## Technical Memorandum

TO: Brenda Shine, Environmental Engineer

Refining and Chemicals Group, SPPD (E143

- 01)

FROM: Eric Goehl, Environmental Protection Specialist

Refining and Chemicals Group, SPPD (E143

- 01)

DATE: September 27 , 2012

SUBJECT: Summary of Catalytic Reforming Un it Emission Source Test Reports

I. Purpose The objective of this document is to provide a summ ary of the Catalytic Reforming Unit ( C R U ) emission source test reports received by the EPA from the 2011 Information Collection Request (ICR) of the Petroleum Refinery industry

.

II. Background On April 1, 2011, the EPA sent an ICR to facilities in the U.S. petroleum refining industry. The ICR was comprehensive and designed to collect information on processing characteristics, crude slate characteristics, emissions inventories and source testing to bolster our
current data and fill known data gaps. The ICR h ad four components: (1) a questionnaire on processes and controls to be completed by all petroleum refineries (Component 1); (2) an emissions inventory to be developed by all petroleum refineries using the emissions estimation protocol developed for this e ffort (Component 2); (3) distillation feed sampling and analysis to be conducted by all petroleum refineries (Component 3); and (4) emissions source testing to be completed in accordance with an EPA

- approved protocol for specific sources at specific petrol eum refineries (Component 4). Component 4 of t he ICR required source testing for twelve different types of emission sources or units: fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) , thermal catalytic cracking units, catalytic reforming units, sulfur recovery uni ts, delayed coking units, fluid coking units, hydrocracking units, hydrogen plants, asphalt blowing units, fuel gas systems, cooling water systems, and wastewater treatment systems. T his memorandum summariz es the result s of the CR U sources
tests. A simila r memorandum is available for the other sources required to be test ed as a result of
this ICR. Facilities often claimed specific process information as CBI , and included that2

information in the CBI version of the emission source test report stored in the E PA’s CBI office in Research Triangle Park, NC. However, emissions data cannot be claimed as CBI. This memorandum summarizes and presents only non

- CBI data.

I I I. Source

- specific Testing Program
Below is a list of the fa cilities required to perform an emission source test on their C R U.

 CITGO

- Corpus Christi, TX

– Coke Burn Vent ( TX3B1131)

 Delek Refining

– Tyler, TX

– Coke Burn Vent (TX3A1190)

 Shell Oil

– Deer Park, TX

– Coke Burn Vent (TX3B1260)

 ConocoPhillips WRB

– Roxana, IL

– Coke Burn Ve nt (IL2A0430)

 Marathon Petroleum

– Garyville, LA

– Coke Burn Vent (LA3C0610) Note: Facility asked the EPA if they could test their CRU at the ir Garyville, LA plant in the place of their CRU at their Catlettsburg, KY plant (KY2A0490).

 ExxonMobil

– Baton Rou ge, LA

– Coke Burn Vent and Purge Vent (LA3C0590)

 Frontier

– El Dorado, KS

– Coke Burn Vent and Purge Vent (KS2C0480)

 Tesoro

– Anacortes, WA

– Coke Burn Vent (WA5A1420)

 Sunoco

– Marcus Hook, PA

– Coke Burn Vent (PA1A1020)

 Motiva

– Port Arthur, TX

– Coke Burn Vent (TX3B1220) Note: Facility asked the EPA if they could test their CRU at their Port Arthur, TX plant in the place of their CRU at their Convent, LA plant (LA3C0620).

The following facilities did not submit the requi red emission source test report.

 Houston Refining

– Houston, TX (TX3B1200)

– Facility indicated that this unit has been idle since the ICR was sent out and not expected to be brought back online in the near
future.

 Western Refining

– El Paso, TX (TX3A1120)

– Facility stated they w ere between regeneration cycles and the next cycle was not until summer 2012.3

Owners or operators of the C R U at these facilities were required to test for: Purge Vent

 Speciated volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

 Speciated semi

- volatile orga nic HAP

 Total hydrocarbons, methane, and ethane

 Aldehydes

 Carbon monoxide

 O 2 , CO 2 , moisture, and gas flow rate.
Coke Burn Vent

 Speciated volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

 Dioxins, furans, and polychlorinated biphenyls

 Hydrogen chloride, chlorine, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen cyanide

 Mercury (speciated)

 Multiple metals

 Particulate matter (PM, PM 2.5 filterable, and PM condensable )

 NO X , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 , moisture, and gas flow rate.

The EPA required that the data collected from the emission source testing to be reported using the EPA Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT is a Microsoft® Access database application. If the facility conducted testing using a method not currently supporte d by the ERT, the facility was required to report the results in the Refinery Testing Supplement, a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet. After completing the Refinery Testing Supplement, the refineries were also to submit an electronic copy of the emission test r eport , preferably in PDF format

.

I V

. Results A summary of the emission results for the C R U are provided in attached spreadsheet

. In order to better characterize the reported data from the emission test reports, detection level information was provided in the attached summary spreadsheet . The followin g designations were used to describe the detection levels of the reported emissions data

.

 DLL = Detection Level Limit ed = 1 or 2 runs below detection limit

 B D L = Below Detection Limit = All three runs ar e below detection limit

 No designation = All three runs are above detection limit