRU with internal

scrubbing systems, and include newprovisions for CRU that use emissioncontrol technologies other thanscrubbers. The industry representativesalso requested clarification of variousperformance testing and monitoringprovisions. Other questions were raisedat an implementation workshop held in

January 2003. Todays direct final ruleamendments respond to the issuesraised since promulgation and willreduce compliance uncertainties,encourage the use of new controltechnologies, and improveunderstanding of the NESHAP

requirements.In addition, since publication of theNESHAP, we have identified a numberof minor technical and editorial errorsrequiring correction. Rather thanpublish a separate notice of corrections,we are including those changes alongwith the amendments.

II. Summary of the Direct Final RuleAmendments

A. How Are We Changing the AffectedSource Designations?

One of the issues raised by theindustry representatives concerns the

language in 40 CFR 63.1562 where weidentified the affected sources as eachCCU that regenerates catalyst, each CRUthat regenerates catalyst, and each SRUand the tail gas treatment unit servingit. In designating the affected source asthe unit rather than the vent or group ofvents on the unit (as originallyproposed), we inadvertently made theNESHAP more stringent for somefacilities, and these facilities did nothave an opportunity to comment on thechange. Therefore, we are revising thedesignation of affected sources to be

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpghttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpghttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg


4/45


more consistent with the rule asproposed. The direct final ruleamendments define the process unitaffected sources as:

The process vent or group ofprocess vents on fluidized CCU unitsthat is associated with regeneration ofthe catalyst used in the unit (i.e., thecatalyst regeneration flue gas vent).

The process vent or group ofprocess vents on CRU (including but notlimited to semi-regenerative, cyclic, orcontinuous processes), that is associatedwith regeneration of the catalyst used inthe unit. This affected source includesvents that are used during the unitdepressurization, purging, coke burn,and catalyst rejuvenation.

The process vent or group ofprocess vents on Claus or other types ofsulfur recovery plant units or the tail gastreatment units serving sulfur recoveryplants that is associated with sulfurrecovery.

B. How Are We Changing the Testingand Monitoring Requirements forCatalytic Cracking Units?

The initial compliance provisions in40 CFR 63.1564(b)(1) require the owneror operator to install, operate, andmaintain a CPMS according to therequirements in 40 CFR 63.1572 andTable 3 to subpart UUU. Facilities thatare not subject to the new sourceperformance standards (NSPS) forpetroleum refineries and that elect tomeet the particulate matter (PM) ornickel (Ni) limit in the NESHAP arerequired to monitor the gas flow rate to

a wet scrubber. After promulgation,industry representatives recommendedthat we revise the CCU monitoringrequirements to allow gas flow ratemeasurements before or after the controldevice. The direct final ruleamendments revise the requirements inTable 3 to subpart UUU to allowmeasurement of the gas flow rateentering or exiting the control device.This change will improveimplementation of the NESHAP andavoid unnecessary costs of changingcurrent practices. The direct final ruleamendments also revise the footnotes to

Tables 3 and 7 to subpart UUU tochange the citation for the alternativemethod for determining gas flow ratefrom 40 CFR 63.1573(a) to 40 CFR63.1573(a)(1) to accommodate the newalternative for calculating thevolumetric flow rate of exhaust gaseswhen computing the PM emissions rate.

The initial compliance provisions in40 CFR 63.1564(b)(2) require the owneror operator to conduct a performancetest for certain CCU according to therequirements in Table 4 to subpartUUU. After promulgation, industry

representatives recommended that wedelete the sampling rate requirementscited for EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part60, appendix A). According to thecommenters, the sampling raterequirement is unnecessary because themethod already includes appropriatesampling requirements. We agree andhave deleted the 0.028 dry standard

cubic meters per minute (dscm/min)/0.74 dry standard cubic feet per minute(dscf/min) sampling rate requirementfrom Table 4 to subpart UUU.

C. What New Procedure Is Available forDetermining the Metal or Total ChlorideConcentration on Catalyst Particles?

The owner or operator of a CCUsubject to a Ni limit for inorganic HAPemissions must determine theequilibrium catalyst (E-cat) Niconcentration value during the initialperformance test and at frequentintervals afterward for monitoringrequirements. Several methods arecurrently used within the industry forthis purpose and are referenced in theNESHAP, as well as any alternativemethod satisfactory to theAdministrator. Industry experts andvendors recommended that theNESHAP allow a new procedure thatwas not fully developed at the time theNESHAP were promulgated. The directfinal rule amendments add the newprocedure, Determination of MetalConcentration on Catalyst Particles(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) toappendix A of subpart UUU. Thisprocedure can be used to analyze

catalyst particles (Ni compounds andtotal chlorides) from CCU, CRU, andother processes specified within EPAregulations. The direct final ruleamendments revise Table 4 to subpartUUU to reference the new procedure.

D. What New Alternative is Availablefor Calculating the Volumetric FlowRate of Exhaust Gases From CatalyticCracking Units?

The initial compliance provisions in40 CFR 63.1564(b)(4) require the owneror operator of a CCU subject to the PMlimit in the NSPS for petroleum

refineries to compute the PM emissionrate using Equation 1 of 40 CFR 63.1564.This calculation requires measurementof the volumetric flow rate of exhaustgas from the catalyst regenerator (Qr).The direct final rule amendments revisethe definition ofQr to refer to a newalternative procedure in 40 CFR63.1573(a)(2) that can be used todetermine the volumetric flow rate ofexhaust gas. This procedure can be used

by plants that have a gas analyzerinstalled in the catalytic crackingregenerator exhaust vent prior to the

addition of air or other gas streams. Thenew alternative allows measurement ofthe flow rate after an electrostaticprecipitator, but requires measurementof the flow rate before a carbonmonoxide boiler.

E. What New Monitoring Alternative isAvailable for a Catalytic Cracking Unit

With a Wet Scrubber if the Unit IsSubject to the New Source PerformanceStandards for Petroleum Refineries?

The NSPS for petroleum refineries (40CFR part 60, subpart J) require acontinuous opacity monitoring system(COMS) for a fluidized CCU todemonstrate continuous compliancewith the opacity limit in 40 CFR60.102(a)(2). Subpart UUU requiresfacilities that are already subject to theNSPS to meet the NSPS requirements,including the opacity limit and COMSrequirements.

Technical experience has shown thatCOMS are not feasible for wet scrubberPM control systems. We have alreadyacknowledged the technical problemsassociated with the use of COMS on wetscrubbers by requiring other monitoringmethods (CPMS for pressure drop andliquid-to-gas ratio). However, theserequirements apply under othercompliance options and not to CCUalready subject to the NSPS.

Some facilities with CCU subject tothe NSPS use wet scrubbers to meet thePM limit and already have alternativemonitoring requirements approvedunder the NSPS. For these reasons, oneindustry representative requested that

the NESHAP accept alternativemonitoring requirements that havealready been approved under the NSPS.Therefore, we are adding a newparagraph (f) to 40 CFR 63.1573 toprovide for use of the approvedalternative under subpart UUU.

Monitoring alternatives for CCUsubject to the NSPS that have already

been approved may not meet the criteriafor MACT standards. For example, thealternative may not include provisionsfor demonstrating continuouscompliance such as meeting anoperating limit, collecting and reducing

monitoring data, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. While wecannot automatically approve analternative that we have not seen, wesee no reason to require a second formalapproval process for the same controlsystem and emission limit. To this end,we have added procedures forrequesting alternative requirementsspecific to this situation.

We are requiring that an owner oroperator submit a copy of the approvedalternative monitoring method in thenotification of compliance status (or



5/45


before), along with a brief description ofthe continuous monitoring system, theapplicable operating limit, and thecontinuous compliance requirements.We will contact you within 30 calendardays after receipt, to tell you if thealternative is approved. This alternativedoes not eliminate your responsibility tocomply with the opacity limit, which

would remain applicable forenforcement purposes. This option isnot available to facilities that elect tocomply with the NSPS requirements insubpart UUU. These facilities mustrequest an alternative monitoringmethod under the procedures in 40 CFR63.8(f).

F. How Are we Clarifying the EmissionLimitations for Catalytic ReformingUnits?

The requirements for organic HAPemissions in 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(3) statethat the CRU emissions and operatinglimits in Tables 15 and 16 to subpartUUU apply to emissions from processvents that occur during depressuringand purging operations. The NESHAPspecify in 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(4) that thelimits do not apply to depressurizingand purging operations when the reactorvent pressure is 5 pounds per squareinch (psig) or less. Applicable processvents include those used during unitdepressurization, purging, coke burn,catalyst rejuvenation, and reduction oractivation purge. Industryrepresentatives noted the currentlanguage is unclear as to whether thelimits apply only to the initial

depressurization cycle or includesubsequent depressuring and purgingcycles when the reactor pressure isgreater than 5 psig. In response, we areamending 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(3) toclarify our intent regarding the controlof organic HAP emissions from CRUdepressurizing and purging.

Our intent in the NESHAP was thatthe organic HAP requirements apply tothe initial depressuring and catalystpurging operations that occur prior tocoke burn-off. Organic HAP emissionsare expected during the initialdepressurization and catalyst purge

cycles. No additional organic HAPemission controls are used during cokeburn-off, beyond the combustionprocess inherent during this process,and our data indicate there are minimalorganic emissions from coke burn-offand subsequent CRU regeneration cyclepurges.

Industry representatives suggestedthat we limit the applicability of theemissions limit to only the initialdepressuring and first nitrogen purge.We do expect that, after some numberof purges, the HAP concentration in the

purge may be less than the requiredoutlet HAP concentration from acombustion control device. Under theNESHAP, all purges greater than 5 psiggo to a combustion control device (orequivalent combustion device),regardless of the HAP concentration inthe affected stream.

Initially, we attempted to specify the

number of purges to be controlledbecause the organic HAP emissionswould generally be very low beyond thefirst or second purge. However, ourinformation indicates that the purgingprocesses vary widely (e.g., differentsystems use different purge gases,different purge temperatures, anddifferent amounts of purge gas per unitof catalyst). Consequently, specifyingthe number of purges that must becontrolled does not necessarily reflect aperformance level. Additionally, recentdata show that, for some CRU purgeconditions, subsequent purges after the

initial nitrogen purge may containsubstantial amounts of benzeneon theorder of 100 parts per million by volume(ppmv), which translates to emissions ofabout 1 ton per year (tpy). For otherprocess purging conditions, however,subsequent purges have very low levelsof HAP. We concluded that mandatingspecific purging conditions wouldreduce operator flexibility and wouldmake compliance, for certain CRUprocesses, to be technically infeasible.We decided, therefore, to clarify thatuncontrolled purging operations greaterthan 5 psig are acceptable if the total

organic carbon (TOC) concentration isless than the currently required outletconcentration of a combustion controldevice (i.e., less than 20 ppmv), and toprovide compliance options for thesepurges.

Furthermore, the backgroundinformation supporting the performanceachievable by a combustion controldevice indicates that the 20 ppmvemissions limit was established bycompound exit concentration ratherthan by a specified indicator of TOC,such as propane. As the primary HAP ofconcern from these CRU depressuring

and purging vents is benzene, it is moreappropriate to establish the 20 ppmvemission limit as hexane (i.e., a C6hydrocarbon) rather than as propane.We are, therefore, changing the CRUTOC concentration requirements (whichare used as a surrogate for organic HAP)to 20 ppmv TOC or nonmethane TOC(dry basis as hexane), corrected to 3percent oxygen. This applies to both theconcentration limit for the controldevice and the concentration limit foremissions discharged directly to theatmosphere.

This approach adds complianceoptions for uncontrolled purgingcycles that are greater than 5 psig andless than 20 ppmv TOC (dry basis ashexane). First, the purging conditionsused by the plant to remove organicHAP from the CRU catalyst duringcontrolled purges prior to direct releaseto the atmosphere must be specified in

the operation, maintenance, andmonitoring plan. An initial performancetest is conducted on the first directlyreleased catalyst purge (following thepurging conditions specified in theplan) to demonstrate that the purgesspecified in the plan effectively achievethe required emission limit.Subsequently, adherence to the purgingprocedures as specified in the plan isused to demonstrate continuouscompliance.

Industry representatives alsorequested that we clarify the emissionlimits for organic HAP emissions from

CRU in 40 CFR 63.1567(a) to indicatewhich limits apply when differentreactors in the CRU are regenerated inseparate regeneration systems. Thedirect final rule amendments state that,in this case, the emission limits in Table22 to subpart UUU apply to eachseparate regeneration system. The directfinal rule amendments also clarify thatthe TOC outlet concentration limit is 20ppmv dry basis as hexane.

In response to industry comments, weexpanded the number of test methodsthat can be use to measure organic HAPemissions. For the 98 percent massemission reduction standard, you can

use EPA Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60,appendix A, to directly measurenonmethane TOC as carbon or thecombination of EPA Methods 25A and18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, todetermine nonmethane TOC emissions.If the outlet TOC concentration isexpected to be less than 50 ppmv (ascarbon), you can use EPA Method 25Ato measure the TOC concentration ashexane. For the 20 ppmv concentrationlimit, you can measure the TOCconcentration using EPA Method 25A ordetermine the nonmethane TOCconcentration using the combination of

Methods 25A and 18. We made changesto the equations in 40 CFR 63.1564 andrelevant tables to make thesedistinctions. We also added a definitionofnonmethane TOC to 40 CFR63.1579.

The direct final rule amendments alsoclarify the inorganic HAP emission andoperating limits to indicate that therequirements apply to each applicableCRU process vent during coke burn-offand catalyst rejuvenation. In response toindustry comments, we are alsochanging the compliance equations in



6/45


40 CFR 63.1567 to allow for hydrogenchloride (HCl) measurements belowdetectable limits of the method aftercorrection for oxygen content.

G. How Are we Changing the MonitoringRequirements for Catalytic ReformingUnits?

The NESHAP allow plants to measure

and record the pH of the water (orscrubbing liquid) exiting the scrubber atleast once an hour as an alternative toa pH CPMS. After promulgation,industry representatives recommendedthat we allow alkalinity measurementsas an alternative to pH. Alkalinitymeasurements are more reliable becausethey give the actual acid content of thewater (or scrubbing liquid) while pHmeasurements indicate only how much(more or less) acid is needed. We agreeand have changed 40 CFR 63.1573(b) toallow plants to measure and record thealkalinity of the water (or scrubbingliquid) exiting the wet scrubber at leastonce an hour during coke burn-off andcatalyst rejuvenation using titration asan alternative to a CPMS. We have alsochanged Tables 23, 24, 25, and 28 tosubpart UUU to include the alternativefor alkalinity measurements. In responseto industry comments, we have alsoallowed the pH alternative to apply toCRU meeting the HCl percent reductionstandard.

The NESHAP allow plants to measurethe catalytic regenerator exhaust gasflow rate from a CCU as an approvedalternative to a CPMS if the unit doesnot introduce any other gas streams into

the catalyst regeneration vent (i.e.,complete combustion units with noadditional combustion devices). Inresponse to industry comments, wehave expanded the alternative in 40 CFR63.1573(a) to apply to CRU that operateas a constant pressure system during thecoke burn and rejuvenation cycles.

After promulgation, industryrepresentatives recommended that wealso expand the CRU monitoringrequirements to allow gas flow ratemeasurements before or after the controldevice. We agree and have changedTables 24 and 25 of subpart UUU

accordingly.In response to questions raised atimplementation workshops for plantpersonnel, we have added provisions tothe performance test requirements forCRU to reflect differences among semi-regenerative, cyclic, and continuousprocesses. The direct final ruleamendments require plants to test semi-regenerative and cyclic units during thecoke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenationcycle. However, the tests cannot be doneduring the first hour or the last 6 hoursof the cycle for a semi-regenerative unit,

or during the first hour or the last 2hours of the cycle for a cyclicregeneration unit. Plants must conductthe performance test for a continuousregeneration unit no sooner than 3 daysafter the process unit or control systemstartup.

H. What New Options Are Available For

a Catalytic Reforming Unit With anInternal Scrubbing System?

Industry representatives expressedconcern that the NESHAP do notcontain provisions allowing a CRU withan internal scrubbing system to meet thepercent reduction standard instead ofthe concentration limit for HClemissions.

The direct final rule amendmentschange the rule language related to theHCl emissions limits (and otherprovisions) by removing the phraseusing a control device. These changes

allow CRU with an internal scrubbingsystem or alternative emissionsreduction technique to meet either thepercent reduction standard orconcentration limit. To improveunderstanding of the NESHAP, we haveadded a definition for internalscrubbing system. The direct final ruleamendments also add provisions toTables 23 through 28 to subpart UUUfor CRU with an internal scrubbingsystem meeting the HCl percentreduction standard and CRU with afixed-bed or moving-bed gas-solidadsorption system.

The direct final rule amendmentsestablish operating limits andcompliance provisions specific to CRUwith an internal scrubbing systemmeeting the HCl percent reductionstandard. The operating limits requireplants to maintain the daily average pHor alkalinity of the water (or scrubbingliquid) exiting the internal scrubbingsystem and the daily average liquid-to-gas ratio at or above the limitestablished during the performance test.Plants must conduct performance teststo demonstrate initial compliance withthe applicable HCl emission standard

and to establish operating limits.Performance test procedures are givenfor each type of system. To demonstratecontinuous compliance, plants mustinstall, operate, and maintain CPMS tomonitor during coke burn-off andcatalyst rejuvenation, the daily averagepH or alkalinity of the water (orscrubbing liquid) exiting the internalscrubbing system, and the daily averageliquid-to-gas ratio. Plants may use pHstrips as an approved alternative to a pHCPMS, or discrete titration as analternative to a CPMS for alkalinity.

I. What New Options Are Available Fora Catalytic Reforming Unit With aDifferent Type of Control System?

Industry representatives andtechnology vendors expressed concernthat the NESHAP do not includecompliance provisions for continuousCRU that may use process

modifications, pollution preventioncontrol techniques, or alternativecontrol systems other than internal orexternal (add-on) wet scrubbers tocomply with the emission limitations. Arefinery process design firm provideddata indicating that gas-solid adsorptionsystems can meet the HCl emissionlimitations for CRU. The system alsoacted as a pollution preventiontechnique by reducing the total amountof chloriding agent needed duringcatalyst regeneration. The direct finalrule amendments add provisions toaccommodate these control scenarios.The new provisions improve the

NESHAP by encouraging the use of newtechnologies that meet the MACT levelof control.

Plants with a fixed-bed gas-adsorptionsystem must meet two operating limitsduring coke burn-off and catalystrejuvenation:

The daily average temperature ofthe gas entering or exiting theadsorption system must not exceed thelimit established during theperformance test; and

The HCl concentration in theadsorption system exhaust gas must notexceed the limit established during the

performance test.Plants must conduct a performancetest to demonstrate initial complianceand to establish operating limits. Todemonstrate continuous compliance,plants must install, operate, andmaintain CPMS to monitor the dailyaverage temperature of the gas enteringor exiting the adsorption system. Inaddition, plants must monitor HClduring coke burn-off and catalystrejuvenation using a colormetric tubesampling system to measure theconcentration in the adsorption systemexhaust and at a point within the

adsorbent bed not to exceed 90 percentof the total length of the bed. If the HClconcentration at the sampling locationwith the adsorption bed exceeds theoperating limit, plants must follow theprocedures in their operation andmaintenance plan. These proceduresmust require, at a minimum, that plantsremeasure the HCl concentration at boththe adsorption system exhaust and atthe sampling location within theadsorbent bed and replace the sorbentmaterial in the bed before the nextregeneration cycle if the HCl



7/45


concentration at either location is abovethe operating limit.

The direct final rule amendments alsoestablish operating limits andcompliance provisions for CRU withmoving-bed gas-solid adsorptionsystems. The operating limits are:

The daily average temperature ofthe gas entering or exiting the

adsorption system must not exceed thelimit established during theperformance test;

The weekly average chloride levelon the sorbent entering the adsorptionsystem must not exceed the design ormanufacturers recommended limit(1.35 weight percent for the ChlorsorbTMsystem); and

The weekly average chloride levelon the sorbent exiting the adsorptionsystem must not exceed the design ormanufacturers recommended limit (1.8weight percent for the ChlorsorbTMsystem).

Plants must conduct a performancetest to demonstrate initial complianceand to establish an operating limit forthe daily average gas temperature. Todemonstrate continuous compliance,plants must monitor the daily averagegas temperature using a CPMS. Todemonstrate continuous compliancewith the operating limits for chloridelevel, plants must collect and analyzesamples of the sorbent entering andexiting the system for total chlorideconcentration using the new procedure,Determination of Metal Concentrationon Catalyst Particles (Instrument

Analyzer Procedure) in appendix A ofthese direct final amendments or thespecified methods in EPA PublicationNo. SW846, Test Methods forEvaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (Revision 5, April1998). Plants must determine and recordthe weekly chloride content andmaintain the weekly average chloridecontent below the design operatinglimits.

J. How Are We Changing TheRequirements For ContinuousParameter Monitoring Systems?

The technical specifications for CPMSin Table 41 to subpart UUU were addedto the NESHAP after proposal based onprovisions we have included in otherNESHAP. We included these provisionsto ensure that CPMS are installed,calibrated, and operated in a mannerthat would yield accurate and reliableinformation on the performance ofcontrol devices. Industry representativesobjected to the inclusion of suchdetailed requirements after proposalwith no opportunity to comment on theprovisions.

We have decided not to include theperformance specifications for CPMS inthe rule at this time. As discussed in thepreamble to the Generic MACTNESHAP amendments (67 FR 46260,

July 12, 2002), we are currentlydeveloping Performance Specification(PS17) for CPMS and quality assuranceprocedures that will apply to all sources

subject to NESHAP under 40 CFR part63. A proposed rule for thesespecifications is expected to be availablein 2005. This approach will avoid thepossibility that the specificationsultimately issued for all NESHAP differsignificantly from those in thePetroleum Refineries NESHAP.

The NESHAP state that each CPMSmust be installed, operated, andmaintained according to therequirements in Table 41 of subpartUUU and in a manner consistent withthe manufacturers or other writtenprocedures that provide adequate

assurance that the equipment willmonitor accurately. The amendmentsremove the reference to Table 41 from40 CFR 63.1572(c) for those CPMS thatwill be covered by PS17 and qualityassurance procedures. Until PS17 isavailable, facilities must install, operate,and maintain CPMS in a mannerconsistent with the manufacturers orother written procedures that provideadequate assurance that the equipmentwill monitor accurately.

Table 41 to subpart UUU alsocontains requirements for pH strips andcolormetric sampling systems. These

requirements were added to theNESHAP in response to comments andare not expected to be covered by thenew PS17 and quality assuranceprocedures. Consequently, we have notremoved these requirements from thetable.

K. What Corrections Are We Making?

We are correcting numbering errorsand citations in several sections of theNESHAP. We are also amending the ruleto correct publication errors in varioustables.

We are correcting a unit conversion

error in Tables 1 through 3 to subpartUUU. These tables cite the incrementalPM emission rate for discharged gasesthat pass through an incinerator orwaste heat boiler in which auxiliary orsupplemental liquid or solid fossil fuelis burned as 43.0 grams per Megajouleof heat input attributable to the liquidor solid fossil fuel. The corrected valueis 43.0 grams per Gigajoule; no changeis being made to the English unitequivalent limit (0.10 pound per millionBritish thermal units). We are makingseveral minor corrections to these tables

to ensure that both limits are citedconsistently and accurately.

We are correcting Table 5 to subpartUUU to list the proper test methodsrequired for PM performance tests formetal HAP emissions. The amendedtable requires EPA Method 5B or 5F (40CFR part 60, appendix A) to determinePM emissions and associated moisture

content for a unit without a wetscrubber; EPA Method 5B is required todetermine PM emissions and associatedmoisture content for a unit with a wetscrubber.

We are correcting Table 6 to subpartUUU to specify the use of Equation 1(the proper equation for calculation ofcoke burn-off) rather than Equation 2.

We are correcting Table 18 to subpartUUU to correct a typographical error ina cross reference to certain requirementsfor flares in the NESHAP GeneralProvisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

We are correcting Tables 31, 33, and34 to subpart UUU to clarify themonitoring and compliancerequirements for a sulfur recovery unitsubject to the TRS limit. Under thisoption, the owner or operator may usea TRS continuous emission monitoringsystem or CPMS, and the continuouscompliance requirements depend on thetype of monitoring system. The directfinal rule amendments separate therequirements according to the type ofmonitoring system and clarify thatcompliance is based on a 12-hourrolling average like the NSPSrequirements.

We also are clarifying our comment in

the explanation column of Table 44 forthe citation 40 CFR 63.6(i), whichallows facilities to request a 1-yearextension of compliance if necessary toinstall controls. We are revising thetable to state that the extension ofcompliance under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4) isnot applicable to a facility that installscatalytic cracking feed hydrotreatingand receives an extended compliancedate under 40 CFR 63.1563(c). We arealso revising Table 44 to subpart UUUto change the citation to 40 CFR63.9(b)(3) to indicate its currentreserved status under the NESHAP

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63).III. Summary of Non-Air Health,Environmental, Energy, and CostImpacts

The NESHAP will reduce emissionsof many HAP emitted from the affectedsources at petroleum refineries,including particulate metals, organics,and reduced sulfur compounds. Whenfully implemented, we estimate thatHAP emissions will be reduced bynearly 11,000 tpy. Emissions of otherpollutants such as volatile organic



8/45


compounds, particulate matter, carbonmonoxide, and hydrogen sulfide will bereduced by about 60,000 tpy.

There will not be any adverse non-airhealth, environmental, energy, cost (oreconomic) impacts as a result of thedirect final rule amendments because nonew requirements are imposed on anyfacility. The new option for CRU will

allow for the use of new controltechnology to meet the HCl emissionlimitations, which may reduce the costsand energy impacts of add-on controls.

IV. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

A. Executive Order 12866: RegulatoryPlanning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA mustdetermine whether the regulatory actionis significant and, therefore, subject toOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The ExecutiveOrder defines significant regulatoryaction as one that is likely to result instandards that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on theeconomy of $100 million or more oradversely affect, in a material way, theeconomy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, theenvironment, public health or safety, orState, local, or tribal governments orcommunities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency orotherwise interfere with an action takenor planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetaryimpact of entitlement, grants, user fees,or loan programs or the rights andobligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issuesarising out of legal mandates, thePresidents priorities, or the principlesset forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that the directfinal rule amendments are not asignificant regulatory action underthe terms of Executive Order 12866 andare, therefore, not subject to OMBreview.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any newinformation collection burden. Thedirect final rule amendments consistprimarily of new compliance options,clarifications, and corrections to theNESHAP that impose no newinformation collection requirements onindustry or EPA. However, the OMB haspreviously approved the informationcollection requirements in the existingregulation (40 CFR part 63, subpartUUU) under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and has assigned OMBcontrol number 20600554, EPAInformation Collection Request (ICR)number 1844.02. A copy of the OMBapproved ICR may be obtained fromSusan Auby, Collection StrategiesDivision, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (2822T), 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by

calling (202) 5661672.Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by personsto generate, maintain, retain, or discloseor provide information to or for aFederal agency. This includes the timeneeded to review instructions; develop,acquire, install, and utilize technologyand systems for the purpose ofcollecting, validating, and verifyinginformation; processing andmaintaining information, and disclosingand providing information; adjust theexisting ways to comply with anypreviously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel torespond to a collection of information;search data sources; complete andreview the collection of information;and transmit or otherwise disclose theinformation.

An Agency may not conduct orsponsor, and a person is not required torespond to a collection of informationunless it displays a currently valid OMBcontrol number. The OMB controlnumbers for EPAs regulations in 40CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatoryflexibility analysis in connection withthe direct final rule amendments.

For purposes of assessing the impactsof todays direct final rule amendmentson small entities, small entity is definedas: (1) A small business as defined bythe Small Business Administrationsregulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) asmall governmental jurisdiction that is agovernment of a city, county, town,school district or special district with apopulation of less than 50,000; and (3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is notdominant in its field.After considering the economic

impact of todays direct final ruleamendments on small entities, the EPAhas concluded that this action will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.In determining whether a rule has asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities, theimpact of concern is any significantadverse economic impact on smallentities, since the primary purpose of

the regulatory flexibility analyses is toidentify and address regulatoryalternatives which minimize anysignificant economic impact of theproposed rule on small entities (5U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agencymay conclude that a rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities if

the rule relieves regulatory burden, orotherwise has a positive economic effecton all of the small entities subject to therule.

There will be a positive impact onsmall entities because the direct finalrule amendments add new complianceprovisions to increase flexibility,decrease unnecessary costs, and makeclarifying changes to improveimplementation of the NESHAP. Thesechanges are voluntary and do notimpose new costs. We have, therefore,concluded that todays direct final ruleamendments will relieve regulatory

burden for all small entities.D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (UMRA), PublicLaw 1044, establishes requirements forFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir regulatory actions on State, local,and tribal governments and the privatesector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,the EPA generally must prepare awritten statement, including a cost-

benefit analysis, for proposed and finalrules with Federal mandates that mayresult in expenditures to State, local,and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 millionor more in any 1 year. Beforepromulgating an EPA rule for which awritten statement is needed, section 205of the UMRA generally requires the EPAto identify and consider a reasonablenumber of regulatory alternatives andadopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternativethat achieves the objectives of the rule.The provisions of section 205 do notapply when they are inconsistent withapplicable law. Moreover, section 205allows the EPA to adopt an alternativeother than the least costly, most cost-

effective, or least burdensomealternative if the Administratorpublishes with the final rule anexplanation why that alternative wasnot adopted. Before the EPA establishesany regulatory requirements that maysignificantly or uniquely affect smallgovernments, including tribalgovernments, it must have developedunder section 203 of the UMRA a smallgovernment agency plan. The plan mustprovide for notifying potentiallyaffected small governments, enablingofficials of affected small governments



9/45


to have meaningful and timely input inthe development of EPA regulatoryproposals with significant Federalintergovernmental mandates, andinforming, educating, and advisingsmall governments on compliance withthe regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that thedirect final rule amendments do not

contain a Federal mandate that mayresult in expenditures of $100 million ormore for State, local, and tribalgovernments, in aggregate, or the privatesector in any 1 year. No new costs areattributable to the direct final ruleamendments. Thus, todays direct finalrule amendments are not subject to therequirements of sections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA. The EPA has alsodetermined that the direct final ruleamendments contain no regulatoryrequirements that might significantly oruniquely affect small governments

because they contain no requirements

that apply to such governments orimpose obligations upon them. Thus,the direct final rule amendments are notsubject to the requirements of section203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,August 10, 1999) requires EPA todevelop an accountable process toensure meaningful and timely input byState and local officials in thedevelopment of regulatory policies thathave federalism implications.Policiesthat have federalism implications isdefined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that havesubstantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government.

The direct final rule amendments donot have federalism implications. Theywill not have substantial direct effectson the States, on the relationship

between the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132,because State and local governments donot own or operate any sources thatwould be subject to the direct final ruleamendments. Thus, Executive Order13132 does not apply to the direct finalrule amendments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultationand Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,November 6, 2000) requires EPA todevelop an accountable process to

ensure meaningful and timely input bytribal officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have tribalimplications. The direct final ruleamendments do not have tribalimplications, as specified in ExecutiveOrder 13175, because tribalgovernments do not own or operate anysources subject to the direct final rule

amendments. Thus, Executive Order13175 does not apply to the direct finalrule amendments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental Health &Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:(1) Is determined to be economicallysignificant, as defined under ExecutiveOrder 12866, and (2) concerns anenvironmental health or safety risk thatEPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,we must evaluate the environmentalhealth or safety effects of the plannedrule on children and explain why theplanned regulation is preferable to otherpotentially effective and reasonablyfeasible alternatives.

We interpret Executive Order 13045as applying only to those regulatoryactions that are based on health or safetyrisks, such that the analysis requiredunder section 5501 of the ExecutiveOrder has the potential to influence theregulation. The direct final ruleamendments are not subject toExecutive Order 13045 because the

NESHAP (and subsequent amendments)are based on technology performanceand not on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions ThatSignificantly Affect Energy, Supply,Distribution, or Use

The direct final rule amendments arenot subject to Executive Order 13211 (66FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because theyare not a significant regulatory actionunder Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NationalTechnology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directsEPA to use voluntary consensusstandards in the regulatory andprocurement activities unless to do sowould be inconsistent with applicablelaw or otherwise impracticable.Voluntary consensus standards aretechnical standards (e.g., materialspecifications, test methods, samplingprocedures, business practices)developed or adopted by one or more

voluntary consensus bodies. TheNTTAA requires Federal agencies toprovide Congress, through annualreports to OMB, with explanationswhen an agency does not use availableand applicable voluntary consensusstandards.

The direct final rule amendmentsinclude a new procedure,

Determination of Metal Concentrationon Catalyst Particles (InstrumentalAnalyzer Procedure). This procedurewas developed in consultation withindustry experts and equipment vendorsfor the purpose of determining the metalor total chloride concentration oncatalyst particles. This new procedurewas not fully developed at the time theNESHAP were issued and reflectscurrent practices used by many plantswithin the industry. The new procedureis not mandatory; plants also may useone of several existing EPA methods inTest Methods for Evaluating Solid

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods(EPA Publication SW846, Revision 5,April 1998) or an alternative methodsatisfactory to the Administrator.

Consistent with the NTTAA, weconducted a search to identify voluntaryconsensus standards for use indetermining the metal or total chlorideconcentration on catalyst particles. Thissearch identified one voluntaryconsensus standard, ASTM D708504,Standard Guide for Determination ofChemical Elements in Fluid CatalyticCracking Catalysts by X-RayFluorescence Spectrometry (XRF). Thismethod contains detailed sample

preparation procedures that may be auseful supplement to the instrumentalmethod included in the direct final ruleamendments. However, we have notadopted ASTM D708504 as analternative to the instrumental method

because the method does not includeequivalent procedures for determiningzero and calibration drift, instrumentenergy calibration, and calibrationaccuracy, or specific quality assuranceprocedures for analyzing calibrationstandards or catalyst samples.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. The EPA willsubmit a report containing this rule andother required information to the U.S.Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller



10/45


General of the United States prior topublication of the rule in the FederalRegister. This action is not a majorrule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Thedirect final rule amendments will beeffective on April 11, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardoussubstances, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 1, 2005.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting Administrator.

I For the reasons set out in the preamble,title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 63[AMENDED]

I 1. The authority citation for part 63continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart UUU[AMENDED]

I 2. Section 63.1562 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) toread as follows:

63.1562 What parts of my plant arecovered by this subpart?

* * * * *(b) * * *(1) The process vent or group of

process vents on fluidized catalyticcracking units that are associated withregeneration of the catalyst used in the

unit (i.e., the catalyst regeneration fluegas vent).

(2) The process vent or group ofprocess vents on catalytic reformingunits (including but not limited to semi-regenerative, cyclic, or continuousprocesses) that are associated withregeneration of the catalyst used in theunit. This affected source includes ventsthat are used during the unitdepressurization, purging, coke burn,and catalyst rejuvenation.

(3) The process vent or group ofprocess vents on Claus or other types ofsulfur recovery plant units or the tail gas

treatment units serving sulfur recoveryplants, that are associated with sulfurrecovery.

* * * * *

I 3. Section 63.1564(b)(4) is amended byrevising the definition of the symbolQr for Equation 1 of to read as follows:

63.1564 What are my requirements formetal HAP emissions from catalyticcracking units?

* * * * *

Qr = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas

from catalyst regenerator beforeadding air or gas streams. Example:You may measure upstream ordownstream of an electrostaticprecipitator, but you must measureupstream of a carbon monoxide

boiler, dscm/min (dscf/min). You mayuse the alternative in either 63.1573(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable,to calculate Qr;

* * * * *

I 4. Section 63.1566 is amended by:I a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and(a)(3);Ib. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(i)

introductory text;I c. Revising the definitions of thesymbols E and Mc in Equation 1 ofparagraph (b)(4)(i);I d. Revising Equation 2 of paragraph(b)(4)(i);I e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as(b)(4)(ii);I f. Revising Equation 4 in the newlydesignated paragraph (b)(4)(ii); andI g. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(6)through (b)(9) as (b)(5) through (b)(8).

The revisions and additions read asfollows:

63.1566 What are my requirements for

organic HAP emissions from catalyticreforming units?

(a) * * *(1) * * *(ii) You can elect to meet a TOC or

nonmethane TOC percent reductionstandard or concentration limit,whichever is less stringent (Option 2).

* * * * *(3) Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(4) of this section, the emissionlimitations in Tables 15 and 16 of thissubpart apply to emissions fromcatalytic reforming unit process ventsassociated with initial catalyst

depressuring and catalyst purgingoperations that occur prior to the coke

burn-off cycle. The emission limitationsin Tables 15 and 16 of this subpart do

not apply to the coke burn-off, catalystrejuvenation, reduction or activationvents, or to the control systems used forthese vents.

* * * * *(b) * * *(4) * * *(i) If you elect the percent reduction

standard under Option 2, calculate theemission rate of nonmethane TOC usingEquation 1 of this section (if you useMethod 25) or Equation 2 of this section(if you use Method 25A or Methods 25Aand 18), then calculate the massemission reduction using Equation 3 ofthis section as follows:

* * * * *

(Eq. 1)

Where:E = Emission rate of nonmethane TOC

in the vent stream, kilograms-C perhour;

* * * * *Mc = Mass concentration of total

gaseous nonmethane organic (ascarbon) as measured and calculatedusing Method 25 in appendix A topart 60 of this chapter, mg/dscm;and

* * * * *

E = K C Q (Eq. 2)5 TOC methane sC ( )16Where:K5 = Constant, 1.8 x 104 (parts per

million)1 (gram-mole per standardcubic meter) (gram-C per gram-mole-hexane) (kilogram per gram)(minutes per hour), where thestandard temperature (standardcubic meter) is at 20 degrees C (uses72g-C/g.mole hexane);

C TOC = Concentration of TOC on a drybasis in ppmv as hexane asmeasured by Method 25A inappendix A to part 60 of thischapter;

C methane = Concentration of methane ona dry basis in ppmv as measured byMethod 18 in appendix A to part 60of this chapter. If the concentrationof methane is not determined,

assume C methane equals zero; andQs = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard

cubic meters per minute, at atemperature of 20 degrees C. * * *

C = C17.9%

20.9%(Eq. 4)NMTOC, 3%O TOC methane2 C O

( )

1

6

2%

Where: CNMTOC, 3%O2 = Concentration ofnonmethane TOC on a dry basis in

ppmv as hexane corrected to 3percent oxygen.



11/45


I 5. Section 63.1567 is amended by:I a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)introductory text and (a)(1)(i);Ib. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(4)through (b)(6) as paragraphs (b)(5)through (b)(7); andI c. Adding new paragraph (b)(4).

The addition and revisions read asfollows:

63.1567 What are my requirements forinorganic HAP emissions from catalyticreforming units?

(a) * * *(1) Meet each emission limitation in

Table 22 to this subpart that applies to

you. If you operate a catalytic reformingunit in which different reactors in thecatalytic reforming unit are regeneratedin separate regeneration systems, thenthese emission limitations apply to eachseparate regeneration system. Theseemission limitations apply to emissionsfrom catalytic reforming unit processvents associated with the coke burn-offand catalyst rejuvenation operationsduring coke burn-off and catalystregeneration. You can choose from thetwo options in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)through (ii) of this section:

(i) You can elect to meet a percentreduction standard for hydrogenchloride (HCl) emissions (Option 1); or

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Use the equations in paragraphs(b)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section todetermine initial compliance with the

emission limitations.

(i) Correct the measured HClconcentration for oxygen (O2) content inthe gas stream using Equation 1 of thissection as follows:

C =17.9%

20.9%C (Eq. 1)HCl, 3%O HCl2

%O2

Where:CHCl,3% O2 = Concentration of HCl on a

dry basis in ppmv corrected to 3percent oxygen or 1 ppmv,whichever is greater;

CHCl = Concentration of HCl on a drybasis in ppmv, as measured byMethod 26A in 40 CFR part 60,appendix A; and

%O2 = Oxygen concentration in percentby volume (dry basis).

(ii) If you elect the percent reductionstandard, calculate the emission rate of

HCl using Equation 2 of this section;then calculate the mass emissionreduction from the mass emission ratesusing Equation 3 of this section asfollows:

E K (Eq. 2)HCl 6= C QHCl sWhere:

E HCl, = Emission rate of HCl in the ventstream, grams per hour;

K6 = Constant, 0.091 (parts permillion)1 (grams HCl per standardcubic meter) (minutes per hour),where the standard temperature(standard cubic meter) is at 20degrees Celsius (C); and

Qs = Vent stream flow rate, dscm/min,at a temperature of 20 degrees C.

HCl%reduction =E E

E(Eq. 3)

HCl, i HCl, o

HCl, i

100%

Where:E HCl,i = Mass emission rate of HCl atcontrol device inlet, g/hr; and

E HCl,o = Mass emission rate of HCl atcontrol device outlet, g/hr.

(iii) If you are required to use acolormetric tube sampling system todemonstrate continuous compliancewith the HCl concentration operating

limit, calculate the HCl operating limitusing Equation 4 of this section asfollows:

C C (Eq. 4)HCl, ppmvLimit HCl, AveTubeHCl, RegLimit

3%O2

=

0 9.

,

C

CHCl

Where:CHCl,ppmvLimit = Maximum permissible

HCl concentration for the HClconcentration operating limit,

ppmv;CHCl,AveTube = Average HCl concentration

from the colormetric tube samplingsystem, calculated as the arithmeticaverage of the average HCl

concentration measured for eachperformance test run, ppmv or 1ppmv, whichever is greater; and

CHCl,RegLimit = Maximum permissibleoutlet HCl concentration for theapplicable catalytic reforming unitas listed in Table 22 of this subpart,either 10 or 30 ppmv.

(iv) If you are required to use acolormetric tube sampling system todemonstrate continuous compliancewith the percent reduction operatinglimit, calculate the HCl operating limitusing Equation 5 of this section asfollows:

C CHClReduction

HClReduction(Eq. 5)HCl, %Limit HCl, AveTube

Limit

Test

=

0 9

100

100.

%

%



12/45


Where:CHCl,%Limit = Maximum permissible HCl

concentration for the percentreduction operating limit, ppmv;

%HCl ReductionLimit = Minimumpermissible HCl reduction for theapplicable catalytic reforming unitas listed in Table 22 of this subpart,either 97 or 92 percent; and

%HCl ReductionTest = Average percentHCl reduction calculated as thearithmetic average HCl reductioncalculated using Equation 3 of thissection for each performance sourcetest, percent.

* * * * *

I 6. Section 63.1572 is amended byrevising paragraphs (c) introductory textand (c)(1) to read as follows:

63.1572 What are my monitoringinstallation, operation, and maintenancerequirements?

* * * * *

(c) You must install, operate, andmaintain each continuous parametermonitoring system according to therequirements in paragraphs (c)(1)through (5) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator shallinstall, operate, and maintain each

continuous parameter monitoringsystem in a manner consistent with themanufacturers specifications or otherwritten procedures that provideadequate assurance that the equipmentwill monitor accurately. The owner oroperator shall also meet the equipmentspecifications in Table 41 of this subpartif pH strips or colormetric tube

sampling systems are used.* * * * *

I 7. Section 63.1573 is amended by:I a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); andIb. Adding new paragraph (f).

The revisions and addition read asfollows:

63.1573 What are my monitoringalternatives?

(a) What are the approved alternativesfor measuring gas flow rate?(1) Youmay use this alternative to a continuousparameter monitoring system for thecatalytic regenerator exhaust gas flow

rate for your catalytic cracking unit ifthe unit does not introduce any othergas streams into the catalystregeneration vent (i.e., completecombustion units with no additionalcombustion devices). You may also usethis alternative to a continuous

parameter monitoring system for thecatalytic regenerator atmosphericexhaust gas flow rate for your catalyticreforming unit during the coke burn andrejuvenation cycles if the unit operatesas a constant pressure system duringthese cycles. If you use this alternative,you shall use the same procedure for theperformance test and for monitoring

after the performance test. You shall:(i) Install and operate a continuous

parameter monitoring system tomeasure and record the hourly averagevolumetric air flow rate to the catalyticcracking unit or catalytic reforming unitregenerator. Or, you may determine andrecord the hourly average volumetric airflow rate to the catalytic cracking unitor catalytic reforming unit regeneratorusing the appropriate control roominstrumentation.

(ii) Install and operate a continuousparameter monitoring system tomeasure and record the temperature of

the gases entering the control device (orexiting the catalyst regenerator if you donot use an add-on control device).

(iii) Calculate and record the hourlyaverage actual exhaust gas flow rateusing Equation 1 of this section asfollows:

Q scfm dscfmgas air othergas

vent

Q QTemp

293 K

latm.

P(Eq. 1)= ( ) +( )

112. /

Where:

Qgas = Hourly average actual gas flowrate, acfm;

1.12 = Default correction factor toconvert gas flow from dry standardcubic feet per minute (dscfm) tostandard cubic feet per minute(scfm);

Qair = Volumetric flow rate of air toregenerator, as determined from thecontrol room instrumentations,dscfm;

Qother = Volumetric flow rate of othergases entering the regenerator asdetermined from the control roominstrumentations, dscfm. (Examples

ofother gases include an oxygen-enriched air stream to catalyticcracking unit regenerators and anitrogen stream to catalyticreforming unit regenerators.);

Tempgas = Temperature of gas stream invent measured as near as practicalto the control device or opacitymonitor, K. For wet scrubbers,temperature of gas prior to the wetscrubber; and

Pvent = Absolute pressure in the ventmeasured as near as practical to thecontrol device or opacity monitor,as applicable, atm. When used toassess the gas flow rate in the finalatmospheric vent stack, you canassume Pvent = 1 atm.

(2) You may use this alternative tocalculating Qr, the volumetric flow rateof exhaust gas for the catalytic crackingregenerator as required in Equation 1 of

63.1564, if you have a gas analyzerinstalled in the catalytic crackingregenerator exhaust vent prior to theaddition of air or other gas streams. Youmay measure upstream or downstream

of an electrostatic precipitator, but youshall measure upstream of a carbonmonoxide boiler. You shall:

(i) Install and operate a continuousparameter monitoring system tomeasure and record the hourly averagevolumetric air flow rate to the catalyticcracking unit regenerator. Or, you candetermine and record the hourly averagevolumetric air flow rate to the catalyticcracking unit regenerator using thecatalytic cracking unit control roominstrumentation.

(ii) Install and operate a continuousgas analyzer to measure and record theconcentration of carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide, and oxygen of the catalyticcracking regenerator exhaust.

(iii) Calculate and record the hourlyaverage flow rate using Equation 2 ofthis section as follows:

QQ

(Eq. 2)rair

= + ( )

79 100

100 2 2

%

% % %

O Q

CO CO O

xy oxy



13/45


Where:Qr = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas

from the catalyst regenerator beforeadding air or gas streams, dscm/min(dscf/min);

79 = Default concentration of nitrogenand argon in dry air, percent byvolume (dry basis);

%Oxy = Oxygen concentration in

oxygen-enriched air stream, percentby volume (dry basis);Qoxy = Volumetric flow rate of oxygen-

enriched air stream to regeneratoras determined from the catalyticcracking unit control roominstrumentations, dscm/min (dscf/min);

%CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentrationin regenerator exhaust, percent byvolume (dry basis);

CO = Carbon monoxide concentration inregenerator exhaust, percent byvolume (dry basis); and

%O2 = Oxygen concentration inregenerator exhaust, percent by

volume (dry basis).(b) What is the approved alternative

for monitoring pH or alkalinity levels?You may use the alternative inparagraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section fora catalytic reforming unit.

(1) You shall measure and record thepH of the water (or scrubbing liquid)exiting the wet scrubber or internalscrubbing system at least once an hourduring coke burn-off and catalystrejuvenation using pH strips as analternative to a continuous parametermonitoring system. The pH strips mustmeet the requirements in Table 41 of

this subpart.(2) You shall measure and record the

alkalinity of the water (or scrubbingliquid) exiting the wet scrubber orinternal scrubbing system at least oncean hour during coke burn-off andcatalyst rejuvenation using titration asan alternative to a continuous parametermonitoring system.

* * * * *(f) How do I apply for alternative

monitoring requirements if my catalyticcracking unit is equipped with a wetscrubber and I have approvedalternative monitoring requirements

under the new source performancestandards for petroleum refineries?(1) You may request alternative

monitoring requirements according tothe procedures in this paragraph if youmeet each of the conditions inparagraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of thissection:

(i) Your fluid catalytic cracking unitregenerator vent is subject to the PMlimit in 40 CFR 60.102(a)(1) and uses awet scrubber for PM emissions control;

(ii) You have alternative monitoringrequirements for the continuous opacity

monitoring system requirement in 40CFR 60.105(a)(1) approved by theAdministrator; and

(iii) You are required by this subpartto install, operate, and maintain acontinuous opacity monitoring systemfor the same catalytic cracking unitregenerator vent for which you haveapproved alternative monitoring

requirements.(2) You can request approval to use an

alternative monitoring method prior tosubmitting your notification ofcompliance status, in your notificationof compliance status, or at any time.

(3) You must submit a copy of theapproved alternative monitoringrequirements along with a monitoringplan that includes a description of thecontinuous monitoring system ormethod, including appropriateoperating parameters that will bemonitored, test results demonstratingcompliance with the opacity limit used

to establish an enforceable operatinglimit(s), and the frequency of measuringand recording to establish continuouscompliance. If applicable, you must alsoinclude operation and maintenancerequirements for the continuousmonitoring system.

(4) We will contact you within 30days of receipt of your application toinform you of approval or of our intentto disapprove your request.

I 8. Section 63.1574 is amended by:I a. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii);Ib. Revising paragraph (c); andI c. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (f) introductory text, revisingparagraph (f)(2) introductory text,revising paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) and(f)(2)(x), and adding new paragraphs(f)(2)(xi) and (xii).

The revisions read as follows:

63.1574 What notifications must I submitand when?

(a) * * *(3) * * *(ii) For each initial compliance

demonstration that includes aperformance test, you must submit thenotification of compliance status,including the performance test results,

no later than 150 calendar days after thecompliance date specified for youraffected source in 63.1563.

* * * * *(c) If you startup your new or

reconstructed affected source on or afterApril 11, 2002, you must submit theinitial notification no later than 120days after you become subject to thissubpart.

* * * * *(f) As required by this subpart, you

must prepare and implement an

operation, maintenance, and monitoringplan for each control system andcontinuous monitoring system for eachaffected source. * * *

(2) Each plan must include, at aminimum, the information specified inparagraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xii) of thissection.

* * * * *(vi) Procedures you will use to

determine the HCl concentration ofgases from a catalytic reforming unitwhen you use a colormetric tubesampling system, including proceduresfor correcting for pressure (if applicableto the sampling equipment) and thesampling locations that will be used forcompliance monitoring purposes.

* * * * *(x) Maintenance schedule for each

monitoring system and control devicefor each affected source that is generallyconsistent with the manufacturersinstructions for routine and long-term

maintenance.(xi) If you use a fixed-bed gas-solid

adsorption system to control emissionsfrom a catalytic reforming unit, youmust implement corrective actionprocedures if the HCl concentrationmeasured at the selected compliancemonitoring sampling location within the

bed exceeds the operating limit. Theseprocedures must require, at minimum,repeat measurement and recording ofthe HCl concentration in the adsorptionsystem exhaust gases and at the selectedcompliance monitoring samplinglocation within the bed. If the HCl

concentration at the selectedcompliance monitoring location withinthe bed is above the operating limitduring the repeat measurement whilethe HCl concentration in the adsorptionsystem exhaust gases remains below theoperating limit, the adsorption bed must

be replaced as soon as practicable. Yourprocedures must specify the samplingfrequency that will be used to monitorthe HCl concentration in the adsorptionsystem exhaust gases subsequent to therepeat measurement and prior toreplacement of the sorbent material (butnot less frequent than once every 4

hours during coke burn-off). If the HClconcentration of the adsorption systemexhaust gases is above the operatinglimit when measured at any time, theadsorption bed must be replaced within24 hours or before the next regenerationcycle, whichever is longer.

(xii) Procedures that will be used forpurging the catalyst if you do not use acontrol device to comply with theorganic HAP emission limits forcatalytic reforming units. Theseprocedures will include, but are notlimited to, specification of the minimum



14/45


catalyst temperature and the minimumcumulative volume of gas per mass ofcatalyst used for purging prior touncontrolled releases (i.e., duringcontrolled purging events); themaximum purge gas temperature foruncontrolled purge events; andspecification of the monitoring systemsthat will be used to monitor and record

data during each purge event.I 9. Section 63.1576 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(2) to read asfollows:

63.1576 What records must I keep, inwhat form, and for how long?

(a) * * *(2) The records in 63.6(e)(3)(iii)

through (v) related to startup, shutdown,and malfunction.

* * * * *

I 10. Section 63.1579 is amended by:I a. Adding, in alphabetical order, newdefinitions for the terms Internal

scrubbing system and NonmethaneTOC; andIb. Revising the definition for the termTOC.

The additions and revision read asfollows:

63.1579 What definitions apply to thissubpart?

* * * * *

Internal scrubbing system means awet scrubbing, wet injection, or causticinjection control device that treats (in-situ) the catalytic reforming unitrecirculating coke burn exhaust gasesfor acid (HCl) control during reformingcatalyst regeneration upstream of theatmospheric coke burn vent.

* * * * *

Nonmethane TOCmeans, for thepurposes of this subpart, emissions oftotal organic compounds, excludingmethane, that serve as a surrogatemeasure of the total emissions oforganic HAP compounds including, butnot limited to, acetaldehyde, benzene,hexane, phenol, toluene, and xylenes

and nonHAP VOC as measured byMethod 25 in appendix A to part 60 ofthis chapter, by the combination ofMethods 18 and 25A in appendix A to

part 60 of this chapter, or by anapproved alternative method.

* * * * *TOCmeans, for the purposes of this

subpart, emissions of total organiccompounds that serve as a surrogatemeasure of the total emissions oforganic HAP compounds including, butnot limited to, acetaldehyde, benzene,hexane, phenol, toluene, and xylenesand nonHAP VOC as measured byMethod 25A in appendix A to part 60of this chapter or by an approvedalternative method.

* * * * *

I 11. Tables 1 through 44 to subpartUUU of part 63 are amended to removethe phrase, you must and add in itsplace the phrase you shall in theintroductory text and in the last columnheading, where applicable (i.e., Tables 1through 3, 6 through 10, 13 through 17,20 through 24, 27 through 31, 34 through

37, 39, and 41 through 43).I 12. Table 1 to subpart UUU of part 63is amended to revising entries 1 and 2 toread as follows:

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63METAL HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS.* * * * *

For each new or existing catalytic cracking unit . . .You shall meet the following emission limits for each catalyst regen-erator vent . . .

1. Subject to new source performance standard (NSPS) for PM in 40CFR 60.102.

PM emissions must not the exceed 1.0 kilogram (kg) per 1,000 kg (1.0lb/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; if the dis-charged gases pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler inwhich you burn auxiliary or in supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel,the incremental rate of PM emissions must not exceed 43.0 grams

per Gigajoule (g/GJ) or 0.10 pounds per million British thermal units(lb/million Btu) of heat input attributable to the liquid or solid fossilfuel; and the opacity of emissions must not exceed 30 percent, ex-cept for one 6-minute average opacity reading in any 1-hour period.

2. Option 1: NSPS requirements not subject to the NSPS for PM in 40CFR 60.102.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 lb) ofcoke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; if the discharged gasespass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler in which you burnauxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, the incrementalrate of PM must not exceed 43.0 g/GJ (0.10 lb/million Btu) of heatinput attributable to the liquid or solid fossil fuel; and the opacity ofemissions must not exceed 30 percent, except for one 6-minute av-erage opacity reading in any 1-hour period.

* * * * * *

I 13. Table 3 to subpart UUU of part 63is revised to read as follows:

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR METAL HAP EMISSIONS FROMCATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS

[As stated in 63.1564(b)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.]

For each new or existing catalyticcracking unit . . .

If your catalytic cracking unit is. . .

And you use this type of controldevice for your vent . . .

EPA Standards for HAP RefineriesNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for...

Documents

Transcript of EPA Standards for HAP RefineriesNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for...