[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 92 (Monday, May 14, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27178-27219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8547]



[[Page 27177]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 60



 Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 27178]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011; FRL-8309-1]
RIN 2060-AN72


Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the current Standards of 
Performance for Petroleum Refineries. This action also proposes 
separate standards of performance for new, modified, or reconstructed 
process units at petroleum refineries. Unless otherwise noted, the term 
new includes modified or reconstructed units. The proposed standards 
for new process units include emissions limitations and work practice 
standards for fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid coking units, 
delayed coking units, process heaters and other fuel gas combustion 
devices, fuel gas producing units, and sulfur recovery plants. These 
proposed standards reflect demonstrated improvements in emissions 
control technologies and work practices that have occurred since 
promulgation of the current standards.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before July 
13, 2007.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by June 4, 2007 requesting 
to speak at a public hearing, a public hearing will be held on June 13, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0011, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e2aee2ede7aef1aee7ece0e8e6f7c3e6f3e2ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8deca0ece3e9a0ffa0e9e2eee6e8f9cde8fdeca3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-1741.
    <bullet> Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), New Source Performance Standards for Petroleum 
Refineries Docket, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy 
of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 
20503.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), New Source Performance Standards for 
Petroleum Refineries Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a 
total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries Docket, EPA West, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket 
Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert B. Lucas, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-
0884; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f332a3c3e2c713d303d1f3a2f3e71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97fbe2f4f6e4b9f5f8f5d7f2e7f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 NAICS
           Category             code \1\  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................      32411  Petroleum refiners.
Federal government...........  .........  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government  .........  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.100 
and 40 CFR 60.100a. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact 
the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

[[Page 27179]]

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. Clearly mark the 
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by 
June 4, 2007, a public hearing will be held on June 13, 2007. Persons 
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 
public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Bob Lucas, listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least 2 days in advance 
of the hearing.

E. How is this document organized?

    The supplementary information presented in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
    E. How is this document organized?
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed standards 
and proposed amendments?
    B. What are the current petroleum refinery NSPS?
III. Summary of the Proposed Standards and Proposed Amendments
    A. What are the proposed amendments to the standards for 
petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J)?
    B. What are the proposed requirements for new fluid catalytic 
cracking units and new fluid coking units (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Ja)?
    C. What are the proposed requirements for new sulfur recovery 
plants (SRP) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?
    D. What are the proposed requirements for new process heaters 
and other fuel gas combustion devices (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?
    E. What are the proposed work practice and equipment standards 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
J)
    A. How is EPA proposing to change requirements for refinery fuel 
gas?
    B. How is EPA proposing to amend definitions?
    C. How is EPA proposing to revise the coke burn-off equation?
    D. What miscellaneous corrections are being proposed?
V. Rationale for the Proposed Standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)
    A. What is the performance of control technologies for fluid 
catalytic cracking units?
    B. What is the performance of control technologies for fuel gas 
combustion?
    C. What is the performance of control technologies for process 
heaters?
    D. What is the performance of control technologies for sulfur 
recovery systems?
    E. How did EPA determine the proposed standards for new 
petroleum refining process units?
VI. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions
VII. Request for Comments
VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the impacts for petroleum refineries?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed standards and 
proposed amendments?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which 
cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The 
primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain ambient air 
quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control 
technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is 
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving 
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified 
sources.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions which (taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated 
technology (BDT).
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review 
and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect 
improvements in methods for reducing emissions.

B. What are the current petroleum refinery NSPS?

    NSPS for petroleum refiners (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) apply to 
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fuel gas 
combustion devices that commence construction or modification after 
June 11, 1973. Fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators are 
subject to standards for particulate matter (PM), opacity, and carbon 
monoxide (CO). Fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators that 
commence construction after January 17, 1984 are also subject to 
standards for sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) (or a feed sulfur content 
limit). Fuel gas combustion devices are subject to concentration limits 
for hydrogen sulfide (H<INF>2</INF>S) as a surrogate for SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions.

[[Page 27180]]

    The current NSPS also apply to all Claus sulfur recovery plants 
(SRP) of more than 20 long tons per day (LTD) that commence 
construction or modification after October 4, 1976. Claus SRP are 
subject to standards for either SO<INF>2</INF> or both reduced sulfur 
compounds and H<INF>2</INF>S.
    The NSPS were originally promulgated on March 8, 1974 and have been 
amended several times. Significant changes to emission limits since the 
original promulgation date include the addition of the sulfur oxide 
standards for SRP and fluid catalytic cracking units (see 43 FR 10869, 
March 15, 1978 and 54 FR 34027, August 17 1989).

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards and Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing several amendments to provisions in the existing 
NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. Many of these amendments are 
technical clarifications and corrections that are also included in the 
proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. For example, we are 
proposing language to change the definition of fuel gas to indicate 
that vapors collected and combusted to comply with certain wastewater 
and marine vessel loading provisions are not considered fuel gas and 
are exempt from 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1). These gas streams are not required 
to be monitored. In a related amendment, we are proposing to clarify 
that monitoring is not required for fuel gases that are identified as 
inherently low sulfur or can demonstrate a low sulfur content. We are 
also revising the coke burn-off equation to account for oxygen 
(O<INF>2</INF>)-enriched air streams. Other amendments include 
clarification of definitions and correction of grammatical and 
typographical errors.
    The proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja include 
emission limits for fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid coking units, 
SRP, and fuel gas combustion devices. They also include work practice 
standards for minimizing the quantity of fuel gas streams flared from 
all refinery process units and for minimizing the SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from process units that are subject to standards of 
performance for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Proposed equipment standards 
would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from delayed 
coker units. Only those affected facilities that begin construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after May 14, 2007 would be affected by 
the proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. Units for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction began on or before May 
14, 2007 would continue to comply with the applicable standards under 
the current NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, as amended.

A. What are the proposed amendments to the standards for petroleum 
refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J)?

    We are proposing to amend the definition of ``fuel gas'' to exempt 
vapors that are collected and combusted in an air pollution control 
device installed to comply with a specified wastewater or marine vessel 
loading emissions standard. The thermal combustion control devices 
themselves would still be considered affected fuel gas combustion 
devices, and all auxiliary fuel fired to these devices would be subject 
to the fuel gas limit; however, continuous monitoring would not be 
required for the collected vapors that are being incinerated because 
these gases would not be considered fuel gases under the proposed 
definition of ``fuel gas'' in subpart J.
    We are also proposing to exempt certain fuel gas streams from all 
continuous monitoring requirements. Monitoring is currently not 
required for events that are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR 
60.104(a)(1) (flaring of process upset gases or flaring of gases from 
relief valve leakage or emergency malfunctions). Additionally, 
monitoring would not be required for inherently low sulfur fuel gas 
streams. These streams include pilot gas flames, gas streams that meet 
commercial-grade product specifications with a sulfur content 30 parts 
per million by volume (ppmv) or less, fuel gases produced by process 
units that are intolerant to sulfur contamination, and fuel gas streams 
that an owner or operator can demonstrate are inherently low-sulfur. 
Owners and operators would be required to document the exemption for 
which each fuel gas stream applies and ensure that the stream remains 
qualified for that exemption.
    We are proposing to amend the definitions of ``Claus sulfur 
recovery plant,'' ``oxidation control system,'' and ``reduction control 
system'' to clarify that a SRP may consist of multiple units, that 
sulfur pits are part of the Claus SRP, and that the oxidized or reduced 
sulfur is recycled to the beginning of a sulfur recovery train within 
the SRP. We are also proposing to add a fourth term to the coke burn-
off rate equation to account for the use of O<INF>2</INF>-enriched air.
    Finally, the proposed amendments include a few technical 
corrections to fix references and other miscellaneous errors in subpart 
J. The specific changes are detailed in section IV.D of this preamble.

B. What are the proposed requirements for new fluid catalytic cracking 
units and new fluid coking units (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?

    The proposed standards for new fluid catalytic cracking units 
include emission limits for PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>), and CO. One difference from the existing standards in 
subpart J is that new fluid coking units would be subject to the same 
standards as fluid catalytic cracking units. Other differences from the 
existing standards are that the proposed PM and SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limits are more stringent and the NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit is a 
new requirement. Unlike the existing standards, the proposed standards 
include no opacity limit because the opacity limit was intended to 
ensure compliance with the PM limit and because we are now proposing 
that sources use direct PM monitoring or parameter monitoring to ensure 
compliance with the PM limit.
    The proposed PM emission limit for new fluid catalytic cracking 
units and new fluid coking units is 0.5 kilogram (kg) per Megagram (kg/
Mg) (0.5 pound (lb)/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the regenerator. 
Initial compliance with this emission limit would be determined using 
Method 5 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Procedures for computing the 
PM emission rate using the total PM concentration, effluent gas flow 
rate, and coke burn-off rate would be the same as in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, as amended. To demonstrate ongoing compliance, an owner or 
operator must either monitor PM emission control device operating 
parameters or use a PM continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If 
operating parameters will be used to demonstrate ongoing compliance, 
the owner or operator must monitor the same parameters during the 
initial performance test, and develop operating parameter limits for 
the applicable parameters. The operating limits must be based on the 
lowest hourly average values for the applicable parameters measured 
over the three test runs. The owner or operator must also conduct 
additional performance tests at least once every 24 months to verify 
compliance with the PM emission limit and confirm or reestablish 
operating limits. If ongoing compliance will be demonstrated using a PM 
CEMS, the CEMS must meet the conditions in Performance Specification 
11. Thus, separate performance tests are not required because the 
equivalent of an initial performance test will be part of the initial 
correlation test for the PM CEMS, and periodic response correlation 
audits (every 5 years) will

[[Page 27181]]

include the equivalent of performance tests. We are co-proposing 
requiring reconstructed and modified fluid catalytic cracking units to 
meet the current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, and we are 
requesting comments on the effects of the proposed PM standard on 
modified or reconstructed facilities and if it is appropriate to adopt 
a different standard for these sources.
    The proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for new fluid catalytic 
cracking units and new fluid coking units are to maintain 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to the atmosphere less than or equal to 50 
ppmv on a 7-day rolling average basis, and less than or equal to 25 
ppmv on a 365-day rolling average basis (both limits corrected to 0 
percent moisture and 0 percent excess air). Initial compliance with the 
proposed 50 ppmv SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit would be demonstrated by 
conducting a performance evaluation of the SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS in 
accordance with Performance Specification 2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 
part 60, with Method 6, 6A, or 6C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as the 
reference method. Ongoing compliance with both proposed SO<INF>2</INF> 
emission limits would be determined using the CEMS to measure 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions as discharged to the atmosphere, averaged over 
the 7-day and 365-day averaging periods. Rolling average concentrations 
would be calculated once per day using the applicable number of daily 
average values. We are co-proposing requiring reconstructed and 
modified fluid catalytic cracking units to meet the current standards 
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, and we are requesting comments on the 
effects of the proposed SO<INF>2</INF> standard on modified or 
reconstructed facilities.
    The proposed NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for new fluid catalytic 
cracking units and new fluid coking units are 80 ppmv on a 7-day 
rolling average basis (dry at 0 percent excess air). Initial compliance 
with the 80 ppmv emission limit would be demonstrated by conducting a 
performance evaluation of the CEMS in accordance with Performance 
Specification 2 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, with Method 7 of 40 
CFR part 60, subpart A as the Reference Method. Ongoing compliance with 
this emission limit would be determined using the CEMS to measure 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as discharged to the atmosphere, averaged over 
7-day periods. We are also co-proposing no new standards for 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from fluid coking units and for modified or 
reconstructed fluid catalytic cracking units.
    The proposed CO emission limit for new fluid catalytic cracking 
units and new fluid coking units is 500 ppmv (1-hour average, dry at 0 
percent excess air). Initial compliance with this emission limit would 
be demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation for the CEMS in 
accordance with Performance Specification 4 in appendix B to 40 CFR 
part 60, with Method 10 or 10A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as the 
Reference Method. For Method 10, the integrated sampling technique is 
to be used. Ongoing compliance with this emission limit would be 
determined on an hourly basis using the CEMS to measure CO emissions as 
discharged to the atmosphere. An exemption from monitoring may be 
requested if the owner or operator can demonstrate that average CO 
emissions are less than 50 ppmv (dry basis). This limit and the 
compliance procedures are the same as in the existing NSPS for fluid 
catalytic cracking units.

C. What are the proposed requirements for new sulfur recovery plants 
(SRP) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?

    The proposed standards include SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for 
all SRP. The proposed emission limit for new SRP greater than 20 LTD is 
250 ppmv or less of combined SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur 
compounds as discharged to the atmosphere (reported as SO<INF>2</INF> 
on a dry basis at 0 percent excess air). For a SRP with a capacity of 
20 LTD or less, the proposed standard is mass emissions of combined 
SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur compounds equal to 1 weight percent 
or less of sulfur recovered. In addition, the proposed standards 
include an H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limit of 10 ppmv or less (dry 
basis at 0 percent excess air) for all new SRP. Both SO<INF>2</INF> and 
H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limits would be determined hourly on a 12-
hour rolling average basis. As in the amendments to subpart J, the 
proposed definition of a SRP would include the sulfur pit.
    Initial compliance with the emission limit for combined 
SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur compounds is demonstrated by 
conducting a performance evaluation for the SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS in 
accordance with Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to 40 CFR 
part 60, with Method 6, 6A, or 6C in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as the 
Reference Method to determine the SO<INF>2</INF> concentration, and 
Method 15 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as the Reference Method to 
determine the SO<INF>2</INF>-equivalent concentration of the reduced 
sulfur compounds. The results of the test using Method 15 are also used 
to demonstrate initial compliance with the H<INF>2</INF>S concentration 
limit. Initial compliance with the mass sulfur emission limit is 
demonstrated by conducting a performance test as described above to 
determine the combined SO<INF>2</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>-equivalent 
concentration, and then converting that concentration to a mass 
fraction using the volumetric flow rate of effluent gas and the mass 
rate of sulfur recovery during the performance test.
    Ongoing compliance with the combined SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced 
sulfur compounds emission limit would be determined using a CEMS that 
uses an air or O<INF>2</INF> dilution and oxidation system to convert 
the reduced sulfur to SO<INF>2</INF> and then measures the total 
resultant SO<INF>2</INF> concentration. An O<INF>2</INF> monitor would 
also be required for converting the measured combined SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration to the concentration at 0 percent O<INF>2</INF>. Ongoing 
compliance with the mass sulfur emission limit would be determined 
using the same types of CEMS. A flow monitor that continuously monitors 
the volumetric flow rate of gases released to the atmosphere would be 
required so that the mass emitted can be calculated. The hourly sulfur 
production rates would also have to be tracked so that mass fraction 
emitted can be calculated and compared with the proposed 1 percent 
emission limit.
    Ongoing compliance with the H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limit 
would be determined using either an H<INF>2</INF>S CEMS or, if the SRP 
is equipped with an oxidation control system or followed by 
incineration, by continuous monitoring of the operating temperature and 
O<INF>2</INF> concentration. Minimum operating limits for the operating 
temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentration would be established during 
the performance test.

D. What are the proposed requirements for new process heaters and other 
fuel gas combustion devices (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?

    The proposed standards for new process heaters include both 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits. Because of this, the 
fuel gas combustion units as defined in the existing subpart J 
standards were divided into two separate affected sources: ``process 
heaters'' and ``other fuel gas combustion devices.'' The primary sulfur 
oxides emission limit for new process heaters and other fuel gas 
combustion devices is 20 ppmv or less SO<INF>2</INF> (dry at 0 percent 
excess air) on a 3-hour rolling average basis and 8 ppmv or less on a 
365-day rolling average basis. For process heaters that use only fuel 
gas and other fuel gas combustion devices, we are proposing an 
alternative concentration limit of 160 ppmv or less H<INF>2</INF>S or 
total reduced sulfur (TRS) in the fuel gas on a 3-hour rolling average 
basis (as in the existing NSPS) and 60 ppmv or less H<INF>2</INF>S or 
TRS in the fuel gas on a

[[Page 27182]]

365-day rolling averaging basis. The TRS concentration limit is 
required for new fuel gas combustion devices that combust fuel gas 
generated from coking units (as either the only fuel or as a mixture of 
fuel gases from other units). On the other hand, new fuel gas 
combustion devices that do not combust fuel gas generated from coking 
units are required to monitor H<INF>2</INF>S concentrations. Compliance 
would be demonstrated either by measuring H<INF>2</INF>S (or TRS) in 
the fuel gas or by measuring SO<INF>2</INF> in the exhaust gas.
    Initial compliance with the 20 ppmv SO<INF>2</INF> limit or the 160 
ppmv H<INF>2</INF>S or TRS concentration limits would be demonstrated 
by conducting a performance evaluation for the CEMS. The performance 
evaluation for an SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS would be conducted in accordance 
with Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, with 
Method 6, 6A, or 6C as the Reference Method. The performance evaluation 
for an H<INF>2</INF>S CEMS would be conducted in accordance with 
Performance Specification 7 in 40 CFR part 60, with Method 11, 15, 15A, 
or 16 as the Reference Method. The performance evaluation for a TRS 
CEMS would be conducted in accordance with Performance Specification 7 
in 40 CFR part 60, with Method 16 as the Reference Method. Ongoing 
compliance with the proposed sulfur oxides emission limits would be 
determined using the applicable CEMS to measure either H<INF>2</INF>S 
or TRS in the fuel gas being used for combustion or SO<INF>2</INF> in 
the exhaust gas to the atmosphere, averaged over the 3-hour and 365-day 
averaging periods.
    Similar to proposed clarifications for 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, 
we are proposing a definition of ``fuel gas'' that includes exemptions 
for vapors collected and combusted in an air pollution control device 
installed to comply with specified wastewater or marine vessel loading 
provisions. Also similar to subpart J, we are proposing to exempt from 
continuous monitoring fuel gas streams exempt under 40 CFR 60.102a(i) 
and fuel gas streams that are inherently low in sulfur. We are also 
proposing to streamline the process for an owner or operator to 
demonstrate that a fuel gas stream not explicitly exempted from 
continuous monitoring is inherently low sulfur.
    The proposed NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for new process heaters 
is 80 ppmv on a 7-day rolling average basis (dry at 0 percent excess 
air). Initial compliance with the 80 ppmv emission limit would be 
demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation of the CEMS in 
accordance with Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to 40 CFR 
part 60, with Method 7 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A as the Reference 
Method. Ongoing compliance with this emission limit would be determined 
using the CEMS to measure NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as discharged to the 
atmosphere, averaged over 7-day periods.

E. What are the proposed work practice and equipment standards (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Ja)?

    Three work practice standards are proposed to reduce both VOC and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from flares, start-up/shutdown/malfunction 
events, and delayed coker units. First, the proposed rule requires all 
new fuel gas producing units at a refinery to be designed and operated 
in such a way that the fuel gas produced by the new process units does 
not routinely discharge to a flare. Second, a requirement for a start-
up, shutdown and malfunction plan that includes procedures to minimize 
discharges either directly to the atmosphere or to the flare gas system 
during the planned startup or shutdown of these units, procedures to 
minimize emissions during malfunctions of the amine treatment system or 
sulfur recovery plant, and procedures for conducting a root-cause 
analysis of an emissions limit exceedance or process start-up, 
shutdown, upset, or malfunction that causes a discharge into the 
atmosphere, either directly or indirectly, from any refinery process 
unit subject to the provisions of this subpart in excess of 500 lb per 
day (lb/d) of SO<INF>2</INF>. Third, the proposed rule would require 
delayed coking units to depressure to 5 lbs per square inch gauge 
(psig) during reactor vessel depressuring and vent the exhaust gases to 
the fuel gas system. For new, reconstructed, or modified units, we are 
co-proposing to require only the last of these work practice standards, 
the requirement to depressure coking units to the flare.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments (40 CFR part 60, subpart J)

    Because we are proposing a new subpart to 40 CFR part 60 for 
affected sources at petroleum refineries beginning construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after May 14, 2007, our proposed 
amendments to subpart J of 40 CFR part 60 would impact only those 
affected sources that are already subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. 
The proposed amendments to this subpart include clarifications of the 
current requirements and technical corrections to the regulatory 
language. These changes to subpart J of 40 CFR part 60 are discussed 
below.

A. How is EPA proposing to change requirements for refinery fuel gas?

    As we conducted our review of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, we found 
that the definition of ``fuel gas'' has been broadly interpreted by 
States and EPA Regions over the last 30 years. Because of the 
increasing complexity of petroleum refineries, this interpretation may 
be more inclusive than originally intended in the 1970s. We agree that 
the interpretation ensures that all streams that could be considered 
fuel gas and have the potential for high-sulfur emissions are included 
in the regulatory requirements, but we recognize that this broad 
definition has resulted in application of the fuel gas concentration 
limits to fuel gas streams and combustion devices that were not 
originally considered in the standards development process. 
Furthermore, had these extended applications been considered in the 
standards development process, some of the applications would have been 
found to be either technically or economically infeasible. The existing 
requirements in subpart J of 40 CFR part 60 do recognize and limit the 
applicability of the fuel gas concentration limits to certain gas 
streams. For example, 40 CFR 60.101(d) excludes gases generated by 
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fluid coking burners 
from the definition of ``fuel gas.'' These gases were excluded because 
the sulfur in the gases generated by the catalytic cracking unit 
catalyst regenerators and fluid coking burners is in the form of sulfur 
oxides rather than H<INF>2</INF>S. As such, these gases are not 
amenable to amine treatment, which was the primary treatment technique 
on which the fuel gas concentration limits were based. In addition, 40 
CFR 60.104(a)(1) exempts process upset gases or fuel gas released to 
the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or emergency malfunctions 
from the fuel gas H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limits. In this case, it 
was determined that requiring treatment of these gases was either 
technically or economically infeasible. Therefore, it is entirely in 
keeping with the regulatory intent of the NSPS and the specific 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J to exclude or exempt sources 
based on technical and economic considerations.
    Since the development of the refinery fuel gas concentration limits 
in the early 1970s, EPA has developed numerous other standards in which 
incineration was promoted as a best air pollution management practice 
for certain organic vapors which had traditionally been

[[Page 27183]]

released directly to the atmosphere. These gas streams were never 
considered in the development of the 40 CFR part 60, subpart J 
standards because they were not directed to a fuel gas combustion 
device at the time. As such, the technical and economical feasibility 
of meeting the fuel gas concentration limits was not specifically 
evaluated for these gas streams at that time. During our review, we 
evaluated the application of the fuel gas concentration limits to a 
variety of process gas streams that did not exist in the early 1970s. 
We concluded that most of these gas streams are amenable to amine 
treatment and that it is both technically and economically feasible to 
treat those gas streams to meet the fuel gas concentration limits. 
However, we identified a few specific streams that are not readily 
amenable to amine treatment (or direct diversion to the SRP) and/or are 
not cost-effective to amine treatment due to the typically low (but 
potentially variable) H<INF>2</INF>S content and the typical location 
of these gas streams in relationship to the primary processing units at 
the refinery.
    As a result of this evaluation, we are proposing to change the 
requirements of the fuel gas concentration limits in keeping with a 
broad definition of fuel gas, but recognizing the technical and 
economic issues related to certain fuel gas streams or combustion 
devices. Specifically, we are proposing to exempt from the definition 
of ``fuel gas'' vapors that are collected and combusted in an air 
pollution control device installed to comply with the Standards of 
Performance for VOC Emissions From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater 
Systems (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ), National Emission Standards for 
Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF), the National 
Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart Y), or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC), 
specifically either 40 CFR 63.647 or 40 CFR 63.651. The wastewater and 
marine vessel loading sources subject to these specific regulations are 
often located at the edge of the refinery property, if not off-site, 
and compliance with the regulations is generally demonstrated by 
capturing and combusting the organic vapors. The collected gases 
generally have low sulfur content, but variability in the products 
being loaded and in wastewater treatment process operations may result 
in the collected gases exceeding the current fuel gas concentration 
limits for short periods of time. Due to the typical low sulfur content 
of these gases, they are not generally suitable for amine treatment; 
due to the presence of O<INF>2</INF> in these collected gases, they 
cannot be routed to the fuel gas system. Furthermore, these sources are 
typically far from amine treatment or the SRP, and it is not 
economically reasonable to propose control beyond the existing 
regulations for these sources (e.g., requiring these streams to be 
routed to sulfur treatment rather than being combusted). Therefore, we 
are proposing to amend the definition of ``fuel gas'' in 40 CFR 
60.101(d) to exclude from the fuel gas concentration limits the vapors 
collected and combusted in air pollution control devices to comply with 
the specified regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ, 40 CFR part 
61, subpart FF, or 40 CFR part 63, subparts Y or CC. The thermal 
combustion control devices would still be considered affected fuel gas 
combustion devices and all auxiliary fuel fired to these devices would 
be subject to the fuel gas concentration limit; however, continuous 
monitoring would not be required for the collected vapors that are 
being incinerated because these gases would not be considered fuel 
gases under the proposed definition of ``fuel gas'' in subpart J.
    We are also proposing to clarify that monitoring is not required 
for fuel gas streams that are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR 
60.104(a)(1). These streams include process upset gases or fuel gases 
that are released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or 
other emergency malfunctions. To clarify this point, the proposed 
introductory text for 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv) specifies that continuous 
monitoring is not required for streams that are exempt from 40 CFR 
60.104(a)(1). We are also proposing to add the phrase ``for fuel gas 
combustion devices subject to 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1)'' after ``Instead of 
the SO<INF>2</INF> monitor in paragraph (a)(3) of this section'' in 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4). This proposed amendment is more consistent with the 
language in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3). Given our intent not to require fuel 
gas monitoring of process upset gases, combustion devices such as 
emergency flares would likely not require monitoring unless sources 
other than process upset gases are burned, such as routine vents or 
sweep gas. We are aware of issues related to the identification and 
exemption of these units from fuel gas monitoring. We are requesting 
comment on the need to provide specific language exempting these units, 
and on appropriate methods for identifying emergency flares and 
verifying on an ongoing basis that no flaring of nonexempt gases is 
occurring.
    In addition to the exemptions described in the previous paragraphs, 
we are proposing to exempt certain fuel gas streams from all monitoring 
requirements. These streams would still be subject to the fuel gas 
concentration limits, but since we do not expect that these streams 
would exceed this limit (except in the case of a process upset or 
malfunction, in which case the fuel gases would be exempt from meeting 
the limit), continuous monitoring of these streams is unnecessary. We 
have divided these streams into four overall categories, as specified 
in proposed 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D). The first category 
includes pilot gas flames, which are fairly insignificant sources. 
Although previous determinations effectively excluded these gases from 
the requirements of the rule, we believe it is good air pollution 
control practice to fire pilot lights with natural gas or treated fuel 
gas. However, even when considering the pilot flame as part of the fuel 
gas combustion device, the potential for sulfur oxide emissions from 
these sources is insignificant and it is not cost-effective to require 
continuous monitoring of these gas streams. Therefore, we are changing 
in the monitoring requirements that monitoring of pilot flame fuel gas 
is not required.
    The second category includes gas streams that meet commercial-grade 
product specifications with a sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less. 
Placing a limit on the sulfur content of the products that we are 
proposing to exempt from monitoring ensures that only low-sulfur 
products are excluded. The 30 ppmv limit for commercial-grade gas 
products was selected because it provides a sufficient margin of safety 
to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed annual average 
H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limit of 60 ppmv regardless of normal 
fluctuations in the composition of commercial grade products.
    We are requesting comment on the appropriateness of an additional 
exemption for gas streams that were generated from certain commercial-
grade liquid products (e.g., displaced vapors from a storage tank or 
loading rack for gasoline or diesel fuel). The most straightforward 
approach would be to exempt gas streams associated with commercial 
liquid products that contain sulfur below some specified weight percent 
level. For example, we expect that most of the sulfur-containing 
compounds in gasoline meeting the Tier 2 sulfur standards or in diesel 
fuel

[[Page 27184]]

meeting the low-sulfur diesel fuel standards have high molecular 
weights and low vapor pressures such that gas streams in equilibrium 
with them would have sulfur contents below the proposed 30 ppmv level. 
To confirm this assumption, we are asking for data on the typical 
concentrations and vapor pressures of the most prevalent mercaptans, 
thiophenes, and other sulfur-containing compounds in these or other 
commercial liquid products.
    We would use these data to calculate the corresponding vapor phase 
concentrations of gas streams in equilibrium with the liquid products 
using Raoult's Law. Given the extremely low concentrations of the 
sulfur-containing compounds in the liquid products, we are also seeking 
comment on whether Raoult's Law gives a realistic estimate of their 
vapor phase partial pressures. We are also interested in any test data 
to support this approach, and we are interested in any other approaches 
to develop an exemption for gas streams associated with commercial-
grade liquid products.
    The third category includes fuel gases produced by process units 
that are intolerant of sulfur contamination. There are a few process 
units within a refinery whose operation is dependent on keeping the 
sulfur content low. If there is too much sulfur in the gas streams 
entering these units, the process units could malfunction. 
Specifically, the methane reforming unit in the hydrogen plant, the 
catalytic reforming unit, and the isomerization unit are intolerant of 
sulfur in the process streams; therefore, these streams are treated to 
remove sulfur prior to processing in these units. Fuel gases 
subsequently formed in these process units are low in sulfur because 
the process feedstocks are necessarily low in sulfur. As such, we find 
that requiring continuous monitoring of the H<INF>2</INF>S content in 
these gas streams or requiring each individual refinery to develop and 
implement an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) is unnecessary and 
creates needless obstacles to using the produced fuel gas directly in 
the heaters associated with these process units. We are asking for 
comment on whether fuel gas is generated from any other process units 
that are intolerant of sulfur. Comments recommending the exemption of 
fuel gas streams from other units should identify the problems sulfur 
cause in the unit, procedures used to reduce sulfur in the gas stream 
before it is processed in the unit, and the expected sulfur content of 
the outlet fuel gas stream.
    For all of the above low-sulfur streams that an owner or operator 
determines are exempt from all monitoring requirements, the owner or 
operator must document which of the exemptions applies to each stream. 
If the refinery operations associated with an exempt stream change, the 
owner or operator must document the change and determine whether the 
stream continues to be exempt. If the refinery operations or the 
composition of an exempt stream change in such a way that the stream is 
no longer exempt from monitoring, the owner or operator must begin 
continuous monitoring within 15 days after the change occurs.
    In addition, we are proposing a standardized, streamlined procedure 
to exempt from continuous monitoring streams that an owner or operator 
can demonstrate are inherently low-sulfur (i.e., consistently 5 ppmv or 
less H<INF>2</INF>S) following the procedures specified in proposed 40 
CFR 60.105(b). The information that an owner or operator must provide 
to EPA is similar to the information and items needed to apply for an 
AMP, as described in the EPA document ``Alternative Monitoring Plan for 
NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas.'' In general, once an AMP is approved 
for an affected source, the owner or operator must continue to monitor 
the stream, although a methodology other than a continuous monitor may 
be used. For this specific exemption, however, once an application to 
demonstrate that a stream is inherently low-sulfur is approved by EPA, 
that stream is exempt from monitoring until there is a change in the 
refinery operation that affects the stream or the stream composition 
changes. If the sulfur content of the stream changes but is still 
within the range of concentrations included in the original 
application, the owner or operator will conduct H<INF>2</INF>S testing 
on a grab sample as proof and record the results of the test. If the 
sulfur content of the stream changes such that the sulfur concentration 
is outside the range provided in the original application, the owner or 
operator must submit a new application that must be approved in order 
for the stream to continue to be exempt from continuous monitoring. If 
a new application is not submitted, the owner or operator must begin 
continuous monitoring within 15 days.

B. How is EPA proposing to amend definitions?

    We are proposing to amend the definition of ``Claus sulfur recovery 
plant'' in 40 CFR 60.101(i). These changes would clarify that the SRP 
may consist of multiple units, and the types of units that are part of 
a SRP would be listed within the definition. Note that sulfur pits 
would be included as one of the units, which is consistent with the 
Agency's current interpretation of the existing definition.
    In conjunction with this amendment, we are also proposing to amend 
the definitions of ``oxidation control system'' and ``reduction control 
system'' in 40 CFR 60.101(j) and 40 CFR 60.101(k), respectively. The 
amended definitions would specify that the oxidized or reduced sulfur 
is recycled to the beginning of a sulfur recovery train within the SRP 
and are consistent with the proposed definitions in 40 CFR 60.101a of 
subpart Ja. This clarification would ensure that thermal oxidizers that 
convert the sulfur to SO<INF>2</INF> but do not recycle and recover the 
oxidized sulfur are not considered oxidation control systems.

C. How is EPA proposing to revise the coke burn-off equation?

    The current equation for calculating coke burn-off rate in 40 CFR 
60.106(b)(3) assumes that each fluid catalytic cracking unit is using 
air with 21 percent O<INF>2</INF>. However, there are some fluid 
catalytic cracking units that use O<INF>2</INF>-enriched air, and for 
these units, the current equation is not completely accurate. Equation 
1 in 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(4)(i) of the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking 
Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UUU) includes an additional term to account for the 
use of an O<INF>2</INF>-enriched air stream. For accuracy in the 
calculation of the coke burn-off rate, we are proposing to revise the 
coke burn-off rate equation in 40 CFR 60.106(b)(3) to be consistent 
with the equation in 40 CFR 63.1564(b)(4)(i). This revision also 
includes changing the constant values and the units of the resulting 
coke burn-off rate from Megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) and tons per hour 
(tons/hr) to kilograms per hour (kg/hr) and pounds per hour (lb/hr).

D. What miscellaneous corrections are being proposed?

    See Table 1 of this preamble for the miscellaneous technical 
corrections not previously described in this preamble that we are 
proposing throughout 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.

[[Page 27185]]



  Table 1.--Proposed Technical Corrections to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Proposed technical correction and
              Section                              reason
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.100............................  Replace instances of ``construction
                                     or modification'' with
                                     ``construction, reconstruction, or
                                     modification.''
60.100(b).........................  Replace ``except Claus plants of 20
                                     long tons per day (LTD) or less''
                                     with ``except Claus plants with a
                                     design capacity of 20 long tons per
                                     day (LTD) or less'' to clarify that
                                     the size cutoff is based upon
                                     design capacity and sulfur content
                                     in the inlet stream rather than the
                                     amount of sulfur produced.
60.100(b).........................  Insert ending date for applicability
                                     of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J;
                                     sources beginning construction,
                                     reconstruction, or modification
                                     after this date will be subject to
                                     40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja.
60.101............................  Rearrange definitions alphabetically
                                     for ease in locating a specific
                                     definition.
60.102(b).........................  Replace ``g/MJ'' with ``grams per
                                     Gigajoule (g/GJ)'' to correct
                                     units.
60.104(b)(1)......................  Replace ``50 ppm by volume (vppm)''
                                     with ``50 ppm by volume (ppmv)''
                                     for consistency in unit definition.
60.104(b)(2)......................  Add ``to reduce SO2 emissions'' to
                                     the end of the phrase ``Without the
                                     use of an add-on control device''
                                     at the beginning of the paragraph
                                     to clarify the type of control
                                     device to which this paragraph
                                     refers.
60.105(a)(3)......................  Add ``either'' before ``an
                                     instrument for continuously
                                     monitoring'' and replace ``except
                                     where an H2S monitor is installed
                                     under paragraph (a)(4)'' with ``or
                                     monitoring as provided in paragraph
                                     (a)(4)'' to more accurately refer
                                     to the requirements of Sec.
                                     60.105(a)(4) and clarify that there
                                     is a choice of monitoring
                                     requirements.
60.105(a)(3)(iv)..................  Replace ``accurately represents the
                                     SO2 emissions'' with ``accurately
                                     represents the SO2 emissions'' to
                                     correct a typographical error.
60.105(a)(4)......................  Replace ``In place'' with
                                     ``Instead'' at the beginning of
                                     this paragraph to clarify that
                                     there is a choice of monitoring
                                     requirements.
60.105(a)(8)......................  Replace ``seeks to comply with Sec.
                                      60.104(b)(1)'' with ``seeks to
                                     comply specifically with the 90
                                     percent reduction option under Sec.
                                       60.104(b)(1)'' to clearly
                                     identify the emission limit option
                                     to which the monitoring requirement
                                     in this paragraph refers.
60.105(a)(8)(i)...................  Change ``shall be set 125 percent''
                                     to ``shall be set at 125 percent''
                                     to correct a grammatical error.
60.106(e)(2)......................  Replace the incorrect reference to
                                     40 CFR 60.105(a)(1) with a correct
                                     reference to 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1).
60.107(c)(1)(i)...................  Replace both occurrences of ``50
                                     vppm'' with ``50 ppmv'' for
                                     consistency in unit definition.
60.107(f).........................  Redesignate current 40 CFR 60.107(e)
                                     as 40 CFR 60.107(f) to allow space
                                     for a new paragraph (e).
60.107(g).........................  Redesignate current 40 CFR 60.107(f)
                                     as 40 CFR 60.107(g) to allow space
                                     for a new paragraph (e).
60.108(e).........................  Replace the incorrect reference to
                                     40 CFR 60.107(e) with a correct
                                     reference to 40 CFR 60.107(f).
60.109(b)(2)......................  Add a reference to 40 CFR
                                     60.106(e)(3) to specify that
                                     determining whether a fuel gas
                                     stream is low-sulfur may not be
                                     delegated to States.
60.109(b)(3)......................  Redesignate current 40 CFR
                                     60.109(b)(2) as 40 CFR 60.109(b)(3)
                                     to allow space for a new paragraph
                                     (b)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Rationale for the Proposed Standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)

A. What is the performance of control technologies for fluid catalytic 
cracking units?

1. PM Control Technologies
    Filterable PM emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units are 
predominately fine catalyst particles generated from the mechanical 
grinding of catalyst particles as the catalyst is continuously 
recirculated between the fluid catalytic cracking unit and the catalyst 
regenerator. Control of PM emissions from fluid catalytic cracking 
units relies on the use of post-combustion controls to remove solid 
particles from the flue gases. Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and 
wet scrubbers are the predominant technologies used to control PM from 
fluid catalytic cracking units. Either of these PM control technologies 
can be designed to achieve overall PM collection efficiencies in excess 
of 95 percent.
    Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). An ESP operates by imparting an 
electrical charge to incoming particles, and then attracting the 
particles to oppositely charged metal plates for collection. 
Periodically, the particles collected on the plates are dislodged in 
sheets or agglomerates (by rapping the plates) and fall into a 
collection hopper. The normal PM control efficiency range for an ESP is 
between 90 and 99+ percent. One of the major advantages of an ESP is 
that it operates with essentially little pressure drop in the gas 
stream. They are also capable of handling high temperature conditions.
    Wet Scrubbers. Wet scrubbers use a water spray to coat and 
agglomerate particles entrained in the flue gas. To improve wetting of 
fine particulates, either enhanced spray nozzles or venturi 
acceleration is used. The wetted particles are then removed from the 
flue gas through centrifugal separation. Wet scrubbers have similar 
collection efficiencies as dry ESP (90 to 98 percent), but they are 
also effective in removing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Wet scrubbers may 
also be more effective in controlling condensable PM as they often use 
water quench and thereby operate at lower temperatures than ESP used to 
control fluid catalytic cracking units. Wet scrubbers are generally 
more costly to operate than ESP due to higher pressure drops across the 
control device and because of water treatment and disposal costs. 
However, they become economically viable if significant SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions reductions are also needed.
    Fabric Filters. A fabric filter collects PM in the flue gases by 
passing the gases through a porous fabric material. The buildup of 
solid particles on the fabric surface forms a thin, porous layer of 
solids, which further acts as a filtration medium. Gases pass through 
this cake/fabric filter, and all but the finest-sized particles are 
trapped on the cake surface. Collection efficiencies of fabric filters 
can be as high as 99.99 percent. Fabric filters tend to be more 
efficient for fine particles (those less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 
than ESP or wet scrubbers.
    The primary concern with fabric filters are maintenance 
requirements of the baghouses given the long run times of typical fluid 
catalytic cracking units. Small process upsets (e.g., pressure changes) 
in the fluid catalytic cracking unit and regenerator system can send 
high concentrations of particles to the control system. These particles 
would likely blind the filter bags, causing a shut-down of the unit to 
replace the filter bags. Wet scrubbers and ESP can more easily 
accommodate and control high concentrations of particles.
2. SO<INF>2</INF> Control Technologies
    During combustion, sulfur compounds present in the deposited coke 
are predominately oxidized to gaseous SO<INF>2</INF>. One approach to 
controlling SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from catalytic cracking units is 
to limit the maximum sulfur content in the feedstock to the

[[Page 27186]]

catalytic cracking unit. This can be accomplished by processing crude 
oil that naturally contains low amounts of sulfur or a feedstock that 
has been pre-treated to remove sulfur (i.e., hydrotreatment or 
hydrodesulfurization). A second approach is to use a post-combustion 
control technology that removes SO<INF>2</INF> from the flue gases. 
These technologies rely on either absorption or adsorption processes 
that react SO<INF>2</INF> with lime, limestone, or another alkaline 
material to form an aqueous or solid sulfur by-product. A third 
approach is the use of catalyst additives, which capture sulfur oxides 
in the regenerator and return them to the fluid catalytic cracking 
reactor where they are transformed to H<INF>2</INF>S that is ultimately 
exhausted to the SRP.
    Feedstock Selection or Pre-Treatment. The SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from the fluid catalytic cracking unit are directly related to the 
amount of sulfur deposited on the catalyst particles in the riser and 
reactor section of the unit. The amount of sulfur deposited on the 
catalyst is a function of both the amount of sulfur in the feedstocks 
and the relative composition of the sulfur-containing compounds in the 
feedstocks (mercaptans, thiosulfates). As the concentration of sulfur 
in the feedstocks is reduced, the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the 
regenerator portion of the unit are also reduced. Therefore, if a 
refinery processes ``sweet'' crude (oil naturally low in sulfur) or if 
a refinery removes sulfur from the feedstocks of the fluid catalytic 
cracking unit, the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the catalyst 
regenerator will be lower than from refineries that process feedstocks 
that have higher sulfur content. At a petroleum refinery, the primary 
means of removing sulfur compounds in the liquid feedstocks is 
catalytic hydrotreatment. Hydrotreatment typically reduces the sulfur 
content in process streams to between 20 and 1,000 parts per million by 
weight.
    Alkali Wet Scrubbing. The SO<INF>2</INF> in a flue gas can be 
removed by reacting the sulfur compounds with a solution of water and 
an alkaline chemical to form insoluble salts that are removed in the 
scrubber effluent. Wet scrubbing processes used to control 
SO<INF>2</INF> are generally termed flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) 
processes. The normal SO<INF>2</INF> control efficiency range for 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers is 80 percent to 90 percent for low efficiency 
scrubbers and 90 percent to 99 percent for high efficiency scrubbers. 
In recent fluid catalytic cracking unit applications, control 
guarantees of 25 ppmv SO<INF>2</INF> are commonly provided by FGD 
suppliers.
    Spray Dryer Adsorption. An alternative to using wet scrubbers is to 
use spray dryer adsorber (SDA) technology. A SDA operates by the same 
principle as alkali wet scrubbing, except that instead of a bulk liquid 
(as in wet scrubbing) the flue gas containing SO<INF>2</INF> is 
contacted with fine spray droplets of hydrated lime slurry in a spray 
dryer vessel. This vessel is located downstream of the air heater 
outlet where the gas temperatures are in the range of 120 [deg]C to 180 
[deg]C (250 [deg]F to 350 [deg]F). The SO<INF>2</INF> is absorbed in 
the slurry and reacts with the hydrated lime reagent to form solid 
calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate. The water is evaporated by the hot 
flue gases and forms dry, solid particles containing the reacted 
sulfur. Most of the SO<INF>2</INF> removal occurs in the spray dryer 
vessel itself, although some additional SO<INF>2</INF> capture has also 
been observed in downstream particulate collection devices. The 
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiencies of new lime spray dryer systems are 
generally greater than 90 percent. Only one refinery has ever used an 
SDA to control SO<INF>2</INF> from its fluid catalytic cracking unit; 
this system has since been removed in favor of feedstock 
hydrotreatment.
    Catalyst Additives. One common method used by refineries to reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the fluid catalytic cracking unit is the 
use of catalyst additives (typically various types of metal oxides). 
The metal oxide reacts with some of the SO<INF>3</INF> in the catalyst 
regenerator to form a metal sulfate. The metal sulfate is then returned 
to the cracking unit where the sulfur is converted to a metal sulfide 
and then to H<INF>2</INF>S and the original metal oxide. The 
H<INF>2</INF>S is subsequently recovered in the SRP, and the metal 
oxide returns to the catalyst regenerator to repeat the process. The 
control efficiency of catalyst additives is difficult to assess, but is 
generally around 50 percent (ranging from 20 to 70 percent, depending 
on the application).
3. NO<INF>X</INF> Control Technologies
    NO<INF>X</INF> are formed in a catalyst regenerator (and downstream 
CO boiler, if present) by the oxidation of molecular nitrogen 
(N<INF>2</INF>) in the combustion air and any nitrogen compounds 
contained in the fuel (i.e., thermal NO<INF>X</INF> and fuel 
NO<INF>X</INF>). The formation of NO<INF>X</INF> from nitrogen in the 
combustion air is dependent on two conditions occurring simultaneously 
in the unit's combustion zone: high temperature and an excess of 
combustion air. Under these conditions, significant quantities of 
NO<INF>X</INF> are formed, regardless of the fuel type burned. There 
are several NO<INF>X</INF> emission control strategies that can be 
considered combustion controls (e.g., low NO<INF>X</INF> burners or 
flue gas recirculation) that reduce the amounts of NO<INF>X</INF> 
formed during combustion. These control technologies are primarily 
applicable to incomplete combustion fluid catalytic cracking units 
controlled by CO boilers. As there is limited or no direct flame in the 
catalyst regenerator during normal operations, these control strategies 
may be limited for complete combustion fluid catalytic cracking units. 
Most post-combustion control technologies involve converting the 
NO<INF>X</INF> in the flue gas to N<INF>2</INF> and water using either 
a process that requires a catalyst (called selective catalytic 
reduction (SCR)) or a process that does not use a catalyst (called 
selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR)). A recently developed post-
combustion technology (LoTOx<SUP>TM</SUP>) uses ozone to oxidize 
NO<INF>X</INF> to nitric pentoxide, which is water soluble and easily 
removed in a water scrubber.
    NOX Combustion Controls. Flue gas recirculation (FGR) uses flue gas 
as an inert material to reduce flame temperatures. In a typical FGR 
system, flue gas is collected from the heater or stack and returned to 
the burner via a duct and blower. The addition of flue gas with the 
combustion air reduces the O<INF>2</INF> content of the inlet air 
stream to the burner. The lower O<INF>2</INF> level in the combustion 
zone reduces flame temperatures which in turn reduces NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions. The normal NO<INF>X</INF> control efficiency range for FGR 
is 30 percent to 50 percent. When coupled with low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners (LNB), the control efficiency increases to 50-72 percent.
    LNB technology utilizes advanced burner design to reduce 
NO<INF>X</INF> formation through the restriction of O<INF>2</INF>, 
flame temperature, and/or residence time. The two general types of LNB 
are staged fuel and staged air burners. Staged fuel LNB are 
particularly well suited for boilers and process heaters burning 
process and natural gas which generate higher thermal NO<INF>X</INF>. 
The estimated NO<INF>X</INF> control efficiency for LNB when applied to 
petroleum refining fuel burning equipment is generally around 40 
percent.
    One NO<INF>X</INF> combustion control technique that is applicable 
to complete combustion fluid catalytic cracking units is the use of 
catalyst additives and/or combustion promoters. The control efficiency 
of these additives varies from 10 to 50 percent.
    Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology. The SCR process 
uses a catalyst with ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) to reduce the nitrogen 
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>) in the flue gas to 
N<INF>2</INF> and water. Ammonia is diluted with air or

[[Page 27187]]

steam, and this mixture is injected into the flue gas upstream of a 
metal catalyst bed that typically is composed of vanadium, titanium, 
platinum, or zeolite. The SCR catalyst bed reactor is usually located 
between the economizer outlet and air heater inlet where temperatures 
range from 230 [deg]C to 400 [deg]C (450 [deg]F to 750 [deg]F). The SCR 
technology is capable of NO<INF>X</INF> reduction efficiencies of 90 
percent or higher.
    Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) Technology. An SNCR process 
is based on the same basic chemistry of reducing the NO and 
NO<INF>2</INF> in the flue gas to N<INF>2</INF> and water, but it does 
not require the use of a catalyst to promote these reactions. Instead, 
the reducing agent is injected into the flue gas stream at a point 
where the flue gas temperature is within a specific temperature range 
of 870[deg]C to 1,090[deg]C (1,600[deg]F to 2,000[deg]F). The 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction levels for SNCR are in the range of 
approximately 30 to 50 percent.
    LoTOxTM Technology. The LoTOx\TM\ process (i.e., low-temperature 
oxidation) is a patented technology that uses ozone to oxidize 
NO<INF>X</INF> to nitric pentoxide and other higher order 
NO<INF>X</INF>, all of which are water soluble and easily removed from 
exhaust gas in a wet scrubber. The system operates optimally at 
temperatures below 300[deg]F. Thus, ozone is injected after scrubber 
inlet quench nozzles and before the first level of scrubbing nozzles. 
Outlet NO<INF>X</INF> emission levels have been reduced to less than 20 
ppmv, and often as low as 10 ppmv, when inlet NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentrations ranged from 50 to 200 ppmv.

B. What is the performance of control technologies for fuel gas 
combustion?

    Refinery fuel gas is generally used in process heaters and boilers 
to meet the energy demands of the refinery. Excess refinery fuel gas is 
typically combusted using flares. Flares also serve an important safety 
function to destroy organics and convert H<INF>2</INF>S to 
SO<INF>2</INF> during process upsets and malfunctions.
    Over the past several years, many refineries have reduced flaring 
episodes by adding flare gas recovery systems and/or by changing their 
start-up and shutdown procedures to limit flaring. Installing a flare 
gas recovery system and implementing new start-up and shutdown 
procedures are expected to reduce VOC, sulfur oxides, and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from flares. Improved amine scrubbing systems 
are expected to reduce sulfur oxide emissions from all fuel gas 
combustion systems. In addition, excess capacity in the SRP will help 
to minimize sour gas flaring that might be caused by a malfunction in 
the SRP. Each of these ``control'' techniques are described in the 
following paragraphs.
    Flare Gas Recovery Systems. Flare gas recovery systems recover fuel 
gas from the flare gas header prior to the flare's liquid seal. A flare 
gas recovery system consists of a compressor, separator, and process 
controls (to maintain slight positive pressure on the flare header). 
Flare gas recovery systems are typically designed to recover fuel gas 
from miscellaneous processes that might regularly be relieved to the 
flare header system and can effectively recover 100 percent of these 
fuel gases. However, flare gas recovery systems cannot recover large 
quantities of fuel gas that might be suddenly released to the flare 
header system as a result of a process upset or malfunction. These 
gases would still be flared as necessary to maintain the integrity of 
the process units and the safety of the plant personnel.
    Modified Start-up and Shutdown Procedures. Although flaring is 
necessary to ensure safety during process upsets and malfunctions, 
start-up and shutdown procedures can be designed so as to minimize 
flaring. For example, depressurization of process vessels can be 
performed more slowly so as to not overwhelm the fuel gas needs of the 
refinery and/or the capacity of the flare gas recovery system. 
Depending on the number of units being shut down at a given time, 
nearly 100 percent of flaring can be eliminated during start-up and 
shutdown. There are cases, such as emergency shutdowns for safety 
reasons or approaching hurricanes, where the timing of the shutdown and 
the magnitude of the number of processes needing to be shut down would 
warrant the use of flaring. However, modified procedures should be able 
to eliminate flaring associated with process start-ups and shutdowns 
due to routine maintenance of select processes.
    Amine Scrubbers. Amine scrubber systems remove H<INF>2</INF>S and 
other impurities from sour gas. Lean amine solution absorbs the 
H<INF>2</INF>S from the sour gas in an absorption tower. The acid gas 
is removed from the rich amine solution in a stripper, or still column. 
The resulting lean amine is recirculated to the absorption tower, and 
the stripped H<INF>2</INF>S is generally sent to the SRP. Vendors 
generally provide redundant pumps to ensure continuous operation of the 
system. Some refineries choose to store a day's worth of lean amine 
solution in case the stripper fails; this allows the continuous 
operation of the absorption tower. This option also requires adequate 
empty storage space for the rich amine solution produced by the 
absorption tower while the stripper is out of service.
    Redundant Sulfur Recovery Capacity. When a sulfur recovery unit 
(SRU) malfunctions, the sour gas is typically flared to convert the 
highly toxic H<INF>2</INF>S to less toxic SO<INF>2</INF>. As many SRU 
recover more than 20 long tons of elemental sulfur per day, even short 
sulfur recovery process upsets can result in several tons of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Furthermore, refineries often operate 
multiple Claus sulfur recovery processes in parallel. Having an extra 
Claus sulfur recovery train can dramatically reduce the likelihood of 
sour gas flaring. Depending on the severity of the process upset, 
having a redundant SRU can reduce these large SO<INF>2</INF> releases 
by as much as 100 percent.

C. What is the performance of control technologies for process heaters?

    The mechanisms by which NO<INF>X</INF> are formed in process 
heaters are the same as for their formation in catalyst regenerators. 
The possible control options are also the same. See section V.A.3 of 
this preamble for a discussion of these formation mechanisms and 
control technologies.

D. What is the performance of control technologies for sulfur recovery 
systems?

    Sulfur recovery (the conversion of H<INF>2</INF>S to elemental 
sulfur) is typically accomplished using the modified-Claus process. In 
the Claus unit, one-third of the H<INF>2</INF>S is burned with air in a 
reaction furnace to yield SO<INF>2</INF>. The SO<INF>2</INF> then 
reacts reversibly with H<INF>2</INF>S in the presence of a catalyst to 
produce elemental sulfur, water, and heat. This is a multi-stage 
catalytic reaction in which elemental sulfur is removed between each 
stage, thereby driving the reversible reaction towards completion. The 
gas from the final condenser of the Claus unit (referred to as the 
``tail gas'') consists primarily of inert gases with less than 2 
percent sulfur compounds. Additionally, the sulfur recovery pits used 
to store the recovered elemental sulfur also have a potential for 
fugitive H<INF>2</INF>S emissions. Typically a Claus unit recovers 
approximately 94 to 97 percent of the inlet sulfur load as elemental 
sulfur.
    There are some methods that extend the Claus reaction to improve 
the overall sulfur collection efficiency of the SRP. For example, the 
Superclaus[supreg] SRU is similar to the Claus unit. It contains a 
thermal stage, followed by three to four catalytic reaction stages. The 
first two or three catalytic reactors use the Claus catalyst, while the 
last reactor uses a selective oxidation catalyst. The

[[Page 27188]]

catalyst in the last reactor oxidizes the H<INF>2</INF>S to sulfur at a 
very high efficiency, recovering 99 percent of the incoming sulfur.
    There are a few refineries that operate non-Claus type SRU. All of 
the refineries that use non-Claus SRU technologies have very low sulfur 
production rates (2 LTD or less). There are several different trade 
names for these ``other'' types of SRU, such as the LoCat[supreg], 
Sulferox[supreg], and NaSH processes. These processes can achieve 
sulfur recovery efficiencies of 99 percent or more, although they 
typically yield a sulfur product that has limited market value because 
the sulfur content is much lower than in the sulfur product from a 
Claus unit (50 to 70 percent sulfur compared to 99.9 percent sulfur 
from the Claus process).
    The primary means of reducing sulfur oxide emissions from the SRU 
is to employ a tail gas treatment unit that recovers the sulfur 
compounds and recycles them back to the inlet of the Claus treatment 
train. There are three basic types of tail gas treatment units: (1) 
Direct amine adsorption of the Claus tail gas; (2) catalytic reduction 
of the tail gas to convert as much of the tail gas sulfur compounds to 
H<INF>2</INF>S (coupled with amine adsorption or Stretford solution 
eduction); and (3) oxidative tail gas treatment systems to convert the 
Claus tail gas sulfur compounds to SO<INF>2</INF> (coupled with an 
SO<INF>2</INF> recovery system).
    Direct Amine Adsorption. Direct amine adsorption of the Claus tail 
gas is the least efficient of the tail gas treatment methods because 
only about two-thirds of the sulfur in the direct Claus tail gas is 
amenable to scrubbing (i.e., in the form of H<INF>2</INF>S). Direct 
amine adsorption is therefore expected to increase the overall sulfur 
recovery efficiency of the sulfur plant to approximately 99 percent. 
However, direct amine adsorption alone is generally not expected to 
reduce sulfur oxide concentrations to below 250 ppmv (i.e., enough to 
meet the existing NSPS emission limits for Claus units greater than 20 
LTD).
    Reductive Tail Gas Catalytic Systems. The most common reductive 
tail gas catalytic systems in use at refineries include: (1) The 
Shell[supreg] Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) unit; (2) the Beavon/amine 
system; and (3) the Beavon/Stretford system. Each of these systems 
consist of a catalytic reactor to convert the sulfur compounds 
remaining in the Claus tail gas to H<INF>2</INF>S and an H<INF>2</INF>S 
recovery system (an amine scrubber or a Stretford solution) to strip 
the H<INF>2</INF>S from the tail gas. The recovered H<INF>2</INF>S is 
then recycled to the front of the Claus unit. The overhead of the amine 
scrubber or Stretford unit (caustic scrubber) may be vented to the 
atmosphere or incinerated to convert any remaining H<INF>2</INF>S or 
other reduced sulfur compounds to SO<INF>2</INF>. The total sulfur 
recovery efficiency of a Claus/catalytic tail gas treatment train is 
expected to be 99.7 to 99.9 percent.
    Oxidative Tail Gas Treatment Systems. The Wellman-Lord is the only 
oxidative tail gas treatment system used in the United States. The 
Wellman-Lord process uses thermal oxidation followed by scrubbing with 
a sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite solution to remove 
SO<INF>2</INF>. The rich bisulfite solution is sent to an evaporator-
recrystallizer where the bisulfite decomposes to SO<INF>2</INF> and 
water and sodium sulfite is precipitated. The recovered SO<INF>2</INF> 
is then recycled back to the Claus plant for sulfur recovery. The total 
sulfur recovery efficiency of a Claus/oxidative tail gas treatment 
train is expected to be 99.7 to 99.9 percent.

E. How did EPA determine the proposed standards for new petroleum 
refining process units?

    Four sources of information were considered in reviewing the 
appropriateness of the current NSPS requirements for new sources: (1) 
Source test data from recently installed control systems; (2) 
applicable State and local regulations; (3) control vendor emission 
control guarantees; and (4) consent decrees. (A significant number of 
refineries, representing about 77 percent of the national refining 
capacity, are subject to consent decrees that limit the emissions from 
subpart J process units.) Once we identified potential emission limits 
for various process units, we evaluated each limit in conjunction with 
control technology, costs, and emission reductions to determine BDT for 
each process unit.
    The cost methodology incorporates the calculation of annualized 
costs and emission reductions associated with each of the options 
presented. Cost-effectiveness is the annualized cost of control divided 
by the annual emission reductions achieved. Incremental cost-
effectiveness refers to the difference in annualized cost from one 
option to the next divided by the difference in emission reductions 
from one option to the next. For NSPS regulations, the standard metric 
for expressing costs and emission reductions is the impact on all 
affected facilities accumulated over the first 5 years of the 
regulation. Details of the calculations can be found in the public 
docket. Our BDT determinations took all relevant factors into account, 
including cost considerations which were generally consistent with 
other Agency decisions.
1. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units
    Particulate Matter (PM) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). In order to 
determine the appropriate emission limits for PM and SO<INF>2</INF>, we 
evaluated PM and SO<INF>2</INF> limits in conjunction with one another. 
One of the reasons for this is that wet scrubbers control both PM and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and refineries will decide whether to choose 
a wet scrubber as opposed to an ESP with catalyst additives based on 
both the PM and the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit to be met.
    Currently, 40 CFR part 60, subpart J limits PM emissions from the 
fluid catalytic cracking unit to 1.0 kg/Mg of coke burn-off. The limit 
applies to filterable PM as measured by Method 5B or 5F in 40 CFR part 
60, Appendix A. It excludes condensable PM such as sulfuric acid (under 
Method 5B), sulfates that condense at temperatures greater than 320 
[deg]F (under Method 5F), and all other condensables (using either 
Method). The measurement of condensable PM is important to EPA's goal 
of reducing ambient air concentrations of fine PM. Since promulgation 
of Method 202 in 1991, EPA has been working to overcome problems 
associated with the accuracy of Method 202 and will promulgate 
improvements to the method in the future. The existing NSPS also 
requires opacity, as measured using a continuous opacity monitoring 
system, to be no more than 30 percent.
    The current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J for 
SO<INF>2</INF> include three alternative formats: (1) If using an add-
on control device, reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by at least 90 
percent or to less than 50 ppmv, (2) if not using an add-on control 
device, limit sulfur oxides emissions (calculated as SO<INF>2</INF>) to 
no more than 9.8 kg/Mg of coke burn-off, or (3) process in the fluid 
catalytic cracking unit fresh feed that has a total sulfur content no 
greater than 0.30 percent by weight. The 90 percent reduction, 9.8 kg/
Mg, and 0.3 percent feed sulfur formats were determined to be 
equivalent for a unit operating with a feed that contains 3.5 percent 
sulfur by weight before implementing a control measure.
    In reviewing the PM and SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits, we 
evaluated five combined options and a baseline. The baseline is 
considered to be the current requirements, as described in the two 
previous paragraphs. The first option is to maintain the existing 
subpart J standard for PM and provide only the 50 ppmv concentration 
limit for SO<INF>2</INF>. The additional options are a range of 
emission limits coupled with a change in the compliance test method to 
Method 5 to measure a portion of the

[[Page 27189]]

condensable PM. The second option is to combine Method 5 with the 
existing 1.0 kg/Mg coke burn-off performance level, and a third option 
is to lower the PM emission limit to 0.5 kg/Mg. Both the second and 
third options include an SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 50 ppmv. A fourth 
option includes the PM limit of 0.5 kg/Mg presented in the third option 
and a lower SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 25 ppmv. The fifth option is to 
lower the PM emission limit to 0.15 kg/Mg with an SO<INF>2</INF> limit 
of 25 ppmv. Costs and emission reductions for each option were 
estimated as the increment between complying with subpart J and subpart 
Ja.
    Option 1 includes the same emissions and requirements for PM as the 
current 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. For SO<INF>2</INF>, this option 
excludes the alternative compliance options of meeting a higher 
emission limit without an SO<INF>2</INF> control device or meeting a 
limit on the sulfur content of the fresh feed. These two alternatives 
are less stringent than the outlet concentration limit, and available 
information indicates the concentration limits are achievable. An 
advantage of the proposed concentration limit is that ongoing 
compliance can be directly measured using a CEMS. The impacts of this 
option are limited to the impacts of removing those alternative 
compliance options for SO<INF>2</INF> and are presented in Table 2 to 
this preamble. To comply with Option 1 (i.e., meet the 50 ppmv limit 
for SO<INF>2</INF>) we expect that the fraction of new sources choosing 
wet scrubbers instead of ESP would be greater than under the existing 
subpart J. Filterable PM emissions are assumed to be the same for both 
types of control devices because the PM performance levels are the same 
under both option 1 and the baseline subpart J requirements. However, 
because condensable PM emissions are lower from wet scrubbers than from 
ESP, this shift in the ratio of wet scrubbers to ESP would also result 
in an estimated reduction in total PM emissions of 17 tons per year, as 
shown in Table 2 to this preamble.
    Option 2 includes the same emission limit as current subpart J for 
PM but requires compliance using Method 5 rather than Method 5B or 
Method 5F. As noted above, Methods 5B and 5F exclude all PM that 
condenses at temperatures below 320[deg]F, and Method 5F also excludes 
sulfates that condense at temperatures greater than 320[deg]F. The PM 
measured by Method 5 includes filterable PM that condenses above 
250[deg]F in the front half of the Method 5 sampling train. Thus, the 
estimated PM emission reductions achieved by this option equal the 
amount of sulfates and other condensable PM between 250[deg]F and 
320[deg]F that would be measured by Method 5 but not Method 5B or 5F. 
The baseline emissions were estimated assuming Method 5B is used for 
wet scrubbers and Method 5F is used for ESP. For SO<INF>2</INF>, Option 
2 includes the same emission limit as described in Option 1, and the 
estimated SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions are also the same. The 
impacts of this option are presented in Table 2 to this preamble.
    Option 3 lowers the PM limit to 0.5 kg/Mg coke burn, again using 
Method 5, and includes the same emission limit as described in Option 1 
for SO<INF>2</INF>. The existing NSPS limit was based on control with 
ESP. Those ESP were rated at efficiencies of only 85 to 90 percent. 
More recently installed ESP have greater specific plate area, which 
should result in better control efficiencies. In addition, many 
refineries have installed wet scrubbers to control both PM and 
SO<INF>2</INF>. At petroleum refineries, wet scrubbers typically 
perform as well as, if not better than, ESP. Available test data 
indicate that at least one ESP and one wet scrubber are reducing total 
filterable PM to 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn or less, as measured by Method 
5-equivalent test methods. Based on this information, both ESP and wet 
scrubbers can achieve PM emission levels below the level of the 
existing PM standard, and a lower standard for new units is technically 
feasible. The impacts of this option are presented in Table 2 to this 
preamble.
    Option 4 includes the same PM limit as Option 3, and the discussion 
presented for Option 3 applies to Option 4 as well. It also includes a 
long-term limit for SO<INF>2</INF> of 25 ppmv, averaged over 365 days, 
in addition to the current subpart J limit of 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 
days. These limits have been shown to be readily achievable by flue gas 
desulfurization systems. Many fluid catalytic cracking units are now 
subject to consent decrees that require control to these levels. 
Petroleum refiners typically use wet scrubbers to control 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and test data indicate that outlet 
concentrations below 25 ppmv are common. At least one wet scrubber 
manufacturer also provides performance guarantees to meet a 25 ppmv 
emission limit. The incremental SO<INF>2</INF> reductions for this 
option relative to Option 3 are achieved by using catalyst additives in 
the fluid catalytic cracking units that are assumed to be controlled 
with ESP; fluid catalytic cracking units controlled with wet scrubbers 
have the same SO<INF>2</INF> emissions as under Option 3 because wet 
scrubbers under all options are assumed to achieve SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions below 25 ppmv. The impacts of this option are presented in 
Table 2 to this preamble.
    The final option, Option 5, includes a lower PM limit, 0.15 kg/Mg 
of coke burn, measured using Method 5, and the same SO<INF>2</INF> 
limits as Option 4. This PM limit is equivalent to the limit of 0.005 
gr/dscf required by California's South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD). To meet this PM limit, we expect that a refinery 
would need an ESP rather than a wet scrubber because we are unaware of 
any wet scrubber that is meeting this PM limit (and as in Option 4, 
catalyst additives in the fluid catalytic cracking unit would be needed 
to meet the SO<INF>2</INF> limit). In addition, the refinery would 
likely need ammonia injection to improve the performance of the ESP. 
Based on test data from at least three fluid catalytic cracking units, 
ammonia injection improves the control of filterable PM in ESP, but it 
also produces a considerable amount of condensable PM. Therefore, the 
estimated total PM reduction for this option is much lower (worse) than 
the reduction that would be achieved under Option 4. The shift to ESP 
for all new fluid catalytic cracking units under this option also 
slightly degrades the estimated SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction 
relative to Option 4 because available data indicate that wet scrubbers 
achieve lower SO<INF>2</INF> emissions than ESP and catalyst additives. 
In addition to reduced performance relative to Option 4, the capital 
and annual costs of this option are considerably higher than for Option 
4. The reduced performance of this option relative to Option 4 means 
that incremental cost-effectiveness is not meaningful for this option. 
The impacts of this option are presented in Table 2 to this preamble.

[[Page 27190]]



 Table 2.--National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for PM and SO2 Limits Considered for Fluid Catalytic Cracking
                                   Units Subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Total       Emission     Emission    Cost-effectiveness ($/
                                      Capital    annual cost   reduction    reduction             ton)
              Option                    cost       ($1,000/    (tons PM/    (tons SO2/ -------------------------
                                      ($1,000)       yr)        yr) \a\        yr)        Overall    Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................          500        3,100           17        6,800          460
2.................................          670        3,600          350        6,800          500        1,400
3.................................       40,000        9,200        1,200        7,200        1,100        4,400
4.................................       40,000        9,500        1,200        8,300        1,000          220
5.................................      140,000       30,000          460        7,900        3,600         N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both filterable and condensable PM.

    Based on our review of performance data and potential impacts, we 
have determined that control of PM emissions (as measured by Method 5) 
to 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn or less and control of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions to 25 ppmv or less averaged over 365 days and 50 ppmv or less 
averaged over 7 days is BDT for new, reconstructed, or modified fluid 
catalytic cracking units. The more stringent filterable PM control 
level in Option 5 is technically achievable, but we rejected this 
option because it results in higher total PM and SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions than Option 4. Option 4 was selected as BDT because it 
achieves the best performance of the remaining options, and both 
overall and incremental costs are reasonable.
    Table 3 to this preamble shows the impacts of Option 4 for modified 
and reconstructed sources. Although the impacts of Option 4 are 
reasonable, we are aware that there is some concern about the ability 
to retrofit reconstructed and modified sources to meet these emission 
limits. Specifically, there may be issues with physical space 
availability, process unit or control device configurations, or other 
factors that are not adequately included in our impacts analyses. 
Therefore, we are co-proposing requiring reconstructed and modified 
units to meet the current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. We 
are requesting comment on specific examples, supported by data, of 
situations that would support this proposed option.

  Table 3.--National Fifth Year Impacts of Proposed Option for PM and SO2 Limits for Reconstructed and Modified
                                                     Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total annual       Emission         Emission          Cost-
            Capital cost ($1,000)              cost  ($1,000/     reduction        reduction      effectiveness
                                                    yr)          (tons PM/yr)    (tons SO2/yr)       ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31,000......................................           6,200              700            3,700            1,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, available test data indicate that the two control devices 
(an ESP and a wet scrubber) that reduce filterable PM to less than 0.5 
kg/Mg coke burn (as well as at least one other ESP) also can meet a 
total PM limit, including condensables, of 1.0 kg/Mg of coke burn 
(i.e., demonstrate compliance using Method 5 for filterable PM and 
Method 202 for condensable PM). Condensable sulfates and other 
condensable compounds measured by Method 5 and Method 202 vary widely, 
but the average is about 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn-off. In an attempt to 
create some incentive to begin measuring condensables using improved 
Method 202, we are considering establishing an alternative PM limit of 
1 kg/Mg coke burn, including condensables. Therefore, we are asking for 
comments with rationale to either support or reject an alternative PM 
limit that would be based on both filterable PM and condensable PM.
    Carbon Monoxide. The current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J 
limit CO emissions to 500 ppmv or less. This limit was established for 
fluid catalytic cracking units that operate in either ``partial 
combustion'' catalyst regeneration mode or ``complete combustion'' 
catalyst regeneration mode. In partial combustion mode, relatively 
large amounts of CO are generated in the regenerator. The resulting CO 
is then combusted in a CO or waste heat boiler. This operation results 
in nearly complete combustion of the CO, with outlet concentrations on 
the order of 25 to 50 ppmv being common. In complete combustion mode 
the CO emissions from the regenerator are much lower, and a downstream 
CO or waste heat boiler is impractical. However, complete combustion 
catalyst regeneration was a recent advance at the time the current NSPS 
was promulgated; test data were limited at that time, and a CO level of 
500 ppmv was estimated to be a practical limit for the technology.
    After consideration of available information, we are proposing to 
retain the current CO standard for new fluid catalytic cracking units. 
Although test data show CO emissions from complete combustion 
regenerators can be less than 500 ppmv, the lower levels generally are 
achieved by operating with higher levels of excess air. Unfortunately, 
this operation is likely to result in higher NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. 
If a trade-off is necessary, limiting NO<INF>X</INF> emissions is a 
higher priority than limiting CO emissions because NO<INF>X</INF> is a 
precursor to fine PM and ground-level ozone, both of which have more 
significant health impacts than CO. Available data also indicate that 
formaldehyde emissions tend to increase with the higher oxidation/
combustion conditions needed to reduce CO emissions. Therefore, we 
determined that control to 500 ppmv or less is still BDT for CO 
emissions, and the proposed standards are based on this emission limit. 
Accordingly, the proposed limit for 40 CFR part 60, subpart J poses no 
additional costs over those incurred to comply with the existing NSPS.
    NOX. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not subject to control under the 
existing NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. However, several petroleum 
refiners limit NO<INF>X</INF> emissions based on State regulations and 
consent decrees. The emission limits to which refineries are subject 
vary from facility to facility. We evaluated three options

[[Page 27191]]

as part of the BDT determination: Outlet NO<INF>X</INF> emission levels 
of 80 ppmv, 40 ppmv, and 20 ppmv, each averaged over 7 days or less. 
Each of these limits is technically feasible, but the technology needed 
to meet them depends on the current NO<INF>X</INF> concentrations in 
the vented gas streams, which are either uncontrolled or controlled to 
levels required by existing State and local requirements.
    The estimated fifth year emission reductions and costs for each of 
the options are summarized in Table 4. To estimate impacts for Option 
1, we assumed that a few units have current NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
below 80 ppmv, and many other units can meet this level with combustion 
controls (e.g., limiting excess O<INF>2</INF> or using non-platinum 
catalyst combustion promoters in a complete combustion catalyst 
regenerator, or using flue gas recirculation or low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners in a CO boiler after a partial combustion catalyst 
regenerator). Other units with higher uncontrolled NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions levels will need to install more costly control technology 
such as LoTOx<SUP>TM</SUP> or SCR in order to meet the 80 ppmv option. 
All units will also incur costs for a continuous NO<INF>X</INF> 
monitor. The costs for Options 2 and 3 are higher than for Option 1 
because the ratio of add-on controls to combustion controls would 
increase in order to meet the lower limits of 40 and 20 ppmv.
    Based on the impacts shown in Table 4, we determined that BDT is 
option 1, a NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 80 ppmv. The costs of 
option 1 are commensurate with the emission reductions while the more 
stringent options would impose compliance costs that are not warranted 
for the emissions reductions that would be achieved as shown by the 
incremental cost effectiveness impacts shown in table 4. In general, we 
expect that most sources will be able to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> limit 
through combustion controls. In cases where add-on controls would be 
necessary, however, there may be retrofit concerns for modified and 
reconstructed sources. Therefore, we are co-proposing no new standards 
for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions on modified or reconstructed sources and 
are requesting comments on the necessity, feasibility and costs of 
retrofits to meet the 80 ppmv limit for modified and reconstructed 
sources.

  Table 4.--National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for NOX Limits Considered for Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units
                                      Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total capital   Total annual      Emission       Cost effectiveness ($/ton)
             Option                   cost, $       cost, $/yr      reduction,   -------------------------------
                                    (millions)      (millions)      tons NOX/yr       Overall       Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................              28             7.3           3,500           2,100  ..............
2...............................              80              20           5,200           4,200           7,600
3...............................             120              30           5,800           5,500          16,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Available test data for units controlled with SCR indicate that 
emissions less than 20 ppmv are continuously achievable when averaged 
over long periods of time such as 365 days. Although we determined that 
the average costs to meet such a limit are unreasonable, we are 
requesting comment on whether there may be a subset of units for which 
costs would be reasonable to meet lower limits such as 20 or 40 ppmv, 
averaged over 365 days.
    Opacity. The current standards require fluid catalytic cracking 
units to meet an opacity limit of 30 percent. This limit was included 
as a means of identifying failure of the PM control device. This 
objective is achieved much more effectively by monitoring control 
device operating parameters or by using a PM CEMS. These monitoring 
options are included in the proposed standards for PM. Therefore, the 
proposed standards do not include an opacity emissions limit.
2. Fluid Coking Units
    The current NSPS includes no requirements for fluid coking units. 
There are few fluid coking units at refineries in the U.S., but data in 
the National Emission Inventory database shows the few existing units 
are significant sources of PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions. Therefore, we evaluated several options as part of a BDT 
determination for fluid coking units. All of the options we considered 
are comparable to options that we considered for fluid catalytic 
cracking units because of similarities in the function, operation, and 
emissions of the two types of units.
    Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide. To determine BDT for PM and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions we evaluated two options. Because control 
technology can reduce both pollutants simultaneously, the options also 
consider both pollutants. Option 1 is a PM limit of 1.0 kg/Mg coke burn 
and a short-term SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 days; 
and Option 2 is a PM limit of 0.5 kg/Mg coke burn, a short-term 
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 days, and a long-term 
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 25 ppmv, averaged over 365 days. (Because 
catalyst additives are not a feasible option for reducing 
SO<INF>2</INF> from a fluid coking unit, we did not consider the fifth 
option evaluated for fluid catalytic cracking units.)
    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity 
Report 2006 lists six fluid coking units; at least two of these coking 
units are flexi-coking units that use the coking exhaust as a synthetic 
fuel gas. Therefore, there are at most four fluid coking units in the 
United States that could potentially become subject to the standard. 
Although coking capacity is expected to increase, most new units are 
expected to be delayed coking units. For this analysis, we assumed that 
one existing fluid coking unit becomes a modified or reconstructed 
source in the next 5 years. A wet scrubber is the most likely 
technology that would be used to meet either Option 1 or Option 2. To 
estimate the impacts, we estimated costs for a basic wet scrubber to 
meet Option 1 and an enhanced wet scrubber to meet Option 2. The 
resulting emission reductions and costs for both of the options are 
shown in Table 5 to this preamble. The costs for both options are 
reasonable. Therefore, we determined that BDT is Option 2 which 
requires technology that reduces PM emissions to 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn 
and reduces SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 days, 
and 25 ppmv, averaged over 365 days. We are proposing standards 
consistent with these levels.

[[Page 27192]]



Table 5.--National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for PM and SO2 Limits Considered for Fluid Coking Units Subject
                                          to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Emission     Emission    Cost-effectiveness ($/
                                      Capital       Total      reduction    reduction             ton)
              Option                    cost     annual cost   (tons PM/    (tons SO2/ -------------------------
                                      ($1,000)   ($1,000/yr)      yr)          yr)        Overall    Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................       14,000        4,700        1,700       21,000          210  ...........
2.................................       14,000        4,800        2,000       21,000          210          120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nitrogen Oxides (NOX). To determine BDT for NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions, we evaluated three options: Outlet NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
levels of 80 ppmv, 40 ppmv, and 20 ppmv, each averaged over 7 days or 
less. The specific technology that will be needed to meet these levels 
will depend on the NO<INF>X</INF> concentration in the exhaust gas 
stream from uncontrolled fluid coking units. As noted in the discussion 
above for PM and SO<INF>2</INF> options, we estimated that only one 
fluid coking unit will be modified or reconstructed in the next 5 
years, and there will be no new units constructed. Because each unit is 
likely to have a different uncontrolled NO<INF>X</INF> concentration in 
its exhaust stream, we developed impacts for a composite model unit 
based on a weighted distribution of all the various types of controls 
(low-efficiency combustion controls, higher efficiency combustion 
controls, and add-on controls such as LoTox<SUP>TM</SUP> or SCR). As in 
the analysis for fluid catalytic cracking units, the ratio of add-on 
controls to combustions controls increases from Option 1 through Option 
3. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 6 to this preamble.

Table 6.--National Fifth Year Impacts Options for NOX Limits Considered for Fluid Coking Units Subject to 40 CFR
                                               Part 60, Subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total                     Emission    Cost-effectiveness  ($/
                                                  capital    Total annual   reduction,            ton)
                    Option                        cost, $     cost, $/yr   (tons  NOX/ -------------------------
                                                (millions)    (millions)       yr)        Overall    Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................           4.5          0.97          760        1,300
2............................................           9.5          2.1           980        2,200        5,300
3............................................          13            2.9         1,000        2,800       12,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs for option 1 are commensurate with the emission 
reductions, but the incremental impacts for options 2 and 3 are not 
reasonable, as shown in Table 6. Based on these potential impacts and 
available performance data, we have determined that BDT is technology 
needed to meet an outlet NO<INF>X</INF> concentration of 80 ppmv or 
less, and we are proposing this emission limit as the performance 
standard for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from fluid coking units. However, 
there are uncertainties in this analysis. For example, if the few 
existing units are not readily amenable to retrofitting NO<INF>X</INF> 
controls, the cost and emission reduction impacts might no longer be 
favorable, and we would conclude that no control is BDT. Therefore, we 
are co-proposing no new standard for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
fluid coking units.
3. Sulfur Recovery Plants
    Emission limits in the existing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) 
apply to Claus SRP with a capacity greater than 20 LTD. The emission 
limits are consistent with an overall sulfur recovery efficiency of 
99.9 percent (i.e., 250 ppmv SO<INF>2</INF> for the Claus unit followed 
by oxidative tail gas treatment, and 10 ppmv H<INF>2</INF>S and 300 
ppmv total reduced sulfur compounds for a Claus unit followed by 
reductive tail gas treatment). Although small SRP and non-Claus SRP are 
not subject to the existing NSPS, they are often subject to control. 
For example, Texas requires sulfur removal efficiencies of 99.8 percent 
for SRP with capacities greater than 10 LTD and 96 percent to 98.5 
percent for SRP with capacities less than or equal to 10 LTD. In 
addition, a few consent decrees require 95 percent sulfur recovery for 
Claus SRP with capacities less than 20 LTD.
    To determine BDT we evaluated 4 options. The options are based on 
various sulfur recovery efficiencies for SRP with capacities less than 
20 LTD, and all of the options include the same 99.9 percent efficiency 
as in the current standards for SRP with capacities greater than 20 
LTD. Option 1 is based on 99 percent recovery for SRP with capacities 
between 10 LTD and 20 LTD, and 95 percent recovery for SRP with 
capacities less than 10 LTD. Option 2 is based on 99 percent recovery 
for all SRP with capacities less than 20 LTD. Option 3 is based on 99.9 
percent recovery for SRP with capacities between 10 LTD and 20 LTD, and 
99 percent recovery for SRP with capacities less than 10 LTD. Option 4 
is based on 99.9 percent recovery for all SRP, regardless of size or 
design. All of the options include 99.9 percent recovery for SRP larger 
than 20 LTD (both Claus and non-Claus units) because we are not aware 
of a more effective SO<INF>2</INF> control technology. The 95 percent 
option is equivalent to the efficiency of a two-stage Claus unit 
without controls. The 99 percent and 99.9 percent recovery levels are 
achievable for SRP of all sizes by various types of tail gas 
treatments, as discussed in section V.D of this preamble.
    The estimated fifth year emission reductions and costs for each of 
the options are summarized in Table 7. These values reflect the impacts 
only for SRP smaller than 20 LTD because we expect that all non-Claus 
units will be smaller than 20 LTD and because the impacts for larger 
Claus units would be the same as to comply with the existing standards 
in subpart J. The costs for Options 1, 2, and 3 are reasonable. We then 
evaluated the incremental costs and emission reductions between the 
options. We found that Option 2 is the most stringent option for which 
incremental costs are reasonable compared to the incremental emission 
reduction between the options.
    Based on the available performance data and cost considerations, we 
have concluded that tail gas treatments that achieve 99.9 percent 
control are still

[[Page 27193]]

BDT for SRP with capacities greater than 20 LTD, and tail gas 
treatments that achieve 99 percent recovery are BDT for SRP with 
capacities less than 20 LTD. Therefore, we are proposing standards for 
SO<INF>2</INF> and H<INF>2</INF>S emissions from SRP with capacities 
larger than 20 LTD that are equivalent to the existing standards, and 
we are proposing standards for SRP with capacities smaller than 20 LTD 
that would limit emissions of sulfur to less than 1 percent by weight 
of the sulfur recovered.

Table 7.--National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for SO2 Limits Considered for Sulfur Recovery Plants Subject to
                                           40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total                     Emission    Cost-effectiveness  ($/
                                                  capital    Total annual   reduction,            ton)
                    Option                        cost, $     cost, $/yr   (tons  SO2/ -------------------------
                                                (millions)    (millions)       yr)        Overall    Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................          0.27          0.14          180          780
2............................................          1.1           0.68          550        1,200        1,500
3............................................          1.9           1.0           590        1,700        8,200
4............................................          4.5           2.3           670        3,400       15,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Process Heaters and Other Fuel Gas Combustion Devices Sulfur Dioxide
    The current NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J limits SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from fuel gas combustion devices by specifying that the 
H<INF>2</INF>S content of fuel gas must be less than or equal to 230 
mg/dscm, averaged over 3 hours (equivalent to 160 ppmv averaged over 3 
hours). Alternatively, any fuel gas may be combusted, provided the 
outlet SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are controlled to no more than 20 ppmv 
(dry basis, 0 percent excess air). When the current NSPS was 
promulgated, we concluded that amine scrubbing as well as new processes 
that use other scrubbing media represented BDT for continuous reduction 
of H<INF>2</INF>S from fuel gas. The 160 ppmv concentration limit was 
consistent with good operation of such scrubbing processes. In 
addition, burning such fuel gas will result in an SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration in the exhaust gas of about 20 ppmv.
    After consideration of current operating practices, we concluded 
that amine scrubbing units are still the predominant technology for 
reduction of H<INF>2</INF>S in fuel gas (and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from subsequent fuel gas combustion). Considering the variability of 
the fuel gas streams from various refinery processing units, 160 ppmv 
also is still a realistic short term H<INF>2</INF>S concentration 
limit. However, one California Air Quality Management District rule 
sets a 40 ppmv H<INF>2</INF>S limit in fuel gas (averaged over 4 
hours), and several refiners have reported that the typical fuel gas 
H<INF>2</INF>S concentrations (after scrubbing) are in the same range. 
Additionally, amine scrubbing technology can be designed and is, in 
fact, being used to achieve much lower (1 to 5 ppmv) H<INF>2</INF>S 
concentrations in product gas applications. Based on this information, 
we concluded that additional SO<INF>2</INF> control could be achieved 
by requiring SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits with both long-term and 
short-term averaging periods.
    We considered three options for increasing SO<INF>2</INF> control 
of fuel gas combustion units: Outlet SO<INF>2</INF> emission levels of 
10 ppmv, 8 ppmv, and 5 ppmv SO<INF>2</INF>, each averaged over 365 
days. Each of the options also includes the same 20 ppmv 3-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> concentration limit as in the current NSPS. To achieve 
each of these options, we expect that petroleum refiners will increase 
their amine recirculation rates to reduce the H<INF>2</INF>S 
concentration in the fuel gas. We estimate that meeting the options 
will increase steam consumption for a typical scrubbing unit by about 
5, 7, and 10 percent, respectively. No new equipment or other capital 
expenditures would be necessary. The estimated fifth-year impacts of 
each of these options are presented in Table 8 to this preamble. 
Overall costs for all the options are reasonable compared to the 
emission reduction achieved. We further evaluated the incremental costs 
and reductions between the 3 options and found that they were 
reasonable for Options 1 and 2, while the incremental cost for Option 3 
is not.

  Table 8.--National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for SO2 Limits Considered for Process Heaters and Other Fuel
                          Gas Combustion Devices Subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Emission    Cost-effectiveness  ($/
                                               Capital cost  Total annual   reduction             ton)
                    Option                        ($1,000)       cost      (tons  SO2/ -------------------------
                                                              ($1,000/yr)      yr)        Overall    Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................           0        2,000           1,000        1,900
2............................................           0        2,900           1,300        2,200        3,500
3............................................           0        4,100           1,600        2,600        4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these impacts and consideration of current operating 
practices, we concluded that BDT is use of technology that reduces the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from fuel gas combustion units to 8 ppmv or 
less averaged over 365 days and 20 ppmv or less averaged over 3 hours. 
Therefore, we are proposing SO<INF>2</INF> standards consistent with 
this determination. We are also requesting comment on the proposed 
long-term concentration limit and the length of the averaging period.
    Although the proposed emission limits are based primarily on the 
fuel gas desulfurization technologies (e.g., amine scrubbing), new 
process heaters, regardless of fuel type, also would be subject to 
these emission limits. New process heaters can elect to meet these 
emission limits by using treated fuel gas, low sulfur distillate fuel 
oils, or flue gas desulfurization or other SO<INF>2</INF> add-on 
controls. Considering the low sulfur fuel standards and available 
control technologies, we believe the 20 ppmv 3-hour average 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit and an

[[Page 27194]]

8 ppmv 365-day average emission limit represent the performance of BDT 
regardless of whether the new process heaters use gaseous or liquid 
fuels.
    The current NSPS allows refineries to demonstrate compliance with 
fuel gas concentration limits for H<INF>2</INF>S as a surrogate for 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits. This approach is reasonable when 
H<INF>2</INF>S is the only sulfur-containing compound in the fuel gas 
because the H<INF>2</INF>S concentration in the fuel gas that is 
equivalent to the SO<INF>2</INF> concentration in the exhaust from the 
fuel gas combustion unit can be easily estimated. However, based on 
available data, we understand that a significant portion of the sulfur 
in fuel gas from coking units is in the form of methyl mercaptan and 
other reduced sulfur compounds. These compounds will also be converted 
to SO<INF>2</INF> in the fuel gas combustion unit, which means the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions will be higher than the amount predicted when 
H<INF>2</INF>S is the only sulfur-containing compound in the fuel gas. 
Therefore, for process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices 
that burn only fuel gas, we are proposing two alternatives to the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit. The first option would require 
measurement of H<INF>2</INF>S if none of the fuel gas is from a coking 
unit. The H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limits that would be equivalent 
to the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits are 160 ppmv, averaged over 3 
hours, and 60 ppmv averaged over 365-days. The second option would 
require measurement of TRS instead of H<INF>2</INF>S when any of the 
fuel gas burned in the process heater or other fuel gas combustion unit 
is from a coking unit. The TRS concentration limits would be the same 
as the H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limits. We are requesting comment 
on the proposed requirement to measure the TRS concentration. We are 
interested in any technological limitations of this option and whether 
there are other fuel gas streams that contain reduced sulfur compounds 
that should not be subject to the same requirement.
    In addition to the proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits and 
H<INF>2</INF>S and TRS concentration limits, we are also proposing to 
include the same exemptions from fuel gas continuous monitoring 
requirements that we are proposing for subpart J. See section IV.A of 
this preamble for a discussion of our rationale for these proposed 
exemptions.
    NOX. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from process heaters are not subject 
to control under the existing NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J. 
However, several petroleum refiners are subject to NO<INF>X</INF> 
control requirements for process heaters in their consent decrees and 
State regulations. The emission limits to which refineries are subject 
vary from facility to facility. We evaluated four options as part of 
the BDT determination. Each option consists of a potential 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit and applicability based on process heater 
size. Option 1 would limit NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to 80 ppmv or less 
for all process heaters with a capacity greater than 20 million British 
thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). Option 2 would limit NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions to 40 ppmv or less for all process heaters with a capacity 
greater than 20 MMBtu/hr. Option 3 would limit NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
to 30 ppmv or less for all process heaters with a capacity greater than 
40 MMBtu/hr. Option 4 would limit NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to 40 ppmv 
or less for process heaters with a capacity greater than 20 MMBtu/hr or 
less than or equal to 100 MMBtu/hr, and to 20 ppmv or less for process 
heaters with a capacity greater than 100 MMBtu/hr. In each option, the 
NO<INF>X</INF> concentration is based on a 24-hour rolling average.
    The estimated fifth year emission reductions and costs for each 
option are summarized in Table 9. We believe that nearly all process 
heaters at refineries that will become subject to subpart Ja can meet 
Option 1 using combustion controls (low NO<INF>X</INF> burners or ultra 
low NO<INF>X</INF> burners). Stepping from Option 1 through Option 4 
increases the fraction of process heaters that would need to use more 
efficient control technologies, such as LoTOx<SUP>TM</SUP> or SCR, to 
meet the NO<INF>X</INF> concentration limit. The options include a 
minimum 20 MMBtu/hr size threshold because none of the control 
technologies are cost effective for units with smaller capacities.

  Table 9.--National Fifth Year Impacts Options for NOX Limits Considered for Process Heaters Subject to 40 CFR
                                               Part 60, Subpart Ja
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Total        Total       Emission    Cost effectiveness ($/
                                                   capital       annual     reduction,            ton)
                     Option                        cost, $     cost, $/yr  (tons  NOX/ -------------------------
                                                  (millions)   (millions)      yr)        Overall    Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................          140           28       17,000        1,600  ...........
2..............................................          200           38       20,000        1,900        3,100
3..............................................          280           52       21,000        2,600       85,000
4..............................................          470           88       22,000        4,000       27,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the impacts in Table 9, the overall costs of option 1 and 
option 2 are reasonable compared to the emission reductions. The 
incremental cost, however, between options 1 and 2 is not commensurate 
with the additional emission reduction achieved. Therefore, BDT for 
process heaters greater than 20 MMBtu/hr was determined to be 
technology that achieves an outlet NO<INF>X</INF> concentration of 80 
ppmv or less, and we are proposing standards for NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions from process heaters consistent with this determination.
5. Work Practice Standards for Fuel Gas Production Units
    We reviewed applicable state and local regulations and consent 
decree requirements and met with individual refinery representatives 
regarding their pollution prevention practices. The pollution 
prevention practices identified included flare minimization plans, fuel 
gas recovery requirements, start-up and shutdown requirements, and 
sulfur shedding plans (including redundant sulfur recovery capacity). 
Based on our review, all of these approaches could be expected to 
reduce emissions of VOC and SO<INF>2</INF> to the atmosphere. As 
described in the following subsections, we reviewed these pollution 
prevention practices and are proposing three different work practice 
standards. Work practice standards are being proposed because it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance for these 
emission sources. As provided in section 111(h) of the Clean Air Act, 
we may promulgate design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards when it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of 
performance. It is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of 
performance for these

[[Page 27195]]

sources because either the pollution prevention measures eliminates the 
emission source, so that there are no emissions to capture and convey, 
or the emissions are so transient, and in some cases, occur so 
randomly, that the application of a measurement methodology to these 
sources is not technically and economically practical.
    Elimination of Routine Flaring. Flares are first and foremost a 
safety device used to reduce emissions from emergency pressure relief 
of gases from refinery process units. We in no way want to limit the 
use of flares for emergency releases. However, many refineries also 
routinely use flares as an emission control device under normal 
operating conditions.
    Fuel gases produced within the refinery can be roughly divided into 
two categories based on the fuel gas stream pressure. Fuel gases 
produced in processes operated at higher pressures are easily routed to 
the fuel gas system; however, fuel gases that are produced from units 
operated near atmospheric pressures are not as easily routed to the 
fuel gas system. These ``low pressure'' fuel gases are often routed to 
flares because the flare gas system operates at a much lower pressure 
than the fuel gas system. Flare gas recovery systems are designed to 
compress the low pressure fuel gases, creating a high pressure fuel gas 
stream that can readily be added to the fuel gas system.
    In 1998, the South Coast Air Quality Management District developed 
a rule requiring refineries to measure the flow rate and hydrocarbon 
content of the gases sent to a flare. This South Coast rule, although 
it did not set prescriptive emission limits, led to reduced flaring as 
refinery operators, armed with the monitoring results, identified cost-
effective flare gas minimization or recovery projects. In 2005, South 
Coast amended this rule and established a no routine flaring goal based 
on the cost and anticipated emission reductions of flare gas recovery 
systems. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District also adopted a 
rule requiring flare monitoring in 2003 and adopted a rule to minimize 
flaring in 2006.
    We considered adopting the South Coast and Bay Area rules for this 
NSPS for new flare systems. However, many refinery flares operate for 
50 years, so very few flares or flare systems are expected to become 
subject to NSPS requirements, even after several decades. Instead, we 
are proposing to add ``fuel gas producing units'' as a new affected 
source under subpart Ja and focus the requirement on eliminating 
routine flaring of fuel gas at the process units producing the fuel 
gas. A refinery owner or operator installing a new process unit that 
produces low pressure fuel gas has options for eliminating routine 
flaring, including, but not limited to, diverting the fuel gas to a 
nearby low-pressure heater or boiler, pressurizing the fuel gas so that 
it can be diverted to the fuel gas system, or installing a flare gas 
recovery system. The proposed work practice standard is designed to 
allow flexibility in compliance approaches without imposing undue 
restrictions on the use of flares during malfunctions or other 
conditions wherein flaring is the best environmental management 
practice considering the safety of the plant personnel and surrounding 
people. Additionally, several new fuel gas producing units are expected 
to be installed every year, so by regulating the fuel gas producing 
units we not only provide flexibility, but we also increase the rate at 
which the no routine flaring requirement is implemented within the 
industry.
    The impacts for this work practice are highly dependent on the 
amount of fuel gas generated by different fuel gas combustion units. 
Recovered fuel gas reduces the amount of natural gas a refinery must 
purchase to operate their process heaters. For example, fuel gases 
generated by fluid catalytic cracking units and coking units are 
routinely recovered into the fuel gas system due to the quantity of 
fuel gas generated in the process. For these systems, the savings 
associated with the recovered fuel gas provides a return on the capital 
investment associated with the compressor and ancillary equipment 
needed to recover the fuel gas. For other fuel gas producing units, 
such as reforming units, it is possible to route the fuel gas directly 
to the unit's process heater without additional gas compression. For a 
few refineries, a flare gas recovery system may be used.
    We estimated planning and design costs for assessing methods to 
recover or otherwise avoid the release of fuel gas from new fuel gas 
producing units. As described previously, for many fuel gas producing 
units, the cost savings associated with the recovered fuel recovers the 
costs of the recovery equipment within the life-span on the equipment 
so that the annualized cost of controls is zero or slightly negative 
(indicating a cost savings). As a worst-case scenario, we used the 
impacts developed by the Bay Area for a system-wide flare gas recovery 
system. The total annualized cost of the system was estimated to be 
approximately $2 million; no credit was provided for the heating value 
of the flare gas recovered. VOC emission reductions were estimated to 
be approximately 1,000 tons per year and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were 
estimated to be 3,500 tons per year. The cost-effectiveness on the 
flare gas recovery system was estimated to be approximately $2,000/ton 
of VOC removed and approximately $570/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed, 
assuming total costs are assigned to each pollutant. Therefore, even 
when fuel credits are not considered, flare gas recovery is cost-
effective as an emissions control device. When properly sized, these 
flare gas recovery systems can eliminate all routine flaring. 
Therefore, eliminating routine flaring by use of fuel gas recovery, in-
process fuel use, or system wide flare gas recovery is determined to be 
BDT.
    We request comment on alternative means of eliminating routine 
flaring. As noted previously, a simple requirement to monitor gas flow 
and composition of gases sent to the flares resulted in reduced use of 
flares. An exemption from this monitoring requirement for flare systems 
that install flare gas recovery could provide refineries an incentive 
to install flare gas recovery systems. We request comment on this 
alternative and on the need to monitor flares that have flare gas 
recovery systems to ensure that the flare gas recovery system is 
properly sized and that no routine flaring is occurring.
    Additionally, we understand that there are a limited number of 
refineries that produce more fuel gas than they can use in the refinery 
process heaters or steam boilers. These ``fuel gas rich'' refineries 
contend that flaring is BDT for these refineries. Although we believe 
that other options exist, such as building an electric co-generating 
unit, the cost-effectiveness of such an endeavor is very site-specific. 
We cannot conclude at this time that co-generation or other projects 
that use fuel gas are BDT. Therefore, we are co-proposing no 
requirement for fuel gas producing units. We request comment on the 
actual number and location of ``fuel gas rich'' refineries. We also 
request comment and data regarding the technical and economical 
feasibility of alternatives for ``fuel gas rich'' refineries to avoid 
routine flaring.
    Emission Prevention During Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunctions. 
The current NSPS includes no requirements for a start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. We identified three emission prevention methods that 
can be addressed within the context of a start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. These are: Flare minimization during planned start-
ups and shutdowns; flare minimization during malfunctions of the sour 
gas amine

[[Page 27196]]

treatment units and sulfur recovery plants; and performing root-cause 
analyses of malfunctions that release in excess of 500 lb per day of 
SO<INF>2</INF>. Our rationale for including each of these three 
emission prevention methods are described in the following paragraphs.
    Flaring and direct venting of certain gas streams have been 
routinely used during planned start-up and shutdown of process units to 
quickly bring a process unit online or offline. These flaring and 
venting episodes have traditionally been exempt from any emission 
limitations. Nonetheless, some refineries have chosen to evaluate their 
start-up and shutdown emissions and alter their procedures so as to 
reduce or eliminate direct venting or flaring during planned start-up 
and shutdown events.
    Typically, alternative start-up and shutdown procedures that reduce 
atmospheric emissions or flaring require more time to complete than 
conventional procedures. Therefore, there is a cost associated with the 
alternative procedures in terms of potential product/productivity loss. 
For refineries that have system-wide flare gas recovery systems, it may 
be a simple matter of scheduling the start-up or shutdown during a time 
when limited other flare gas is being generated so as to not overwhelm 
the flare gas recovery system. The cost-effectiveness of the 
alternative procedures would depend on the amount of gas flared or 
vented using the traditional procedures, the amount of these emissions 
that can be avoided using alternative procedures, the amount of product 
lost due to the increased start-up/shutdown time period, and the value 
of that product. As such, it is difficult to conclude that significant 
or complete emission reductions during planned start-up or shutdown 
events will be cost-effective under all conditions; therefore, we chose 
not to set a specific venting or flaring limit (or prohibition).
    We estimate that the engineering review revision of a unit's start-
up and shutdown plan would require approximately 20 engineering hours 
per process unit, at total cost of $1,300 to $1,500 per process unit 
(one-time costs). Assuming the unit requires maintenance shut-down only 
once every 5 years and the revised procedures only reduce VOC and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 1 ton each per event, the cost-
effectiveness of the engineering review is $1,300 to $1,500 per ton of 
VOC and the same for SO<INF>2</INF>.
    Based on this simplistic analysis, we are proposing that 
implementing a start-up and shutdown plan focused on reducing emissions 
during planned start-up and shutdown events would be BDT.
    We evaluated several different requirements to promote continuous 
compliance with the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits associated with fuel 
gas combustion devices and sulfur recovery plants even during times of 
process upsets or malfunctions associated with the amine system or 
sulfur recovery plant. ``Process upset gas'' is ``gas generated by a 
petroleum refinery process unit as a result of upset or malfunction.'' 
Process upset gas is exempt from the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits. 
However, when there is a malfunction of the amine treatment system or 
the sulfur recovery plant, there has been some uncertainty as to 
whether combustion or flaring of the sour gas is considered to be 
exempt from the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit. This is because the 
amine treatment system or sulfur recovery plant is not ``generating'' 
the gas stream, it is merely treating it. As such, the amine treatment 
system and sulfur recovery plant are essentially control devices, and 
refinery owners and operators are required to minimize emissions during 
these control system malfunctions, up to and including the shutdown of 
the emissions generating units.
    A variety of prescriptive requirements were reviewed, such as 
requiring 24-hour storage capacity of lean amine solution and empty 
tank storage capacity to receive 24 hours worth of rich amine solution, 
requiring inventory of critical spare parts, and requiring redundant 
amine scrubbing and sulfur recovery capacity. While these are all 
viable options that a plant can employ to minimize malfunction 
emissions associated with the amine treatment system or sulfur recovery 
plant, the most cost-effective means to minimize these emissions are 
highly site-specific, being dependent on the number and location of the 
amine units or sulfur recovery trains within the sulfur recovery plant.
    We evaluated two alternatives, which are not mutually exclusive, 
for minimizing flaring of H<INF>2</INF>S-rich fuel gas in the event of 
a malfunction in the amine stripper or sulfur recovery plant. Option 1 
is to store 24 hours worth of lean amine solution in case of a 
malfunction in the amine stripper. We estimate that this alternative 
would require a capital cost of approximately $10 million (for 2 
storage tanks and excess amine) for a 50 long LTD SRU system, resulting 
in an annualized cost of $1 million/year. If the 24 hours of excess 
amine was used one time per year for an entire day, 50 LTD of sulfur 
would have resulted in 110 tons of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions avoided. If 
there are three occurrences per year where the excess amine solution is 
used, 330 tons of emissions would be reduced. This scenario results in 
a cost-effectiveness ranging from $3,000 to 9,000 per ton of 
SO<INF>2</INF> reduced.
    Option 2 is to have a redundant Claus unit. The capital cost of a 
50 LTD Claus unit is also approximately $10 million, resulting in an 
annualized cost of $1 million/year. Again, if there are one to three 
days of emissions avoided, this option results in a cost-effectiveness 
ranging from $3,000 to $9,000 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduced. For 
sulfur recovery plants consisting of multiple Claus units, the 
likelihood of needing the additional Claus train more than three times 
per year increases significantly, making the redundant Claus unit a 
cost-effective option.
    It is difficult to predict the quantity of emissions avoided as 
they are dependent on random malfunction events of variable durations. 
While the cost-effectiveness values of these options are not 
necessarily compelling given the uncertainty in the emissions avoided, 
the options evaluated are expected to be extreme measures. It is 
likely, for example, that maintaining appropriate spare parts for the 
system would provide a cost-effective means of reducing emissions. 
This, along with short-term reductions in high-sulfur fuel gas 
production could be used to eliminate the need to flare or otherwise 
combust these high sulfur-containing fuel gases.
    Based on this analysis, we are proposing that a start-up, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan that specifically addresses the minimization of 
fuel gas combustion of high sulfur-containing fuel gases during 
malfunctions of an amine treatment system or sulfur recovery plant is 
BDT. The start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan will address specific 
process upset and malfunction events associated with the amine 
treatment system and sulfur recovery plant and the standard operating 
procedures to follow to minimize emissions during these events. 
Compliance is demonstrated by following the procedures in the plan. As 
previously mentioned, we are proposing a work practice standard rather 
than an equipment standard to provide flexibility to the refinery owner 
or operator regarding the best way to minimize malfunction emissions 
given the refinery's specific configuration and sulfur loads.
    Finally, we evaluated a requirement for performing root-cause 
analyses as a means to minimize the frequency of process malfunctions 
and thereby

[[Page 27197]]

reduce malfunction emissions. Even though process upset gas is exempt 
from the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits associated with fuel gas 
combustion units, we believe it is good air pollution practice to 
investigate the causes of significant atmospheric releases caused by 
process upsets or malfunctions to determine if similar upsets or 
malfunctions can be reasonably prevented from recurring. Similarly, we 
believe it is good pollution control practice to investigate 
significant emission exceedances to determine the cause of the 
exceedance and to implement procedures to prevent its recurrence. The 
cost-effectiveness of these investigations is dependent on the 
frequency and magnitude of the emission episodes; for very small 
emission episodes, the manpower required to perform the investigations 
do not justify the potential emission reductions that might be realized 
from the root-cause analysis. We estimate that a root-cause analysis 
would cost approximately $2,500 to perform. For emissions of less than 
500 pounds per day, the cost-effectiveness of the root-cause analysis, 
even assuming it would completely eliminate a future recurrence, would 
be approximately $10,000 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduced. Similarly, 
for emissions of 1,000 pounds per day, the cost-effectiveness would be 
on the order of $5,000 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduced. As the 
probability of successfully identifying a means to avoid future 
emissions from each root-cause analysis performed is certainly less 
than 100 percent, we determined that it was not cost effective to 
perform root-cause analyses for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions exceedances of 
500 pounds per day or less and request comment on alternative 
thresholds in the range of 500 to 1,000 lbs per day.
    For SO<INF>2</INF> releases of greater than 500 pounds per day, the 
emissions reductions potential of the root-cause analyses increases and 
the cost-effectiveness improves, so we are proposing that performing 
root-cause analyses for SO<INF>2</INF> releases of greater than 500 
pounds per day would be BDT. Any emission limit exceedance or any 
process start-up, shutdown, upset or malfunction that causes a 
discharge into the atmosphere in excess of 500 pounds per day of 
SO<INF>2</INF> would require a root cause analysis to be performed. We 
also considered a similar requirement for hydrocarbon flaring events 
with the purpose of reducing VOC emissions. However, we expect refinery 
owners and operators to investigate large hydrocarbon releases as these 
releases represent lost revenues. Furthermore, as flares are efficient 
in destroying VOC, the potential to significantly reduce VOC emissions 
by performing root-cause analysis is much less than the potential for 
reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. We request comment on the need to 
include root cause analyses for hydrocarbon releases. If root-cause 
analyses are recommended, please provide in your comments the 
recommended release quantities that would trigger the root-cause 
analysis and justification for the recommendation. If root cause 
analyses are not recommended, please provide in your comments the 
rationale for not requiring root-cause analysis for any VOC 
(hydrocarbon) releases.
    The proposed rule is intended to provide flexibility for each 
refinery owner and operator to develop procedures that are efficient 
and effective for their process configuration. The scope of these 
requirements is limited to affected facilities under this rule. We 
request comment on the need to implement this requirement to all new 
process units at the refinery, not just fuel gas producing units such 
as fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid coking units, fuel gas 
combustion devices, and sulfur recovery plants.
    On the other hand, based on site-specific conditions and given the 
nature of the types of emissions events that are being addressed by the 
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan, it is impossible to 
conclusively determine that one or all of the emission reduction 
methods addressed in the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan will 
achieve any set level of emissions reduction or that those reductions, 
if any, will be cost-effective. Therefore, we are co-proposing no 
requirement for a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan. We request 
comments and supporting data that indicate the emission reductions that 
could be reasonably expected from a flare minimization plan for planned 
start-up and shutdown events, the number of planned events that occur 
per year (or over a 5 year period), and any other information that can 
be used to justify either the inclusion or exclusion of this provision 
in the final rule. We also request comments and supporting data that 
indicate the number and duration of malfunctions in the amine stripper 
and sulfur recovery plants, the costs associated with alternative 
sulfur shedding practices, and other information that can be used to 
justify either the inclusion or exclusion of this provision in the 
final rule.
    Finally, we request comment, along with supporting data, that 
indicate the frequency of emission events exceeding 500 pounds per day, 
the percentage of times the root-cause analysis results in positive 
steps that may avoid future recurrence of the event, and other 
information that can be used to justify either the inclusion or 
exclusion of this provision in the final rule.
    Delayed Coking Unit Depressurization. The primary emission releases 
from delayed coking units occur as the coking vessels are depressurized 
and petroleum coke is removed from the unit. When the delayed coking 
cycle is completed, the coke-filled vessel is steam stripped. Most of 
the gases from this process continue to be sent to the coking unit 
distillation column. At some point in time, the steam gas discharge is 
diverted to the blow-down system. The delayed coking unit typically has 
a fuel gas recovery system (compressor) due to the quantity of fuel gas 
produced by the unit. Therefore, it is cost-effective to require the 
blow-down system gases to be recovered in the unit's fuel gas recovery 
system, in keeping with the proposed work practice standard that fuel 
gas from fuel gas producing units will not be routinely flared.
    As the process unit continues to depressurize, there is a point 
where the gases can no longer be discharged to the blow-down system or 
fuel gas recovery line, at which point the remaining steam and gases 
are vented to the atmosphere. To achieve maximum reduction of 
uncontrolled releases, the unit should be depressurized to as low a 
pressure as possible before venting to the atmosphere. Below a pressure 
of 5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) in the delayed coking unit 
drum, it is not technically feasible to divert the emissions for 
recovery. Above a vessel pressure of 5 psig, it is technically feasible 
to divert the emissions for recovery. Furthermore, as the unit already 
has a gas compressor, the costs associated with recovering these gases 
is minimal.
    We estimate that this practice can reduce VOC emissions by 120 tons 
per year and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by at 200 tons per year. The 
total annualized costs are expected to be minimal for new units, but 
installing the appropriate piping for a modified or reconstructed unit 
may result in annualized costs of up to $100,000 per year. Even under 
this extreme condition, the cost effectiveness of the requirement is 
about $800 per ton of VOC reduced and $500 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> 
reduced. Therefore, we conclude that a work practice standard that 
requires a delayed coking unit to depressure to 5 psig during reactor 
vessel depressuring and vent the exhaust gases to the fuel gas system 
for recovery is BDT. Note this determination is independent of the

[[Page 27198]]

work practice to eliminate routine flaring from fuel gas producing 
units and requires flare gas recovery of depressurization gases even 
under the option of no work practice requirement to minimize flaring.
    In addition to the depressurization emissions, we also identified 
at least one refinery that has designed an enclosed system for their 
coke-cutting operations. Coke cutting operations were identified as a 
significant VOC emission source at refineries during an Alberta 
Research Council study, with an estimated VOC emissions rate of 1,300 
tons per year. We do not have any data regarding the effectiveness of 
the coke-cutting enclosure system, whether the enclosure seals are air 
tight or if they allow some percentage of the emissions escape. The 
enclosure may simply suppress the emissions until the coke is removed 
from the unit, at which time the emissions are released. Additionally, 
we do not have any data on the costs of these systems and whether or 
not existing units can be retrofitted if the delayed coking unit is 
modified or reconstructed. Therefore, we cannot conclude that an 
enclosed coke cutting system is BDT, but we request comment and 
additional information on coke-cutting system controls, their cost, 
their effectiveness, and their limitations.

VI. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

    Existing affected sources that are modified or reconstructed would 
be subject to the proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. A 
modification is any physical or operational change to an existing 
facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the 
atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies (see 40 CFR 
60.14). Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an 
increase in the emission rate, as well as certain changes that have 
been exempted under the General Provisions (see 40 CFR 60.14(e)) are 
not considered modifications.
    Rebuilt petroleum refinery process units would become subject to 
the proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja under the 
reconstruction provisions, regardless of changes in emission rate. 
Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing 
facility such that (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components 
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to 
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards (40 CFR 60.15).
    With the exception of the standards for fluid catalytic cracking 
units, we are proposing that modified or reconstructed sources be 
subject to the same proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja, 
as new sources. The decision to maintain consistent standards for both 
new and modified or reconstructed sources was based on an evaluation of 
the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of the 
proposed standards on both types of sources and on the feasibility of 
retrofitting existing units. We have included in the docket a table 
(Impacts Summary) which summarizes our estimates costs for different 
control options for both new and reconstructed or modified process 
units. We request comment on these cost estimates and on specific 
issues related to the feasibility of retrofitting existing units, as 
well as our assessment that cost-effectiveness numbers are similar 
enough such that it is appropriate to have identical standards for both 
new and modified or reconstructed sources.

VII. Request for Comments

    Table 10 summarizes the topics on which we have specifically 
requested comment throughout this preamble. We note, however, that 
comments on all aspects of this proposal are welcome.

       Table 10.--Summary of Topics on Which Comment Is Requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Section in this  preamble where
                 Topic                          topic is discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of proposed PM, SO2 and NOX      III.B. and V.E.1.
 standard on modified or reconstructed
 fluid catalytic cracking units. Also
 co-proposed 40 CFR part 60, Subpart J
 standards for SO2 and PM and no NOX
 limits for modified and reconstructed
 sources.
Exemption for emergency flares.........  IV.A.
Exemption from monitoring for fuel gas   IV.A.
 streams related to commercial liquid
 products.
Exemption from monitoring for fuel gas   IV.A.
 streams generated by process units
 that are intolerant of sulfur.
Alternative PM limit for fluid           V.E.1.
 catalytic cracking units based on
 condensable PM as well as filterable
 PM.
Alternative lower (20 ppmv, 40 ppmv)     V.E.1.
 NOX limit, averaged over 365 days, for
 fluid catalytic cracking units.
Co-propose no new NOX standard for       V.E.2.
 fluid coking units.
Appropriate long-term average H2S        V.E.4.
 concentration limit for fuel gas
 combustion units, and requirement to
 monitor TRS instead of H2S for fuel
 gas from coker units.
Various aspects of work practice         V.D.5.
 standards to minimize routine flaring
 and enhance SO2 control versus no
 standards: alternative means of
 eliminating flaring, number of ``fuel
 gas rich'' refineries, need for a
 startup, shutdown, and malfunction
 plan (SSMP), including rationale for
 or against requiring a root cause
 analysis for hydrocarbon releases and
 sulfur shedding practices, and
 information about emission control
 systems for coke cutting operations.
 Also co-propose no requirements for
 routine flaring and no SSMP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative 
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as 
well as impacts on energy, solid waste, and other effects. We request 
comment on whether we have identified the appropriate alternatives and 
whether the proposed standards adequately take into consideration the 
incremental effects in terms of emission reductions, energy, and other 
effects of these alternatives. We will consider the available 
information in developing the final rule.

A. What are the impacts for petroleum refining process units?

    We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed 
requirements of subpart Ja that change the performance standards: the 
emission limits for fluid catalytic cracking units, sulfur recovery 
plants, fluid coking units, fuel gas combustion devices, and process 
heaters, as well as the work practice standards. The proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J are clarifications to the 
existing rule, and they have no emission reduction impacts. The cost, 
environmental, and economic impacts presented in this section are 
expressed as incremental

[[Page 27199]]

differences between the impacts of petroleum refining process units 
complying with the proposed subpart Ja and the current NSPS 
requirements of subpart J (i.e., baseline). The impacts are presented 
for petroleum refining process units that commence construction, 
reconstruction, or modification over the next 5 years. The analyses and 
the documents referenced below can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0011.
    In order to determine the incremental costs and emission reductions 
of this proposed rule, we first estimated baseline impacts. For new 
sources, baseline costs and emission reductions were estimated for 
complying with subpart J; incremental impacts for subpart Ja were 
estimated as the costs to comply with subpart J subtracted from the 
costs to comply with proposed subpart Ja. Sources that are modified or 
reconstructed over the next 5 years would comply with subpart J in the 
absence of proposed subpart Ja. We assumed that prior to reconstruction 
or modification, these sources would either be subject to a consent 
decree (equivalent to about 77 percent of the industry by capacity), 
complying with subpart J or equivalent limits, or complying with 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UUU (MACT II). Baseline costs and emission reductions 
were estimated as the effort needed to comply with subpart J from one 
of those three starting points. The costs and emission reductions to 
comply with proposed subpart Ja were estimated from those starting 
points as well. The estimated costs presented for work practice 
standards include only the labor cost to prepare the required plan or 
analysis; we did not attempt to quantify costs and emission reductions 
for the variety of ways a facility may choose to implement those plans. 
We assumed that each facility would evaluate their options and choose 
the most cost-effective option for the facility's unique position. For 
further detail on the methodology of these calculations, see Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011.
    When considering and selecting emission limits for the proposed 
rule, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each option for new 
sources separately from reconstructed and modified sources. However, 
since our selections for each process unit and pollutant were 
consistent for all units, we are presenting our costs and emission 
reductions for the overall rule. We estimate that the proposed 
amendments will reduce combined emissions of PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
NO<INF>X</INF> about 55,800 tons/yr from the baseline. The estimated 
increase in annual cost, including annualized capital costs, is about 
$54,100,000. The overall cost-effectiveness is about $970 per ton of 
pollutants removed. The estimated nationwide 5-year incremental 
emissions reductions and cost impacts for the proposed amendments are 
summarized in Table 11 of this preamble.

  Table 11.--National Incremental Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for Petroleum Refinery Units Subject to
                 Proposed Standards Under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja (Fifth Year After Proposal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Annual
                                                   Total capital   Total annual      emission          Cost-
         Process unit               Pollutant     cost  ($1,000)  cost  ($1,000/    reductions     effectiveness
                                                                        yr)          (tons/yr)        ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCCU..........................  PM and SO2......          40,000           9,500           9,500           1,000
FCCU..........................  NOX.............          28,000           7,300           3,500           2,100
Fluid Coker...................  PM and SO2......          14,000           4,800          23,000             210
Fluid Coker...................  NOX.............           4,500             970             760           1,300
SRP...........................  SO2.............           1,100             680             550           1,200
Process Heaters and Fuel Gas    SO2.............               0           2,880           1,300           2,200
 Combustion.
Process Heaters...............  NOX.............         140,000          28,000          17,000           1,600
Work Practices................  ................  ..............             250  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ................         230,000          54,000          56,000             970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts of this proposed rule 
would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices. Assuming that plants would purchase 
electricity from a power plant, we estimate that the standards as 
proposed would increase secondary emissions of criteria pollutants, 
including PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and CO from power plants. 
For new, modified or reconstructed sources, this proposed rule would 
increase secondary PM emissions by 24 Mg/yr (27 tpy); secondary 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by about 970 Mg/yr (1,100 tpy); secondary 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by about 480 Mg/yr (530 tpy); and secondary CO 
emissions by about 16 Mg/yr (17 tpy) for the 5 years following 
proposal.
    As explained earlier, we expect that affected facilities will 
control emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units by installing and 
operating ESP or wet gas scrubbers. We also expect that the emissions 
from the affected fluid coker will be controlled with a wet scrubber. 
For these process units, we estimated solid waste impacts for both 
types of control devices and water impacts for wet gas scrubbers. In 
addition, the controls needed by small sulfur recovery plants will 
generate condensate. We project that this proposed rule will generate 
4.5 billion gallons of water per year for the 5 years following 
proposal. We also estimate that this proposed rule will generate 8,600 
Mg/yr (7,800 tpy) of solid waste over those 5 years.
    Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to 
operate control devices and other equipment that would be required 
under the proposed rule. Our estimate of the increased energy demand 
includes the electricity needed to produce the required amounts of 
steam as well as direct electricity demand. We project that this 
proposed rule would increase overall energy demand by about 170 
gigawatt-hours per year (590 billion British thermal units per year).

C. What are the economic impacts?

    This proposal affects certain new and reconstructed/modified 
sources found at petroleum refineries as defined earlier in this 
preamble. We performed an economic impact analysis that estimates 
changes in prices and output for gasoline nationally using the annual 
compliance costs estimated for this proposal. The methodology for this

[[Page 27200]]

analysis incorporates changes in producer and consumer behavior by 
considering passthrough of increased production costs from producers to 
consumers. All estimates are for the fifth year after proposal since 
this is the year for which the compliance cost impacts are estimated.
    The analysis estimates a price increase in gasoline of less than 
0.02 percent nationally will take place along with a corresponding 
reduction in gasoline output of less than 0.004 percent (or less than 6 
million gallons a year). The overall total annual social costs, which 
reflect changes in consumer and producer behavior in response to the 
compliance costs, are $53.0 million (2005 dollars) or almost identical 
to the compliance costs.
    For more information, please refer to the economic impact analysis 
report that is in the public docket for this proposed rule.

D. What are the benefits?

    We estimate the monetized benefits of this proposed rule to be $957 
million (2005$) in the fifth year after proposal. We base the portion 
of the benefits estimate derived from the PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions on the approach and methodology laid 
out in EPA's 2004 benefits analysis supporting the regulation of 
emissions from the Industrial Boilers MACT (included in the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters 
NESHAP, February 2004). We chose the benefit analysis contained in this 
RIA as the basis for estimating the benefits from emission reductions 
of these two pollutants since most of the elements in that rule are 
similar to those covered here. These elements, which are the stack 
height, a number of the controls applied, and the pollutants affected--
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, but not NO<INF>X</INF>--are 
similar to those covered by the Industrial Boiler MACT standard.
    We base the portion of the benefits estimate derived from the 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions on the approach and methodology laid 
out in EPA's 2005 benefits analysis supporting the regulation of 
emissions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (included in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Air Interstate Rule, March 
2005). We chose the CAIR analysis as the basis for estimating the 
benefits from emission reductions of this pollutant since most of the 
elements in CAIR are similar to those covered here. These elements, 
which are the stack height, a number of the controls applied, and the 
pollutant affected--in this case, NO<INF>X</INF> only--are similar to 
those covered by CAIR. These three factors lead us to believe that we 
might reasonably estimate benefits for this proposed rule using a 
benefits transfer approach and values from the Industrial Boilers MACT 
analysis for estimating the SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
benefits of this rule, and the CAIR analysis for the NO<INF>X</INF> 
benefits of the rule. Specifically, these estimates are based on 
application of the benefits scaling approach derived from the benefits 
analyses completed for these rulemakings. As mentioned above, the 
methodologies are laid out in the Industrial Boilers MACT and CAIR RIA. 
A summary of the benefits estimates is in Table 12 below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We use the SO<INF>2</INF> benefits/ton estimate derived from 
the Industrial Boilers MACT benefit analysis based on the factors 
listed above. We also note that the SO<INF>2</INF> benefits/ton 
estimate derived from the CAIR benefits analysis is $18,000 in 2010 
and $22,000 in 2015, both of which are quite close to the estimate 
we use in this analysis. We use the NO<INF>X</INF> benefits/ton 
estimate from the CAIR Boilers MACT benefits analysis (no 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions take place as a result of the Industrial 
Boilers MACT).

                           Table 12.--Summary of Benefits Estimates For Proposed NSPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total
                                                                     Monetized       Emission        monetized
                            Pollutant                              benefits per     reductions       benefits*
                                                                   ton emission       (tons)       (millions of
                                                                     reduction                     2005 dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................................................         $88,000           3,221          $283.4
SO2.............................................................          20,000          31,358           627.2
NOX.............................................................           2,200          21,266            46.8
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Grand Total:................................................  ..............  ..............         $957.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All estimates are for the analysis year (fifth year after proposal). Emission reductions reflect the
  combination of proposed options for both new and reconstructed/modified sources.

    The specific estimates of benefits per ton of pollutant reductions 
included in this analysis are largely driven by the concentration 
response function for premature mortality, which is based on the 
American Cancer Society cohort (ACS) (Pope, C.A. III, et al., ``Lung 
Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine 
Particulate Air Pollution,'' JAMA, 2002). Since the publication of 
CAIR, the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has adopted a different 
format for its benefits analysis in which characterization of the 
uncertainty in the concentration response function is integrated into 
the main benefits analysis. The PM NAAQS analysis provides an 
indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of alternative 
concentration response functions, including those derived from the 
recently completed expert elicitation study. Specifically, compared to 
the final PM NAAQS estimate of the mean mortality from the ACS cohort, 
the expert-based premature mortality incidence ranged from 50 percent 
of the mean ACS estimate to more than five times the size of the ACS 
mean estimate. The Agency is currently updating the estimates used here 
to calculate the benefits of the proposed NSPS and intends to consider 
using these updated benefits estimates as part of an approach similar 
to that used in the PM NAAQS RIA in the benefits analyses for the final 
NSPS.
    With the annualized costs of this rulemaking estimated at $54 
million (2005$) in the fifth year after proposal and with estimated 
benefits of $957 million (2005$) for that same year, EPA believes that 
the benefits are likely to exceed the costs by a significant margin 
even when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and benefit 
estimates. For more information, please refer to the RIA for this 
proposed rule that is available in the docket.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant 
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on 
the

[[Page 27201]]

economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 
have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed Petroleum Refinery 
NSPS, EPA-452/R-07-006. A copy of the analysis is available in the 
docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized here. The 
monetized benefits of this action are estimated at $957 million (2005 
dollars), and the annualized costs of this action are estimated at $54 
million (2005 dollars). We also estimated the economic impacts, small 
business impacts, and energy impacts associated with this action. These 
analyses are included in the RIA and are summarized elsewhere in this 
preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed amendments to the existing standards of performance 
for petroleum refineries would add a monitoring exemption for fuel gas 
streams combusted in a fuel gas combustion device that are inherently 
low in sulfur content. The exemption would apply to fuel gas streams 
that meet specified criteria or that the owner or operator demonstrates 
are low sulfur according to the rule requirements. The owner or 
operator would submit a written application for the exemption 
containing information needed to document the low sulfur content. The 
application is not a mandatory requirement and the incremental 
reduction in monitoring burden that would occur as a result of the 
exemption would not be significant compared to the baseline burden 
estimates for the existing rule. Therefore, we have not revised the 
information collection request (ICR) for the existing rule. The OMB has 
previously approved the information collection requirements in the 
existing rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0022, EPA ICR number 1054.07.
    A copy of the OMB-approved ICR for the Standards of Performance for 
Petroleum Refineries may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 
Strategies Division, Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bfaeef9e2b5e8eee8faf5dbfeebfab5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9c889f84d38e888e9c93bd988d9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>, or by calling (292) 566-1672.
    The information collection requirements in the proposed standards 
of performance for petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja) 
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2263.01.
    The proposed standards of performance for petroleum refineries 
include work practice requirements for delayed coking reactor vessel 
depressuring and written plans to minimize emissions during startups, 
shutdowns, and malfunctions. Plants also would be required to analyze 
the cause of any exceedance that releases more than 500 pounds per day 
of SO<INF>2</INF> above an allowable limit. EPA is co-proposing work 
practice standards that would include the requirement for delayed 
coking reactor vessel depressuring but exclude the requirements for 
written plans and root-cause analyses for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
discharges exceeding allowable limits by at least 500 pounds per day. 
The proposed standards also include testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting provisions. Monitoring requirements may include control 
device operating parameters, bag leak detection systems, or CEMS, 
depending on the type of process, pollutant, and control device. 
Exemptions are also proposed for small emitters. These requirements are 
based on recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NSPS General 
Provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and on specific requirements 
in subpart J or subpart Ja which are mandatory for all operators 
subject to new source performance standards. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of 
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 6,084 labor-hours per 
year at a cost of $526,241 per year. The annualized capital costs are 
estimated at $2,736,000 per year and operation and maintenance costs 
are estimated at $1,627,200 per year. We note that the capital costs as 
well as the operation and maintenance costs are for the continuous 
monitors; these costs are also included in the cost impacts presented 
in section VIII.A of this preamble. Therefore, the burden costs 
associated with the continuous monitors presented in the ICR are not 
additional costs incurred by affected sources subject to proposed 
subpart Ja.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. Submit 
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. 
See Addresses section at the beginning of this document for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after May 14, 2007, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 13, 2007. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any

[[Page 27202]]

other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed action on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose 
parent company has no more than 1,500 employees and no more than 
125,000 barrels per day total operable atmospheric crude oil 
distillation capacity, depending on the size definition for the 
affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) 
size standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population 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 not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 58 
entities that we expect could be affected by today's proposed action, 
24 of these (or 41 percent) are classified as small according to the 
SBA small business size standard listed previously. Of these 24 
affected entities, one small entity is expected to incur an annualized 
compliance cost of more than 1.0 percent to comply with today's 
proposed action. In addition, the impact on gasoline prices nationwide 
is expected to be less than 0.02 percent of the baseline gasoline 
price, and this represents less than a 1 cent increase in the price per 
gallon of gasoline. Also, the output of gasoline in the U.S. is 
expected to fall by less than 0.004 percent, or less than 6 million 
gallons per year in the U.S. For more information, please refer to the 
economic impact analysis that is in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.
    Although this proposed action would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed action on small entities by 
incorporating specific standards for small sulfur recovery plants and 
streamlining procedures for exempting inherently low-sulfur fuel gases 
from continuous monitoring. We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of this proposed action on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, 
the estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year 
after proposal are $54 million. Thus, this proposed action is not 
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In 
addition, EPA has determined that this proposed action contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This proposed action contains no requirements that 
apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would 
not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any 1 
year or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, this proposed 
action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this proposed action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed action does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
The proposed rules impose requirements on owners and operators of 
specified

[[Page 27203]]

industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those 
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and 
not on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We 
prepared an analysis of the impacts on energy markets as part of our 
economic impact analysis for today's proposed action. Our analysis 
shows that there is a reduction in gasoline output of less than 6 
million gallons per year, or less than 400 barrels of gasoline 
production per day, in the fifth year after proposal of this proposed 
action. In addition, our analysis shows that there is an increase in 
gasoline prices of less than 0.02 percent in the fifth year after 
proposal of this proposed action. Given this degree of increase in 
domestic gasoline prices, no significant increase in our dependence on 
foreign energy supplies should take place. Finally, today's proposed 
action will have no adverse effect on crude oil supply, coal 
production, electricity production, and energy distribution. Based on 
the findings from the analysis of impacts on energy markets, we 
conclude that today's proposed action is not a ``significant energy 
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211. For more information on 
this analysis, please refer to the economic impact analysis for this 
rulemaking. This analysis is found in the public docket.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    Today's proposed rule (subpart Ja) involves technical standards. 
The EPA cites the following standards: EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 
6, 6A, 6B, 6C, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 10, 10A, 11, 15, 15A, and 16 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A; Performance Specifications 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 
11 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 60. 
This rule also cites ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' for its manual methods of measuring the content of the 
exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7C, and 15A.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to these methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA 
Methods 7D and 11; EPA Performance Specifications 3, 4, 5, and 7; and 
Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. The search and review results are in the 
docket for this rule.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 22 other 
VCS. The EPA determined that these 22 standards identified for 
measuring emissions of the targeted pollutants or surrogates subject to 
emission standards in this rule were impractical alternatives to EPA 
test methods for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, EPA does not 
intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for the 
determinations for the 22 standards are discussed in the memorandum 
submitted to the docket to this rule.
    Both the proposed amendments for subpart J and the proposed rule 
(subpart Ja) cite the Gas Processor's Association Method 2377-86, 
``Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using 
Length of Stain Tubes'' (incorporated by reference-see 40 CFR 60.17) as 
an acceptable method for determining the H2S content of low sulfur 
streams. The amendments to subpart J do not include any other technical 
standards.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to Gas Processor's Association Method 2377-86. No 
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for Gas 
Processor's Association Method 2377-86. The search and review results 
are in the docket for this rule.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may 
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the proposed rule 
and amendments.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that the proposed 
amendments would not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 
because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human 
health or the environment. The proposed amendments are clarifications 
which do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the 
rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these 
sources. EPA has determined that the proposed standards would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because they would 
increase the level of

[[Page 27204]]

environmental protection for all affected populations without having 
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. These proposed standards would reduce emissions of criteria 
pollutants from all new, reconstructed, or modified sources at 
petroleum refineries, decreasing the amount of such emissions to which 
all affected populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (h)(4),
    b. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (m) introductory text, 
and
    c. Revising paragraph (m)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Tables 1 and 3 of 
subpart EEEE, Tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, Sec.  60.106(e)(2) of 
subpart J, Sec. Sec.  60.104a(d)(3), (d)(6), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(6), 
(i)(3), (i)(4), (j)(3), (j)(4), (j)(4)(iii), and 60.105a(d)(4), (e)(4), 
(f)(2), and (f)(4), and 60.106a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 
(a)(2)(iv), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iv), and (a)(4)(iii), and 
60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), and (c)(4) of 
subpart Ja, and Sec. Sec.  60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of subpart 
KKKK of this part.
* * * * *
    (m) * * * You may inspect a copy at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    (1) Gas Processors Association Method 2377-86, Test for Hydrogen 
Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  60.105(b)(1)(iv), 60.107a(b)(1)(iv), 
60.334(h)(1), 60.4360, and 60.4415(a)(1)(ii).
* * * * *

Subpart J--[Amended]

    3. Section 60.100 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (a) and revising paragraphs (b) through (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.100  Applicability, designation of affected facility, and 
reconstruction.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following 
affected facilities in petroleum refineries: fluid catalytic cracking 
unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and all Claus 
sulfur recovery plants except Claus plants with a design capacity of 20 
long tons per day (LTD) or less. * * *
    (b) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator or fuel 
gas combustion device under paragraph (a) of this section which 
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 
1973, and on or before May 14, 2007, or any Claus sulfur recovery plant 
under paragraph (a) of this section which commences construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after October 4, 1976, and on or before 
May 14, 2007, is subject to the requirements of this subpart except as 
provided under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (c) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator under 
paragraph (b) of this section which commences construction, 
reconstruction, or modification on or before January 17, 1984, is 
exempted from Sec.  60.104(b).
    (d) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit in which a contact material 
reacts with petroleum derivatives to improve feedstock quality and in 
which the contact material is regenerated by burning off coke and/or 
other deposits and that commences construction, reconstruction, or 
modification on or before January 17, 1984, is exempt from this subpart
* * * * *
    4. Section 60.101 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (i), (j), 
and (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Fuel gas means any gas which is generated at a petroleum 
refinery and which is combusted. Fuel gas also includes natural gas 
when the natural gas is combined and combusted in any proportion with a 
gas generated at a refinery. Fuel gas does not include gases generated 
by catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fluid coking 
burners. Fuel gas does not include vapors that are collected and 
combusted to comply with the wastewater provisions in Sec.  60.692, 40 
CFR 61.343 through 61.348, or 40 CFR 63.647, or the marine tank vessel 
loading provisions in 40 CFR 63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651.
* * * * *
    (i) Claus sulfur recovery plant means a series of process units 
which recover sulfur from hydrogen sulfide (H<INF>2</INF>S) by a vapor-
phase catalytic reaction of sulfur dioxide and H<INF>2</INF>S. The 
Claus sulfur recovery plant includes the reactor furnace and waste heat 
boiler, catalytic reactors, sulfur pits, and, if present, oxidation or 
reduction control systems. One Claus sulfur recovery plant may consist 
of multiple trains.
    (j) Oxidation control system means an emission control system which 
reduces emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these 
emissions to sulfur dioxide and recycling the sulfur dioxide to the 
reactor furnace or the first-stage catalytic reactor of the Claus 
sulfur recovery plant.
    (k) Reduction control system means an emission control system which 
reduces emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these 
emissions to H<INF>2</INF>S and recycling the H<INF>2</INF>S to the 
reactor furnace or the first-stage catalytic reactor of the Claus 
sulfur recovery plant.
* * * * *
    5. Section 60.102 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.102  Standard for particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (b) Where the gases discharged by the fluid catalytic cracking unit 
catalyst regenerator pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler 
in which auxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel is 
burned, particulate matter in excess of that permitted by paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section may be emitted to the atmosphere, except that 
the incremental rate of particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 
43 grams per Gigajoule (g/GJ) (0.10 lb/million British thermal units 
(Btu)) of heat input attributable to such liquid or solid fossil fuel.
    6. Section 60.104 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.104  Standards for sulfur oxides.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) With an add-on control device, reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
to the atmosphere by 90 percent or maintain SO<INF>2</INF>

[[Page 27205]]

emissions to the atmosphere less than or equal to 50 ppm by volume 
(ppmv), whichever is less stringent; or
    (2) Without the use of an add-on control device to reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, maintain sulfur oxides emissions calculated 
as SO<INF>2</INF> to the atmosphere less than or equal to 9.8 kg/Mg (20 
lb/ton) coke burn-off; or
* * * * *
    7. Section 60.105 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3) introductory 
text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(iv);
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text;
    d. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(iv);
    e. Revising paragraph (a)(8) introductory text;
    f. Revising paragraph (a)(8)(i); and
    g. Adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.105  Monitoring of emissions and operations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For fuel gas combustion devices subject to Sec.  60.104(a)(1), 
either an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the 
concentration by volume (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions into the atmosphere or monitoring as provided 
in paragraph (a)(4) of this section). * * *
* * * * *
    (iv) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas 
may be monitored at only one location (i.e., after one of the 
combustion devices), if monitoring at this location accurately 
represents the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions into the atmosphere from each 
of the combustion devices.
    (4) Instead of the SO<INF>2</INF> monitor in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section for fuel gas combustion devices subject to Sec.  
60.104(a)(1), an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording 
the concentration (dry basis) of H<INF>2</INF>S in fuel gases before 
being burned in any fuel gas combustion device.
* * * * *
    (iv) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device is not 
required to comply with paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section for 
streams that are exempt under Sec.  60.104(a)(1) and fuel gas streams 
combusted in a fuel gas combustion device that are inherently low in 
sulfur content. Fuel gas streams meeting one of the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section will be considered 
inherently low in sulfur content. If the composition of a fuel gas 
stream changes such that it is no longer exempt under Sec.  
60.104(a)(1) or it no longer meets one of the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section, the owner or 
operator must begin continuous monitoring under paragraph (a)(3) or (4) 
of this section within 15 days of the change.
    (A) Pilot gas for heaters and flares.
    (B) Gas streams that meet commercial-grade product specifications 
and have a sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less.
    (C) Fuel gas streams produced in process units that are intolerant 
to sulfur contamination, such as fuel gas streams produced in the 
hydrogen plant, the catalytic reforming unit, and the isomerization 
unit.
    (D) Other streams that an owner or operator demonstrates are low-
sulfur according to the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) An instrument for continuously monitoring and recording 
concentrations of SO<INF>2</INF> in the gases at both the inlet and 
outlet of the SO<INF>2</INF> control device from any fluid catalytic 
cracking unit catalyst regenerator for which the owner or operator 
seeks to comply specifically with the 90 percent reduction option under 
Sec.  60.104(b)(1).
    (i) The span value of the inlet monitor shall be set at 125 percent 
of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
concentration entering the control device, and the span value of the 
outlet monitor shall be set at 50 percent of the maximum estimated 
hourly potential SO<INF>2</INF> emission concentration entering the 
control device.
* * * * *
    (b) An owner or operator may demonstrate that a gas stream 
combusted in a fuel gas combustion device subject to Sec.  60.104(a)(1) 
that is not specifically exempted in Sec.  60.105(a)(4)(iv) is 
inherently low in sulfur. A gas stream that is determined to be low-
sulfur is exempt from the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (a)(3) 
and (4) of this section until there are changes in operating conditions 
or stream composition.
    (1) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a 
written application for an exemption from monitoring. The application 
must contain the following information:
    (i) A description of the gas stream/system to be considered, 
including submission of a portion of the appropriate piping diagrams 
indicating the boundaries of the gas stream/system, and the affected 
fuel gas combustion device(s) to be considered;
    (ii) A statement that there are no crossover or entry points for 
sour gas (high H<INF>2</INF>S content) to be introduced into the gas 
stream/system (this should be shown in the piping diagrams);
    (iii) An explanation of the conditions that ensure low amounts of 
sulfur in the gas stream (i.e., control equipment or product 
specifications) at all times;
    (iv) The supporting test results from sampling the requested gas 
stream/system demonstrating that the sulfur content is less than 5 
ppmv. Minimum sampling data must consist of 2 weeks of daily monitoring 
(14 grab samples) for frequently operated gas streams/systems; for 
infrequently operated gas streams/systems, seven grab samples must be 
collected unless other additional information would support reduced 
sampling. The owner or operator shall use detector tubes (``length-of-
stain tube'' type measurement) following the Gas Processor 
Association's Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural 
Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes, 1986 revision with ranges 0-10/0-100 
ppm (N = 10/1) to test the applicant stream (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17).
    (v) A description of how the 2 weeks (or seven samples for 
infrequently operated gas streams/systems) of monitoring results 
compares to the typical range of H<INF>2</INF>S concentration (fuel 
quality) expected for the gas stream/system going to the affected fuel 
gas combustion device (e.g., the 2 weeks of daily detector tube results 
for a frequently operated loading rack included the entire range of 
products loaded out, and, therefore, should be representative of 
typical operating conditions affecting H<INF>2</INF>S content in the 
gas stream going to the loading rack flare).
    (2) Once EPA receives a complete application, the Administrator 
will determine whether an exemption is granted. The owner or operator 
shall continue to comply with the monitoring requirements in paragraph 
(a)(3) or paragraph (a)(4) of this section until an exemption is 
granted.
    (3) Once an exemption from continuous monitoring is granted, no 
further action is required unless refinery operating conditions change 
in such a way that affects the exempt gas stream/system (e.g., the 
stream composition changes). If such a change occurs, the owner or 
operator will follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), 
or (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is 
still within the range of concentrations included in the original 
application, the owner or operator shall conduct an H<INF>2</INF>S test 
on a grab sample and record the results as proof that the concentration 
is still within the range.

[[Page 27206]]

    (ii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is 
outside the range of concentrations included in the original 
application, the owner or operator may submit a new application 
following the procedures of paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60 
days (or within 30 days after the seventh grab sample is tested for 
infrequently operated process units).
    (iii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is 
outside the range of concentrations included in the original 
application and the owner or operator chooses not to submit a new 
application, the owner or operator must begin continuous monitoring as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section within 60 days 
of the operation change.
* * * * *
    8. Section 60.106 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) 
introductory text and revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  60.106  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The coke burn-off rate (R<INF>c</INF>) shall be computed for 
each run using the following equation:

R<INF>c</INF> = K<INF>1</INF>Q<INF>r</INF> (%CO<INF>2</INF> + %CO) + 
K<INF>2</INF>Q<INF>a</INF>-K<INF>3</INF>Q<INF>r</INF>(%CO/2 + 
%CO<INF>2</INF> + %O<INF>2</INF>) + K<INF>3</INF>Q<INF>oxy</INF> 
(%O<INF>oxy</INF>)

Where:

R<INF>c</INF> = Coke burn-off rate, kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (lb/
hr).
Q<INF>r</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from fluid 
catalytic cracking unit regenerator before entering the emission 
control system, dscm/min (dscf/min).
Q<INF>a</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of air to fluid catalytic 
cracking unit regenerator, as determined from the fluid catalytic 
cracking unit control room instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min).
Q<INF>oxy</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of O<INF>2</INF> enriched air 
to fluid Catalytic cracking unit regenerator, as determined from the 
fluid catalytic cracking unit control room instrumentation, dscm/min 
(dscf/min).
%CO<INF>2</INF> = Carbon dioxide concentration in fluid catalytic 
cracking unit regenerator exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis).
%CO = CO concentration in FCCU regenerator exhaust, percent by 
volume (dry basis).
%O<INF>2</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in fluid catalytic 
cracking unit regenerator exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis).
%O<INF>oxy</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in O<INF>2</INF> 
enriched air stream inlet to the fluid catalytic cracking unit 
regenerator, percent by volume (dry basis).
K<INF>1</INF> = Material balance and conversion factor, 0.2982 (kg-
min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.0186 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].
K<INF>2</INF> = Material balance and conversion factor, 2.088 (kg-
min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.1303 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].
K<INF>3</INF> = Material balance and conversion factor, 0.0994 (kg-
min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.00624 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Where emissions are monitored by Sec.  60.105(a)(3), compliance 
with Sec.  60.104(a)(1) shall be determined using Method 6 or 6C and 
Method 3 or 3A. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6. * * *
* * * * *
    9. Section 60.107 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(i);
    b. Redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as (f) and (g); and
    c. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.107  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The average percent reduction and average concentration of 
sulfur dioxide on a dry, O<INF>2</INF>-free basis in the gases 
discharged to the atmosphere from any fluid cracking unit catalyst 
regenerator for which the owner or operator seeks to comply with Sec.  
60.104(b)(1) is below 90 percent and above 50 ppmv, as measured by the 
continuous monitoring system prescribed under Sec.  60.105(a)(8), or 
above 50 ppmv, as measured by the outlet continuous monitoring system 
prescribed under Sec.  60.105(a)(9). * * *
* * * * *
    (e) For each stream combusted in a fuel gas combustion device 
subject to Sec.  60.104(a)(1), if an owner or operator determines that 
one of the exemptions listed in Sec.  60.105(a)(4)(iv) applies to that 
stream, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the specific 
exemption chosen for each stream. If the owner or operator applies for 
the exemption described in Sec.  60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the owner or 
operator must keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from 
the Administrator granting approval of the application.
* * * * *
    10. Section 60.108 is amended by revising the last sentence of 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.108  Performance test and compliance provisions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * * The owner or operator shall furnish the Administrator 
with a written notification of the change in the semiannual report 
required by Sec.  60.107(f).
    11. Section 60.109 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as 
(b)(3) and adding paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.109  Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) Section 60.105(b), and
* * * * *
    12. Part 60 is amended by adding subpart Ja to read as follows:
Subpart Ja--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which 
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 
2007
Sec.
60.100a Applicability, designation of affected facility, and 
reconstruction.
60.101a Definitions.
60.102a Emissions limitations.
60.103a Work practice standards.
60.104a Performance tests.
60.105a Monitoring of emissions and operations for fluid catalytic 
cracking units (FCCU) and fluid coking units.
60.106a Monitoring of emissions and operations for sulfur recovery 
plants.
60.107a Monitoring of emissions and operations for process heaters 
and other fuel gas combustion devices.
60.108a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
60.109a Delegation of authority.

Subpart Ja--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for 
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After 
May 14, 2007


Sec.  60.100a  Applicability, designation of affected facility, and 
reconstruction.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected 
facilities in petroleum refineries: Fluid catalytic cracking units 
(FCCU), fluid coking units, delayed coking units, process heaters, 
other fuel gas combustion devices, fuel gas producing units, and sulfur 
recovery plants. The sulfur recovery plant need not be physically 
located within the boundaries of a petroleum refinery to be an affected 
facility, provided it processes gases produced within a petroleum 
refinery.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply only to affected 
facilities under paragraph (a) of this section which commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after May 14, 2007.
    (c) For purposes of this subpart, under Sec.  60.15, the ``fixed 
capital cost of the new components'' includes the fixed capital cost of 
all depreciable components which are or will be replaced pursuant to 
all continuous

[[Page 27207]]

programs of component replacement which are commenced within any 2-year 
period following May 14, 2007. For purposes of this paragraph, 
``commenced'' means that an owner or operator has undertaken a 
continuous program of component replacement or that an owner or 
operator has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and 
complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of component 
replacement.


Sec.  60.101a  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  60.2, and in this section.
    Coke burn-off means the coke removed from the surface of the FCCU 
catalyst by combustion in the catalyst regenerator. The rate of coke 
burn-off is calculated by the formula specified in Sec.  60.104a.
    Contact material means any substance formulated to remove metals, 
sulfur, nitrogen, or any other contaminant from petroleum derivatives.
    Delayed coking unit means one or more coking units in which high 
molecular weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and 
petroleum coke is produced in a series of closed, batch system 
reactors.
    Flexicoking unit means one or more coking units in which high 
molecular weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and 
petroleum coke is produced then gasified to produce a synthetic fuel 
gas.
    Fluid catalytic cracking unit means one or more units in which 
petroleum derivatives are continuously charged and hydrocarbon 
molecules in the presence of a catalyst suspended in a fluidized bed 
are fractured into smaller molecules, or react with a contact material 
suspended in a fluidized bed to improve feedstock quality for 
additional processing and the catalyst or contact material is 
continuously regenerated by burning off coke and other deposits. The 
unit includes the riser, reactor, regenerator, air blowers, spent 
catalyst or contact material stripper, catalyst or contact material 
recovery equipment, and regenerator equipment for controlling air 
pollutant emissions and for heat recovery.
    Fluid coking unit means one or more coking units in which high 
molecular weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and 
petroleum coke is continuously produced in a fluidized bed system and 
in which the fluid coking burner exhaust gas is continuously released 
to the atmosphere. The fluid coking unit includes equipment for 
controlling air pollutant emissions and for heat recovery on the fluid 
coking burner exhaust vent. Flexicoking units that use gasifiers to 
generate a synthetic fuel gas for use in other processes and that do 
not exhaust to the atmosphere are not considered fluid coking units 
under this subpart.
    Fresh feed means any petroleum derivative feedstock stream charged 
directly into the riser or reactor of a FCCU except for petroleum 
derivatives recycled within the FCCU, fractionator, or gas recovery 
unit.
    Fuel gas means any gas which is generated at a petroleum refinery 
and which is combusted. Fuel gas includes natural gas when the natural 
gas is combined and combusted in any proportion with a gas generated at 
a refinery. Fuel gas does not include gases generated by catalytic 
cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fluid coking burners, but does 
include gases from flexicoking unit gasifiers. Fuel gas does not 
include vapors that are collected and combusted to comply with the 
wastewater provisions in Sec.  60.692, 40 CFR 61.343 through 61.348, 40 
CFR 63.647, or the marine tank vessel loading provisions in 40 CFR 
63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651.
    Fuel gas producing unit means any refinery process unit that 
produces fuel gas as a routine part of normal operations. A fuel gas 
producing unit includes, but is not limited to, the atmospheric 
distillation unit, the FCCU, the catalytic hydrocracking unit, all 
types of coking units, and the catalytic reforming unit.
    Other fuel gas combustion device means any equipment, such as 
boilers and flares, used to combust fuel gas, except process heaters 
and facilities in which gases are combusted to produce sulfur or 
sulfuric acid.
    Oxidation control system means an emission control system which 
reduces emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these 
emissions to sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and recycling the 
SO<INF>2</INF> to the reactor furnace or the first-stage catalytic 
reactor of the Claus sulfur recovery plant.
    Petroleum means the crude oil removed from the earth and the oils 
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
    Petroleum refinery means any facility engaged in producing 
gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, 
lubricants, asphalt (bitumen) or other products through distillation of 
petroleum or through redistillation, cracking, or reforming of 
unfinished petroleum derivatives.
    Process gas means any gas generated by a petroleum refinery process 
unit, except fuel gas and process upset gas as defined in this section.
    Process heater means an enclosed combustion device used to transfer 
heat indirectly to process stream materials (liquids, gases, or solids) 
or to a heat transfer material for use in a process unit instead of 
steam.
    Process upset gas means any gas generated by a petroleum refinery 
process unit as a result of upset or malfunction.
    Reduced sulfur compounds means hydrogen sulfide (H<INF>2</INF>S), 
carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide.
    Reduction control system means an emission control system which 
reduces emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these 
emissions to H<INF>2</INF>S and recycling the H<INF>2</INF>S to the 
reactor furnace or the first-stage catalytic reactor of the Claus 
sulfur recovery plant.
    Refinery process unit means any segment of the petroleum refinery 
in which a specific processing operation is conducted.
    Sulfur recovery plant means all process units which recover sulfur 
from H<INF>2</INF>S and/or SO<INF>2</INF> at a petroleum refinery. The 
sulfur recovery plant also includes vessels, tanks, or pits used to 
store the recovered sulfur product. For example, a Claus sulfur 
recovery plant includes: reactor furnace and waste heat boiler, 
catalytic reactors, sulfur pits, and, if present, oxidation or 
reduction control systems, or incinerator, thermal oxidizer, or similar 
combustion device.


Sec.  60.102a  Emissions limitations.

    (a) Each owner or operator that is subject to the requirements of 
this subpart shall comply with the emissions limitations in paragraphs 
(b) through (h) of this section on and after the date on which the 
initial performance test, required by Sec.  60.8, is completed, but not 
later than 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which 
the affected facility will be operated, or 180 days after initial 
startup, whichever comes first.

Option 1 for Paragraph (b):

    (b) An owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any 
FCCU or fluid coking unit:
    (1) Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 0.5 gram per kilogram (g/
kg) coke burn-off (0.5 pound (lb) PM/1,000 lbs coke burn-off) or 0.020 
grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) corrected to 0 percent 
excess air; and
    (2) NO<INF>X</INF> in excess of 80 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv), dry basis corrected to 0 percent excess air, on a 7-day rolling 
average basis; and

[[Page 27208]]

    (3) SO<INF>2</INF> in excess of 50 ppmv dry basis corrected to 0 
percent excess air, on a 7-day rolling average basis and 25 ppmv, dry 
basis corrected to 0 percent excess air, on a 365-day rolling average 
basis; and
    (4) Carbon monoxide (CO) in excess of 500 ppmv, dry basis corrected 
to 0 percent excess air, on an hourly average basis.

Option 2 for Paragraph (b)

    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not 
discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any FCCU or 
fluid coking unit:
    (1) Particulate Matter (PM) in excess of 0.5 gram per kilogram (g/
kg) coke burn-off (0.5 lb PM/1,000 lbs coke burn-off) or 0.020 grains 
per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) corrected to 0 percent excess 
air; and
    (2) NO<INF>X</INF> in excess of 80 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv), dry basis corrected to 0 percent excess air, on a 7-day rolling 
average basis. This emissions limit does not apply to a fluid coking 
unit subject to this subpart;
    (3) SO<INF>2</INF> in excess of 50 ppmv dry basis corrected to 0 
percent excess air, on a 7-day rolling average basis and 25 ppmv, dry 
basis corrected to 0 percent excess air, on a 365-day rolling average 
basis; and
    (4) Carbon monoxide (CO) in excess of 500 ppmv, dry basis corrected 
to 0 percent excess air, on an hourly average basis.
    (c) The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that uses 
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) according to Sec.  
60.105a(b)(1) shall comply with the applicable control device parameter 
operating limit in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.
    (1) If the FCCU or fluid coking unit is controlled using an 
electrostatic precipitator:
    (i) The hourly average total power and secondary current to the 
control device must not fall below the level established during the 
most recent performance test; and
    (ii) The exhaust coke burn-off rate must not exceed the level 
established during the most recent performance test.
    (2) If the FCCU or fluid coking unit is controlled using a wet 
scrubber:
    (i) The hourly average pressure drop must not fall below the level 
established during the most recent performance test; and
    (ii) The hourly average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall below the 
level established during the most recent performance test.
    (d) The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is 
exempted from the requirement for a CO continuous emissions monitoring 
system (CEMS) under Sec.  60.105a(g)(3) shall comply with the parameter 
operating limits in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.
    (1) For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with no post-combustion control 
device:
    (i) The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gases exiting the 
FCCU or fluid coking unit must not fall below the level established 
during the most recent performance test.
    (ii) The hourly average oxygen (O<INF>2</INF>) concentration of the 
exhaust gases exiting the FCCU or fluid coking unit must not fall below 
the level established during the most recent performance test.
    (2) For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with a post-combustion control 
device:
    (i) The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gas vent stream 
exiting the control device must not fall below the level established 
during the most recent performance test.
    (ii) The hourly average O<INF>2</INF> concentration of the exhaust 
gas vent stream exiting the control device must not fall below the 
level established during the most recent performance test.
    (e) Each owner or operator that is subject to the provisions of 
this subpart shall comply with the following emissions limits for each 
sulfur recovery plant:
    (1) For a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity greater than 20 
long tons per day (LTD), the owner or operator shall not discharge or 
cause the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere containing a 
combined SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur compounds concentration in 
excess of 250 ppmv as SO<INF>2</INF> (dry basis) at 0 percent excess 
air determined hourly on a 12-hour rolling average basis. If the sulfur 
recovery plant consists of multiple process trains or release points 
the owner or operator shall comply with the 250 ppmv limit for each 
process train or release point or comply with a flow rate weighted 
average of 250 ppmv for all release points from the sulfur recovery 
plant.
    (2) For a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity of 20 LTD or less, 
the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any 
gases into the atmosphere containing combined SO<INF>2</INF> and 
reduced sulfur compounds mass emissions in excess of 1 percent by 
weight of sulfur recovered, measured as the mass ratio of sulfur 
emitted (from all release points combined) to sulfur recovered 
determined hourly on a 12-hour rolling average basis.
    (3) For all sulfur recovery plants, regardless of size, the owner 
or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases 
into the atmosphere containing H<INF>2</INF>S in excess of 10 ppmv (dry 
basis) at 0 percent excess air determined hourly on a 12-hour rolling 
average basis.
    (f) The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant subject to the 
H<INF>2</INF>S emissions limit in paragraph (e)(3) of this section and 
that uses CPMS pursuant to Sec.  60.106a(a)(4) shall comply with the 
following operating limits:
    (1) The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gases exiting the 
sulfur recovery plant must not fall below the level established during 
the most recent performance test.
    (2) The hourly average O<INF>2</INF> concentration of the exhaust 
gases exiting the sulfur recovery plant must not fall below the level 
established during the most recent performance test.
    (g) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall comply with the emission limitations in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (3) for each process heater and other fuel gas combustion 
device, except as provided in paragraph (h) and (i) of this section.
    (1) SO<INF>2</INF> in excess of 20 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 
percent excess air) on a 3-hour rolling average basis; and
    (2) SO<INF>2</INF> in excess of 8 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 
percent excess air), determined daily on a 365 successive day rolling 
average basis; and
    (3) For process heaters with a rated capacity of greater than 20 
million British thermal units per hour, NO<INF>X</INF> in excess of 80 
ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air) on a 24-hour 
rolling average basis.
    (h) For process heaters that combust only fuel gas and for other 
fuel gas combustion devices, the following emission limitations may be 
used instead of the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits in paragraph (g)(1) 
and (2) of this section:
    (1) For process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices that 
do not combust fuel gas generated from a coking unit:
    (i) H<INF>2</INF>S in excess of 160 ppmv determined hourly on a 3-
hour rolling average basis; and
    (ii) H<INF>2</INF>S in excess of 60 ppmv determined daily on a 365 
successive calendar day rolling average basis.
    (2) For process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices that 
combust fuel gas generated from a coking unit or fuel gas that is mixed 
with fuel gas generated from a coking unit:
    (i) Total reduced sulfur (TRS) in excess of 160 ppmv determined 
hourly on a 3-hour rolling average basis; and
    (ii) TRS in excess of 60 ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive 
calendar day rolling average basis.

[[Page 27209]]

    (i) The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or fuel gas 
that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or 
other emergency malfunctions is exempt from paragraphs (g) and (h) of 
this section.

Option 1 for Sec.  60.103a:


Sec.  60.103a  Work practice standards.

    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall not routinely release fuel gas to a flare from any fuel 
gas producing unit. The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or 
fuel that that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve 
leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from this paragraph.
    (b) The owner or operator shall develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures 
for operating and maintaining each affected facility during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of corrective action 
for malfunctioning process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment used to comply with the requirements of this subpart. The 
owner or operator may use the affected source's standard operating 
procedures (SOP) manual, or an Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) or other plan, provided the alternative plans 
meet all the requirements of this section and are made available for 
inspection or submitted when requested by the Administrator.
    (1) The written plan must cover fluid catalytic cracking units, 
fluid coking units, sulfur recovery plants (including tail gas 
treatment system), amine treatment system, and fuel process heaters and 
other gas combustion devices. The written plan must include procedures 
to minimize discharges either directly to the atmosphere or to the 
flare gas system during the planned startup or shutdown of these units, 
procedures to minimize emissions during malfunctions of the amine 
treatment system or sulfur recovery plant, and procedures for 
conducting a root-cause analysis of any emissions limit exceedance or 
process start-up, shutdown, upset, or malfunction that causes a 
discharge into the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly, from any 
refinery process unit subject to the provisions of this subpart in 
excess of 500 lb per day (lb/d) of SO<INF>2</INF>.
    (2) When actions taken by the owner or operator during a startup or 
shutdown (and the startup or shutdown causes the source to exceed any 
applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission standards), or 
malfunction (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are 
consistent with the procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, the owner or operator must keep records for that 
event which demonstrate that the procedures specified in the plan were 
followed. These records may take the form of a ``checklist,'' or other 
effective form of recordkeeping that confirms conformance with the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and describes the actions taken 
for that event. The owner or operator must identify the exceedance in 
the semiannual excess emissions report and certify that the actions 
taken during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with 
the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (3) If an action taken by the owner or operator during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction (including an action taken to correct a 
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures specified in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and the source exceeds any 
applicable emission limitation, then the owner or operator must record 
the actions taken for that event and identify the exceedance in the 
semiannual excess emissions report.
    (4) The owner or operator must maintain at the affected facility a 
current startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and must make the plan 
available to the Administrator upon request.
    (5) The Administrator may require the owner or operator to make 
changes to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan if the 
Administrator finds:
    (i) The plan does not address a startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
event that has occurred;
    (ii) The plan fails to provide for the minimization of emissions 
during operation of the source (including associated air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment) during a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction event;
    (iii) The plan does not provide adequate procedures for correcting 
malfunctioning process and/or air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment as quickly as practicable; or
    (6) The owner or operator may periodically revise the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan as necessary to satisfy the requirements 
of this subpart or to reflect changes in equipment or procedures at the 
affected facility. However, each such revision to a startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan must be reported in the semiannual report.
    (c) Each owner or operator of a delayed coking unit shall 
depressure to 5 lb per square inch gauge (psig) during reactor vessel 
depressuring and vent the exhaust gases to the fuel gas system for 
recovery.

Option 2 for Sec.  60.103a:


Sec.  60.103a  Work practice standards.

    Each owner or operator of a delayed coking unit shall depressure to 
5 lb per square inch gauge (psig) during reactor vessel depressuring 
and vent the exhaust gases to the fuel gas system for recovery.


Sec.  60.104a  Performance tests.

    (a) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for a 
FCCU, fluid coking unit, sulfur recovery plant, process heater and 
other fuel gas combustion device to demonstrate initial compliance with 
each applicable emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a according to the 
requirements of Sec.  60.8. The notification requirements of Sec.  
60.8(d) apply to the initial performance test and to subsequent 
performance tests required by paragraph (b) of this section (or as 
required by the Administrator), but does not apply to performance tests 
conducted for the purpose of obtaining supplemental data because of 
continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 
and zero and span adjustments as provided in Sec.  60.105a(l).
    (b) The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that 
elects to monitor control device operating parameters according to the 
requirements in Sec.  60.105a(b) shall conduct a PM performance test at 
least once every 24 months and furnish the Administrator a written 
report of the results of each test.
    (c) In conducting the performance tests required by this subpart 
(or as requested by the Administrator), the owner or operator shall use 
the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or other methods as 
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  60.8(b).
    (d) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the PM, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and CO emissions limits in Sec.  
60.102a(b) for FCCU and fluid coking units using the following methods 
and procedures:
    (1) Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses.
    (2) Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.

[[Page 27210]]

    (4) Method 5 for determining PM emissions and associated moisture 
content from affected facilities.
    (i) The PM performance test consists of 3 valid test runs; the 
duration of each test run must be no less than 60 minutes.
    (ii) The emissions rate of PM (E<INF>PM</INF>) is computed for each 
run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY07.000

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM (EPM), g/kg, lbs per 1,000 lbs (lb/1,000 
lbs) of coke burn-off;
C<INF>s</INF> = Concentration of total PM, grams per dry standard 
cubic meter (g/dscm), gr/dscf;
Q<INF>sd</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dry standard 
cubic meters per hour, dry standard cubic feet per hour;
R<INF>c</INF> = Coke burn-off rate, kilograms per hour (kg/hr), lbs 
per hour (lbs/hr) coke; and
K = Conversion factor, 1.0 grams per gram (7,000 grains per lb).
    (iii) The coke burn-off rate (R<INF>c</INF>) is computed for each 
run using Equation 2 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY07.001

Where:

R<INF>c</INF> = Coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (lb/hr);
Q<INF>r</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from FCCU 
regenerator or fluid coking burner before any emissions control or 
energy recovery system that burns auxiliary fuel, dry standard cubic 
meters per minute (dscm/min), dry standard cubic feet per minute 
(dscf/min);
Q<INF>a</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of air to FCCU regenerator or 
fluid coking burner, as determined from the unit's control room 
instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);
Q<INF>oxy</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of O<INF>2</INF> enriched air 
to FCCU regenerator or fluid coking unit, as determined from the 
unit's control room instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);
%CO<INF>2</INF> = Carbon dioxide concentration in FCCU regenerator 
or fluid coking burner exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);
%CO = CO concentration in FCCU regenerator or fluid coking burner 
exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);
%O<INF>2</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in FCCU regenerator or 
fluid coking burner exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);
%O<INF>oxy</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in O<INF>2</INF> 
enriched air stream inlet to the FCCU regenerator or fluid coking 
burner, percent by volume (dry basis);
K<INF>1</INF> = Material balance and conversion factor, 0.2982 (kg-
min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.0186 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)];
K<INF>2</INF> = Material balance and conversion factor, 2.088 (kg-
min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.1303 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)]; and
K<INF>3</INF> = Material balance and conversion factor, 0.0994 (kg-
min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.00624 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].

    (iv) During the performance test, the volumetric flow rate of 
exhaust gas from catalyst regenerator (Q<INF>r</INF>) before any 
emission control or energy recovery system that burns auxiliary fuel is 
measured using Method 2.
    (v) For subsequent calculations of coke burn-off rates or exhaust 
gas flow rates, the volumetric flow rate of Q<INF>r</INF> is calculated 
using average exhaust gas concentrations as measured by the monitors in 
Sec.  60.105a(b)(2), if applicable, using Equation 3 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY07.002

Where:

Q<INF>r</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from FCCU 
regenerator or fluid coking burner before any emission control or 
energy recovery system that burns auxiliary fuel, dscm/min (dscf/
min);
Q<INF>a</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of air to FCCU regenerator or 
fluid coking burner, as determined from the unit's control room 
instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);
Q<INF>oxy</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of O<INF>2</INF> enriched air 
to FCCU regenerator or fluid coking unit, as determined from the 
unit's control room instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);
%CO<INF>2</INF> = Carbon dioxide concentration in FCCU regenerator 
or fluid coking burner exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);
%CO = CO concentration FCCU regenerator or fluid coking burner 
exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis). When no auxiliary fuel is 
burned and a continuous CO monitor is not required in accordance 
with Sec.  60.105a(g)(3), assume %CO to be zero;
%O<INF>2</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in FCCU regenerator or 
fluid coking burner exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis); and
%O<INF>oxy</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in O<INF>2</INF> 
enriched air stream inlet to the FCCU regenerator or fluid coking 
burner, percent by volume (dry basis).

    (5) Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E for moisture content and for the 
concentration of NO<INF>X</INF> calculated as nitrogen dioxide 
(NO<INF>2</INF>); the duration of each test run must be no less than 4 
hours.
    (6) Method 6, 6A, or 6C for moisture content and for the 
concentration of SO<INF>2</INF>; the duration of each test run must be 
no less than 4 hours. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and 
Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is 
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.
    (7) Method 10, 10a, or 10B for moisture content and for the 
concentration of CO. The sampling time for each run must be 60 minutes.
    (8) The owner or operator shall adjust PM, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and CO pollutant concentrations to 0 percent excess air 
or 0 percent O<INF>2</INF> using Equation 4 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY07.003

Where:

C<INF>adj</INF> = pollutant concentration adjusted to 0 percent 
excess air or O<INF>2</INF>, parts per million (ppm) or g/dscm;
C<INF>meas</INF> = pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis, 
ppm or g/dscm;
20.9<INF>c</INF> = 20.9 percent O<INF>2</INF>-0.0 percent 
O<INF>2</INF> (defined O<INF>2</INF> correction basis), percent;
20.9 = O<INF>2</INF> concentration in air, percent; and
%O<INF>2</INF> = O<INF>2</INF> concentration measured on a dry 
basis, percent.


[[Page 27211]]


    (e) The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is 
controlled by an electrostatic precipitator or wet scrubber and that is 
subject to control device operating parameter limits Sec.  60.102a(c) 
shall establish the limits based on the performance test results 
according to the following procedures:
    (1) Reduce the parameter monitoring data to hourly averages for 
each test run;
    (2) Determine the operating limit for each required parameter as 
the lowest hourly average voltage and secondary current and the highest 
coke burn-off rate (if you use an electrostatic precipitator) or the 
lowest average pressure drop and liquid-to-gas ratio (if you use a wet 
scrubber) measured during a test run that achieves the applicable PM 
emission limit.
    (f) The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is 
exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CO CEMS pursuant 
to Sec.  60.105a(g)(3) and that is subject to control device operating 
parameter limits in Sec.  60.102a(d) shall establish the limits based 
on the performance test results using the following procedures:
    (1) Reduce the temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentrations from 
the parameter monitoring systems to hourly averages for each test run.
    (2) Determine the operating limit for temperature and O<INF>2</INF> 
concentrations as the lowest hourly average temperature and 
O<INF>2</INF> concentration measured during a test run achieving the 
emission limitation.
    (g) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
SO<INF>2</INF> and H<INF>2</INF>S emissions limits for sulfur recovery 
plants in Sec.  60.102a(e) using the following methods and procedures:
    (1) Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses.
    (2) Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.
    (4) Method 6, 6A, or 6C to determine the SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.
    (5) Method 15 or 15A to determine the reduced sulfur compounds and 
H<INF>2</INF>S concentrations.
    (i) Each run consists of 16 samples taken over a minimum of 3 
hours.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall calculate the average 
H<INF>2</INF>S concentration after correcting for moisture and 
O<INF>2</INF> as the arithmetic average of the H<INF>2</INF>S 
concentration for each sample during the run (ppmv, dry basis, 
corrected to 0 percent excess air).
    (iii) The owner or operator shall calculate the SO<INF>2</INF> 
equivalent for each run after correcting for moisture and O<INF>2</INF> 
as the arithmetic average of the SO<INF>2</INF> equivalent of reduced 
sulfur compounds for each sample during the run (ppmv, dry basis, 
corrected to 0 percent excess air).
    (iv) The owner or operator shall use Equation 4 of this section to 
adjust pollutant concentrations to 0 percent O<INF>2</INF> or 0 percent 
excess air.
    (6) The owner or operator shall calculate the combined 
SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur compound concentrations for a sulfur 
recovery plant with a capacity greater than 20 LTD that is subject to 
the emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(e)(1) using Equation 5 of this 
section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY07.004

Where:

C<INF>combined</INF> = Cmbined SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur 
compounds concentration, ppmv, dry basis, at 0 percent excess air;
C<INF>SO2,M6</INF> = SO<INF>2</INF> concentration in the exhaust 
stream measured using Method 6, 6A, or 6C as required in paragraph 
(c)(4) of this section, ppmv, dry basis at 0 percent excess air; The 
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.
C<INF>SO2--eq,M15</INF> = SO<INF>2</INF> equivalent concentration of 
reduced sulfur compounds in the exhaust stream measured using Method 
15 or 15A as required in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, ppmv, dry 
basis at 0 percent excess air. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see 
Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A.

    (7) The owner or operator shall calculate the mass sulfur emission 
percentage for a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity of 10 LTD or 
less that is subject to the emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(e)(2) 
using the following procedures:
    (i) Calculate the combined SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur 
compound concentration using Equation 5 of this section.
    (ii) Calculate the mass sulfur emissions percentage using Equation 
6 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY07.005

Where:

F<INF>S,emit</INF> = Mass fraction of sulfur emitted, weight 
percent;
K<INF>4</INF> = Conversion factor, 0.5 [lbs S/lb SO<INF>2</INF>] x 
60 [min/hr] x 1.66E-7 [lbs/dscf per ppmv]/2,240 [lbs/long ton] = 
2.22E-9 (lbs S[middot]min[middot]long ton[middot]lbs/dscf)/(lbs 
SO<INF>2</INF>[middot]hr[middot]lb[middot]ppmv);
C<INF>combined</INF> = Combined SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur 
compounds concentration, ppmv, dry basis at 0 percent excess air;
Q<INF>sd</INF> = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas dscf/min; and
M<INF>sulfur</INF> = Mass rate of sulfur recovery, long tons/hr.

    (h) The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant that is 
subject to the operating limits in Sec.  60.102a(f) shall establish the 
limits based on the results of the performance test according to the 
following procedures:
    (1) Reduce the temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentrations from 
the CPMS to hourly averages for each test run;
    (2) Determine the operating limit for temperature and O<INF>2</INF> 
concentrations as the lowest hourly average temperature and 
O<INF>2</INF> concentration measured during a test run achieving the 
H<INF>2</INF>S emissions limit.
    (i) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits in Sec.  60.102a(g) 
for a process heater or other fuel gas combustion device according to 
the following test methods and procedures:

[[Page 27212]]

    (1) Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses;
    (2) Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.;
    (4) Method 6, 6A, or 6C to determine the SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.
    (i) The performance test consists of 3 valid test runs; the 
duration of each test run must be no less than 1 hour.
    (ii) If a single fuel gas combustion device having a common source 
of fuel gas is monitored as allowed under Sec.  60.107a(a)(2)(v), only 
one performance test is required. That is, performance tests are not 
required when a new affected fuel gas combustion device is added to a 
common source of fuel gas that previously demonstrated compliance.
    (5) Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E for moisture content and for the 
concentration of NO<INF>X</INF> calculated as NO<INF>2</INF>; the 
duration of each test run must be no less than 4 hours.
    (j) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
H<INF>2</INF>S or TRS emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(h) for a process 
heater or other fuel gas combustion device according to the following 
test methods and procedures:
    (1) Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses;
    (2) Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.;
    (4) Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 for determining the H<INF>2</INF>S 
concentration for affected plants using an H<INF>2</INF>S monitor as 
specified in Sec.  60.107a(a)(1) or Method 16 for determining the TRS 
concentration. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A.
    (i) For Method 11, the sampling time and sample volume must be at 
least 10 minutes and 0.010 dscm (0.35 dscf). Two samples of equal 
sampling times must be taken at about 1-hour intervals. The arithmetic 
average of these two samples constitute a run. For most fuel gases, 
sampling times exceeding 20 minutes may result in depletion of the 
collection solution, although fuel gases containing low concentrations 
of H<INF>2</INF>S may necessitate sampling for longer periods of time.
    (ii) For Method 15 or 16, at least three injects over a 1-hour 
period constitutes a run.
    (iii) For Method 15A, a 1-hour sample constitutes a run. The method 
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated 
by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 15A.
    (iv) If monitoring is conducted at a single point in a common 
source of fuel gas as allowed under Sec.  60.107a(a)(1)(iv), only one 
performance test is required. That is, performance tests are not 
required when a new affected fuel gas combustion device is added to a 
common source of fuel gas that previously demonstrated compliance.


Sec.  60.105a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for fluid 
catalytic cracking units (FCCU) and fluid coking units.

    (a) FCCU and fluid coking units subject to PM emissions limit. Each 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall 
monitor each FCCU and fluid coking unit subject to the PM emissions 
limit in Sec.  60.102a(b)(1) according to the requirements in paragraph 
(b), (c), or (d) of this section.
    (b) Control device operating parameters. Each owner or operator of 
a FCCU or fluid coking unit subject to the PM emissions limit in Sec.  
60.102a(b)(1) shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
continuous parameter monitor systems (CPMS) to measure and record 
operating parameters for each control device according to the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For units controlled using an electrostatic precipitator, the 
owner or operator shall use CPMS to measure and record the hourly 
average total power input and secondary voltage to the control device.
    (ii) For units controlled using a wet scrubber, the owner or 
operator shall use CPMS to measure and record the hourly average 
pressure drop, liquid feed rate, and exhaust gas flow rate.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
each CPMS according to the manufacturer's specifications and 
requirements.
    (2) The owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and 
maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring the concentrations 
of CO<INF>2</INF>, O<INF>2</INF> (dry basis), and if needed, CO in the 
exhaust gases prior to any control or energy recovery system that burns 
auxiliary fuels.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B).
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each CO<INF>2</INF>, O<INF>2</INF>, and CO monitor according to the 
requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. The 
owner or operator shall use Method 3 for conducting the relative 
accuracy evaluations.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance 
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, including 
quarterly accuracy determinations for CO<INF>2</INF> and CO monitors, 
annual accuracy determinations for O<INF>2</INF> monitors, and daily 
calibration drift tests.
    (3) The owner or operator shall determine and record the average 
coke burn-off rate and hours of operation for each FCCU or fluid coking 
unit using the procedures in Sec.  60.104a(d)(4)(vii).
    (c) Bag leak detection systems. Each owner or operator of a FCCU or 
fluid coking unit shall install, operate, and maintain a bag leak 
detection system for each baghouse that is used to comply with the PM 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(b)(1) according to paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section; prepare and operate by a site-specific monitoring plan 
according to paragraph (c)(2) of this section; take corrective action 
according to paragraph (c)(3) of this section; and record information 
according to paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record 
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other 
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative 
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be

[[Page 27213]]

heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, 
the owner or operator must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output 
by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the 
device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not 
adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time 
without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except 
as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the 
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal 
effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the 
procedures identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (vii) The owner or operator shall install the bag leak detection 
sensor downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) The owner or operator shall develop and submit to the 
Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 
baghouse and bag leak detection system. The owner or operator shall 
operate and maintain each baghouse and bag leak detection system 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all times. Each 
monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 
(vii) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, 
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory 
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored;
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (c)(3) 
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators 
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an 
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this 
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately 
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested 
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as 
practicable; and
    (vii) How the baghouse system will be operated and maintained, 
including monitoring of pressure drop across baghouse cells and 
frequency of visual inspections of the baghouse interior and baghouse 
components such as fans and dust removal and bag cleaning mechanisms.
    (3) For each bag leak detection system, the owner or operator shall 
initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour 
of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this 
section, the owner or operator shall alleviate the cause of the alarm 
within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 
necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the 
following:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
particulate emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (4) The owner or operator shall maintain records of the information 
specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section for 
each bag leak detection system.
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including 
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection 
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, 
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were 
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, 
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether 
the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
    (d) Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). The owner or 
operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit subject to the PM emissions 
limit (gr/dscf) in Sec.  60.102a(b)(1) shall install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and 
recording the concentration (0 percent excess air) of PM in the exhaust 
gases prior to release to the atmosphere. The monitor must include an 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor for correcting the data for excess air.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
PM monitor according to Performance Specification 11 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B. The span value of this PM monitor is 0.08 gr/dscf PM.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each PM monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and 
Performance Specification 11. The owner or operator shall use Method 5 
for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.
    (3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B. The span value of this O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 25 percent.
    (4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be 
used for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.
    (5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance 
requirements of procedure 2 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each PM 
CEMS and procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations for 
each PM monitor, annual accuracy determinations for each O<INF>2</INF> 
monitor, and daily calibration drift tests.
    (e) FCCU and fluid coking units subject to NOX limit. Each owner or 
operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit subject to the NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(b)(2) shall install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and 
recording the concentration by volume (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) 
of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions into the atmosphere. The monitor must 
include an O<INF>2</INF> monitor for correcting the data for excess 
air.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
NO<INF>X</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR 
part 60,

[[Page 27214]]

appendix B). The span value of this NO<INF>X</INF> monitor is 200 ppmv 
NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each NO<INF>X</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2. The owner or operator shall 
use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for 
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.
    (3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B. The span value of this O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 25 percent.
    (4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be 
used for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.
    (5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance 
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
SO<INF>2</INF> and O<INF>2</INF> monitor, including quarterly accuracy 
determinations for SO<INF>2</INF> monitors, annual accuracy 
determinations for O<INF>2</INF> monitors, and daily calibration drift 
tests.
    (f) FCCU and fluid coking units subject to SO<INF>2</INF> limit. 
The owner or operator a FCCU and fluid coking unit subject to the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(b)(3) shall install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously 
monitoring and recording the concentration by volume (dry basis, 
corrected to 0 percent excess air) of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions into the 
atmosphere. The monitor shall include an O<INF>2</INF> monitor for 
correcting the data for excess air.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span value of this SO<INF>2</INF> monitor is 
200 ppmv SO<INF>2</INF>.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2. The owner or operator shall 
use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for conducting 
the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see 
Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.
    (3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B. The span value of this O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 10 percent.
    (4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be 
used for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.
    (5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance 
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
SO<INF>2</INF> and O<INF>2</INF> monitor, including quarterly accuracy 
determinations for SO<INF>2</INF> monitors, annual accuracy 
determinations for O<INF>2</INF> monitors, and daily calibration drift 
tests.
    (g) FCCU and fluid coking units subject to CO emissions limit. 
Except as specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, the owner or 
operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument 
for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume 
(dry basis) of CO emissions into the atmosphere from each FCCU and 
fluid coking unit subject to the CO emissions limit in Sec.  
60.102a(b)(4).
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
CO monitor according to Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B). The span value for this instrument is 1,000 ppm CO.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each CO monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and 
Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). The owner or 
operator shall use Methods 10, 10A, or 10B for conducting the relative 
accuracy evaluations using the procedures specified in Sec.  
60.106a(b).
    (3) A CO CEMS need not be installed if the owner or operator 
demonstrates that the average CO emissions are less than 50 ppm (dry 
basis) and also submits a written request for exemption to the 
Administrator and receives such an exemption.
    (i) The demonstration shall consist of continuously monitoring CO 
emissions for 30 days using an instrument that meets the requirements 
of Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). The span 
value shall be 100 ppm CO instead of 1,000 ppm, and the relative 
accuracy limit shall be 10 percent of the average CO emissions or 5 ppm 
CO, whichever is greater. For instruments that are identical to Method 
10 and employ the sample conditioning system of Method 10A, the 
alternative relative accuracy test procedure in section 10.1 of 
Performance Specification 2 may be used in place of the relative 
accuracy test.
    (ii) The written request for exemption must include descriptions of 
the CPMS for exhaust gas temperature and O<INF>2</INF> monitor required 
in paragraph (g)(4) of this section and operating limits for those 
parameters to ensure combustion conditions remain similar to those that 
exist during the demonstration period.
    (4) The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is 
exempted from the requirement to install and operate a CO CEMS in 
paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall install, operate, calibrate, and 
maintain CPMS to measure and record the operating parameters in 
paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. The owner or operator 
shall install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the 
manufacturer's specifications.
    (i) For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with no post-combustion control 
device, the temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentration of the exhaust 
gas stream exiting the unit.
    (ii) For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with a post-combustion control 
device, the temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentration of the exhaust 
gas stream exiting the control device.
    (h) Excess emissions. For the purpose of reports required by Sec.  
60.7(c), periods of excess emissions for a FCCU or fluid coking unit 
subject to the emissions limitations in Sec.  60.102a(b) are defined as 
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section. Note: 
Determine all averages as the arithmetic average of the applicable 1-
hour averages, e.g., determine the rolling 3-hour average as the 
arithmetic average of three contiguous 1-hour averages.
    (1) All 24-hour periods during which the average PM control device 
operating characteristics, as measured by the continuous monitoring 
systems under Sec.  60.105a(b)(1), fall below the levels established 
during the performance test. Alternatively, if a PM CEMS is used 
according to Sec.  60.105a(d), all 7-day periods during which the 
average PM emission rate, as measured by the continuous PM monitoring 
system under Sec.  60.105a(a)(2) exceeds 0.020 gr/dscf.
    (2) All rolling 7-day periods during which the average 
concentration of NO<INF>X</INF>

[[Page 27215]]

as measured by the NO<INF>X</INF> CEMS under Sec.  60.105a(e) exceeds 
80 ppmv.
    (3) All rolling 7-day periods during which the average 
concentration of SO<INF>2</INF> as measured by the SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS 
under Sec.  60.105a(f) exceeds 50 ppmv, and all rolling 365-day periods 
during which the average concentration of SO<INF>2</INF> as measured by 
the SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS exceeds 25 ppmv.
    (4) All 1-hour periods during which the average CO concentration as 
measured by the CO continuous monitoring system under Sec.  60.105a(g) 
exceeds 500 ppmv or, if applicable, all 1-hour periods during which the 
average temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentration as measured by the 
continuous monitoring systems under Sec.  60.105a(g)(4) fall below the 
operating limits established during the performance test.


Sec.  60.106a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for sulfur 
recovery plants.

    (a) Sulfur recovery plants. The owner or operator of a sulfur 
recovery plant shall comply with the applicable requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant with a 
capacity greater than 20 LTD that is subject to an SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(e)(1) shall install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument using an air or O<INF>2</INF> 
dilution and oxidation system to convert any reduced sulfur to 
SO<INF>2</INF> for continuously monitoring and recording the 
concentration (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of the total resultant 
SO<INF>2</INF>. The monitor must include an O<INF>2</INF> monitor for 
correcting the data for excess O<INF>2</INF>.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span value for this monitor is 500 ppm 
SO<INF>2</INF>.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). 
The owner or operator shall use Methods 6 or 6C and 15 or 15A (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. 
The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 6 or 15A.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix B). The span value for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 25 percent O<INF>2</INF>.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. The owner or operator shall 
use Methods 3, 3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy 
evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (v) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality 
assurance procedures of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each monitor, 
including quarterly accuracy determinations for each SO<INF>2</INF> 
monitor, annual accuracy determinations for each O<INF>2</INF> monitor, 
and daily calibration drift determinations.
    (2) The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant with a 
capacity of less than 20 LTD that is subject to an SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(e)(2) shall install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument using an air or O<INF>2</INF> 
dilution and oxidation system to convert any reduced sulfur to 
SO<INF>2</INF> for continuously monitoring and recording the 
concentration of the total resultant SO<INF>2</INF> and an instrument 
for continuously monitoring the volumetric flow rate of gases released 
to the atmosphere. The SO<INF>2</INF> monitor must include an 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor for correcting the data for excess O<INF>2</INF>.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span value for the SO<INF>2</INF> monitor 
shall be set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission concentration that translates to the applicable 
emission limit at full sulfur production capacity.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for the SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). 
Methods 6, 6A, 6C, 15, or 15A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be 
used for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
6, 6A, or 15A.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor and flow monitor according to Performance 
Specification 3 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). The span value for the 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor is 25 percent O<INF>2</INF>. The span value for 
the volumetric flow monitor shall be set at 125 percent of the maximum 
estimated volumetric flow rate when the unit is operating at full 
process capacity.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor and flow monitor according to the 
requirements of Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. The 
owner or operator shall use Methods 3, 3A, or 3B for conducting the 
relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue 
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17) 
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (v) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality 
assurance requirements in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each monitor, 
including quarterly accuracy determinations for SO<INF>2</INF> and flow 
monitors, annual accuracy determinations for O<INF>2</INF> monitors, 
and daily calibration drift tests.
    (3) Except as provided under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the 
owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant that is subject to the 
H<INF>2</INF>S emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(e)(3) shall install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously 
monitoring and recording the concentration of H<INF>2</INF>S (dry 
basis, 0 percent excess air) emissions into the atmosphere. The 
H<INF>2</INF>S monitor must include an O<INF>2</INF> monitor for 
correcting the data for excess O<INF>2</INF>.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
H<INF>2</INF>S monitor according to Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span value for this instrument is 20 ppmv 
H<INF>2</INF>S.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for each H<INF>2</INF>S monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). 
The owner or operator shall use Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 15A.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The span value of this O<INF>2</INF> 
monitor is 25 percent.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. Method 3,

[[Page 27216]]

3A, or 3B shall be used for conducting the relative accuracy 
evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (v) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance 
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 
calibration drift tests.
    (4) In place of the H<INF>2</INF>S monitor required in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section, the owner or operator of a sulfur recovery 
plant that is subject to the H<INF>2</INF>S emissions limit in Sec.  
60.102a(e)(3) and that is equipped with an oxidation control system, 
incinerator, thermal oxidizer, or similar combustion device can use a 
CPMS for continuously monitoring and recording the temperature of the 
exhaust gases and an O<INF>2</INF> monitor for continuously monitoring 
and recording the O<INF>2</INF> concentration of the exhaust gases.
    (i) The span values for the temperature monitor is 1,500 [deg]F.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix B). The span value for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 25 percent O<INF>2</INF>.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. The owner or operator shall 
use Methods 3, 3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy 
evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality 
assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor, including annual accuracy determinations.
    (5) The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant subject to an 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.102a(b) shall determine and record the 
hourly sulfur production rate and hours of operation for each sulfur 
recovery plant.
    (b) Excess emissions. For the purpose of reports required by Sec.  
60.7(c), periods of excess emissions for sulfur recovery plants subject 
to the emissions limitations in Sec.  60.102a(b) are defined as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.

    Note: Determine all averages as the arithmetic average of the 
applicable 1-hour averages, e.g., determine the rolling 3-hour 
average as the arithmetic average of three contiguous 1-hour 
averages.

    (1) For sulfur recovery plants with a capacity greater than 20 LTD, 
all 12-hour periods during which the average concentration of 
SO<INF>2</INF> and reduced sulfur compounds as measured by the 
SO<INF>2</INF> continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section exceeds 250 ppmv (dry basis, 0 percent excess air).
    (2) For sulfur recovery plants with a capacity of 20 LTD or less, 
all 12-hour periods during which the mass rate of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
reduced sulfur compounds as measured by the continuous monitoring 
systems under paragraph (a)(2) of this section exceeds 1 percent of 
sulfur recovered.
    (3) All 1-hour periods during which the average concentration of 
H<INF>2</INF>S as measured by the H<INF>2</INF>S continuous monitoring 
system under paragraph (a)(3) of this section exceeds 10 ppm (dry 
basis, 0 percent excess air) or, if applicable, all 1-hour periods 
during which the average temperature and O<INF>2</INF> concentration as 
measured by the continuous monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section fall below the operating limits established during the 
performance test.


Sec.  60.107a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for process 
heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices.

    (a) Process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices subject 
to SO2, H2S, or TRS limit. The owner or operator of a process heater or 
other fuel gas combustion device that is subject to the requirements in 
Sec.  60.102(a)(g) shall comply with the requirements in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Alternatively, the 
owner or operator of a process heater or other fuel gas combustion 
device who elects to satisfy the requirements of Sec.  60.102(a)(h) 
shall comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
for H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limits or paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section for TRS concentration limits. Certain exceptions to all of 
these requirements are provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator of a process heater or other fuel gas 
combustion device subject to the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits in 
Sec.  60.102a(g)(i) and (ii) shall install, operate, calibrate, and 
maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the 
concentration (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions into the atmosphere. The monitor must include an 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor for correcting the data for excess air.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span values for the SO<INF>2</INF> monitor is 
50 ppm SO<INF>2</INF>.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for the SO<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). 
The owner or operator shall use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A. Method 6 samples shall be taken at a 
flow rate of approximately 2 liters/min for at least 30 minutes. The 
relative accuracy limit shall be 20 percent or 4 ppm, whichever is 
greater, and the calibration drift limit shall be 5 percent of the 
established span value.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix B). The span value for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 25 percent O<INF>2</INF>.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for the O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. The owner or operator shall 
use Methods 3, 3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy 
evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (v) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality 
assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, including quarterly 
accuracy determinations for SO<INF>2</INF> monitors, annual accuracy 
determinations for O<INF>2</INF> monitors, and daily calibration drift 
tests.
    (vi) Process heaters or other fuel gas combustion devices having a 
common source of fuel gas may be monitored at only one location (i.e., 
after one of the combustion devices), if monitoring at this location 
accurately represents the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions into the atmosphere 
from each of the combustion devices.
    (2) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device subject 
to the H<INF>2</INF>S concentration limits in Sec.  60.102a(h)(1) shall 
install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for 
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume (dry 
basis) of H<INF>2</INF>S in the fuel gases before being

[[Page 27217]]

burned in any fuel gas combustion device.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
H<INF>2</INF>S monitor according to Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span value for this instrument is 425 ppmv 
H<INF>2</INF>S.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for each H<INF>2</INF>S monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). 
The owner or operator shall use Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 15A.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable 
quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
H<INF>2</INF>S monitor.
    (iv) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas 
may be monitored at only one location, if monitoring at this location 
accurately represents the concentration of H<INF>2</INF>S in the fuel 
gas being burned.
    (3) The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device subject 
to the TRS concentration limits in Sec.  60.102a(h)(2) shall install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously 
monitoring and recording the concentration by volume (dry basis) of TRS 
in the fuel gases before being burned in any fuel gas combustion 
device.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
TRS monitor according to Performance Specification 5 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B). The span value for this instrument is 425 ppmv TRS.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations 
for each TRS monitor according to the requirements of Sec.  60.13(c) 
and Performance Specification 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). The owner 
or operator shall use Method 16 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for 
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable 
quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each TRS 
monitor.
    (iv) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas 
may be monitored at only one location, if monitoring at this location 
accurately represents the concentration of TRS in the fuel gas being 
burned.
    (4) The owner or operator of a process heater or other fuel gas 
combustion device is not required to comply with paragraph (a)(1), 
paragraph (a)(2), or paragraph (a)(3) of this section for streams that 
are exempt under Sec.  60.102(a)(i) and fuel gas streams combusted in a 
process heater or other fuel gas combustion device that are inherently 
low in sulfur content. Fuel gas streams meeting one of the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section will be considered 
inherently low in sulfur content.
    (i) Pilot gas for heaters and flares.
    (ii) Gas streams that meet commercial-grade product specifications 
and have a sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less.
    (iii) Fuel gas streams produced in process units that are 
intolerant to sulfur contamination, such as fuel gas streams produced 
in the hydrogen plant, catalytic reforming unit, and isomerization 
unit.
    (iv) Other streams that an owner or operator demonstrates are low-
sulfur according to the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) If the composition of an exempt stream changes such that it is 
no longer exempt under Sec.  60.102(a)(i) or it no longer meets one of 
the criteria in paragraph (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section, the 
owner or operator must begin continuously monitoring the stream within 
15 days of the change.
    (b) Exemption from H<INF>2</INF>S monitoring requirements for low-
sulfur gas streams. The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion 
device may apply for an exemption from the H<INF>2</INF>S monitoring 
requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section or the TRS monitoring 
requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for a gas stream that 
is inherently low in sulfur content. A gas stream that is demonstrated 
to be low-sulfur is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 
paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section until there are changes in 
operating conditions or stream composition.
    (1) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a 
written application for an exemption from the H<INF>2</INF>S or TRS 
monitoring requirements. The owner or operator shall include the 
following information in the application:
    (i) A description of the gas stream/system to be considered, 
including submission of a portion of the appropriate piping diagrams 
indicating the boundaries of the gas stream/system, and the affected 
fuel gas combustion device(s) to be considered;
    (ii) A statement that there are no crossover or entry points for 
sour gas (high H<INF>2</INF>S content) to be introduced into the gas 
stream/system (this should be shown in the piping diagrams);
    (iii) An explanation of the conditions that ensure low amounts of 
sulfur in the gas stream (i.e., control equipment or product 
specifications) at all times;
    (iv) The supporting test results from sampling the requested gas 
stream/system demonstrating that the sulfur content is less than 5 ppm 
H<INF>2</INF>S or TRS. Sampling data must include, at minimum, 2 weeks 
of daily monitoring (14 grab samples) for frequently operated gas 
streams/systems; for infrequently operated gas streams/systems, seven 
grab samples must be collected unless other additional information 
would support reduced sampling. The owner or operator shall use 
detector tubes (``length-of-stain tube'' type measurement) following 
the ``Gas Processor Association's Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon 
Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes,'' 1986 Revision 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) with ranges 0-10/0-100 ppm 
(N =10/1) to test the applicant stream for H<INF>2</INF>S or Method 16 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for TRS.
    (v) A description of how the 2 weeks (or seven samples for 
infrequently operated gas streams/systems) of monitoring results 
compares to the typical range of H<INF>2</INF>S concentration (fuel 
quality) expected for the gas stream/system going to the affected fuel 
gas combustion device (e.g., the 2 weeks of daily detector tube results 
for a frequently operated loading rack included the entire range of 
products loaded out, and, therefore, should be representative of 
typical operating conditions affecting H<INF>2</INF>S or TRS content in 
the gas stream going to the loading rack flare).
    (2) Once EPA receives a complete application, the Administrator 
will determine whether an exemption is granted. The owner or operator 
shall continue to comply with the monitoring requirements in paragraph 
(a)(2) or paragraph (a)(3) of this section until an exemption is 
granted.
    (3) Once an exemption from H<INF>2</INF>S or TRS monitoring is 
granted, no further action is required unless refinery operating 
conditions change in such a way that affects the exempt gas stream/
system (e.g., the stream composition changes). If such a change occurs, 
the owner or operator shall follow the procedures in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i), (b)(3) (ii), or (b)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (i) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is 
still within the range of concentrations included in the original 
application, the owner or operator shall conduct an H<INF>2</INF>S test 
on a grab sample (or TRS test, if applicable)

[[Page 27218]]

and record the results as proof that the concentration is still within 
the range.
    (ii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is 
outside the range of concentrations included in the original 
application, the owner or operator may submit a new application 
following the procedures of paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60 
days (or within 30 days after the seventh grab sample is tested for 
infrequently operated process units).
    (iii) If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is 
outside the range of concentrations included in the original 
application, and the owner or operator chooses not to submit a new 
application, the owner or operator must begin continuous H<INF>2</INF>S 
or TRS monitoring as required in paragraph (a)(2) or paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section within 15 days of the operation change.
    (c) Process heaters subject to NO<INF>X</INF> limit. The owner or 
operator of a process heater subject to the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
limits in Sec.  60.102a(g)(iii) shall install, operate, calibrate, and 
maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the 
concentration (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions into the atmosphere. The monitor must include an 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor for correcting the data for excess air.
    (1) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
NO<INF>X</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B). The span value of this NO<INF>X</INF> monitor is 
200 ppmv NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each NO<INF>X</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2. The owner or operator shall 
use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for 
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 7 
or 7C.
    (3) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B. The span value of this O<INF>2</INF> monitor 
is 25 percent.
    (4) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each O<INF>2</INF> monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3. Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be 
used for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference-see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
3B.
    (5) The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance 
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each 
SO<INF>2</INF> and O<INF>2</INF> monitor, including quarterly accuracy 
determinations for SO<INF>2</INF> monitors, annual accuracy 
determinations for O<INF>2</INF> monitors, and daily calibration drift 
tests.
    (d) Excess emissions. For the purpose of reports required by Sec.  
60.7(c), periods of excess emissions for process heaters and other fuel 
gas combustion devices subject to the emissions limitations in Sec.  
60.102a(g) or Sec.  60.102a(h) are defined as specified in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (3) of this section. Note: Determine all averages as the 
arithmetic average of the applicable 1-hour averages, e.g., determine 
the rolling 3-hour average as the arithmetic average of three 
contiguous 1-hour averages.
    (1) All rolling 3-hour periods during which the average 
concentration of SO<INF>2</INF> as measured by the SO<INF>2</INF> 
continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
exceeds 20 ppmv, and all rolling 365-day periods during which the 
average concentration as measured by the SO<INF>2</INF> continuous 
monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section exceeds 8 
ppmv.
    (2) All rolling 3-hour periods during which the average 
concentration of H<INF>2</INF>S as measured by the H<INF>2</INF>S 
continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(2) of this section or 
the average concentration of TRS as measured by the TRS continuous 
monitoring system under paragraph (a)(3) of this section exceeds 160 
ppmv, and all rolling 365-day periods during which the average 
concentration as measured by the H<INF>2</INF>S continuous monitoring 
system under paragraph (a)(2) or the average concentration as measured 
by the TRS continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section exceeds 60 ppmv.
    (3) All rolling 24-hour periods during which the average 
concentration of NO<INF>X</INF> as measured by the NO<INF>X</INF> 
continuous monitoring system under paragraph (c) of this section 
exceeds 80 ppmv (dry basis, 0 percent excess air).


Sec.  60.108a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the emissions limitations in 
Sec.  60.102a shall comply with the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in Sec.  60.7 and other requirements as 
specified in this section.
    (b) Each owner or operator subject to an emissions limitation in 
Sec.  60.102a shall notify the Administrator of the specific monitoring 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  60.105a, 60.106a, and 60.107a with which the 
owner or operator seeks to comply. Notification shall be submitted with 
the notification of initial startup required by Sec.  60.7(a)(3).
    Option 1 for paragraph (c):
    (c) The owner or operator shall maintain the following records:
    (1) A copy of the startup and shutdown plan required in Sec.  
60.103a(b).
    (2) Records of information to document conformance with operation 
and maintenance requirements in Sec.  60.105a(c).
    (3) Records of bag leak detection system alarms and corrective 
actions according to Sec.  63.105a(c).
    (4) For each catalytic cracking unit or fluid coking unit subject 
to the monitoring requirements in Sec.  60.105a(b)(3), records of the 
average coke burn-off rate and hours of operation.
    (5) For each sulfur recovery plant subject to monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  60.106a(a)(5), records of the hourly sulfur 
production rate and hours of operation for each sulfur recovery plant.
    (6) For each fuel gas stream to which one of the exemptions listed 
in Sec.  60.107a(a)(4) applies, records of the specific exemption 
determined to apply for each stream. If the owner or operator applies 
for the exemption described in Sec.  60.107a(a)(4)(iv), the owner or 
operator must keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from 
the Administrator granting approval of the application.
    Option 2 for paragraph (c):
    (c) The owner or operator shall maintain the following records:
    (1) Records of information to document conformance with operation 
and maintenance requirements in Sec.  60.105a(c).
    (2) Records of bag leak detection system alarms and corrective 
actions according to Sec.  63.105a(c).
    (3) For each catalytic cracking unit or fluid coking unit subject 
to the monitoring requirements in Sec.  60.105a(b)(3), records of the 
average coke burn-off rate and hours of operation.
    (4) For each sulfur recovery plant subject to monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  0.106a(a)(5), records of the hourly sulfur 
production rate and hours of operation for each sulfur recovery plant.
    (5) For each fuel gas stream to which one of the exemptions listed 
in Sec.  60.107a(a)(4) applies, records of the specific exemption 
determined to apply for each stream. If the owner or operator applies 
for the exemption described in Sec.  60.107a(a)(4)(iv), the owner or

[[Page 27219]]

operator must keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from 
the Administrator granting approval of the application.
    Option 1 for paragraph (d):
    (d) The owner or operator shall record and maintain records of 
discharges from any affected unit to the flare gas system. These 
records shall include:
    (1) A description of the discharge;
    (2) The date and time the discharge was first identified and the 
duration of the discharge;
    (3) The measured or calculated cumulative quantity of gas 
discharged over the discharge duration. If the discharge duration 
exceeds 24 hours, record the discharge quantity for each 24 hour 
period. Engineering calculations are allowed.
    (4) The measured or estimated concentration of H<INF>2</INF>S and 
SO<INF>2</INF> of the stream discharged. Process knowledge can be used 
to make these estimates;
    (5) The cumulative quantity of H<INF>2</INF>S and SO<INF>2</INF> 
released into the atmosphere. For releases controlled by flares or 
other fuel gas combustion units, assume 99 percent conversion of 
H<INF>2</INF>S to SO<INF>2</INF> and no reduction of SO<INF>2</INF>.
    (6) Results of any root-cause analysis conducted as required in 
Sec.  60.103a(b).
    Option 2 for paragraph (d):
    (d) The owner or operator shall record and maintain records of 
discharges from any affected unit to the flare gas system. These 
records shall include:
    (1) A description of the discharge;
    (2) The date and time the discharge was first identified and the 
duration of the discharge;
    (3) The measured or calculated cumulative quantity of gas 
discharged over the discharge duration. If the discharge duration 
exceeds 24 hours, record the discharge quantity for each 24 hour 
period. Engineering calculations are allowed.
    (4) The measured or estimated concentration of H<INF>2</INF>S and 
SO<INF>2</INF> of the stream discharged. Process knowledge can be used 
to make these estimates;
    (5) The cumulative quantity of H<INF>2</INF>S and SO<INF>2</INF> 
released into the atmosphere. For releases controlled by flares or 
other fuel gas combustion units, assume 99 percent conversion of 
H<INF>2</INF>S to SO<INF>2</INF> and no reduction of SO<INF>2</INF>.
    Option 1 for paragraph (e):
    (e) Each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall submit an 
excess emissions report for all periods of excess emissions according 
to the requirements of Sec.  60.7(c) except that the report shall 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of 
this section.
    (1) The date that the exceedance occurred;
    (2) An explanation of the exceedance;
    (3) Whether the exceedance was concurrent with a startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction of a process unit or control system; and
    (4) A description of the corrective action taken, if any.
    (5) A root-cause summary report that provides the information 
described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section for all 
discharges for which a root-cause analysis was required by Sec.  
60.103a(b).
    (6) For any periods for which monitoring data are not available, 
any changes made in operation of the emission control system during the 
period of data unavailability which could affect the ability of the 
system to meet the applicable emission limit. Operations of the control 
system and affected facility during periods of data unavailability are 
to be compared with operation of the control system and affected 
facility before and following the period of data unavailability; and
    (7) A written statement, signed by a responsible official, 
certifying the accuracy and completeness of the information contained 
in the report.
    Option 2 for paragraph (e):
    (e) Each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall submit an 
excess emissions report for all periods of excess emissions according 
to the requirements of Sec.  60.7(c) except that the report shall 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of 
this section.
    (1) The date that the exceedance occurred;
    (2) An explanation of the exceedance;
    (3) Whether the exceedance was concurrent with a startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction of a process unit or control system;
    (4) A description of the corrective action taken, if any.
    (5) For any periods for which monitoring data are not available, 
any changes were made in operation of the emission control system 
during the period of data unavailability which could affect the ability 
of the system to meet the applicable emission limit. Operations of the 
control system and affected facility during periods of data 
unavailability are to be compared with operation of the control system 
and affected facility before and following the period of data 
unavailability;
    (6) A written statement, signed by a responsible official, 
certifying the accuracy and completeness of the information contained 
in the report.
    (f) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the 
reports required under this subpart to the Administrator semiannually 
for each 6-month period. All semiannual reports shall be postmarked by 
the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period.


Sec.  60.109a  Delegation of authority.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your 
State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval authorities 
contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained 
by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard.
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under 40 CFR 
60.8(b). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 60.13(i). 
A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40 
CFR 60.7(b) through (f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' 
is defined in Sec.  63.90.

[FR Doc. E7-8547 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>