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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0033; AD–FRL–7969–9] 

RIN 2060–AK51 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum 

Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, 

Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur 

Recovery Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On April 11, 2002, pursuant 

to section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the EPA issued national 

emission standards to control hazardous 

air pollutants emitted from catalytic 

cracking units, catalytic reforming units, 

and sulfur recovery units at petroleum 

refineries. This action promulgates 

amendments to several sections of the 

existing standards. The amendments 

will change the affected source 

designations and add new compliance 

options for catalytic reforming units that 

use different types of emission control 

systems, new monitoring alternatives for 

catalytic cracking units and catalytic 

reforming units, and a new procedure 

for determining the metal or total 

chloride concentration on catalyst 

particles. The amendments will also 

defer technical requirements for most 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems, clarify testing and monitoring 

requirements, and make editorial 

corrections.

DATES: The final amendments will be 

effective on April 11, 2005, unless we 

receive significant adverse comments by 

March 11, 2005, or by March 28, 2005 

if a public hearing is requested. If such 

comments are received, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register indicating which amendments, 

paragraph, or section will become 

effective and which amendments, 

paragraph, or section are being 

withdrawn due to adverse comment. 

Any distinct amendment, paragraph, or 

section of the direct final amendments 

for which we do not receive adverse 

comment will become effective on April 

11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

OAR–2002–0033, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.

• Agency Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic 

Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming 

Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, 

DC 20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0033. The 

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.epa.gov/edocket, 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 EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email 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 EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

information, such as copyrighted 

materials, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy form in Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0033 (or A–97–36), EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 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 Air Docket is (202) 566–

1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert B. Lucas, Emission Standards 

Division (C439–03), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541–0884, fax 

number (919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

lucas.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include:

Category NAICS code1 Examples of regulated entities 

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

Federal government ................................................................... ........................ Not affected. 

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

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

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

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 is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1561 

of the NESHAP for petroleum refineries: 

Catalytic cracking units, catalytic 

reforming units, and sulfur recovery 

units. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the contact 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s direct final 

rule amendments will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following the Administrator’s 

signature, a copy of the direct final rule 

amendments will be placed 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. If more information 

regarding the TTN is needed, call the 

TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384. 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of 

the direct final amendments is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit by April 11, 2005. 

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

only an objection to the final 

amendments that was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review. Moreover, under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by the final amendments 

may not be challenged separately in any 

civil or criminal proceedings brought by 

the EPA to enforce these requirements. 

Comments. We are publishing the 

amendments as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because we view 

the amendments as noncontroversial 

and do not anticipate adverse 

comments. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

we are publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal for the 

amendments contained in this direct 

final rule in the event that significant 

adverse comments are filed. If we 

receive any significant adverse 

comments on one or more distinct 

amendments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public which provisions 

will become effective and which 

provisions are being withdrawn due to 

adverse comment. We will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. We 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this direct final rule. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background 

II. Summary of the Direct Final Rule 

Amendments 

A. How are we changing the affected 

source designations? 

B. How are we changing the testing and 

monitoring requirements for catalytic 

cracking units? 

C. What new procedure is available for 

determining the metal or total chloride 

concentration on catalyst particles? 

D. What new alternative is available for 

calculating the volumetric flow rate of 

exhaust gases from catalytic cracking 

units? 

E. What new monitoring alternative is 

available for a catalytic cracking unit 

with a wet scrubber if the unit is subject 

to the new source performance standards 

for petroleum refineries? 

F. How are we clarifying the emission 

limitations for catalytic reforming units? 

G. How are we changing the monitoring 

requirements for catalytic reforming 

units? 

H. What new options are available for a 

catalytic reforming unit with an internal 

scrubbing system? 

I. What new options are available for a 

catalytic reforming unit with a different 

type of control system? 

J. How are we changing the requirements 

for continuous parameter monitoring 

systems? 

K. What corrections are we making? 

III. Summary of Non-Air Health, 

Environmental, Energy, and Cost Impacts 

IV. 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 & 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background 

On April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17762), we 

issued the national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for catalytic cracking units (CCU), 

catalytic reforming units (CRU), and 

sulfur recovery units (SRU) at petroleum 

refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UUU). The NESHAP establish emissions 

limits for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) emitted from vents on the three 

types of process units, as well as work 

practice standards for by-pass lines. The 

NESHAP implement section 112(d) of 

the CAA by requiring all petroleum 

refineries that are major sources to meet 

standards reflecting the application of 

the maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT).

After publication of the NESHAP, two 

industry trade associations and various 

individual refineries raised issues and 

questions regarding the applicability of 

the NESHAP and the technical 

requirements for installation, operation, 

and maintenance of continuous 

parameter monitoring systems (CPMS). 

The industry representatives and a 

control technology manufacturer also 

requested that we clarify the 

requirements for CRU depressurizing 

and purging, add more compliance 

provisions for CRU with internal 

scrubbing systems, and include new 

provisions for CRU that use emission 

control technologies other than 

scrubbers. The industry representatives 

also requested clarification of various 

performance testing and monitoring 

provisions. Other questions were raised 

at an implementation workshop held in 

January 2003. Today’s direct final rule 

amendments respond to the issues 

raised since promulgation and will 

reduce compliance uncertainties, 

encourage the use of new control 

technologies, and improve 

understanding of the NESHAP 

requirements. 

In addition, since publication of the 

NESHAP, we have identified a number 

of minor technical and editorial errors 

requiring correction. Rather than 

publish a separate notice of corrections, 

we are including those changes along 

with the amendments. 

II. Summary of the Direct Final Rule 

Amendments 

A. How Are We Changing the Affected 

Source Designations? 

One of the issues raised by the 

industry representatives concerns the 

language in 40 CFR 63.1562 where we 

identified the affected sources as each 

CCU that regenerates catalyst, each CRU 

that regenerates catalyst, and each SRU 

and the tail gas treatment unit serving 

it. In designating the affected source as 

the unit rather than the vent or group of 

vents on the unit (as originally 

proposed), we inadvertently made the 

NESHAP more stringent for some 

facilities, and these facilities did not 

have an opportunity to comment on the 

change. Therefore, we are revising the 

designation of affected sources to be 

6932 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

more consistent with the rule as 

proposed. The direct final rule 

amendments define the process unit 

affected sources as: 

• The process vent or group of 

process vents on fluidized CCU units 

that is associated with regeneration of 

the catalyst used in the unit (i.e., the 

catalyst regeneration flue gas vent). 

• The process vent or group of 

process vents on CRU (including but not 

limited to semi-regenerative, cyclic, or 

continuous processes), that is associated 

with regeneration of the catalyst used in 

the unit. This affected source includes 

vents that are used during the unit 

depressurization, purging, coke burn, 

and catalyst rejuvenation. 

• The process vent or group of 

process vents on Claus or other types of 

sulfur recovery plant units or the tail gas 

treatment units serving sulfur recovery 

plants that is associated with sulfur 

recovery. 

B. How Are We Changing the Testing 

and Monitoring Requirements for 

Catalytic Cracking Units? 

The initial compliance provisions in 

40 CFR 63.1564(b)(1) require the owner 

or operator to install, operate, and 

maintain a CPMS according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1572 and 

Table 3 to subpart UUU. Facilities that 

are not subject to the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for 

petroleum refineries and that elect to 

meet the particulate matter (PM) or 

nickel (Ni) limit in the NESHAP are 

required to monitor the gas flow rate to 

a wet scrubber. After promulgation, 

industry representatives recommended 

that we revise the CCU monitoring 

requirements to allow gas flow rate 

measurements before or after the control 

device. The direct final rule 

amendments revise the requirements in 

Table 3 to subpart UUU to allow 

measurement of the gas flow rate 

entering or exiting the control device. 

This change will improve 

implementation of the NESHAP and 

avoid unnecessary costs of changing 

current practices. The direct final rule 

amendments also revise the footnotes to 

Tables 3 and 7 to subpart UUU to 

change the citation for the alternative 

method for determining gas flow rate 

from 40 CFR 63.1573(a) to 40 CFR 

63.1573(a)(1) to accommodate the new 

alternative for calculating the 

volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases 

when computing the PM emissions rate.

The initial compliance provisions in 

40 CFR 63.1564(b)(2) require the owner 

or operator to conduct a performance 

test for certain CCU according to the 

requirements in Table 4 to subpart 

UUU. After promulgation, industry 

representatives recommended that we 

delete the sampling rate requirements 

cited for EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A). According to the 

commenters, the sampling rate 

requirement is unnecessary because the 

method already includes appropriate 

sampling requirements. We agree and 

have deleted the 0.028 dry standard 

cubic meters per minute (dscm/min)/

0.74 dry standard cubic feet per minute 

(dscf/min) sampling rate requirement 

from Table 4 to subpart UUU. 

C. What New Procedure Is Available for 

Determining the Metal or Total Chloride 

Concentration on Catalyst Particles? 

The owner or operator of a CCU 

subject to a Ni limit for inorganic HAP 

emissions must determine the 

equilibrium catalyst (E-cat) Ni 

concentration value during the initial 

performance test and at frequent 

intervals afterward for monitoring 

requirements. Several methods are 

currently used within the industry for 

this purpose and are referenced in the 

NESHAP, as well as any alternative 

method satisfactory to the 

Administrator. Industry experts and 

vendors recommended that the 

NESHAP allow a new procedure that 

was not fully developed at the time the 

NESHAP were promulgated. The direct 

final rule amendments add the new 

procedure, ‘‘Determination of Metal 

Concentration on Catalyst Particles 

(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)’’ to 

appendix A of subpart UUU. This 

procedure can be used to analyze 

catalyst particles (Ni compounds and 

total chlorides) from CCU, CRU, and 

other processes specified within EPA 

regulations. The direct final rule 

amendments revise Table 4 to subpart 

UUU to reference the new procedure. 

D. What New Alternative is Available 

for Calculating the Volumetric Flow 

Rate of Exhaust Gases From Catalytic 

Cracking Units? 

The initial compliance provisions in 

40 CFR 63.1564(b)(4) require the owner 

or operator of a CCU subject to the PM 

limit in the NSPS for petroleum 

refineries to compute the PM emission 

rate using Equation 1 of 40 CFR 63.1564. 

This calculation requires measurement 

of the volumetric flow rate of exhaust 

gas from the catalyst regenerator (‘‘Qr’’). 

The direct final rule amendments revise 

the definition of ‘‘Qr’’ to refer to a new 

alternative procedure in 40 CFR 

63.1573(a)(2) that can be used to 

determine the volumetric flow rate of 

exhaust gas. This procedure can be used 

by plants that have a gas analyzer 

installed in the catalytic cracking 

regenerator exhaust vent prior to the 

addition of air or other gas streams. The 

new alternative allows measurement of 

the flow rate after an electrostatic 

precipitator, but requires measurement 

of the flow rate before a carbon 

monoxide boiler. 

E. What New Monitoring Alternative is 

Available for a Catalytic Cracking Unit 

With a Wet Scrubber if the Unit Is 

Subject to the New Source Performance 

Standards for Petroleum Refineries? 

The NSPS for petroleum refineries (40 

CFR part 60, subpart J) require a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) for a fluidized CCU to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the opacity limit in 40 CFR 

60.102(a)(2). Subpart UUU requires 

facilities that are already subject to the 

NSPS to meet the NSPS requirements, 

including the opacity limit and COMS 

requirements. 

Technical experience has shown that 

COMS are not feasible for wet scrubber 

PM control systems. We have already 

acknowledged the technical problems 

associated with the use of COMS on wet 

scrubbers by requiring other monitoring 

methods (CPMS for pressure drop and 

liquid-to-gas ratio). However, these 

requirements apply under other 

compliance options and not to CCU 

already subject to the NSPS. 

Some facilities with CCU subject to 

the NSPS use wet scrubbers to meet the 

PM limit and already have alternative 

monitoring requirements approved 

under the NSPS. For these reasons, one 

industry representative requested that 

the NESHAP accept alternative 

monitoring requirements that have 

already been approved under the NSPS. 

Therefore, we are adding a new 

paragraph (f) to 40 CFR 63.1573 to 

provide for use of the approved 

alternative under subpart UUU. 

Monitoring alternatives for CCU 

subject to the NSPS that have already 

been approved may not meet the criteria 

for MACT standards. For example, the 

alternative may not include provisions 

for demonstrating continuous 

compliance such as meeting an 

operating limit, collecting and reducing 

monitoring data, and recordkeeping/

reporting requirements. While we 

cannot automatically approve an 

alternative that we have not seen, we 

see no reason to require a second formal 

approval process for the same control 

system and emission limit. To this end, 

we have added procedures for 

requesting alternative requirements 

specific to this situation.

We are requiring that an owner or 

operator submit a copy of the approved 

alternative monitoring method in the 

notification of compliance status (or 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6933

before), along with a brief description of 

the continuous monitoring system, the 

applicable operating limit, and the 

continuous compliance requirements. 

We will contact you within 30 calendar 

days after receipt, to tell you if the 

alternative is approved. This alternative 

does not eliminate your responsibility to 

comply with the opacity limit, which 

would remain applicable for 

enforcement purposes. This option is 

not available to facilities that elect to 

comply with the NSPS requirements in 

subpart UUU. These facilities must 

request an alternative monitoring 

method under the procedures in 40 CFR 

63.8(f). 

F. How Are we Clarifying the Emission 

Limitations for Catalytic Reforming 

Units? 

The requirements for organic HAP 

emissions in 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(3) state 

that the CRU emissions and operating 

limits in Tables 15 and 16 to subpart 

UUU apply to emissions from process 

vents that occur during depressuring 

and purging operations. The NESHAP 

specify in 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(4) that the 

limits do not apply to depressurizing 

and purging operations when the reactor 

vent pressure is 5 pounds per square 

inch (psig) or less. Applicable process 

vents include those used during unit 

depressurization, purging, coke burn, 

catalyst rejuvenation, and reduction or 

activation purge. Industry 

representatives noted the current 

language is unclear as to whether the 

limits apply only to the initial 

depressurization cycle or include 

subsequent depressuring and purging 

cycles when the reactor pressure is 

greater than 5 psig. In response, we are 

amending 40 CFR 63.1566(a)(3) to 

clarify our intent regarding the control 

of organic HAP emissions from CRU 

depressurizing and purging. 

Our intent in the NESHAP was that 

the organic HAP requirements apply to 

the initial depressuring and catalyst 

purging operations that occur prior to 

coke burn-off. Organic HAP emissions 

are expected during the initial 

depressurization and catalyst purge 

cycles. No additional organic HAP 

emission controls are used during coke 

burn-off, beyond the combustion 

process inherent during this process, 

and our data indicate there are minimal 

organic emissions from coke burn-off 

and subsequent CRU regeneration cycle 

purges. 

Industry representatives suggested 

that we limit the applicability of the 

emissions limit to only the initial 

depressuring and first nitrogen purge. 

We do expect that, after some number 

of purges, the HAP concentration in the 

purge may be less than the required 

outlet HAP concentration from a 

combustion control device. Under the 

NESHAP, all purges greater than 5 psig 

go to a combustion control device (or 

equivalent combustion device), 

regardless of the HAP concentration in 

the affected stream. 

Initially, we attempted to specify the 

number of purges to be controlled 

because the organic HAP emissions 

would generally be very low beyond the 

first or second purge. However, our 

information indicates that the purging 

processes vary widely (e.g., different 

systems use different purge gases, 

different purge temperatures, and 

different amounts of purge gas per unit 

of catalyst). Consequently, specifying 

the number of purges that must be 

controlled does not necessarily reflect a 

performance level. Additionally, recent 

data show that, for some CRU purge 

conditions, subsequent purges after the 

initial nitrogen purge may contain 

substantial amounts of benzene—on the 

order of 100 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv), which translates to emissions of 

about 1 ton per year (tpy). For other 

process purging conditions, however, 

subsequent purges have very low levels 

of HAP. We concluded that mandating 

specific purging conditions would 

reduce operator flexibility and would 

make compliance, for certain CRU 

processes, to be technically infeasible. 

We decided, therefore, to clarify that 

uncontrolled purging operations greater 

than 5 psig are acceptable if the total 

organic carbon (TOC) concentration is 

less than the currently required outlet 

concentration of a combustion control 

device (i.e., less than 20 ppmv), and to 

provide compliance options for these 

purges. 

Furthermore, the background 

information supporting the performance 

achievable by a combustion control 

device indicates that the 20 ppmv 

emissions limit was established ‘‘by 

compound exit concentration’’ rather 

than by a specified indicator of TOC, 

such as propane. As the primary HAP of 

concern from these CRU depressuring 

and purging vents is benzene, it is more 

appropriate to establish the 20 ppmv 

emission limit as hexane (i.e., a C6

hydrocarbon) rather than as propane. 

We are, therefore, changing the CRU 

TOC concentration requirements (which 

are used as a surrogate for organic HAP) 

to 20 ppmv TOC or nonmethane TOC 

(dry basis as hexane), corrected to 3 

percent oxygen. This applies to both the 

concentration limit for the control 

device and the concentration limit for 

emissions discharged directly to the 

atmosphere. 

This approach adds compliance 

options for ‘‘uncontrolled’’ purging 

cycles that are greater than 5 psig and 

less than 20 ppmv TOC (dry basis as 

hexane). First, the purging conditions 

used by the plant to remove organic 

HAP from the CRU catalyst during 

controlled purges prior to direct release 

to the atmosphere must be specified in 

the operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. An initial performance 

test is conducted on the first directly 

released catalyst purge (following the 

purging conditions specified in the 

plan) to demonstrate that the purges 

specified in the plan effectively achieve 

the required emission limit. 

Subsequently, adherence to the purging 

procedures as specified in the plan is 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance.

Industry representatives also 

requested that we clarify the emission 

limits for organic HAP emissions from 

CRU in 40 CFR 63.1567(a) to indicate 

which limits apply when different 

reactors in the CRU are regenerated in 

separate regeneration systems. The 

direct final rule amendments state that, 

in this case, the emission limits in Table 

22 to subpart UUU apply to each 

separate regeneration system. The direct 

final rule amendments also clarify that 

the TOC outlet concentration limit is 20 

ppmv dry basis as hexane. 

In response to industry comments, we 

expanded the number of test methods 

that can be use to measure organic HAP 

emissions. For the 98 percent mass 

emission reduction standard, you can 

use EPA Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, to directly measure 

nonmethane TOC as carbon or the 

combination of EPA Methods 25A and 

18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to 

determine nonmethane TOC emissions. 

If the outlet TOC concentration is 

expected to be less than 50 ppmv (as 

carbon), you can use EPA Method 25A 

to measure the TOC concentration as 

hexane. For the 20 ppmv concentration 

limit, you can measure the TOC 

concentration using EPA Method 25A or 

determine the nonmethane TOC 

concentration using the combination of 

Methods 25A and 18. We made changes 

to the equations in 40 CFR 63.1564 and 

relevant tables to make these 

distinctions. We also added a definition 

of ‘‘nonmethane TOC’’ to 40 CFR 

63.1579. 

The direct final rule amendments also 

clarify the inorganic HAP emission and 

operating limits to indicate that the 

requirements apply to each applicable 

CRU process vent during coke burn-off 

and catalyst rejuvenation. In response to 

industry comments, we are also 

changing the compliance equations in 

6934 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

40 CFR 63.1567 to allow for hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) measurements below 

detectable limits of the method after 

correction for oxygen content. 

G. How Are we Changing the Monitoring 

Requirements for Catalytic Reforming 

Units? 

The NESHAP allow plants to measure 

and record the pH of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) exiting the scrubber at 

least once an hour as an alternative to 

a pH CPMS. After promulgation, 

industry representatives recommended 

that we allow alkalinity measurements 

as an alternative to pH. Alkalinity 

measurements are more reliable because 

they give the actual acid content of the 

water (or scrubbing liquid) while pH 

measurements indicate only how much 

(more or less) acid is needed. We agree 

and have changed 40 CFR 63.1573(b) to 

allow plants to measure and record the 

alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing 

liquid) exiting the wet scrubber at least 

once an hour during coke burn-off and 

catalyst rejuvenation using titration as 

an alternative to a CPMS. We have also 

changed Tables 23, 24, 25, and 28 to 

subpart UUU to include the alternative 

for alkalinity measurements. In response 

to industry comments, we have also 

allowed the pH alternative to apply to 

CRU meeting the HCl percent reduction 

standard. 

The NESHAP allow plants to measure 

the catalytic regenerator exhaust gas 

flow rate from a CCU as an approved 

alternative to a CPMS if the unit does 

not introduce any other gas streams into 

the catalyst regeneration vent (i.e., 

complete combustion units with no 

additional combustion devices). In 

response to industry comments, we 

have expanded the alternative in 40 CFR 

63.1573(a) to apply to CRU that operate 

as a constant pressure system during the 

coke burn and rejuvenation cycles.

After promulgation, industry 

representatives recommended that we 

also expand the CRU monitoring 

requirements to allow gas flow rate 

measurements before or after the control 

device. We agree and have changed 

Tables 24 and 25 of subpart UUU 

accordingly. 

In response to questions raised at 

implementation workshops for plant 

personnel, we have added provisions to 

the performance test requirements for 

CRU to reflect differences among semiregenerative, cyclic, and continuous 

processes. The direct final rule 

amendments require plants to test semiregenerative and cyclic units during the 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation 

cycle. However, the tests cannot be done 

during the first hour or the last 6 hours 

of the cycle for a semi-regenerative unit, 

or during the first hour or the last 2 

hours of the cycle for a cyclic 

regeneration unit. Plants must conduct 

the performance test for a continuous 

regeneration unit no sooner than 3 days 

after the process unit or control system 

startup. 

H. What New Options Are Available For 

a Catalytic Reforming Unit With an 

Internal Scrubbing System? 

Industry representatives expressed 

concern that the NESHAP do not 

contain provisions allowing a CRU with 

an internal scrubbing system to meet the 

percent reduction standard instead of 

the concentration limit for HCl 

emissions. 

The direct final rule amendments 

change the rule language related to the 

HCl emissions limits (and other 

provisions) by removing the phrase 

‘‘using a control device.’’ These changes 

allow CRU with an internal scrubbing 

system or alternative emissions 

reduction technique to meet either the 

percent reduction standard or 

concentration limit. To improve 

understanding of the NESHAP, we have 

added a definition for ‘‘internal 

scrubbing system.’’ The direct final rule 

amendments also add provisions to 

Tables 23 through 28 to subpart UUU 

for CRU with an internal scrubbing 

system meeting the HCl percent 

reduction standard and CRU with a 

fixed-bed or moving-bed gas-solid 

adsorption system. 

The direct final rule amendments 

establish operating limits and 

compliance provisions specific to CRU 

with an internal scrubbing system 

meeting the HCl percent reduction 

standard. The operating limits require 

plants to maintain the daily average pH 

or alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing 

liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing 

system and the daily average liquid-togas ratio at or above the limit 

established during the performance test. 

Plants must conduct performance tests 

to demonstrate initial compliance with 

the applicable HCl emission standard 

and to establish operating limits. 

Performance test procedures are given 

for each type of system. To demonstrate 

continuous compliance, plants must 

install, operate, and maintain CPMS to 

monitor during coke burn-off and 

catalyst rejuvenation, the daily average 

pH or alkalinity of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal 

scrubbing system, and the daily average 

liquid-to-gas ratio. Plants may use pH 

strips as an approved alternative to a pH 

CPMS, or discrete titration as an 

alternative to a CPMS for alkalinity. 

I. What New Options Are Available For 

a Catalytic Reforming Unit With a 

Different Type of Control System? 

Industry representatives and 

technology vendors expressed concern 

that the NESHAP do not include 

compliance provisions for continuous 

CRU that may use process 

modifications, pollution prevention 

control techniques, or alternative 

control systems other than internal or 

external (add-on) wet scrubbers to 

comply with the emission limitations. A 

refinery process design firm provided 

data indicating that gas-solid adsorption 

systems can meet the HCl emission 

limitations for CRU. The system also 

acted as a pollution prevention 

technique by reducing the total amount 

of chloriding agent needed during 

catalyst regeneration. The direct final 

rule amendments add provisions to 

accommodate these control scenarios. 

The new provisions improve the 

NESHAP by encouraging the use of new 

technologies that meet the MACT level 

of control.

Plants with a fixed-bed gas-adsorption 

system must meet two operating limits 

during coke burn-off and catalyst 

rejuvenation: 

• The daily average temperature of 

the gas entering or exiting the 

adsorption system must not exceed the 

limit established during the 

performance test; and 

• The HCl concentration in the 

adsorption system exhaust gas must not 

exceed the limit established during the 

performance test. 

Plants must conduct a performance 

test to demonstrate initial compliance 

and to establish operating limits. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance, 

plants must install, operate, and 

maintain CPMS to monitor the daily 

average temperature of the gas entering 

or exiting the adsorption system. In 

addition, plants must monitor HCl 

during coke burn-off and catalyst 

rejuvenation using a colormetric tube 

sampling system to measure the 

concentration in the adsorption system 

exhaust and at a point within the 

adsorbent bed not to exceed 90 percent 

of the total length of the bed. If the HCl 

concentration at the sampling location 

with the adsorption bed exceeds the 

operating limit, plants must follow the 

procedures in their operation and 

maintenance plan. These procedures 

must require, at a minimum, that plants 

remeasure the HCl concentration at both 

the adsorption system exhaust and at 

the sampling location within the 

adsorbent bed and replace the sorbent 

material in the bed before the next 

regeneration cycle if the HCl 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6935

concentration at either location is above 

the operating limit. 

The direct final rule amendments also 

establish operating limits and 

compliance provisions for CRU with 

moving-bed gas-solid adsorption 

systems. The operating limits are: 

• The daily average temperature of 

the gas entering or exiting the 

adsorption system must not exceed the 

limit established during the 

performance test; 

• The weekly average chloride level 

on the sorbent entering the adsorption 

system must not exceed the design or 

manufacturer’s recommended limit 

(1.35 weight percent for the ChlorsorbTM

system); and 

• The weekly average chloride level 

on the sorbent exiting the adsorption 

system must not exceed the design or 

manufacturer’s recommended limit (1.8 

weight percent for the ChlorsorbTM

system). 

Plants must conduct a performance 

test to demonstrate initial compliance 

and to establish an operating limit for 

the daily average gas temperature. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance, 

plants must monitor the daily average 

gas temperature using a CPMS. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the operating limits for chloride 

level, plants must collect and analyze 

samples of the sorbent entering and 

exiting the system for total chloride 

concentration using the new procedure, 

‘‘Determination of Metal Concentration 

on Catalyst Particles (Instrument 

Analyzer Procedure)’’ in appendix A of 

these direct final amendments or the 

specified methods in EPA Publication 

No. SW–846, ‘‘Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/

Chemical Methods’’ (Revision 5, April 

1998). Plants must determine and record 

the weekly chloride content and 

maintain the weekly average chloride 

content below the design operating 

limits. 

J. How Are We Changing The 

Requirements For Continuous 

Parameter Monitoring Systems? 

The technical specifications for CPMS 

in Table 41 to subpart UUU were added 

to the NESHAP after proposal based on 

provisions we have included in other 

NESHAP. We included these provisions 

to ensure that CPMS are installed, 

calibrated, and operated in a manner 

that would yield accurate and reliable 

information on the performance of 

control devices. Industry representatives 

objected to the inclusion of such 

detailed requirements after proposal 

with no opportunity to comment on the 

provisions. 

We have decided not to include the 

performance specifications for CPMS in 

the rule at this time. As discussed in the 

preamble to the Generic MACT 

NESHAP amendments (67 FR 46260, 

July 12, 2002), we are currently 

developing Performance Specification 

(PS–17) for CPMS and quality assurance 

procedures that will apply to all sources 

subject to NESHAP under 40 CFR part 

63. A proposed rule for these 

specifications is expected to be available 

in 2005. This approach will avoid the 

possibility that the specifications 

ultimately issued for all NESHAP differ 

significantly from those in the 

Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. 

The NESHAP state that each CPMS 

must be installed, operated, and 

maintained according to the 

requirements in Table 41 of subpart 

UUU and in a manner consistent with 

the manufacturer’s or other written 

procedures that provide adequate 

assurance that the equipment will 

monitor accurately. The amendments 

remove the reference to Table 41 from 

40 CFR 63.1572(c) for those CPMS that 

will be covered by PS–17 and quality 

assurance procedures. Until PS–17 is 

available, facilities must install, operate, 

and maintain CPMS in a manner 

consistent with the manufacturer’s or 

other written procedures that provide 

adequate assurance that the equipment 

will monitor accurately. 

Table 41 to subpart UUU also 

contains requirements for pH strips and 

colormetric sampling systems. These 

requirements were added to the 

NESHAP in response to comments and 

are not expected to be covered by the 

new PS–17 and quality assurance 

procedures. Consequently, we have not 

removed these requirements from the 

table. 

K. What Corrections Are We Making? 

We are correcting numbering errors 

and citations in several sections of the 

NESHAP. We are also amending the rule 

to correct publication errors in various 

tables. 

We are correcting a unit conversion 

error in Tables 1 through 3 to subpart 

UUU. These tables cite the incremental 

PM emission rate for discharged gases 

that pass through an incinerator or 

waste heat boiler in which auxiliary or 

supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel 

is burned as 43.0 grams per Megajoule 

of heat input attributable to the liquid 

or solid fossil fuel. The corrected value 

is 43.0 grams per Gigajoule; no change 

is being made to the English unit 

equivalent limit (0.10 pound per million 

British thermal units). We are making 

several minor corrections to these tables 

to ensure that both limits are cited 

consistently and accurately.

We are correcting Table 5 to subpart 

UUU to list the proper test methods 

required for PM performance tests for 

metal HAP emissions. The amended 

table requires EPA Method 5B or 5F (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine 

PM emissions and associated moisture 

content for a unit without a wet 

scrubber; EPA Method 5B is required to 

determine PM emissions and associated 

moisture content for a unit with a wet 

scrubber. 

We are correcting Table 6 to subpart 

UUU to specify the use of Equation 1 

(the proper equation for calculation of 

coke burn-off) rather than Equation 2. 

We are correcting Table 18 to subpart 

UUU to correct a typographical error in 

a cross reference to certain requirements 

for flares in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 

We are correcting Tables 31, 33, and 

34 to subpart UUU to clarify the 

monitoring and compliance 

requirements for a sulfur recovery unit 

subject to the TRS limit. Under this 

option, the owner or operator may use 

a TRS continuous emission monitoring 

system or CPMS, and the continuous 

compliance requirements depend on the 

type of monitoring system. The direct 

final rule amendments separate the 

requirements according to the type of 

monitoring system and clarify that 

compliance is based on a 12-hour 

rolling average like the NSPS 

requirements. 

We also are clarifying our comment in 

the explanation column of Table 44 for 

the citation 40 CFR 63.6(i), which 

allows facilities to request a 1-year 

extension of compliance if necessary to 

install controls. We are revising the 

table to state that the extension of 

compliance under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4) is 

not applicable to a facility that installs 

catalytic cracking feed hydrotreating 

and receives an extended compliance 

date under 40 CFR 63.1563(c). We are 

also revising Table 44 to subpart UUU 

to change the citation to 40 CFR 

63.9(b)(3) to indicate its current 

reserved status under the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63). 

III. Summary of Non-Air Health, 

Environmental, Energy, and Cost 

Impacts 

The NESHAP will reduce emissions 

of many HAP emitted from the affected 

sources at petroleum refineries, 

including particulate metals, organics, 

and reduced sulfur compounds. When 

fully implemented, we estimate that 

HAP emissions will be reduced by 

nearly 11,000 tpy. Emissions of other 

pollutants such as volatile organic 

6936 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

compounds, particulate matter, carbon 

monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide will be 

reduced by about 60,000 tpy. 

There will not be any adverse non-air 

health, environmental, energy, cost (or 

economic) impacts as a result of the 

direct final rule amendments because no 

new requirements are imposed on any 

facility. The new option for CRU will 

allow for the use of new control 

technology to meet the HCl emission 

limitations, which may reduce the costs 

and energy impacts of add-on controls. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

standards that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect, in a material way, the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that the direct 

final rule amendments are not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and 

are, therefore, not subject to OMB 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

direct final rule amendments consist 

primarily of new compliance options, 

clarifications, and corrections to the 

NESHAP that impose no new 

information collection requirements on 

industry or EPA. However, the OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements in the existing 

regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UUU) under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0554, EPA 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

number 1844.02. A copy of the OMB 

approved ICR may be obtained from 

Susan Auby, Collection Strategies 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by 

calling (202) 566–1672. 

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 purpose 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 

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 in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

the direct final rule amendments. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s direct final rule amendments 

on small entities, small entity is defined 

as: (1) A small business as defined by 

the Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impact of today’s direct final rule 

amendments on small entities, the EPA 

has concluded that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency 

may conclude that a rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. 

There will be a positive impact on 

small entities because the direct final 

rule amendments add new compliance 

provisions to increase flexibility, 

decrease unnecessary costs, and make 

clarifying changes to improve 

implementation of the NESHAP. These 

changes are voluntary and do not 

impose new costs. We have, therefore, 

concluded that today’s direct final rule 

amendments will relieve regulatory 

burden for all small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to 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 the EPA 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the Administrator 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before the 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6937

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.

The EPA has determined that the 

direct final rule amendments do not 

contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and tribal 

governments, in aggregate, or the private 

sector in any 1 year. No new costs are 

attributable to the direct final rule 

amendments. Thus, today’s direct final 

rule amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. The EPA has also 

determined that the direct final rule 

amendments contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because they contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments or 

impose obligations upon them. Thus, 

the direct final rule amendments are 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.’’

The direct final rule amendments do 

not have federalism implications. They 

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, 

because State and local governments do 

not own or operate any sources that 

would be subject to the direct final rule 

amendments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to the direct final 

rule amendments. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 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.’’ The direct final rule 

amendments do not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because tribal 

governments do not own or operate any 

sources subject to the direct final rule 

amendments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to the direct final 

rule amendments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (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, 

we 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. 

We interpret Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. The direct final rule 

amendments are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because the 

NESHAP (and subsequent amendments) 

are based on technology performance 

and not on health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, 

Distribution, or Use

The direct final rule amendments are 

not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they 

are not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in the regulatory and 

procurement activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impracticable. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., material 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, business practices) 

developed or adopted by one or more 

voluntary consensus bodies. The 

NTTAA requires Federal agencies to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when an agency does not use available 

and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The direct final rule amendments 

include a new procedure, 

‘‘Determination of Metal Concentration 

on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental 

Analyzer Procedure).’’ This procedure 

was developed in consultation with 

industry experts and equipment vendors 

for the purpose of determining the metal 

or total chloride concentration on 

catalyst particles. This new procedure 

was not fully developed at the time the 

NESHAP were issued and reflects 

current practices used by many plants 

within the industry. The new procedure 

is not mandatory; plants also may use 

one of several existing EPA methods in 

‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods’’

(EPA Publication SW–846, Revision 5, 

April 1998) or an alternative method 

satisfactory to the Administrator. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, we 

conducted a search to identify voluntary 

consensus standards for use in 

determining the metal or total chloride 

concentration on catalyst particles. This 

search identified one voluntary 

consensus standard, ASTM D7085–04, 

‘‘Standard Guide for Determination of 

Chemical Elements in Fluid Catalytic 

Cracking Catalysts by X-Ray 

Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF).’’ This 

method contains detailed sample 

preparation procedures that may be a 

useful supplement to the instrumental 

method included in the direct final rule 

amendments. However, we have not 

adopted ASTM D7085–04 as an 

alternative to the instrumental method 

because the method does not include 

equivalent procedures for determining 

zero and calibration drift, instrument 

energy calibration, and calibration 

accuracy, or specific quality assurance 

procedures for analyzing calibration 

standards or catalyst samples. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

6938 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

direct final rule amendments will be 

effective on April 11, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 1, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Acting Administrator.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart UUU—[AMENDED]

■ 2. Section 63.1562 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) to 

read as follows:

§ 63.1562 What parts of my plant are 

covered by this subpart?

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) The process vent or group of 

process vents on fluidized catalytic 

cracking units that are associated with 

regeneration of the catalyst used in the 

unit (i.e., the catalyst regeneration flue 

gas vent). 

(2) The process vent or group of 

process vents on catalytic reforming 

units (including but not limited to semiregenerative, cyclic, or continuous 

processes) that are associated with 

regeneration of the catalyst used in the 

unit. This affected source includes vents 

that are used during the unit 

depressurization, purging, coke burn, 

and catalyst rejuvenation. 

(3) The process vent or group of 

process vents on Claus or other types of 

sulfur recovery plant units or the tail gas 

treatment units serving sulfur recovery 

plants, that are associated with sulfur 

recovery.

* * * * *

■ 3. Section 63.1564(b)(4) is amended by 

revising the definition of the symbol 

‘‘Qr’’ for Equation 1 of to read as follows:

§ 63.1564 What are my requirements for 

metal HAP emissions from catalytic 

cracking units?

* * * * *

Qr = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas 

from catalyst regenerator before 

adding air or gas streams. Example: 

You may measure upstream or 

downstream of an electrostatic 

precipitator, but you must measure 

upstream of a carbon monoxide 

boiler, dscm/min (dscf/min). You may 

use the alternative in either 

§ 63.1573(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, 

to calculate Qr;

* * * * *

■ 4. Section 63.1566 is amended by:

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and 

(a)(3);

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

introductory text;

■ c. Revising the definitions of the 

symbols ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘Mc’’ in Equation 1 of 

paragraph (b)(4)(i);

■ d. Revising Equation 2 of paragraph 

(b)(4)(i);

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as 

(b)(4)(ii);

■ f. Revising Equation 4 in the newly 

designated paragraph (b)(4)(ii); and

■ g. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(6) 

through (b)(9) as (b)(5) through (b)(8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows:

§ 63.1566 What are my requirements for 

organic HAP emissions from catalytic 

reforming units? 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) You can elect to meet a TOC or 

nonmethane TOC percent reduction 

standard or concentration limit, 

whichever is less stringent (Option 2).

* * * * *

(3) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, the emission 

limitations in Tables 15 and 16 of this 

subpart apply to emissions from 

catalytic reforming unit process vents 

associated with initial catalyst 

depressuring and catalyst purging 

operations that occur prior to the coke 

burn-off cycle. The emission limitations 

in Tables 15 and 16 of this subpart do 

not apply to the coke burn-off, catalyst 

rejuvenation, reduction or activation 

vents, or to the control systems used for 

these vents.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(4) * * *

(i) If you elect the percent reduction 

standard under Option 2, calculate the 

emission rate of nonmethane TOC using 

Equation 1 of this section (if you use 

Method 25) or Equation 2 of this section 

(if you use Method 25A or Methods 25A 

and 18), then calculate the mass 

emission reduction using Equation 3 of 

this section as follows:

* * * * *

 (Eq. 1)

Where: 

E = Emission rate of nonmethane TOC 

in the vent stream, kilograms-C per 

hour;

* * * * *

Mc = Mass concentration of total 

gaseous nonmethane organic (as 

carbon) as measured and calculated 

using Method 25 in appendix A to 

part 60 of this chapter, mg/dscm; 

and

* * * * *

E = K C Q (Eq. 2) 5 ( ) CTOC methane s − 1

6

Where: 

K5 = Constant, 1.8 x 10¥4 (parts per 

million) ¥1 (gram-mole per standard 

cubic meter) (gram-C per grammole-hexane) (kilogram per gram) 

(minutes per hour), where the 

standard temperature (standard 

cubic meter) is at 20 degrees C (uses 

72g-C/g.mole hexane); 

CTOC = Concentration of TOC on a dry 

basis in ppmv as hexane as 

measured by Method 25A in 

appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter; 

C methane = Concentration of methane on 

a dry basis in ppmv as measured by 

Method 18 in appendix A to part 60 

of this chapter. If the concentration 

of methane is not determined, 

assume C methane equals zero; and 

Q s = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard 

cubic meters per minute, at a 

temperature of 20 degrees C. * * *

C =C 17.9%

20.9% NMTOC, 3%O TOC methane (Eq. 4) 2 CO ( ) − −





 



 1

6 % 2

Where: CNMTOC, 3%O2 = Concentration of 

nonmethane TOC on a dry basis in 

ppmv as hexane corrected to 3 

percent oxygen.


ER09FE05.000</MATH> ER09FE05.001</MATH> ER09FE05.002</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6939

■ 5. Section 63.1567 is amended by:

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) 

introductory text and (a)(1)(i);

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(4) 

through (b)(6) as paragraphs (b)(5) 

through (b)(7); and

■ c. Adding new paragraph (b)(4).

The addition and revisions read as 

follows:

§ 63.1567 What are my requirements for 

inorganic HAP emissions from catalytic 

reforming units? 

(a) * * * 

(1) Meet each emission limitation in 

Table 22 to this subpart that applies to 

you. If you operate a catalytic reforming 

unit in which different reactors in the 

catalytic reforming unit are regenerated 

in separate regeneration systems, then 

these emission limitations apply to each 

separate regeneration system. These 

emission limitations apply to emissions 

from catalytic reforming unit process 

vents associated with the coke burn-off 

and catalyst rejuvenation operations 

during coke burn-off and catalyst 

regeneration. You can choose from the 

two options in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (ii) of this section: 

(i) You can elect to meet a percent 

reduction standard for hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) emissions (Option 1); or

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(4) Use the equations in paragraphs 

(b)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section to 

determine initial compliance with the 

emission limitations. 

(i) Correct the measured HCl 

concentration for oxygen (O2) content in 

the gas stream using Equation 1 of this 

section as follows:

C = 17.9%

20.9% HCl, 3%O HCl C (Eq. 1) 2 −





 



 %O2

Where: 

CHCl,3% O2 = Concentration of HCl on a 

dry basis in ppmv corrected to 3 

percent oxygen or 1 ppmv, 

whichever is greater; 

CHCl = Concentration of HCl on a dry 

basis in ppmv, as measured by 

Method 26A in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A; and 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration in percent 

by volume (dry basis).

(ii) If you elect the percent reduction 

standard, calculate the emission rate of 

HCl using Equation 2 of this section; 

then calculate the mass emission 

reduction from the mass emission rates 

using Equation 3 of this section as 

follows:

E K (Eq. 2) HCl 6 = C Q HCl s

Where: 

E HCl, = Emission rate of HCl in the vent 

stream, grams per hour; 

K6 = Constant, 0.091 (parts per 

million) ¥1 (grams HCl per standard 

cubic meter) (minutes per hour), 

where the standard temperature 

(standard cubic meter) is at 20 

degrees Celsius (C); and 

Q s = Vent stream flow rate, dscm/min, 

at a temperature of 20 degrees C.

HCl%reduction =

E E

E (Eq. 3) HCl, i HCl, o

HCl, i

− ×100%

Where: 

E HCl,i = Mass emission rate of HCl at 

control device inlet, g/hr; and 

E HCl,o = Mass emission rate of HCl at 

control device outlet, g/hr.

(iii) If you are required to use a 

colormetric tube sampling system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the HCl concentration operating 

limit, calculate the HCl operating limit 

using Equation 4 of this section as 

follows:

C C (Eq. 4) HCl, ppmvLimit HCl, AveTube

HCl, RegLimit

 3%O2

= 









 0 9.

,

C

CHCl

Where: 

CHCl,ppmvLimit = Maximum permissible 

HCl concentration for the HCl 

concentration operating limit, 

ppmv; 

CHCl,AveTube = Average HCl concentration 

from the colormetric tube sampling 

system, calculated as the arithmetic 

average of the average HCl 

concentration measured for each 

performance test run, ppmv or 1 

ppmv, whichever is greater; and 

CHCl,RegLimit = Maximum permissible 

outlet HCl concentration for the 

applicable catalytic reforming unit 

as listed in Table 22 of this subpart, 

either 10 or 30 ppmv.

(iv) If you are required to use a 

colormetric tube sampling system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the percent reduction operating 

limit, calculate the HCl operating limit 

using Equation 5 of this section as 

follows:

C C HClReduction

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

Test

= −

−











 0 9 100

100 . %%


ER09FE05.003</MATH> ER09FE05.004</MATH> ER09FE05.005</MATH> ER09FE05.006</MATH> ER09FE05.007</MATH>
6940 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: 

CHCl,%Limit = Maximum permissible HCl 

concentration for the percent 

reduction operating limit, ppmv; 

%HCl ReductionLimit = Minimum 

permissible HCl reduction for the 

applicable catalytic reforming unit 

as listed in Table 22 of this subpart, 

either 97 or 92 percent; and 

%HCl ReductionTest = Average percent 

HCl reduction calculated as the 

arithmetic average HCl reduction 

calculated using Equation 3 of this 

section for each performance source 

test, percent.

* * * * *

■ 6. Section 63.1572 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (c)(1) to read as follows:

§ 63.1572 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements?

* * * * *

(c) You must install, operate, and 

maintain each continuous parameter 

monitoring system according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

install, operate, and maintain each 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system in a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s specifications or other 

written procedures that provide 

adequate assurance that the equipment 

will monitor accurately. The owner or 

operator shall also meet the equipment 

specifications in Table 41 of this subpart 

if pH strips or colormetric tube 

sampling systems are used.

* * * * *

■ 7. Section 63.1573 is amended by:

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); and

■ b. Adding new paragraph (f).

The revisions and addition read as 

follows:

§ 63.1573 What are my monitoring 

alternatives? 

(a) What are the approved alternatives 

for measuring gas flow rate? (1) You 

may use this alternative to a continuous 

parameter monitoring system for the 

catalytic regenerator exhaust gas flow 

rate for your catalytic cracking unit if 

the unit does not introduce any other 

gas streams into the catalyst 

regeneration vent (i.e., complete 

combustion units with no additional 

combustion devices). You may also use 

this alternative to a continuous 

parameter monitoring system for the 

catalytic regenerator atmospheric 

exhaust gas flow rate for your catalytic 

reforming unit during the coke burn and 

rejuvenation cycles if the unit operates 

as a constant pressure system during 

these cycles. If you use this alternative, 

you shall use the same procedure for the 

performance test and for monitoring 

after the performance test. You shall: 

(i) Install and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system to 

measure and record the hourly average 

volumetric air flow rate to the catalytic 

cracking unit or catalytic reforming unit 

regenerator. Or, you may determine and 

record the hourly average volumetric air 

flow rate to the catalytic cracking unit 

or catalytic reforming unit regenerator 

using the appropriate control room 

instrumentation.

(ii) Install and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system to 

measure and record the temperature of 

the gases entering the control device (or 

exiting the catalyst regenerator if you do 

not use an add-on control device). 

(iii) Calculate and record the hourly 

average actual exhaust gas flow rate 

using Equation 1 of this section as 

follows:

Q scfm dscfm gas air other

gas

vent

Q Q Temp

293 K

latm.

P = ( ) × + ( ) × (Eq. 1) °





 



 ×











 112 . /

Where: 

Q gas = Hourly average actual gas flow 

rate, acfm; 

1.12 = Default correction factor to 

convert gas flow from dry standard 

cubic feet per minute (dscfm) to 

standard cubic feet per minute 

(scfm); 

Q air = Volumetric flow rate of air to 

regenerator, as determined from the 

control room instrumentations, 

dscfm; 

Q other = Volumetric flow rate of other 

gases entering the regenerator as 

determined from the control room 

instrumentations, dscfm. (Examples 

of ‘‘other’’ gases include an oxygenenriched air stream to catalytic 

cracking unit regenerators and a 

nitrogen stream to catalytic 

reforming unit regenerators.); 

Tempgas = Temperature of gas stream in 

vent measured as near as practical 

to the control device or opacity 

monitor, °K. For wet scrubbers, 

temperature of gas prior to the wet 

scrubber; and 

Pvent = Absolute pressure in the vent 

measured as near as practical to the 

control device or opacity monitor, 

as applicable, atm. When used to 

assess the gas flow rate in the final 

atmospheric vent stack, you can 

assume Pvent = 1 atm.

(2) You may use this alternative to 

calculating Q r, the volumetric flow rate 

of exhaust gas for the catalytic cracking 

regenerator as required in Equation 1 of 

§ 63.1564, if you have a gas analyzer 

installed in the catalytic cracking 

regenerator exhaust vent prior to the 

addition of air or other gas streams. You 

may measure upstream or downstream 

of an electrostatic precipitator, but you 

shall measure upstream of a carbon 

monoxide boiler. You shall: 

(i) Install and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system to 

measure and record the hourly average 

volumetric air flow rate to the catalytic 

cracking unit regenerator. Or, you can 

determine and record the hourly average 

volumetric air flow rate to the catalytic 

cracking unit regenerator using the 

catalytic cracking unit control room 

instrumentation. 

(ii) Install and operate a continuous 

gas analyzer to measure and record the 

concentration of carbon dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, and oxygen of the catalytic 

cracking regenerator exhaust. 

(iii) Calculate and record the hourly 

average flow rate using Equation 2 of 

this section as follows:

Q

Q

(Eq. 2) r

air = ×+− ( ) ×

− −−

79 100

100 2 2

%

% %%

O Q

CO CO O

xy oxy


ER09FE05.008</MATH> ER09FE05.009</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6941

Where: 

Q r = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas 

from the catalyst regenerator before 

adding air or gas streams, dscm/min 

(dscf/min); 

79 = Default concentration of nitrogen 

and argon in dry air, percent by 

volume (dry basis); 

%Oxy = Oxygen concentration in 

oxygen-enriched air stream, percent 

by volume (dry basis); 

Q oxy = Volumetric flow rate of oxygenenriched air stream to regenerator 

as determined from the catalytic 

cracking unit control room 

instrumentations, dscm/min (dscf/

min); 

%CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration 

in regenerator exhaust, percent by 

volume (dry basis); 

CO = Carbon monoxide concentration in 

regenerator exhaust, percent by 

volume (dry basis); and 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration in 

regenerator exhaust, percent by 

volume (dry basis).

(b) What is the approved alternative 

for monitoring pH or alkalinity levels?

You may use the alternative in 

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section for 

a catalytic reforming unit. 

(1) You shall measure and record the 

pH of the water (or scrubbing liquid) 

exiting the wet scrubber or internal 

scrubbing system at least once an hour 

during coke burn-off and catalyst 

rejuvenation using pH strips as an 

alternative to a continuous parameter 

monitoring system. The pH strips must 

meet the requirements in Table 41 of 

this subpart. 

(2) You shall measure and record the 

alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing 

liquid) exiting the wet scrubber or 

internal scrubbing system at least once 

an hour during coke burn-off and 

catalyst rejuvenation using titration as 

an alternative to a continuous parameter 

monitoring system.

* * * * *

(f) How do I apply for alternative 

monitoring requirements if my catalytic 

cracking unit is equipped with a wet 

scrubber and I have approved 

alternative monitoring requirements 

under the new source performance 

standards for petroleum refineries?

(1) You may request alternative 

monitoring requirements according to 

the procedures in this paragraph if you 

meet each of the conditions in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section: 

(i) Your fluid catalytic cracking unit 

regenerator vent is subject to the PM 

limit in 40 CFR 60.102(a)(1) and uses a 

wet scrubber for PM emissions control; 

(ii) You have alternative monitoring 

requirements for the continuous opacity 

monitoring system requirement in 40 

CFR 60.105(a)(1) approved by the 

Administrator; and 

(iii) You are required by this subpart 

to install, operate, and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

for the same catalytic cracking unit 

regenerator vent for which you have 

approved alternative monitoring 

requirements. 

(2) You can request approval to use an 

alternative monitoring method prior to 

submitting your notification of 

compliance status, in your notification 

of compliance status, or at any time.

(3) You must submit a copy of the 

approved alternative monitoring 

requirements along with a monitoring 

plan that includes a description of the 

continuous monitoring system or 

method, including appropriate 

operating parameters that will be 

monitored, test results demonstrating 

compliance with the opacity limit used 

to establish an enforceable operating 

limit(s), and the frequency of measuring 

and recording to establish continuous 

compliance. If applicable, you must also 

include operation and maintenance 

requirements for the continuous 

monitoring system. 

(4) We will contact you within 30 

days of receipt of your application to 

inform you of approval or of our intent 

to disapprove your request.

■ 8. Section 63.1574 is amended by:

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii);

■ b. Revising paragraph (c); and

■ c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (f) introductory text, revising 

paragraph (f)(2) introductory text, 

revising paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) and 

(f)(2)(x), and adding new paragraphs 

(f)(2)(xi) and (xii). 

The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.1574 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) For each initial compliance 

demonstration that includes a 

performance test, you must submit the 

notification of compliance status, 

including the performance test results, 

no later than 150 calendar days after the 

compliance date specified for your 

affected source in § 63.1563.

* * * * *

(c) If you startup your new or 

reconstructed affected source on or after 

April 11, 2002, you must submit the 

initial notification no later than 120 

days after you become subject to this 

subpart.

* * * * *

(f) As required by this subpart, you 

must prepare and implement an 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plan for each control system and 

continuous monitoring system for each 

affected source. * * * 

(2) Each plan must include, at a 

minimum, the information specified in 

paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xii) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(vi) Procedures you will use to 

determine the HCl concentration of 

gases from a catalytic reforming unit 

when you use a colormetric tube 

sampling system, including procedures 

for correcting for pressure (if applicable 

to the sampling equipment) and the 

sampling locations that will be used for 

compliance monitoring purposes.

* * * * *

(x) Maintenance schedule for each 

monitoring system and control device 

for each affected source that is generally 

consistent with the manufacturer’s 

instructions for routine and long-term 

maintenance. 

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

adsorption system to control emissions 

from a catalytic reforming unit, you 

must implement corrective action 

procedures if the HCl concentration 

measured at the selected compliance 

monitoring sampling location within the 

bed exceeds the operating limit. These 

procedures must require, at minimum, 

repeat measurement and recording of 

the HCl concentration in the adsorption 

system exhaust gases and at the selected 

compliance monitoring sampling 

location within the bed. If the HCl 

concentration at the selected 

compliance monitoring location within 

the bed is above the operating limit 

during the repeat measurement while 

the HCl concentration in the adsorption 

system exhaust gases remains below the 

operating limit, the adsorption bed must 

be replaced as soon as practicable. Your 

procedures must specify the sampling 

frequency that will be used to monitor 

the HCl concentration in the adsorption 

system exhaust gases subsequent to the 

repeat measurement and prior to 

replacement of the sorbent material (but 

not less frequent than once every 4 

hours during coke burn-off). If the HCl 

concentration of the adsorption system 

exhaust gases is above the operating 

limit when measured at any time, the 

adsorption bed must be replaced within 

24 hours or before the next regeneration 

cycle, whichever is longer. 

(xii) Procedures that will be used for 

purging the catalyst if you do not use a 

control device to comply with the 

organic HAP emission limits for 

catalytic reforming units. These 

procedures will include, but are not 

limited to, specification of the minimum 

6942 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

catalyst temperature and the minimum 

cumulative volume of gas per mass of 

catalyst used for purging prior to 

uncontrolled releases (i.e., during 

controlled purging events); the 

maximum purge gas temperature for 

uncontrolled purge events; and 

specification of the monitoring systems 

that will be used to monitor and record 

data during each purge event.

■ 9. Section 63.1576 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows:

§ 63.1576 What records must I keep, in 

what form, and for how long? 

(a) * * *

(2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) 

through (v) related to startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction.

* * * * *

■ 10. Section 63.1579 is amended by:

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new 

definitions for the terms ‘‘Internal 

scrubbing system’’ and ‘‘Nonmethane 

TOC’’; and

■ b. Revising the definition for the term 

‘‘TOC.’’

The additions and revision read as 

follows:

§ 63.1579 What definitions apply to this 

subpart?

* * * * *

Internal scrubbing system means a 

wet scrubbing, wet injection, or caustic 

injection control device that treats (insitu) the catalytic reforming unit 

recirculating coke burn exhaust gases 

for acid (HCl) control during reforming 

catalyst regeneration upstream of the 

atmospheric coke burn vent.

* * * * *

Nonmethane TOC means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

total organic compounds, excluding 

methane, that serve as a surrogate 

measure of the total emissions of 

organic HAP compounds including, but 

not limited to, acetaldehyde, benzene, 

hexane, phenol, toluene, and xylenes 

and nonHAP VOC as measured by 

Method 25 in appendix A to part 60 of 

this chapter, by the combination of 

Methods 18 and 25A in appendix A to 

part 60 of this chapter, or by an 

approved alternative method.

* * * * *

TOC means, for the purposes of this 

subpart, emissions of total organic 

compounds that serve as a surrogate 

measure of the total emissions of 

organic HAP compounds including, but 

not limited to, acetaldehyde, benzene, 

hexane, phenol, toluene, and xylenes 

and nonHAP VOC as measured by 

Method 25A in appendix A to part 60 

of this chapter or by an approved 

alternative method.

* * * * *

■ 11. Tables 1 through 44 to subpart 

UUU of part 63 are amended to remove 

the phrase, ‘‘you must’’ and add in its 

place the phrase ‘‘you shall’’ in the 

introductory text and in the last column 

heading, where applicable (i.e., Tables 1 

through 3, 6 through 10, 13 through 17, 

20 through 24, 27 through 31, 34 through 

37, 39, and 41 through 43).

■ 12. Table 1 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended to revising entries 1 and 2 to 

read as follows:

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

*****

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

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

CFR 60.102.

PM emissions must not the exceed 1.0 kilogram (kg) per 1,000 kg (1.0 

lb/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; if the discharged gases pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler in 

which you burn auxiliary or in supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, 

the incremental rate of PM emissions must not exceed 43.0 grams 

per Gigajoule (g/GJ) or 0.10 pounds per million British thermal units 

(lb/million Btu) of heat input attributable to the liquid or solid fossil 

fuel; and the opacity of emissions must not exceed 30 percent, except for one 6-minute average opacity reading in any 1-hour period. 

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

CFR 60.102.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 lb) of 

coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; if the discharged gases 

pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler in which you burn 

auxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, the incremental 

rate of PM must not exceed 43.0 g/GJ (0.10 lb/million Btu) of heat 

input attributable to the liquid or solid fossil fuel; and the opacity of 

emissions must not exceed 30 percent, except for one 6-minute average opacity reading in any 1-hour period. 

* * * * * * 

■ 13. Table 3 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised to read as follows:

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR METAL HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS

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

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit . . . 

If your catalytic cracking unit is 

. . . 

And you use this type of control 

device for your vent . . . 

You shall install, operate, and 

maintain a . . . 

1. Subject to the NSPS for PM in 

40 CFR 60.102.

Any size ........................................ Electrostatic precipitator or wet 

scrubber or no control device.

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6943

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR METAL HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS—Continued

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

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit . . . 

If your catalytic cracking unit is 

. . . 

And you use this type of control 

device for your vent . . . 

You shall install, operate, and 

maintain a . . . 

2. Option 1: NSPS limits not subject to the NSPS for PM in 40 

CFR 60.102.

Any size ........................................ Electrostatic precipitator or wet 

scrubber or no control device.

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent. 

3. Option 2: PM limit not subject to 

the NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 

60.102.

a. Over 20,000 barrels per day 

fresh feed capacity.

Electrostatic precipitator ............... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent. 

b. Up to 20,000 barrels per day 

fresh feed capacity.

Electrostatic precipitator ............... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent; 

or continuous parameter monitoring systems to measure and 

record the gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1 and the voltage and secondary current (or total power 

input) to the control device. 

c. Any size .................................... i. Wet scrubber ............................. (1) Continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the pressure drop across 

the scrubber, gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1, and total liquid (or scrubbing liquor) flow rate to the control device. 

(2) If you use a wet scrubber of 

the non-venturi jet-ejector design, you’re not required to install and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system 

for pressure drop. 

d. Any size .................................... No electrostatic precipitator or wet 

scrubber.

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regnerator vent. 

4. Option 3: Ni lb/hr not subject to 

the NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 

60.102.

a. Over 20,000 barrels per day 

fresh feed capacity.

Electrostatic precipitator ............... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1. 

b. Up to 20,000 barrels per day 

fresh feed capacity.

Electrostatic precipitator ............... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1; or continuous parameter 

monitoring systems to measure 

and record the gas flow rate 

entering or exiting the control 

device 1 and the voltage and 

secondary current (or total 

power input) to the control device. 

6944 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR METAL HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS—Continued

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

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit . . . 

If your catalytic cracking unit is 

. . . 

And you use this type of control 

device for your vent . . . 

You shall install, operate, and 

maintain a . . . 

c. Any size .................................... Wet scrubber ................................ (1) Continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the pressure drop across 

the scrubber, gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1, and total liquid (or scrubbing liquor) flow rate to the control device. 

(2) If you use a wet scrubber of 

the non-venturi jet-ejector design, you’re not required to install and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system 

for pressure drop. 

d. Any size .................................... No electrostatic precipitator or wet 

scrubber.

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the gas flow rate 1. 

5. Option 4: Ni lb/1,000 lbs of coke 

burn-off not subject to the NSPS 

for PM in 40 CFR 60.102.

a. Over 20,000 barrels per day 

fresh feed capacity.

Electrostatic precipitator ............... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1. 

b. Up to 20,000 barrels per day 

fresh feed capacity.

Electrostatic precipitator ............... Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the gas flow rate entering or exiting the control device 1; or continuous parameter 

monitoring systems to measure 

and record the gas flow rate 

entering or exiting the control 

device 1 and the voltage and 

secondary current (or total 

power input) to the control device. 

c. Any size .................................... Wet scrubber ................................ Continuous parameter monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the pressure drop across the 

scrubber, gas flow rate entering 

or exiting the control device 1, 

and total liquid (or scrubbing 

liquor) flow rate to the control 

device. 

d. Any size .................................... No electrostatic precipitator or wet 

scrubber.

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions from 

each catalyst regenerator vent 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and 

record the gas flow rate 1. 

1 If applicable, you can use the alternative in § 63.1573(a)(1) instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system for gas flow rate. 

■ 14. Table 4 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising entries 2, 3, 4, 

and 5; revising footnote 1; and adding 

new footnote 2 to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6945

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR METAL HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS NOT SUBJECT TO THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) 

* * * * * * * 

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit catalyst regenerator 

vent . . . 

You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements 

. . . 

*******

2. Option 1: Elect NSPS ............... a. Measure PM emissions. Method 5B or 5F (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A) to determine 

PM emissions and associated 

moisture content for units without wet scrubbers. Method 5B 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to 

determine PM emissions and 

associated moisture content for 

unit with wet scrubber. 

You must maintain a sampling 

rate of at least 0.15 dry standard cubic meters per minute 

(dscm/min) (0.53 dry standard 

cubic feet per minute (dscf/min). 

b. Compute PM emission rate 

(lbs/1,000 lbs) of coke burn-off. 

Equations 1, 2, and 3 of § 63.1564 

(if applicable). 

c. Measure opacity of emissions. Continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

You must collect opacity monitoring data every 10 seconds 

during the entire period of the 

Method 5B or 5F performance 

test and reduce the data to 6-

minute averages. 

3. Option 2: PM limit ..................... a. Measure PM emissions. See item 2. of this table. See item 2. of this table. 

b. Compute coke burn-off rate and 

PM emission rate. 

Equations 1 and 2 of § 63.1564. 

c. Establish your site-specific 

opacity operating limit if you use 

a continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

Data from the continuous opacity 

monitoring system. 

You must collect opacity monitoring data every 10 seconds 

during the entire period of the 

Method 5B or 5F performance 

test and reduce the data to 6-

minute averages; determine and 

record the hourly average opacity from all the 6-minute averages; and compute the site-specific limit using Equation 4 of 

§ 63.1564. 

4. Option 3: Ni lb/hr ...................... a. Measure concentration of Ni 

and total metal HAP. 

Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). 

b. Compute Ni emission rate (lb/

hr). 

Equation 5 of § 63.1564. 

c. Determine the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration. XRF procedure in appendix A to 

this subpart1; or EPA Method 

6010B or 6020 or EPA Method 

7520 or 7521 in SW–8462; or 

an alternative to the SW-846 

method satisfactory to the Administrator. 

You must obtain 1 sample for 

each of the 3 runs; determine 

and record the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration for each of 

the 3 samples; and you may 

adjust the laboratory results to 

the maximum value using Equation 2 of § 63.1571. 

d. If you use a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, establish 

your site-specific Ni operating 

limit. 

i. Equations 6 and 7 of § 63.1564 

using data from continuous 

opacity monitoring system, gas 

flow rate, results of equilibrium 

catalyst Ni concentration analysis, and Ni emission rate from 

Method 29 test. 

(1) You must collect opacity monitoring data every 10 seconds 

during the entire period of the 

initial Ni performance test; reduce the data to 6-minute averages; and determine and record 

the hourly average opacity from 

all the 6-minute averages. 

(2) You must collect gas flow rate 

monitoring data every 15 minutes during the entire period of 

the initial Ni performance test; 

measure the gas flow as near 

as practical to the continuous 

opacity monitoring system; and 

determine and record the hourly 

average actual gas flow rate 

from all the readings. 

5. Option 4: Ni lbs/1,000 lbs of 

coke burn-off.

a. Measure concentration of Ni 

and total HAP. 

Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). 

6946 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR METAL HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS NOT SUBJECT TO THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM)—Continued

* * * * * * * 

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit catalyst regenerator 

vent . . . 

You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements 

. . . 

b. Compute Ni emission rate (lb/

1,000 lbs of coke burn-off). 

Equations 1 and 8 of § 63.1564. 

c. Determine the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration. See item 4.c. of this table. You must obtain 1 sample for 

each of the 3 runs; determine 

and record the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration for each of 

the 3 samples; and you may 

adjust the laboratory results to 

the maximum value using Equation 2 of § 63.1571. 

d. If you use a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, establish 

your site-specific Ni operating 

limit. 

i. Equations 9 and 10 of § 63.1564 

with data from continuous opacity monitoring system, coke 

burn-off rate, results of equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration 

analysis, and Ni emission rate 

from Method 29 test. 

(1) You must collect opacity monitoring data every 10 seconds 

during the entire period of the 

initial Ni performance test; reduce the data to 6-minute averages; and determine and record 

the hourly average opacity from 

all the 6-minute averages. 

(2) You must collect gas flow rate 

monitoring data every 15 minutes during the entire period of 

the initial Ni performance test; 

measure the gas flow rate as 

near as practical to the continuous opacity monitoring system; 

and determine and record the 

hourly average actual gas flow 

rate from all the readings. 

e. Record the catalyst addition 

rate for each test and schedule 

for the 10- day period prior to 

the test. 

******

1Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure). 

2EPA Method 6010B, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry, EPA Method 6020, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, EPA Method 7520, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration, and EPA Method 7521, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration are 

included in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846, Revision 5 (April 1998). The SW–

846 and Updates (document number 955–001–00000–1) are available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800; and from the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487–4650. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B–108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. 

■ 15. Table 5 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising entries 1, 2, and 

3 to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6947

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL-COMPLIANCE WITH METAL HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC

CRACKING UNITS

*****

For each new and existing 

catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator vent . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

1. Subject to the NSPS for 

PM in 40 CFR 60.102.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/

1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; 

if the discharged gases pass through an incinerator 

or waste heat boiler in which you burn auxiliary or 

supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, the incremental rate of PM must not exceed 43.0 grams per 

Gigajoule (g/GJ) or 0.10 pounds per million British 

thermal units (lb/million Btu) of heat input attributable 

to the liquid or solid fossil fuel; and the opacity of 

emissions must not exceed 30 percent, except for 

one 6-minute average opacity reading in any 1-hour 

period.

You have already conducted a performance test to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the NSPS and 

the measured PM emission rate is less than or equal 

to 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in 

the catalyst regenerator. As part of the Notification of 

Compliance Status, you must certify that your vent 

meets the PM limit. You are not required to do another performance test to demonstrate initial compliance. If applicable, you have already conducted a 

performance test to demonstrate initial compliance 

with the NSPS and the measured PM rate is less 

than or equal to 43.0 g/GJ (0.10 lb/million Btu) of 

heat input attributable to the liquid or solid fossil fuel. 

As part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you 

must certify that your vent meets the PM emission 

limit. You are not required to do another performance 

test to demonstrate initial compliance. You have already conducted a performance test to demonstrate 

initial compliance with the NSPS and the average 

hourly opacity is no more than 30 percent. Except: 

One 6-minute average in any 1-hour period can exceed 30 percent. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you must certify that your vent meets 

the opacity limit. You are not required to do another 

performance test to demonstrate initial compliance. 

You have already conducted a performance evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable performance specification. As part of your Notification of Compliance Status, you certify that your 

continuous opacity monitoring system meets the requirements in § 63.1572. You are not required to do 

a performance evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance. 

2. Option 1: Elect NSPS not 

subject to the NSPS for 

PM.

PM emission must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/

1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; 

if the discharged gases pass through an incinerator 

or waste heat boiler in which you burn auxiliary or 

supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, the incremental rate of PM must not exceed 43.0 g/GJ (0.10 

lb/million Btu) of heat input attributable to the liquid 

or solid fossil fuel; and the opacity of emissions must 

not exceed 30 percent, except for one 6-minute average opacity reading in any 1-hour period.

The average PM emission rate, measured using EPA 

Method 5B or 5F (for a unit without a wet scrubber) 

or 5B (for a unit with a wet scrubber), over the period 

of the initial performance test, is no higher than 1.0 

kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 lb of coke burn-off in the 

catalyst regenerator. The PM emission rate is calculated using Equations 1 and 2 of § 63.1564. If applicable, the average PM emission rate, measured 

using EPA Method 5B emission rate, measured 

using EPA Method 5B or 5F (for a unit without a wet 

scrubber) or Method 5B (for a unit with a wet scrubber) over the period of the initial performance test, is 

no higher than 43.0 g/GJ (0.10 lb/million Btu) of heat 

input attributable to the liquid or solid fossil fuel. The 

PM emission rate is calculated using Equation 3 of 

§ 63.1564; no more than one 6-minute average 

measured by the continuous opacity monitoring system exceeds 30 percent opacity in any 1-hour period 

over the period of the performance test; and your 

performance evaluation shows the continuous opacity monitoring system meets the applicable requirements in § 63.1572. 

3. Option 2: Not subject to 

the NSPS for PM.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/

1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator.

The average PM emission rate, measured using EPA 

Method 5B or 5F (for a unit without a wet scrubber) 

or Method 5B (for a unit with a wet scrubber), over 

the period of the initial performance test, is less than 

or equal to 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 lb) of coke 

burn-off in the catalyst regenerator. The PM emission 

rate is calculated using Equations 1 and 2 of 

§ 63.1564; and if you use a continuous opacity monitoring system, your performance evaluation shows 

the system meets the applicable requirements in 

§ 63.1572. 

6948 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL-COMPLIANCE WITH METAL HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC

CRACKING UNITS—Continued

*****

For each new and existing 

catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator vent . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

*******

■ 16. Table 6 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising entries 1, 3, and 

5 to read as follows:

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH METAL HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC

CRACKING UNITS

*****

For each new and existing 

catalytic cracking unit . . . 

Subject to this emission limit for your catalyst regenerator vent . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Subject to the NSPS for 

PM in 40 CFR 60.102.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 

lb/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator; if the discharged gases pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler in which you burn auxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, the incremental rate of PM must not exceed 43.0 g/GJ 

(0.10 lb/million Btu) of heat input attributable to the 

liquid or solid fossil fuel; and the opacity of emissions 

must not exceed 30 percent, except for one 6-minute 

average opacity reading in any 1-hour period.

i. Determining and recording each day the average 

coke burn-off rate (thousands of kilograms per hour) 

using Equation 1 in § 63.1564 and the hours of operation for each catalyst regenerator; maintaining PM 

emission rate below 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 

lbs) of coke burn-off; if applicable, determining and 

recording each day the rate of combustion of liquid 

or solid fossil fuels (liters/hour or kilograms/hour) and 

the hours of operation during which liquid or solid 

fossil-fuels are combusted in the incinerator-waste 

heat boiler; if applicable, maintaining the PM rate incinerator below 43 g/GJ (0.10 lb/million Btu) of heat 

input attributable to the solid or liquid fossil fuel; collecting the continuous opacity monitoring data for 

each catalyst regenerator vent according to 

§ 63.1572; and maintaining each 6-minute average at 

or below 30 percent except that one 6-minute average during a 1-hour period can exceed 30 percent. 

*******

3. Option 2: PM limit not 

subject to the NSPS for 

PM.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.0 kg/1,000 kg (1.0 lb/

1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator.

Determining and recording each day the average coke 

burn-off rate (thousands of kilograms per hour) and 

the hours of operation for each catalyst regenerator 

by Equation 1 of § 63.1564 (you can use process 

data to determine the volumetric flow rate); and 

maintaining the PM emission rate below 1.0 kg/1,000 

kg (1.0 lb/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off. 

* * * * * * * 

5. Option 4: Ni lb/1,000 lbs 

of coke burn-off not subject to the NSPS for PM.

Ni emissions must not exceed 1.0 mg/kg (0.001 lb/

1,000 lbs) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator.

Determining and recording each day the average coke 

burn-off rate (thousands of kilograms per hour) and 

the hours of operation for each catalyst regenerator 

by Equation 1 of § 63.1564 (you can use process 

data to determine the volumetric flow rate); and 

maintaining Ni emission rate below 1.0 mg/kg (0.001 

lb/1,000 lbs) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator. 

■ 17. Table 7 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6949

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR METAL HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS

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

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit . . . If you use . . . For this operating limit . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Subject to NSPS for PM in 40 

CFR 60.102. 

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

Not applicable. Complying with Table 6 of this 

subpart. 

2. Option 1: Elect NSPS not subject to the NSPS for PM in 40 

CFR 60.102. 

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

Not applicable. Complying with Table 6 of this 

subpart. 

3. Option 2: PM limit not subject to 

the NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 

60.102. 

a. Continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

The opacity of emissions from 

your catalyst regenerator vent 

must not exceed the site-specific opacity operating limit established during the performance test. 

Collecting the hourly average continuous opacity monitoring system data according to 

§ 63.1572; and maintaining the 

hourly average opacity at or 

below the site-specific limit. 

b. Continuous parameter monitoring systems—electrostatic 

precipitator. 

i. The daily average gas flow rate 

entering or exiting the control 

device must not exceed the operating limit established during 

the performance test. 

Collecting the hourly and daily average gas flow rate monitoring 

data according to § 63.1572 1; 

and maintaining the daily average gas flow rate at or below 

the limit established during the 

performance test. 

ii. The daily average voltage and 

secondary current (or total 

power input) to the control device must not fall below the operating limit established during 

the performance test. 

Collecting the hourly and daily average voltage and secondary 

current (or total power input) 

monitoring data according to 

§ 63.1572; and maintaining the 

daily average voltage and secondary current (or total power 

input) at or above the limit established during the performance test. 

c. Continuous parameter monitoring systems—wet scrubber. i. The daily average pressure 

drop across the scrubber must 

not fall below the operating limit 

established during the performance test. 

Collecting the hourly and daily average pressure drop monitoring 

data according to § 63.1572; 

and maintaining the daily average pressure drop above the 

limit established during the performance test. 

ii. The daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio must not fall below the operating limit established during 

the performance test. 

Collecting the hourly average gas 

flow rate and water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate monitoring 

data according to § 63.1572 1; 

determining and recording the 

hourly average liquid-to-gas 

ratio; determining and recording 

the daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio; and maintaining the daily 

average liquid-to-gas ratio 

above the limit established during the performance test. 

4. Option 3: Ni lb/hr not subject to 

the NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 

60.102. 

a. Continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

The daily average Ni operating 

value must not exceed the sitespecific Ni operating limit established during the performance 

test. 

Collecting the hourly average continuous opacity monitoring system data according to 

§ 63.1572; determining and recording equilibrium catalyst Ni 

concentration at least once a 

week 2; collecting the hourly average gas flow rate monitoring 

data according to § 63.1572 1; 

determining and recording the 

hourly average Ni operating 

value using Equation 11 of 

§ 63.1564; determining and recording the daily average Ni operating value; and maintaining 

the daily average Ni operating 

value below the site-specific Ni 

operating limit established during the performance test. 

6950 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR METAL HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS—Continued

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

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit . . . If you use . . . For this operating limit . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

b. Continuous parameter monitoring systems—electrostatic 

precipitator. 

i. The daily average gas flow rate 

entering or exiting the control 

device must not exceed the operating limit established during 

the performance test. 

See item 3.b.i. of this table. 

ii. The daily average voltage and 

secondary current (or total 

power input) must not fall below 

the level established in the performance test. 

See item 3.b.ii. of this table. 

iii. The monthly rolling average of 

the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration must not exceed the 

level established during the performance test. 

Determining and recording the 

equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration at least once a 

week 2; determining and recording the monthly rolling average 

of the equilibrium catalyst Ni 

concentration once each week 

using the weekly or most recent 

value; and maintaining the 

monthly rolling average below 

the limit established in the performance test. 

c. Continuous parameter monitoring systems—wetscrubber. i. The daily average pressure 

drop must not fall below the operating limit established in the 

performance test. 

See item 3.c.i. of this table. 

ii. The daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio must not fall below the operating limit established during 

the performance test. 

See item 3.c.ii. of this table. 

iii. The monthly rolling average 

equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration must not exceed the 

level established during the performance test. 

Determining and recording the 

equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration at least once a 

week2; determining and recording the monthly rolling average 

of equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration once each week 

using the weekly or most recent 

value; and maintaining the 

monthly rolling average below 

the limit established in the performance test. 

5. Option 4: Ni lb/ton of coke burnoff not subject to the NSPS for 

PM in 40 CFR 60.102. 

a. Continuous opacity monitoring 

system. 

The daily average Ni operating 

value must not exceed the sitespecific Ni operating limit established during the performance 

test. 

Collecting the hourly average continuous opacity monitoring system data according to 

§ 63.1572; collecting the hourly 

average gas flow rate monitoring data according to 

§ 63.1572 1; determining and recording equilibrium catalyst Ni 

concentration at least once a 

week 2; determining and recording the hourly average Ni operating value using Equation 12 

of § 63.1564; determining and 

recording the daily average Ni 

operating value; and maintaining the daily average Ni operating value below the site-specific Ni operating limit established during the performance 

test. 

b. Continuous parameter monitoring systems—electrostatic 

precipitator. 

i. The daily average gas flow rate 

to the control device must not 

exceed the level established in 

the performance test. 

See item 3.b.i. of this table. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6951

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR METAL HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS—Continued

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

For each new or existing catalytic 

cracking unit . . . If you use . . . For this operating limit . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

ii. The daily average voltage and 

secondary current (or total 

power input) must not fall below 

the level established in the performance test. 

See item 3.b.ii. of this table. 

iii. The monthly rolling average 

equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration must not exceed the 

level established during the performance test. 

See item 4.b.iii. of this table. 

c. Continuous parameter monitoring systems—wet scrubber. i. The daily average pressure 

drop must not fall below the operating limit established in the 

performance test. 

See item 3.c.i. of this table. 

ii. The daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio must not fall below the operating limit established during 

the performance test. 

See item 3.c.ii. of this table. 

iii. The monthly rolling average 

equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration must not exceed the 

level established during the performance test. 

See item 4.c.iii. of this table. 

1 If applicable, you can use the alternative in § 63.1573(a)(1) for gas flow rate instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system if you used 

the alternative method in the initial performance test. 2The equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration must be measured by the procedure, Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) in appendix A to this subpart; or by EPA Method 6010B, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry, EPA Method 6020, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, EPA Method 7520, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration, or 

EPA Method 7521, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration; or by an alternative to EPA Method 6010B, 6020, 7520, or 7521 satisfactory to 

the Administrator. The EPA Methods 6010B, 6020, 7520, and 7521 are included in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 

Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846, Revision 5 (April 1998). The SW–846 and Updates (document number 955–001–00000–1) are available for 

purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800; and from the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487–4650. Copies may be inspected at the 

EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B–108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. These methods are also available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/

test/main.htm.

■ 18. Table 15 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising the heading in 

column 1 and 2 and by revising entry 2 

as follows:

TABLE 15 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—ORGANIC HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

*****

For each applicable process vent for a new or existing catalytic reforming unit . . . You shall meet this emission limit during initial catalyst depressuring 

and catalyst purging operations . . . 

*******

2. Option 2 ................................................................................................ Reduce uncontrolled emissions of total organic compounds (TOC) or 

nonmethane TOC from your process vent by 98 percent by weight 

using a control device or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (dry basis as 

hexane), corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent. 

If you vent emissions to a boiler or process heater to comply with 

the percent reduction or concentration emission limitation, the vent 

stream must be introduced into the flame zone, or any other location 

that will achieve the percent reduction or concentration standard. 

■ 19. Table 16 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising the heading in 

column 3 and by revising entry 2 as 

follows:

6952 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 16 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—OPERATING LIMITS FOR ORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC

REFORMING UNITS

*****

For each new or existing 

catalytic

reforming unit . . . 

For this type of control device . . . You shall meet this operating limit during initial catalyst 

depressuring and purging operations . . . 

*******

2. Option 2: Percent reduction or concentration limit.a. Thermal incinerator, boiler or process heater with a 

design heat input capacity under 44 MW, or boiler or 

process heater in which all vent streams are not introduced into the flame zone.

The daily average combustion zone temperature must 

not fall below the limit established during the performance test. 

b. No control device ........................................................ Operate at all times according to your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan regarding minimum catalyst purging conditions that must be met prior to allowing uncontrolled purge releases. 

■ 20. Table 17 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising the heading in 

column 1 as follows:

TABLE 17 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.–CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR ORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

*******

For each applicable process vent for a new or 

existing catalytic reforming unit . . . If you use this type of control device . . . You shall install and operate this type of continuous monitoring system . . . 

*******

■ 21. Table 18 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising entry 1 and 2 as 

follows:

TABLE 18 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR ORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS

FROM CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

*******

For each new or existing catalytic 

reforming unit . . . You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements . . . 

1. Option 1: Vent to a flare ............ a. Conduct visible emission observations.Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).2-hour observation period. Record 

the presence of a flame at the 

pilot light over the full period of 

the test. 

b. Determine that the flare meets 

the requirements for net heating 

value of the gas being combusted and exit velocity.

Not applicable. 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6) through (8). 

2. Option 2: Percent reduction or 

concentration limit.

a. Select sampling site ................. Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A). No traverse site 

selection method is needed for 

vents smaller than 0.10 meter 

in diameter. 

Sampling sites must be located at 

the inlet (if you elect the emission reduction standard) and 

outlet of the control device and 

prior to any releases to the atmosphere. 

b. Measure gas volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A), 

as applicable.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6953

TABLE 18 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR ORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS

FROM CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS—Continued

*******

For each new or existing catalytic 

reforming unit . . . You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements . . . 

c. Measure TOC concentration 

(for percent reduction standard).

Method 25 (40 part 60, appendix 

A) to measure nonmethane 

TOC concentration (in carbon 

equivalents) at inlet and outlet 

of the control device. If the nonmethane TOC outlet concentration is expected to be less than 

50 ppm (as carbon), you can 

use Method 25A to measure 

TOC concentration (as hexane) 

at the inlet and the outlet of the 

control device. If you use Method 25A, you may use Method 

18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A) to measure the methane 

concentration to determine the 

nonmethane TOC concentration.

Take either an integrated sample 

or four grab samples during 

each run. If you use a grab 

sampling technique, take the 

samples at approximately equal 

intervals in time, such as 15-

minute intervals during the run. 

d. Calculate TOC or nonmethane 

TOC emission rate and mass 

emission reduction.

.................................................. Calculate emission rate by Equation 1 of § 63.1566 (if you use 

Method 25) or Equation 2 of 

§ 63.1566 (if you use Method 

25A). Calculate mass emission 

reduction by Equation 3 of 

§ 63.1566. 

e. For concentration standard, 

measure TOC concentration. 

(Optional: Measure methane 

concentration.) 

Method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to measure TOC concentration (as hexane) at the 

outlet of the control device. You 

may elect to use Method 18 (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A) to 

measure the methane concentration.

f. Determine oxygen content in 

the gas stream at the outlet of 

the control device.

Method 3A or 3B (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A), as applicable.

g. Calculate the TOC or nonmethane TOC concentration 

corrected for oxygen content 

(for concentration standard).

Equation 4 of § 63.1566.

h. Establish each operating limit in 

Table 16 of this subpart that 

applies to you for a thermal incinerator, or process heater or 

boiler with a design heat input 

capacity under 44 MW, or process heater or boiler in which all 

vent streams are not introduced 

into flame zone.

Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems.Collect the temperature monitoring data every 15 minutes 

during the entire period of the 

initial TOC performance test. 

Determine and record the minimum hourly average combustion zone temperature. 

i. If you do not use a control device, document the purging 

conditions used prior to testing 

following the minimum requirements in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. 

Data from monitoring systems as 

identified in the operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring 

plan.

Procedures in the operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring 

plan. 

■ 22. Table 19 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

6954 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 19 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH ORGANIC HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC

REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1566(b)(7), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each applicable process 

vent for a new or existing 

catalytic reforming unit . . . 

For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

Option 1 ............................... Visible emissions from a flare must not exceed a total 

of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours.

Visible emissions, measured using Method 22 over the 

2-hour observation period of the performance test, do 

not exceed a total of 5 minutes. 

Option 2 ............................... Reduce uncontrolled emissions of total organic compounds (TOC) or nonmethane TOC from your process vent by 98 percent by weight using a control device or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (dry basis as 

hexane), corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is 

less stringent.

The mass emission reduction of nonmethane TOC 

measured by Method 25 over the period of the performance test is at least 98 percent by weight as calculated using Equations 1 and 3 of § 63.1566; or the 

mass emission reduction of TOC measured by Method 25A (or nonmethane TOC measured by Methods 

25A and 18) over the period of the performance test 

is at least 98 percent by weight as calculated using 

Equations 2 and 3 of § 63.1566; or the TOC concentration measured by Method 25A (or the nonmethane TOC concentration measured by Methods 

25A and 18) over the period of the performance test 

does not exceed 20 ppmv (dry basis as hexane) corrected to 3 percent oxygen as calculated using Equation 4 of § 63.1566. 

■ 23. Table 20 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 20 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH ORGANIC HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR

CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1566(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each applicable process 

vent for a new or existing 

catalytic reforming unit . . . 

For this emission limit . . . 

You shall demonstrate continuous compliance during 

initial catalyst depressuring and catalyst purging operations by . . . 

1. Option 1 ........................... Vent emissions from your process vent to a flare that 

meets the requirements in § 63.11(b). 

Maintaining visible emissions from a flare below a total 

of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours. 

2. Option 2 ........................... Reduce uncontrolled emissions of total organic compounds (TOC) or nonmethane TOC from your process vent by 98 percent by weight using a control device or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (dry basis as 

hexane), corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is 

less stringent. 

Maintaining a 98 percent by weight emission reduction 

of TOC or nonmethane TOC; or maintaining a TOC 

or nonmethane TOC concentration of not more than 

20 ppmv (dry basis as hexane), corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent. 

■ 24. Table 21 to Subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 21 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR ORGANIC HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1566(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each applicable 

process vent for a 

new or existing 

catalytic reforming 

unit . . . 

If you use . . . For this operating limit . . . 

You shall demonstrate continuous 

compliance during initial catalyst 

depressuring and purging operations 

by . . . 

1. Option 1 ............. Flare that meets the requirements in 

§ 63.11(b).

The flare pilot light must be present at 

all times and the flare must be operating at all times that emissions may 

be vented to it.

Collecting flare monitoring data according to § 63.1572; and recording for 

each 1-hour period whether the 

monitor was continuously operating 

and the pilot light was continuously 

present during each 1-hour period. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6955

TABLE 21 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR ORGANIC HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1566(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each applicable 

process vent for a 

new or existing 

catalytic reforming 

unit . . . 

If you use . . . For this operating limit . . . 

You shall demonstrate continuous 

compliance during initial catalyst 

depressuring and purging operations 

by . . . 

2. Option 2 ............. a. Thermal incinerator boiler or process 

heater with a design input capacity 

under 44 MW or boiler or process 

heater in which not all vent streams 

are not introduced into the flame 

zone.

Maintain the daily average combustion 

zone temperature above the limit established during the performance 

test.

Collecting, the hourly and daily temperature monitoring data according 

to § 63.1572; and maintaining the 

daily average combustion zone temperature above the limit established 

during the performance test. 

b. No control device .............................. Operate at all times according to your 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan regarding minimum purging conditions that must be met prior 

to allowing uncontrolled purge releases.

Recording information to document 

compliance with the procedures in 

your operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. 

■ 25. Table 22 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 22 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INORGANIC HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(a)(1), you shall meet each emission limitation in the following table that applies to you.] 

For . . . 

You shall meet this emission limit for each applicable catalytic reforming unit process vent during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation 

. . . 

1. Each existing semi-regenerative catalytic reforming unit .................... Reduce uncontrolled emissions of hydrogen chloride (HCl) by 92 percent by weight or to a concentration of 30 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

2. Each existing cyclic or continous catalytic reforming unit ................... Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 97 percent by weight or to a 

concentration of 10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

3. Each new semi-regenerative, cyclic, or continous catalytic reforming 

unit.

Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 97 percent by weight or to a 

concentration of 10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

■ 26. Table 23 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 23 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—OPERATING LIMITS FOR INORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC

REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(a)(2), you shall meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each applicable process vent for a new or existing 

catalytic reforming unit with this type of control device 

. . . 

You shall meet this operating limit during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation 

. . . 

1. Wet scrubber .................................................................. The daily average pH or alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the scrubber must not fall below the limit established during the performance test; and the 

daily average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall below the limit established during the 

performance test. 

2. Internal scrubbing system or no control device (e.g., 

hot regen system) meeting outlet HCl concentration 

limit. 

The daily average HCl concentration in the catalyst regenerator exhaust gas must 

not exceed the limit established during the performance test. 

3. Internal scrubbing system meeting HCl percent reduction standard. The daily average pH or alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system must not fall below the limit established during the performance test; and the daily average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall below the limit established during the performance test. 

4. Fixed-bed gas-solid adsorption system ......................... The daily average temperature of the gas entering or exiting the adsorption system 

must not exceed the limit established during the performance test; and the HCl 

concentration in the adsorption system exhaust gas must not exceed the limit established during the performance test. 

6956 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 23 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—OPERATING LIMITS FOR INORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC

REFORMING UNITS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1567(a)(2), you shall meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each applicable process vent for a new or existing 

catalytic reforming unit with this type of control device 

. . . 

You shall meet this operating limit during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation 

. . . 

5. Moving-bed gas-solid adsorption system (e.g., 

ChlorsorbTM System). 

The daily average temperature of the gas entering or exiting the adsorption system 

must not exceed the limit established during the performance test; and the weekly 

average chloride level on the sorbent entering the adsorption system must not exceed the design or manufacturer’s recommended limit (1.35 weight percent for the 

ChlorsorbTM System); and the weekly average chloride level on the sorbent leaving the adsorption system must not exceed the design or manufacturer’s recommended limit (1.8 weight percent for the ChlorsorbTM System). 

■ 27. Table 24 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 24 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR INORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS FROM

CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(b)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

If you use this type of control device for your vent . . . You shall install and operate this type of continuous monitoring system 

. . . 

1. Wet scrubber ........................................................................................ Continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and record the 

total water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate entering the scrubber during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation; and continuous parameter 

monitoring system to measure and record gas flow rate entering or 

exiting the scrubber during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation 1; 

and continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and record 

the pH or alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the 

scrubber during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation. 2

2. Internal scrubbing system or no control device (e.g., hot regen system) to meet HC1 outlet concentration limit. Colormetric tube sampling system to measure the HC1 concentration 

in the catalyst regenerator exhaust gas during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation. The colormetric tube sampling system must meet 

the requirements in Table 41 of this subpart. 

3. Internal scrubbing system to meet HC1 percent reduction standard .. Continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and record the 

gas flow rate entering or exiting the internal scrubbing system during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation; and continuous parameter 

monitoring system to measure and record the total water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate entering the internal scrubbing system during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation; and continuous parameter 

monitoring system to measure and record the pH or alkalinity of the 

water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation. 2

4. Fixed-bed gas-solid adsorption system ............................................... Continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and record the 

temperature of the gas entering or exiting the adsorption system during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation; and colormetric tube 

sampling system to measure the gaseous HC1 concentration in the 

adsorption system exhaust and at a point within the absorbent bed 

not to exceed 90 percent of the total length of the absorbent bed 

during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation. The colormetric tube 

sampling system must meet the requirements in Table 41 of this 

subpart. 

5. Moving-bed gas-solid adsorption system (e.g., ChlorsorbTM System). Continuous parameter monitoring system to measure and record the 

temperature of the gas entering or exiting the adsorption system during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation. 

1 If applicable, you can use the alternative in § 63.1573 (a)(1) instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system for gas flow rate or instead 

of a continuous parameter monitoring system for the cumulative volume of gas. 2 If applicable, you can use the alternative in § 63.1573(b)(1) instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system for pH of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) or the alternative in § 63.1573(b)(2) instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system for alkalinity of the water (or scrubbing 

liquid). 

■ 28. Table 25 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6957

TABLE 25 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR INORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS

FOR CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(b)(2) and (3), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each new and existing 

catalytic reforming unit using 

. . . 

You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements . . . 

1. Any or no control system a. Select sampling port location(s) and the number 

of traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A), as 

applicable. 

(1) If you operate a control device and you elect to 

meet an applicable HCl percent reduction standard, 

sampling sites must be located at the inlet of the 

control device or internal scrubbing system and at 

the outlet of the control device or internal scrubber 

system prior to any release to the atmosphere. For 

a series of fixed-bed systems, the outlet sampling 

site should be located at the outlet of the first fixedbed, prior to entering the second fixed-bed in the 

series. 

(2) If you elect to meet an applicable HCl outlet concentration limit, locate sampling sites at the outlet of 

the control device or internal scrubber system prior 

to any release to the atmosphere. For a series of 

fixed-bed systems, the outlet sampling site should 

be located at the outlet of the first fixed-bed, prior to 

entering the second fixed-bed in the series. If there 

is no control device, locate sampling sites at the 

outlet of the catalyst regenerator prior to any release to the atmosphere. 

b. Determine velocity and 

volumetric flow rate. 

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 

or 2G (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A), as applicable..

c. Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis. 

Method 3, 3A, or 3B (40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A), as applicable.

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas.Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A).

e. Measure the HCl concentration at the selected sampling locations.Method 26 or 26A (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A). If 

your control device is a 

wet scrubber or internal 

scrubbing system, you 

must use Method 26A.

(1) For semi-regenerative and cyclic regeneration 

units, conduct the test during the coke burn-off and 

catalyst rejuvenation cycle, but collect no samples 

during the first hour or the last 6 hours of the cycle 

(for semi- regenerative units) or during the first hour 

or the last 2 hours of the cycle (for cyclic regeneration units). For continuous regeneration units, the 

test should be conducted no sooner than 3 days 

after process unit or control system start up. 

(2) Determine and record the HCl concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (using Equation 1 of 

§ 63.1567) for each sampling location for each test 

run. 

(3) Determine and record the percent emission reduction, if applicable, using Equation 3 of § 63.1567 for 

each test run. 

(4) Determine and record the average HCl concentration (corrected to 3 percent oxygen) and the average percent emission reduction, if applicable, for the 

overall source test from the recorded test run values. 

2. Wet scrubber ................... a. Establish operating limit 

for pH level or alkalinity.

i. Data from continuous parameter monitoring systems.Measure and record the pH or alkalinity of the water 

(or scrubbing liquid) exiting scrubber every 15 minutes during the entire period of the performance 

test. Determine and record the minimum hourly average pH or alkalinity level from the recorded values. 

ii. Alternative pH procedure in § 63.1573 (b)(1). Measure and record the pH of the water (or scrubbing 

liquid) exiting the scrubber during coke burn-off and 

catalyst rejuvenation using pH strips at least three 

times during each test run. Determine and record 

the average pH level for each test run. Determine 

and record the minimum test run average pH level. 

6958 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 25 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR INORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS

FOR CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1567(b)(2) and (3), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each new and existing 

catalytic reforming unit using 

. . . 

You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements . . . 

iii. Alternative alkalinity 

method in 

§ 63.1573(b)(2).

Measure and record the alkalinity of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) exiting the scrubber during coke 

burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation using discrete titration at least three times during each test run. Determine and record the average alkalinity level for 

each test run. Determine and record the minimum 

test run average alkalinity level. 

b. Establish operating limit 

for liquid-to-gas ratio. 

i. Data from continuous parameter monitoring systems.Measure and record the gas flow rate entering or 

exiting the scrubber and the total water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate entering the scrubber every 15 

minutes during the entire period of the performance 

test. Determine and record the hourly average gas 

flow rate and total water (or scrubbing liquid) flow 

rate. Determine and record the minimum liquid-togas ratio from the recorded, paired values. 

ii. Alternative procedure for 

gas flow rate in 

§ 63.1573(a)(1).

Collect air flow rate monitoring data or determine the 

air flow rate using control room instruments every 

15 minutes during the entire period of the initial performance test. Determine and record the hourly average rate of all the readings. Determine and record 

the maximum gas flow rate using Equation 1 of 

§ 63.1573. 

3. Internal scrubbing system 

or no control device (e.g., 

hot regen system) meeting HCl outlet concentration limit. 

Establish operating limit for 

HCl concentration. 

Data from continuous parameter monitoring system. Measure and record the HCl concentration in the catalyst regenerator exhaust gas using the colormetric 

tube sampling system at least three times during 

each test run. Determine and record the average 

HCl concentration for each test run. Determine and 

record the average HCl concentration for the overall 

source test from the recorded test run averages. 

Determine and record the operating limit for HCl 

concentration using Equation 4 of § 63.1567. 

4. Internal scrubbing system 

meeting HCl percent reduction standard.

a. Establish operating limit 

for pH level or alkalinity.

i. Data from continuous parameter monitoring system.Measure and record the pH alkalinity of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system every 15 minutes during the entire period of the 

performance test. Determine and record the minimum hourly average pH or alkalinity level from the 

recorded values. 

ii. Alternative pH method in 

§ 63.1573(b)(1).

Measure and in record pH of the water (or scrubbing 

liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation using pH 

strips at least three times during each test run. Determine and record the average pH level for each 

test run. Determine and record the minimum test 

run average pH level. 

iii. Alternative alkalinity 

method in 

§ 63.1573(b)(2).

Measure and record the alkalinity water (or scrubbing 

liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation using discrete titration at least three times during each test 

run. Determine and record the average alkalinity 

level for each test run. Determine and record the 

minimum test run average alkalinity level. 

b. Establish operating limit 

for liquid-to-gas ratio.

Data from continuous parameter monitoring systems.Measure and record the gas entering or exiting the internal scrubbing system and the total water (or 

scrubbing liquid) flow rate entering the internal 

scrubbing system every 15 minutes during the entire 

period of the performance test. Determine and 

record the hourly average gas flow rate and total 

water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate. Determine and 

record the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio from the recorded, paired values. 

5. Fixed-bed gas-solid adsorption system. Gas-solid.a. Establish operating limit 

for temperature.

Data from continuous parameter monitoring system.Measure and record the temperature of gas entering 

or exiting the adsorption system every 15 minutes. 

Determine and record the maximum hourly average 

temperature. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6959

TABLE 25 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR INORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS

FOR CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1567(b)(2) and (3), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each new and existing 

catalytic reforming unit using 

. . . 

You shall . . . Using . . . According to these requirements . . . 

b. Establish operating limit 

for HCl concentration.

i. Data from continuous parameter monitoring systems.(1) Measure and record the HCl concentration in the 

exhaust gas from the fixed-bed adsorption system 

using the colormetric tube sampling system at least 

three times during each test run. Determine and 

record the average HCl concentration for each test 

run. Determine and record the average HCl concentration for the overall source test from the recorded test run averages. 

(2) If you elect to comply with the HCl outlet concentration limit (Option 2), determine and record the 

operating limit for HCl concentration using Equation 

4 of § 63.1567. If you elect to comply with the HCl 

percent reduction standard (Option 1), determine 

and record the operating limit for HCl concentration 

using Equation 5 of § 63.1567. 

6. Moving-bed gas-solid adsorption system (e.g., 

ChlorsorbTM System).

a. Establish operating limit 

for temperature.

Data from continuous parameter monitoring systems. Measure and record the temperature of gas entering 

or exiting the adsorption system every 15 minutes. 

Determine and record the maximum hourly average 

temperature. 

b. Measure the chloride 

level on the sorbent entering and exiting the adsorption system. 

Determination of Metal 

Concentration on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) in appendix A to 

subpart UUU; or EPA 

Method 5050 combined 

either with EPA Method 

9056, or with EPA Method 9253; or EPA Method 

9212 with the soil extraction procedures listed 

within the method.1

Measure and record the chloride concentration of the 

sorbent material entering and exiting the adsorption 

system at least three times during each test run. 

Determine and record the average weight percent 

chloride concentration of the sorbent entering the 

adsorption system for each test run. Determine and 

record the average weight percent chloride concentration of the sorbent exiting the adsorption system for each test run. 

1The EPA Methods 5050, 9056, 9212 and 9253 are included in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ EPA 

Publication SW–846, Revision 5 (April 1998). The SW–846 and Updates (document number 955–001–00000–1) are available for purchase from 

the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800; and from the National Technical 

Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487–4650. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket Center 

(Air Docket), EPA West, Room B–108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 

Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. These methods are also available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm.

■ 29. Table 26 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 26 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH INORGANIC HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR CATALYTIC

REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(b)(4), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if 

. . . 

1. Each existing semi-regenerative catalytic reforming unit.Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 92 

percent by weight or to a concentration of 

30 ppmv, (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen. 

Average emissions HCl measured using Method 26 or 26A, as applicable, over the period 

of the performance test, are reduced by 92 

percent or to a concentration less than or 

equal to 30 ppmv (dry basis) corrected to 3 

percent oxygen. 

2. Each existing cyclic or continuous catalytic 

reforming unit and each new semi-regenerative, cyclic, or continuous catalytic reforming 

unit. 

Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 97 

percent by weight or to a concentration of 

10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen.

Average emissions of HCl measured using 

Method 26 or 26A, as applicable, over the 

period of the performance test, are reduced 

by 97 percent or to a concentration less 

than or equal to 10 ppmv (dry basis) corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

6960 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 30. Table 27 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 27 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH INORGANIC HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR

CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For . . . For this emission limit . . . 

You shall demonstrate continuous compliance 

during coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation 

by . . . 

1. Each existing semi-regenerative catalytic reforming unit.Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 92 

percent by weight or to a concentration of 

30 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen..

Maintaining a 92 percent HCl emission reduction or an HCl concentration no more than 

30 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen. 

2. Each existing cyclic or continuous catalytic 

reforming unit.

Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 97 

percent by weight or to a concentration of 

10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen.

Maintaining a 97 percent HCl control efficiency or an HCl concentration no more 

than 10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 

percent oxygen. 

3. Each new semi-regenerative, cyclic, or continuous catalytic reforming unit.Reduce uncontrolled emissions of HCl by 97 

percent by weight or to a concentration of 

10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen.

Maintaining a 97 percent HCl control efficiency or an HCl concentration no more 

than 10 ppmv (dry basis), corrected to 3 

percent oxygen. 

■ 31. Table 28 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 28 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR INORGANIC HAP

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1567(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each new and existing 

catalytic reforming unit using 

this type of control device or 

system . . . 

For this operating limit . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation by . . . 

1. Wet scrubber ................... a. The daily average pH or alkalinity of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) exiting the scrubber must not fall 

below the level established during the performance 

test.

Collecting the hourly and daily average pH or alkalinity 

monitoring data according to § 63.1572 1; and maintaining the daily average pH or alkalinity above the 

operating limit established during the performance 

test. 

b. The daily average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall 

below the level established during the performance 

test.

Collecting the hourly average gas flow rate 2 and total 

water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate monitoring data 

according to § 63.1572; and determining and recording the hourly average liquid-to-gas ratio; and determining and recording the daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio; and maintaining the daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio above the limit established during the performance test. 

2. Internal scrubbing system 

or no control device (e.g., 

hot regen system) meeting 

HCl concentration limit.

The daily average HCl concentration in the catalyst regenerator exhaust gas must not exceed the limit established during the performance test.Measuring and recording the HCl concentration at least 

4 times during a regeneration cycle (equally spaced 

in time) or every 4 hours, whichever is more frequent, using a colormetric tube sampling system; calculating the daily average HCl concentration as an 

arithmetic average of all samples collected in each 

24-hour period from the start of the coke burn-off 

cycle or for the entire duration of the coke burn-off 

cycle if the coke burn-off cycle is less than 24 hours; 

and maintaining the daily average HCl concentration 

below the applicable operating limit. 

3. Internal scrubbing system 

meeting percent HCl reduction standard.

a. The daily average pH or alkalinity of the water (or 

scrubbing liquid) exiting the internal scrubbing system 

must not fall below the limit established during the 

performance test.

Collecting the hourly and daily average pH or alkalinity 

monitoring data according to § 63.1572 1 and maintaining the daily average pH or alkalinity above the 

operating limit established during the performance 

test. 

b. The daily average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall 

below the level established during the performance 

test.

Collecting the hourly average gas flow rate 2 and total 

water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate monitoring data 

according to § 63.1572; and determining and recording the hourly average liquid-to-gas ratio; and determining and recording the daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio; and maintaining the daily average liquid-to-gas 

ratio above the limit established during the performance test. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6961

TABLE 28 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS FOR INORGANIC HAP

EMISSIONS FROM CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1567(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For each new and existing 

catalytic reforming unit using 

this type of control device or 

system . . . 

For this operating limit . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance during 

coke burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation by . . . 

4. Fixed-bed gas-solid adsorption systems.a. The daily average temperature of the gas entering or 

exiting the adsorption system must not exceed the 

limit established during the performance test.

Collecting the hourly and daily average temperature 

monitoring data according to § 63.1572; and maintaining the daily average temperature below the operating limit established during the performance test. 

b. The HCl concentration in the exhaust gas from the 

fixed-bed gas-solid adsorption system must not exceed the limit established during the performance 

test.

Measuring and recording the concentration of HCl 

weekly or during each regeneration cycle, whichever 

is less frequent, using a colormetric tube sampling 

system at a point within the adsorbent bed not to exceed 90 percent of the total length of the adsorption 

bed during coke-burn-off and catalyst rejuvenation; 

implementing procedures in the operating and maintenance plan if the HCl concentration at the sampling 

location within the adsorption bed exceeds the operating limit; and maintaining the HCl concentration in 

the gas from the adsorption system below the applicable operating limit. 

5. Moving-bed gas-solid adsorption system (e.g., 

ChlorsorbTM System.

a. The daily average temperature of the gas entering or 

exiting the adsorption system must not exceed the 

limit established during the performance test.

Collecting the hourly and daily average temperature 

monitoring data according to § 63.1572; and maintaining the daily average temperature below the operating limit established during the performance test. 

b. The weekly average chloride level on the sorbent entering the adsorption system must not exceed the design or manufacturer’s recommended limit (1.35 

weight percent for the ClorsorbTM.

Collecting samples of the sorbent exiting the adsorption 

system three times per week (on non-consecutive 

days); and analyzing the samples for total chloride 3; 

and determining and recording the weekly average 

chloride concentration; and maintaining the chloride 

concentration below the design or manufacturer’s 

recommended limit (1.35 weight percent for the 

ChlorsorbTM System). 

c. The weekly average chloride level on the sorbent 

exiting the adsorption system must not exceed the 

design or manufacturer’s recommended limit (1.8 

weight percent for the ClorsorbTM System).

Collecting samples of the sorbent exiting the adsorption 

system three times per week (on non-consecutive 

days); and analyzing the samples for total chloride 

concentration; and determining and recording the 

weekly average chloride concentration; and maintaining the chloride concentration below the design or 

manufacturer’s recommended limit (1.8 weight percent ChlorsorbTM System). 

1 If applicable, you can use either alternative in § 63.1573(b) instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system for pH or alkalinity if you 

used the alternative method in the initial performance test. 2 If applicable, you can use the alternative in § 63.1573(a)(1) instead of a continuous parameter monitoring system for the gas flow rate or cumulative volume of gas entering or exiting the system if you used the alternative method in the initial performance test. 3The total chloride concentration of the sorbent material must be measured by the procedure, ‘‘Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)’’ in appendix A to this subpart; or by using EPA Method 5050, Bomb Preparation Method for 

Solid Waste, combined either with EPA Method 9056, Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography, or with EPA Method 9253, 

Chloride (Titrimetric, Silver Nitrate); or by using EPA Method 9212, Potentiometric Determination of Chloride in Aqueous Samples with Ion-Selective Electrode, and using the soil extraction procedures listed within the method. The EPA Methods 5050, 9056, 9212 and 9253 are included in 

‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846, Revision 5 (April 1998). The SW–846 and 

Updates (document number 955–001–00000–1) are available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800; and from the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 

VA 22161, (703) 487–4650. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B–108, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. These methods are 

also available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm. 

■ 32. Table 31 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is amended by revising entry 1 and 3 as 

follows:

6962 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 31 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR HAP EMISSIONS FROM SULFUR

RECOVERY UNITS

*****

For . . . For this limit . . . You shall install and operate this continuous 

monitoring system . . . 

1. Each new or existing Claus sulfur recovery 

unit part of a sulfur recovery plant of 20 long 

tons per day or more and subject to the 

NSPS for sulfur oxides in 40 CFR 

60.104(a)(2).

a. 250 ppmv (dry basis) of SO2 at zero percent excess air if you use an oxidation or 

reduction control system followed by incineration.

Continuous emission monitoring system to 

measure and record the hourly average 

concentration of SO2 (dry basis) at zero percent excess air for each exhaust stack. This 

system must include an oxygen monitor for 

correcting the data for excess air. 

b. 300 ppmv of reduced sulfur compounds calculated as ppmv SO2 (dry basis) at zero 

percent excess air if you use a reduction 

control system without incineration.

Continuous emission monitoring system to 

measure and record the hourly average 

concentration of reduced sulfur and oxygen 

(O2) emissions. Calculate the reduced sulfur 

emissions as SO2 (dry basis) at zero percent excess air. Exception: You can use an 

instrument having an air or SO2 dilution and 

oxidation system to convert the reduced sulfur to SO2 for continuously monitoring and 

recording the concentration (dry basis) at 

zero percent excess air of the resultant SO2

instead of the reduced sulfur monitor. The 

monitor must include an oxygen monitor for 

correcting the data for excess oxygen. 

* * * * * * * 

3. Option 2: TRS limit. Each new or existing 

sulfur recovery unit (Claus or other type, regardless of size) not subject to the NSPS for 

sulfur oxides in 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2).

300 ppmv of total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds, expressed as an equivalent SO2

concentration (dry basis) at zero percent oxygen.

i. Continuous emission monitoring system to 

measure and record the hourly average 

concentration of TRS for each exhaust 

stack; this monitor must include an oxygen 

monitor for correcting the data for excess 

oxygen; or 

ii. Continuous parameter monitoring systems 

to measure and record the combustion zone 

temperature of each thermal incinerator and 

the oxygen content (percent, dry basis) in 

the vent stream of the incinerator. 

■ 33. Table 33 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 33 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR SULFUR RECOVERY

UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1568(b)(5), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if 

. . . 

1. Each new or existing Claus sulfur recovery 

unit part of a sulfur recovery plant of 20 long 

tons per day or more and subject to the 

NSPS for sulfur oxides in 40 CFR 

60.104(a)(2).

a. 250 ppmv (dry basis) SO2 at zero percent 

excess air if you use an oxidation or reduction control system followed by incineration.

You have already conducted a performance 

test to demonstrate initial compliance with 

the NSPS and each 12-hour rolling average 

concentration of SO2 emissions measured 

by the continuous emission monitoring system is less than or equal to 250 ppmv (dry 

basis) at zero percent excess air. As part of 

the Notification of Compliance Status, you 

must certify that your vent meets the SO2

limit. You are not required to do another 

performance test to demonstrate initial compliance. You have already conducted a performance evaluation to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the applicable performance 

specification. As part of your Notification of 

Compliance Status, you must certify that 

your continuous emission monitoring system meets the applicable requirements in 

§ 63.1572. You are not required to do another performance evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6963

TABLE 33 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR SULFUR RECOVERY

UNITS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1568(b)(5), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if 

. . . 

b. 300 ppmv of reduced sulfur compounds 

calculated as ppmv SO2 (dry basis) at zero 

percent excess air if you use a reduction 

control system without incineration.

You have already conducted a performance 

test to demonstrate initial compliance with 

the NSPS and each 12-hour rolling average 

concentration of reduced sulfur compounds 

measured by your continuous emission 

monitoring system is less than or equal to 

300 ppmv, calculated as ppmv SO2 (dry 

basis) at zero percent excess air. As part of 

the Notification of Compliance Status, you 

must certify that your vent meets the SO2

limit. You are not required to do another 

performance test to demonstrate initial compliance. You have already conducted a performance evaluation to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the applicable performance 

specification. As part of your Notification of 

Compliance Status, you must certify that 

your continuous emission monitoring system meets the applicable requirements in 

§ 63.1572. You are not required to do another performance evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance. 

2. Option 1: Elect NSPS. Each new or existing 

sulfur recovery unit (Claus or other type, regardless of size) not subject to the NSPS for 

sulfur oxides in 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2).

a. 250 ppmv (dry basis) of SO2 at zero percent excess air if you use an oxidation or 

reduction control system followed by incineration.

Each 12-hour rolling average concentration of 

SO2 emissions measured by the continuous 

emission monitoring system during the initial performance test is less than or equal to 

250 ppmv (dry basis) at zero percent excess air; and your performance evaluation 

shows the monitoring system meets the applicable requirements in § 63.1572. 

b. 300 ppmv of reduced sulfur compounds 

calculated as ppmv SO2 (dry basis) at zero 

percent excess air if you use a reduction 

control system without incineration.

Each 12-hour rolling average concentration of 

reduced sulfur compounds measured by the 

continuous emission monitoring system during the initial performance test is less than 

or equal to 300 ppmv, calculated as ppmv 

SO2 (dry basis) at zero percent excess air; 

and your performance evaluation shows the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

meets the applicable requirements in 

§ 63.1572. 

3. Option 2: TRS limit. Each new or existing 

sulfur recovery unit (Claus or other type, regardless of size) not subject to the NSPS for 

sulfur oxides in 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2).

300 ppmv of TRS compounds expressed as 

an equivalent SO2 concentration (dry basis) 

at zero percent oxygen.

If you use continuous parameter monitoring 

systems, the average concentration of TRS 

emissions measured using Method 15 during the initial performance test is less than 

or equal to 300 ppmv expressed as equivalent SO2 concentration (dry basis) at zero 

percent oxygen. If you use a continuous 

emission monitoring system, each 12-hour 

rolling average concentration of TRS emissions measured by the continuous emission 

monitoring system during the initial performance test is less than or equal to 300 ppmv 

expressed as an equivalent SO2 (dry basis) 

at zero percent oxygen; and your performance evaluation shows the continuous 

emission monitoring system meets the applicable requirements in § 63.1572. 

■ 34. Table 34 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

6964 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 34 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR SULFUR

RECOVERY UNITS

[As stated in § 63.1568(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

For . . . For this emission limit . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Each new or existing 

Claus sulfur recovery unit 

part of a sulfur recovery 

plant of 20 long tons per 

day or more and subject 

to the NSPS for sulfur oxides in 40 CFR 

60.104(a)(2). 

a. 250 ppmv (dry basis) of SO2 at zero percent excess 

air if you use an oxidation or reduction control system followed by incineration. 

Collecting the hourly average SO2 monitoring data (dry 

basis, percent excess air) according to § 63.1572; determining and recording each 12-hour rolling average 

concentration of SO2; maintaining each 12-hour rolling average concentration of SO2 at or below the applicable emission limitation; and reporting any 12-

hour rolling average concentration of SO2 greater 

than the applicable emission limitation in the compliance report required by § 63.1575. 

b. 300 ppmv of reduced sulfur compounds calculated 

as ppmv SO2 (dry basis) at zero percent excess air if 

you use a reduction control system without incineration. 

Collecting the hourly average reduced sulfur (and air or 

O2 dilution and oxidation) monitoring data according 

to § 63.1572; determining and recording each 12-

hour rolling average concentration of reduced sulfur; 

maintaining each 12-hour rolling average concentration of reduced sulfur at or below the applicable 

emission limitation; and reporting any 12-hour rolling 

average concentration of reduced sulfur greater than 

the applicable emission limitation in the compliance 

report required by § 63.1575. 

2. Option 1: Elect NSPS. 

Each new or existing sulfur recovery unit (Claus or 

other type, regardless of 

size) not subject to the 

NSPS for sulfur oxides in 

40 CFR 60.104(a)(2). 

a. 250 ppmv (dry basis) of SO2 at zero percent excess 

air if you use an oxidation or reduction control system followed by incineration. 

Collecting the hourly average SO2 data (dry basis, percent excess air) according to § 63.1572; determining 

and recording each 12-hour rolling average concentration of SO2; maintaining each 12-hour rolling 

average concentration of SO2 at or below the applicable emission limitation; and reporting any 12-hour 

rolling average concentration of SO2 greater than the 

applicable emission limitation in the compliance report required by § 63.1575. 

b. 300 ppmv of reduced sulfur compounds calculated 

as ppmv SO2 (dry basis) at zero percent excess air if 

you use a reduction control system without incineration. 

Collecting the hourly average reduced sulfur (and air or 

O2 dilution and oxidation) monitoring data according 

to § 63.1572; determining and recording each 12-

hour rolling average concentration of reduced sulfur; 

maintaining each 12-hour rolling average concentration of reduced sulfur at or below the applicable 

emission limitation; and reporting any 12-hour rolling 

average concentration of reduced sulfur greater than 

the applicable emission limitation in the compliance 

report required by § 63.1575. 

3. Option 2: TRS limit. Each 

new or existing sulfur recovery unit (Claus or other 

type, regardless of size) 

not subject to the NSPS 

for sulfur oxides in 40 

CFR 60.104(a)(2). 

300 ppmv of TRS compounds, expressed as an SO2

concentration (dry basis) at zero percent oxygen or 

reduced sulfur compounds calculated as ppmv SO2

(dry basis) at zero percent excess air. 

i. If you use continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

collecting the hourly average TRS monitoring data 

according to § 63.1572 and maintaining each 12-hour 

average concentration of TRS at or below the applicable emission limitation; or 

ii. If you use a continuous emission monitoring system, 

collecting the hourly average TRS monitoring data 

according to § 63.1572, determining and recording 

each 12-hour rolling average concentration of TRS; 

maintaining each 12-hour rolling average concentration of TRS at or below the applicable emission limitation; and reporting any 12-hour rolling average TRS 

concentration greater than the applicable emission 

limitation in the compliance report required by 

§ 63.1575. 

■ 35. Table 36 to subpart UUU is 

amended to revise entry 1 as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6965

TABLE 36 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR HAP EMISSIONS FROM BYPASS LINES

Option You shall meet one of these equipment standards . . . 

1. Option 1 ................................................................................................ Install and operate a device (including a flow indicator, level recorder, 

or electronic valve position monitor) to demonstrate, either continuously or at least every hour, whether flow is present in the by bypass 

line. Install the device at or as near as practical to the entrance to 

any bypass line that could divert the vent stream away from the control device to the atmosphere. 

*******

■ 36. Table 38 to subpart UUU is revised 

as follows:

TABLE 38 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM BYPASS LINES

[As stated in § 63.1569(b)(2), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

Option . . . For this work practice standard . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

1. Each new or existing bypass line associated with 

a catalytic cracking unit, 

catalytic reforming unit, or 

sulfur recovery unit.

a. Option 1: Install and operate a device (including a 

flow indicator, level recorder, or electronic valve position monitor) to demonstrate, either continuously or at 

least every hour, whether flow is present in bypass 

line. Install the device at or as near as practical to 

the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the 

vent stream away from the control device to the atmosphere.

The installed equipment operates properly during each 

run of the performance test and no flow is present in 

the line during the test. 

b. Option 2: Install a car-seal or lock-and-key device 

placed on the mechanism by which the bypass device flow position is controlled (e.g., valve handle, 

damper level) when the bypass device is in the 

closed position such that the bypass line valve cannot be opened without breaking the seal or removing 

the device.

As part of the notification of compliance status, you certify that you installed the equipment, the equipment 

was operational by your compliance date, and you 

identify what equipment was installed. 

c. Option 3: Seal the bypass line by installing a solid 

blind between piping flanges.

See item 1.b of this table. 

d. Option 4: Vent the bypass line to a control device 

that meets the appropriate requirements in this subpart.

See item 1.b of this table. 

■ 37. Table 39 to subpart UUU is 

amended by revising entry 1 as follows:

TABLE 39 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR HAP 

EMISSIONS FROM BYPASS LINES

*****

If you elect this standard . . . You shall demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Option 1: Flow indicator, level recorder, or electronic valve position 

monitor. 

Monitoring and recording on a continuous basis or at least every hour 

whether flow is present in the bypass line; visually inspecting the device at least once every hour if the device is not equipped with a recording system that provides a continuous record; and recording 

whether the device is operating properly and whether flow is present 

in the bypass line. 

*******

■ 38. Table 40 to subpart UUU is 

amended to revise entry 4, 5, 6, and 8 as 

follows:

6966 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 40 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF

CONTINUOUS OPACITY MONITORING SYSTEMS AND CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS

*****

This type of continuous opacity or emission monitoring system . . . Must meet these requirements . . . 

*******

4. SO2 continuous emission monitoring system for sulfur recovery unit 

with oxidation control system or reduction control system; this monitor must include an O2 monitor for correcting the data for excess air. 

Performance specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B); span value 

of 500 ppm SO2; use Methods 6 or 6C and 3A or 3B (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A) for certifying O2 monitor; and procedure 1 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F) except relative accuracy test audits are required 

annually instead of quarterly. 

5. Reduced sulfur and O2 continuous emission monitoring system for 

sulfur recovery unit with reduction control system not followed by incineration; this monitor must include an O2 monitor for correcting the 

data for excess air unless exempted. 

Performance specification 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B), except calibration drift specification is 2.5 percent of the span value instead of 

5 percent; 450 ppm reduced sulfur; use Methods 15 or 15A and 3A 

or 3B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for certifying O2monitor; if Method 3A or 3B yields O2 concentrations below 0.25 percent during the 

performance evaluation, the O2 concentration can be assumed to be 

zero and the O2 monitor is not required; and procedure 1 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F), except relative accuracy test audits, are required annually instead of quarterly. 

6. Instrument with an air or O2 dilution and oxidation system to convert 

reduced sulfur to SO2 for continuously monitoring the concentration 

of SO2 instead of reduced sulfur monitor and O2 monitor. 

Performance specification 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B); span value 

of 375 ppm SO2; use Methods 15 or 15A and 3A or 3B for certifying 

O2 monitor; and procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F), except 

relative accuracy test audits, are required annually instead of quarterly. 

*******

8. O2 monitor for oxygen concentration. .................................................. If necessary due to interferences, locate the oxygen sensor prior to the 

introduction of any outside gas stream; performance specification 3 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F), except relative accuracy test audits, are required annually 

instead of quarterly. 

■ 39. Table 41 to Subpart UUU is revised 

as follows:

TABLE 41 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF

CONTINUOUS PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEMS

[As stated in § 63.1572(c)(1), you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

If you use . . . You shall . . . 

1. pH strips ...................................... Use pH strips with an accuracy of ± 10 percent. 

2. Colormetric tube sampling system.Use a colormetric tube sampling system with a printed numerical scale in ppmv, a standard measurement 

range of 1 to 10 ppmv (or 1 to 30 ppmv if applicable), and a standard deviation for measured values of 

no more than ± 15 percent. System must include a gas detection pump and hot air probe if needed for 

the measurement range. 

■ 40. Table 44 to subpart UUU of part 63 

is revised as follows:

TABLE 44 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART UUU 

[As stated in § 63.1577, you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

Citation Subject Applies to supbart UUU Explanation 

§ 63.1 ................................... Applicability ........................ Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies calendar or operating day. 

§ 63.2 ................................... Definitions .......................... Yes.

§ 63.3 ................................... Units and Abbreviations .... Yes.

§ 63.4 ................................... Prohibited Activities ........... Yes.

§ 63.5(A)–(C) ....................... Construction and Reconstruction.Yes .................................... In § 63.5(b)(4), replace the reference to § 63.9 with 

§ 63.9(b)(4) and (5). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6967

TABLE 44 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART UUU—

Continued

[As stated in § 63.1577, you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

Citation Subject Applies to supbart UUU Explanation 

§ 63.5(d)(1)(i) ....................... Application for Approval of 

Construction or Reconstruction—General Application Requirements.

Yes .................................... Except, subpart UUU specifies the application is submitted as soon as practicable before startup but not 

later than 90 days (rather then 60) after the promulgation date where construction or reconstruction 

had commenced and initial startup had not occurred 

before promulgation. 

§ 63.5(d)(1)(ii) ...................... ............................................ Yes .................................... Except that emission estimates specified in 

§ 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) are not required. 

§ 63.5(d)(1)(iii) ...................... ............................................ No ...................................... Subpart UUU specifies submission of notification of 

compliance status. 

§ 63.5(d)(2) .......................... ............................................ No.

§ 63.5(d)(3) .......................... ............................................ Yes .................................... Except that § 63.5(d)(3)(ii) does not apply. 

§ 63.5(d0(4) .......................... ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ............................... Approval of Construction or 

Reconstruction.

Yes.

§ 63.5(f)(1) ........................... Approval of Construction or 

Reconstruction Based on 

State Review.

§ 63.5(f)(2) ........................... ............................................ Yes .................................... Except that 60 days is changed to 90 days and crossreference to 53.9(B)(2) does not apply. 

§ 63.6(a) ............................... Compliance with Standards 

and Maintenance—Applicability.

Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) .................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed 

Sources.

Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(5) .......................... ............................................ Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies different compliance dates for sources. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.6(b)(7) .......................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed Area 

Sources That Become 

Major.

Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) .................... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources.Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies different compliance dates for sources subject to Tier II gasoline 

sulfur control requirements. 

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.6(c)(5) ........................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That 

Become Major.

Yes.

§ 63.6(d) ............................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.6(e)(1)–(2) .................... Operation and Maintenance Requirements.Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3)(i)–(iii) ................ Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Plan.

Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3)(iv) ..................... ............................................ Yes .................................... Except that reports of actions not consistent with plan 

are not required within 2 and 7 days of action but 

rather must be included in next periodic report. 

§ 63.6(e)(3)(v)–(viii) .............. ............................................ Yes .................................... The owner or operator is only required to keep the latest version of the plan. 

§ 63.6(f)(1)–(2)(iii)(C) ........... Compliance with Emission 

Standards.

Yes.

§ 63.6(f)(2)(iii)(D) .................. ............................................ No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)(iv)–(v) ................ ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(f)(3) ........................... ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(g) ............................... Alternative Standard .......... Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ............................... Opacity/VE Standards ....... Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) ....................... Determining Compliance 

with Opacity/VE Standards.

No ...................................... Subpart UUU specifies methods. 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(ii) ...................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.6(h)(2)(iii) ...................... ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(3) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.6(h)(4) .......................... Notification of Opacity/VE 

Observation Date.

Yes .................................... Applies to Method 22 tests. 

§ 63.6(h)(5) .......................... Conducting Opacity/VE 

Observations.

No.

6968 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 44 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART UUU—

Continued

[As stated in § 63.1577, you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

Citation Subject Applies to supbart UUU Explanation 

§ 63.6(h)(6) .......................... Records of Conditions During Opacity/VE Observations.Yes .................................... Applies to Method 22 observations. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(i) ....................... Report COM Monitoring 

Data from Performance 

Test.

Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(7)(ii) ...................... Using COM Instead of 

Method 9.

No.

§ 63.6(h)(7)(iii) ...................... Averaging Time for COM 

during Performance Test.

Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(7)(iv) ..................... COM Requirements ........... Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(8) .......................... Determining Compliance 

with Opacity/VE Standards.

Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(9) .......................... Adjusted Opacity Standard Yes.

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ................... Extension of Compliance .. Yes .................................... Extension of compliance under § 63.6(i)(4) not applicable to a facility that installs catalytic cracking feed 

hydrotreating and receives an extended compliance 

date under § 63.1563(c). 

§ 63.6(i)(15) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.6(i)(16) .......................... ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(j) ................................ Presidential Compliance 

Exemption.

Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1) .......................... Performance Test Requirements Applicability.Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies the applicable test 

and demonstration procedures. 

§ 63.7(a)(2) .......................... Performance Test Dates ... No ...................................... Test results must be submitted in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report due 150 days after the 

compliance date. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .......................... Section 114 Authority ........ Yes.

§ 63.7(b) ............................... Notifications ....................... Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies notification at least 

30 days prior to the scheduled test date rather than 

60 days. 

§ 63.7(c) ............................... Quality Assurance Program/Site-Specific Test 

Plan.

Yes.

§ 63.7(d) ............................... Performance Test Facilities Yes.

§ 63.7(e) ............................... Conduct of Tests ............... Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ................................ Alternative Test Method .... Yes.

§ 63.7(g) ............................... Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting.Yes .................................... Except performance test reports must be submitted 

with notification of compliance status due 150 days 

after the compliance date. 

§ 63.7(h) ............................... Waiver of Tests Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1) .......................... Monitoring RequirementsApplicability.Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(2) .......................... Performance Specifications Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(3) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... Not applicable.

§ 63.8(a)(4) .......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Yes.

§ 63.8(b)(1) .......................... Conduct of Monitoring ....... Yes.

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) .................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems.Yes .................................... Subpart UUU specifies the required monitoring locations. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) ........................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance.Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i)–(ii) ................. Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunctions.

Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies that reports are not 

required if actions are consistent with the SSM plan, 

unless requested by the permitting authority. If actions are not consistent, actions must be described 

in next compliance report. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...................... Compliance with Operation 

and Maintenance Requirements.

Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .................... Monitoring System Installation.Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies that for continuous 

parameter monitoring systems, operational status 

verification includes completion of manufacturer written specifications or installation, operation, and calibration of the system or other written procedures 

that provide adequate assurance that the equipment 

will monitor accurately. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ........................... Continuous Monitoring 

System Requirements.

No ...................................... Subpart UUU specifies operational requirements. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6969

TABLE 44 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART UUU—

Continued

[As stated in § 63.1577, you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

Citation Subject Applies to supbart UUU Explanation 

§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii) ................. Continuous Monitoring 

System Requirements.

Yes .................................... Except that these requirements apply only to a continuous opacity monitoring system or a continuous 

emission monitoring system if you are subject to the 

NSPS or elect to comply with the NSPS opacity, 

CO, or SO2 limits. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ........................... COM Minimum Procedures Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(6) ........................... CMS Requirements ........... No ...................................... Except that these requirements apply only to a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emission monitoring system if you are subject to the 

NSPS or elect to comply with the NSPS opacity, 

CO, or SO2 limits. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) .................... CMS Requirements ........... Yes.

§ 63.8(d) ............................... Quality Control Program .... Yes .................................... Except that these requirements apply only to a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emission monitoring system if you are subject to the 

NSPS or elect to comply with the NSPS opacity, 

CO, or SO2 limits. 

§ 63.8(e) ............................... CMS Performance Evaluation.Yes .................................... Except that these requirements apply only to a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emission monitoring system if you are subject to the 

NSPS or elect to comply with the NSPS opacity, 

CO, or SO2 limits. Results are to be submitted as 

part of the Notification Compliance Status due 150 

days after the compliance date. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ..................... Alternative Monitoring 

Methods.

Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies procedures for requesting alternative monitoring systems and alternative parameters. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ........................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.Yes .................................... Applicable to continuous emission monitoring systems 

if performance specification requires a relative accuracy test audit. 

§ 63.8(g)(1)–(4) .................... Reduction of Monitoring 

Data.

Yes .................................... Applies to continuous opacity monitoring system or 

continuous emission monitoring system. 

§ 63.8(g)(5) .......................... Data Reduction .................. No ...................................... Subpart UUU specifies requirements. 

§ 63.9(a) ............................... Notification Requirements—Applicability.Yes .................................... Duplicate Notification of Compliance Status report to 

the Regional Administrator may be required. 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2), (4)–(5) ....... Initial Notifications ............. Yes .................................... Except that notification of construction or reconstruction is to be submitted as soon as practicable before 

startup but no later than 30 days (rather than 60 

days) after the effective date if construction or reconstruction had commenced but startup had not 

occurred before the effective date. 

§ 63.9(b)(3) .......................... [Reserved].

§ 63.9(c) ............................... Request for Extension of 

Compliance.

Yes.

§ 63.9(d) ............................... New Source Notification for 

Special Compliance Requirements.

Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ............................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Yes .................................... Except that notification is required at least 30 days before test. 

§ 63.9(f) ................................ Notification of VE/Opacity 

Test.

Yes.

§ 63.9(g) ............................... Additional Notification Requirements for Sources 

with Continuous Monitoring Systems.

Yes .................................... Except that these requirements apply only to a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emission monitoring system if you are subject to the 

NSPS or elect to comply with the NSPS opacity, 

CO, or SO2 limits. 

§ 63.9(h) ............................... Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Yes .................................... Except that subpart UUU specifies the notification is 

due no later than 150 days after compliance date. 

§ 63.9(i) ................................ Adjustment of Deadlines ... Yes.

§ 63.9(j) ................................ Change in Previous Information.Yes.

63. 10(a) ............................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Applicability.Yes.

§ 63.10(b) ............................. Records ............................. Yes .................................... Except that § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) applies if you use a continuous emission monitoring system to meet the 

NSPS or you select to meet the NSPS, CO, or SO2

reduced sulfur limit and the performance evaluation 

requires a relative accuracy test audit. 

6970 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 44 TO SUBPART UUU OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART UUU—

Continued

[As stated in § 63.1577, you shall meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.] 

Citation Subject Applies to supbart UUU Explanation 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)–(15) ... Additional Records for 

Continuous Monitoring 

Systems.

Yes .................................... Except that these requirements apply if you use a 

continuous opacity monitoring system or a continuous emission monitoring system to meet the NSPS 

or elect to meet the NSPS opacity, CO, or SO2 limits. 

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .................. Records of Excess Emissions and Exceedances.No ...................................... Subpart UUU specifies requirements. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) ........................ General Reporting Requirements.Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(2) ........................ Performance Test Results No ...................................... Subpart UUU requires performance test results to be 

reported as part of the Notification of Compliance 

Status due 150 days after the compliance date. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ........................ Opacity or VE Observations.Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(4) ........................ Progress Reports .............. Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i) ..................... Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Reports.

Yes .................................... Except that reports are not required if actions are consistent with the SSM plan, unless requested by permitting authority. 

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .................... ............................................ Yes .................................... Except that actions taken during a startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction that are not consistent with the plan 

do not need to be reported within 2 and 7 days of 

commencing and completing the action, respectively, but must be included in the next periodic report. 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) .................. Additional CMS Reports .... Yes .................................... Except that these requirements apply only to a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emission monitoring system if you are subject to the 

NSPS or elect to comply with the NSPS opacity, 

CO, or SO2 limits. Reports of performance evaluations must be submitted in Notification of Compliance Status. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) ........................ Excess Emissions/CMS 

Performance Reports.

No ...................................... Subpart UUU specifies the applicable requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ........................ COMS Data Reports ......... Yes.

§ 63.10(f) .............................. Recordkeeping/Reporting 

Waiver.

Yes.

§ 63.11 ................................. Control Device Requirements.Yes .................................... Applicable to flares. 

§ 63.13 ................................. Addresses .......................... Yes.

§ 63.14 ................................. Incorporation by Reference Yes.

§ 63.15 ................................. Available of Information ..... Yes.

■ 41. Subpart UUU of part 63 is amended 

by adding appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A To Subpart UUU of Part 

63—Determination of Metal 

Concentration on Catalyst Particles 

(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) 

1.0 Scope and Application. 

1.1 Analytes. The analytes for which this 

method is applicable include any elements 

with an atomic number between 11 (sodium) 

and 92 (uranium), inclusive. Specific 

analytes for which this method was 

developed include:

Analyte CAS No. Minimum detectable limit 

Nickel compounds ........................................................................................................ 7440–02–0 <2 % of span. 

Total chlorides .............................................................................................................. 16887–00–6 <2 % of span. 

1.2 Applicability. This method is 

applicable to the determination of analyte 

concentrations on catalyst particles. This 

method is applicable for catalyst particles 

obtained from the fluid catalytic cracking 

unit (FCCU) regenerator (i.e., equilibrium 

catalyst), from air pollution control systems 

operated for the FCCU catalyst regenerator 

vent (FCCU fines), from catalytic reforming 

units (CRU), and other processes as specified 

within an applicable regulation. This method 

is applicable only when specified within the 

regulation. 

1.3 Data Quality Objectives. Adherence to 

the requirements of this method will enhance 

the quality of the data obtained from the 

analytical method. 

2.0 Summary of Method. 

2.1 A representative sample of catalyst 

particles is collected, prepared, and analyzed 

for analyte concentration using either energy 

or wavelength dispersive X-ray flourescent 

(XRF) spectrometry instrumental analyzers. 

In both types of XRF spectrometers, the 

instrument irradiates the sample with high 

energy (primary) x-rays and the elements in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6971

the sample absorb the x-rays and then re-emit 

secondary (fluorescent) x-rays of 

characteristic wavelengths for each element 

present. In energy dispersive XRF 

spectrometers, all secondary x-rays (of all 

wavelengths) enter the detector at once. The 

detector registers an electric current having a 

height proportional to the photon energy, and 

these pulses are then separated 

electronically, using a pulse analyzer. In 

wavelength dispersive XRF spectrometers, 

the secondary x-rays are dispersed spatially 

by crystal diffraction on the basis of 

wavelength. The crystal and detector are 

made to synchronously rotate and the 

detector then receives only one wavelength at 

a time. The intensity of the x-rays emitted by 

each element is proportional to its 

concentration, after correcting for matrix 

effects. For nickel compounds and total 

chlorides, the XRF instrument response is 

expected to be linear to analyte 

concentration. Performance specifications 

and test procedures are provided to ensure 

reliable data. 

3.0 Definitions. 

3.1 Measurement System. The total 

equipment required for the determination of 

analyte concentration. The measurement 

system consists of the following major 

subsystems: 

3.1.1 Sample Preparation. That portion of 

a system used for one or more of the 

following: sample acquisition, sample 

transport, sample conditioning, or sample 

preparation prior to introducing the sample 

into the analyzer. 

3.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of the 

system that senses the analyte to be measured 

and generates an output proportional to its 

concentration. 

3.1.3 Data Recorder. A digital recorder or 

personal computer used for recording 

measurement data from the analyzer output. 

3.2 Span. The upper limit of the gas 

concentration measurement range displayed 

on the data recorder. 

3.3 Calibration Standards. Prepared 

catalyst samples or other samples of known 

analyte concentrations used to calibrate the 

analyzer and to assess calibration drift. 

3.4 Energy Calibration Standard. 

Calibration standard, generally provided by 

the XRF instrument manufacturer, used for 

assuring accuracy of the energy scale.

3.5 Accuracy Assessment Standard. 

Prepared catalyst sample or other sample of 

known analyte concentrations used to assess 

analyzer accuracy error. 

3.6 Zero Drift. The difference in the 

measurement system output reading from the 

initial value for zero concentration level 

calibration standard after a stated period of 

operation during which no unscheduled 

maintenance, repair, or adjustment took 

place. 

3.7 Calibration Drift. The difference in 

the measurement system output reading from 

the initial value for the mid-range calibration 

standard after a stated period of operation 

during which no unscheduled maintenance, 

repair, or adjustment took place. 

3.8 Spectral Interferences. Analytical 

interferences and excessive biases caused by 

elemental peak overlap, escape peak, and 

sum peak interferences between elements in 

the samples. 

3.9 Calibration Curve. A graph or other 

systematic method of establishing the 

relationship between the analyzer response 

and the actual analyte concentration 

introduced to the analyzer. 

3.10 Analyzer Accuracy Error. The 

difference in the measurement system output 

reading and the ideal value for the accuracy 

assessment standard. 

4.0 Interferences. 

4.1 Spectral interferences with analyte 

line intensity determination are accounted 

for within the method program. No action is 

required by the XRF operator once these 

interferences have been addressed within the 

method. 

4.2 The X-ray production efficiency is 

affected by particle size for the very lightest 

elements. However, particulate matter (PM) 

2.5 particle size effects are substantially < 1 

percent for most elements. The calibration 

standards should be prepared with material 

of similar particle size or be processed 

(ground) to produce material of similar 

particle size as the catalyst samples to be 

analyzed. No additional correction for 

particle size is performed. Alternatively, the 

sample can be fused in order to eliminate any 

potential particle size effects. 

5.0 Safety. 

5.1 Disclaimer. This method may involve 

hazardous materials, operations, and 

equipment. This test method may not address 

all of the safety problems associated with its 

use. It is the responsibility of the user of this 

test method to establish appropriate safety 

and health practices and determine the 

applicability of regulatory limitations prior to 

performing this test method. 

5.2 X-ray Exposure. The XRF uses X-rays; 

XRF operators should follow instrument 

manufacturer’s guidelines to protect from 

accidental exposure to X-rays when the 

instrument is in operation. 

5.3 Beryllium Window. In most XRF 

units, a beryllium (Be) window is present to 

separate the sample chamber from the X-ray 

tube and detector. The window is very fragile 

and brittle. Do not allow sample or debris to 

fall onto the window, and avoid using 

compressed air to clean the window because 

it will cause the window to rupture. If the 

window should rupture, note that Be metal 

is poisonous. Use extreme caution when 

collecting pieces of Be and consult the 

instrument manufacturer for advice on 

cleanup of the broken window and 

replacement. 

6.0 Equipment and Supplies. 

6.1 Measurement System. Use any 

measurement system that meets the 

specifications of this method listed in section 

13. The typical components of the 

measurement system are described below. 

6.1.1 Sample Mixer/Mill. Stainless steel, 

or equivalent to grind/mix catalyst and 

binders, if used, to produce uniform particle 

samples. 

6.1.2 Sample Press/Fluxer. Stainless 

steel, or equivalent to produce pellets of 

sufficient size to fill analyzer sample 

window, or alternatively, a fusion device 

capable of preparing a fused disk of sufficient 

size to fill analyzer sample window.

6.1.3 Analytical Balance. ±0.0001 gram 

accuracy for weighing prepared samples 

(pellets). 

6.1.4 Analyzer. An XRF spectrometer to 

determine the analyte concentration in the 

prepared sample. The analyzer must meet the 

applicable performance specifications in 

section 13. 

6.1.5 Data Recorder. A digital recorder or 

personal computer for recording 

measurement data. The data recorder 

resolution (i.e., readability) must be 0.5 

percent of span. Alternatively, a digital or 

analog meter having a resolution of 0.5 

percent of span may be used to obtain the 

analyzer responses and the readings may be 

recorded manually. 

7.0 Reagents and Standards. 

7.1 Calibration Standards. The calibration 

standards for the analyzer must be prepared 

catalyst samples or other material of similar 

particle size and matrix as the catalyst 

samples to be tested that have known 

concentrations of the analytes of interest. 

Preparation (grinding/milling/fusion) of the 

calibration standards should follow the same 

processes used to prepare the catalyst 

samples to be tested. The calibration 

standards values must be established as the 

average of a minimum of three analyses using 

an approved EPA or ASTM method with 

instrument analyzer calibrations traceable to 

the U.S. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), if available. The 

maximum percent deviation of the triplicate 

calibration standard analyses should agree 

within 10 percent of the average value for the 

triplicate analysis (see Figure 1). If the 

calibration analyses do not meet this criteria, 

the calibration standards must be reanalyzed. If unacceptable variability persists, 

new calibration standards must be prepared. 

Approved methods for the calibration 

standard analyses include, but are not 

limited to, EPA Methods 6010B, 6020, 7520, 

or 7521 of SW–846.1 Use a minimum of four 

calibration standards as specified below (see 

Figure 1): 

7.1.1 High-Range Calibration Standard. 

Concentration equivalent to 80 to 100 percent 

of the span. The concentration of the highrange calibration standard should exceed the 

maximum concentration anticipated in the 

catalyst samples. 

7.1.2 Mid-Range Calibration Standard. 

Concentration equivalent to 40 to 60 percent 

of the span. 

7.1.3 Low-Range Calibration Standard. 

Concentration equivalent to 1 to 20 percent 

of the span. The concentration of the lowrange calibration standard should be selected 

so that it is less than either one-forth of the 

applicable concentration limit or of the 

lowest concentration anticipated in the 

catalyst samples. 

7.1.4 Zero Calibration Standard. 

Concentration of less than 0.25 percent of the 

span. 

7.2 Accuracy Assessment Standard. 

Prepare an accuracy assessment standard and 

determine the ideal value for the accuracy 

assessment standard following the same 

procedures used to prepare and analyze the 

6972 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

calibration standards as described in section 

7.1. The maximum percent deviation of the 

triplicate accuracy assessment standard 

analyses should agree within 10 percent of 

the average value for the triplicate analysis 

(see Figure 1). The concentration equivalent 

of the accuracy assessment standard must be 

between 20 and 80 percent of the span. 

7.3 Energy Calibration Standard. 

Generally, the energy calibration standard 

will be provided by the XRF instrument 

manufacturer for energy dispersive 

spectrometers. Energy calibration is 

performed using the manufacturer’s 

recommended calibration standard and 

involves measurement of a specific energy 

line (based on the metal in the energy 

calibration standard). This is generally an 

automated procedure used to assure the 

accuracy of the energy scale. This calibration 

standard may not be applicable to all models 

of XRF spectrometers (particularly 

wavelength dispersive XRF spectrometers).

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, 

Transport, and Storage. [Reserved] 

9.0 Quality Control. 

9.1 Energy Calibration. For energy 

dispersive spectrometers, conduct the energy 

calibration by analyzing the energy 

calibration standard provided by the 

manufacturer. The energy calibration 

involves measurement of a specific energy 

line (based on the metal in the energy 

calibration standard) and then determination 

of the difference between the measured peak 

energy value and the ideal value. This 

analysis, if applicable, should be performed 

daily prior to any sample analyses to check 

the instrument’s energy scale. This is 

generally an automated procedure and 

assures the accuracy of the energy scale. If 

the energy scale calibration process is not 

automated, follow the manufacturer’s 

procedures to manually adjust the 

instrument, as necessary. 

9.2 Zero Drift Test. Conduct the zero drift 

test by analyzing the analyte concentration 

output by the measurement system with the 

initial calibration value for the zero 

calibration standard (see Figure 2). This 

analysis should be performed with each set 

of samples analyzed. 

9.3 Calibration Drift Test. Conduct the 

calibration drift test by analyzing the analyte 

concentration output by the measurement 

system with the initial calibration value for 

the mid-range calibration standard (see 

Figure 2). This analysis should be performed 

with each set of samples analyzed. 

9.4 Analyzer Accuracy Test. Conduct the 

analyzer accuracy test by analyzing the 

accuracy assessment standard and comparing 

the value output by the measurement system 

with the ideal value for the accuracy 

assessment standard (see Figure 2). This 

analysis should be performed with each set 

of samples analyzed. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization. 

10.1 Perform the initial calibration and 

set-up following the instrument 

manufacturer’s instructions. These 

procedures should include, at a minimum, 

the major steps listed in sections 10.2 and 

10.3. Subsequent calibrations are to be 

performed when either a quality assurance/

quality control (QA/QC) limit listed in 

section 13 is exceeded or when there is a 

change in the excitation conditions, such as 

a change in the tube, detector, X-ray filters, 

or signal processor. Calibrations are typically 

valid for 6 months to 1 year. 

10.2 Instrument Calibration. Calibration 

is performed initially with calibration 

standards of similar matrix and binders, if 

used, as the samples to be analyzed (see 

Figure 1). 

10.3 Reference Peak Spectra. Acquisition 

of reference spectra is required only during 

the initial calibration. As long as no 

processing methods have changed, these 

peak shape references remain valid. This 

procedure consists of placing the standards 

in the instrument and acquiring individual 

elemental spectra that are stored in the 

method file with each of the analytical 

conditions. These reference spectra are used 

in the standard deconvolution of the 

unknown spectra. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure. 

11.1 Sample Preparation. Prepare catalyst 

samples using the same procedure used to 

prepare the calibration standards. Measure 

and record the weight of sample used. 

Measure and record the amount of binder, if 

any, used. Pellets or films must be of 

sufficient size to cover the analyzer sample 

window. 

11.2 Sample Analyses. Place the prepared 

catalyst samples into the analyzer. Follow the 

manufacturer’s instructions for analyzing the 

samples. 

11.3 Record and Store Data. Use a digital 

recorder or personal computer to record and 

store results for each sample. Record any 

mechanical or software problems 

encountered during the analysis. 

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations. 

Carry out the following calculations, 

retaining at least one extra significant figure 

beyond that of the acquired data. Round off 

figures after final calculation. 

12.1 Drift. Calculate the zero and 

calibration drift for the tests described in 

sections 9.2 and 9.3 (see also Figure 2) as 

follows:

QC Value = Response InitialCal.Response

Span (Eq. A-1) CurrentAnalyzerCal. − ×100

Where: 

CurrentAnalyzerCal.Response = Instrument 

response for current QC sample analyses; 

InitialCal.Response = Initial instrument 

response for calibration standard; 

QC Value = QC metric (zero drift or 

calibration drift), percent of span; 

Span = Span of the monitoring system.

12.2 Analyzer Accuracy. Calculate the 

analyzer accuracy error for the tests 

described in section 9.4 (see also Figure 2) as 

follows:

Accuracy Value = Response IdealCal.Response

IdealCal.Response (Eq. A-2) CurrentAnalyzerCal. − ×100

Where: 

Accuracy Value = Percent difference of 

instrument response to the ideal response for 

the accuracy assessment standard; 

CurrentAnalyzerCal.Response = Instrument 

response for current QC sample analyses; 

IdealCal.Response = Ideal instrument 

response for the accuracy assessment 

standard.

13.0 Method Performance. 

13.1 Analytical Range. The analytical 

range is determined by the instrument 

design. For this method, a portion of the 

analytical range is selected by choosing the 

span of the monitoring system. The span of 

the monitoring system must be selected such 

that it encompasses the range of 

concentrations anticipated to occur in the 

catalyst sample. If applicable, the span must 

be selected such that the analyte 

concentration equivalent to the emission 

standard is not less than 30 percent of the 

span. If the measured analyte concentration 

exceeds the concentration of the high-range 

calibration standard, the sample analysis is 

considered invalid. Additionally, if the 

measured analyte concentration is less than 

the concentration of the low-range calibration 

standard but above the detectable limit, the 

sample analysis results must be flagged with 

a footnote stating, in effect, that the analyte 

was detected but that the reported 

concentration is below the lower quantitation 

limit. 

13.2 Minimum Detectable Limit. The 

minimum detectable limit depends on the 

signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement 

system. For a well-designed system, the 

minimum detectable limit should be less 

than 2 percent of the span. 


ER09FE05.010</MATH> ER09FE05.011</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6973

13.3 Zero Drift. Less than ±2 percent of 

the span. 

13.4 Calibration Drift. Less than ±5 

percent of the span. 

13.5 Analyzer Accuracy Error. Less than 

±10 percent. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention. [Reserved] 

15.0 Waste Management. [Reserved] 

16.0 Alternative Procedures. [Reserved] 

17.0 References. 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

1998. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA 

Publication No. SW–846, Revision 5 (April 

1998). Office of Solid Waste, Washington, 

DC. 

18.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and 

Validation Data.

Date: 

Analytic Method Used: 

Zero a Low-Range b Mid-Range c High-Range d Accuracy Std e

Sample Run:.

1.

2.

3.

Average.

Maximum Percent Deviation.

a Average must be less than 0.25 percent of span. b Average must be 1 to 20 percent of span. c Average must be 40 to 60 percent of span. 

d Average must be 80 to 100 percent of span. e Average must be 20 to 80 percent of span. 

Figure 1. Data Recording Sheet for Analysis 

of Calibration Samples. Source Identification: 

Run Number: 

Test Personnel: 

Span: 

Date:

Initial calibration response 

Current analyzer calibration response 

Drift (percent 

of span) 

Zero Standard.

Mid-range Standard.

Ideal calibration response 

Current analyzer calibration response Accuracy error 

(percent of 

ideal) 

Accuracy Standard.

Figure 2. Data Recording Sheet for System 

Calibration Drift Data.

[FR Doc. 05–2308 Filed 2–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P