Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-05-14T04:00Z

[6560-50-P]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011; FRL-        ]

RIN 2060-AN72

Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rules.

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

DATES:  Comments.  Written comments must be received on or before
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].

Public Hearing.  If anyone contacts EPA by [INSERT DATE 20 DAYS FROM
DATE OF PUBLICATION] requesting to speak at a public hearing, a public
hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011, by one of the following methods: 

www.regulations.gov:  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

E-mail:  a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Fax:  (202) 566-1741.

Mail:  U.S. Postal Service, send comments to:  EPA Docket Center
(6102T), New Source Performance Standards for Petroleum Refineries
Docket, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.  Please
include a total of two copies.  In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn:  Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC
20503.

Hand Delivery:  In person or by courier, deliver comments to:  EPA
Docket Center (6102T), New Source Performance Standards for Petroleum
Refineries Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20004.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.  Please include a total of two
copies.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011.  EPA’s policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access”
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the docket are listed in the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  index.  Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the EPA Docket Center, Standards of Performance for Petroleum
Refineries Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Robert B. Lucas, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number:  (919) 541-0884; fax
number:  (919) 541-0246; e-mail address:  lucas.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  General Information

A.  Does this action apply to me?

	Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule
include:

Category	NAICS   code1	Examples of regulated entities

Industry....	32411	Petroleum refiners.

Federal government...

Not affected.

State/local/tribal government...

Not affected.

1 North American Industrial Classification System.

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

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

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

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

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

D.  When would a public hearing occur?

	If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by
[INSERT DATE 10 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION], a public hearing will be
held on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].  Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a
public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Bob Lucas, listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least 2 days in advance of
the hearing.

E.  How is this document organized?

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

I.	General Information

A.	Does this action apply to me?

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

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

D.	When would a public hearing occur?

E.	How is this document organized?

II.  Background Information

A.  What is the statutory authority for the proposed standards 

    and proposed amendments?

B.  What are the current petroleum refinery NSPS?

III.  Summary of the Proposed Standards and Proposed Amendments

A.  What are the proposed amendments to the standards for 

    petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J)?

B.  What are the proposed requirements for new fluid catalytic

    cracking units and new fluid coking units (40 CFR part 60, 

    subpart Ja)?

C.  What are the proposed requirements for new sulfur recovery

    plants (SRP) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?

D.  What are the proposed requirements for new process heaters

    and other fuel gas combustion devices (40 CFR part 60, 

    subpart Ja)?

E.  What are the proposed work practice and equipment standards

    (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja)?

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

     subpart J)

A.  How is EPA proposing to change requirements for refinery 

    fuel gas?

B.	How is EPA proposing to amend definitions?

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

D.	What miscellaneous corrections are being proposed?

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

    subpart Ja)

A.  What is the performance of control technologies for fluid

    catalytic cracking units?

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

    combustion?

C.  What is the performance of control technologies for process 

    heaters?

D.  What is the performance of control technologies for sulfur 

    recovery systems?

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

VI.  Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

VII.  Request for Comments

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

A.  What are the impacts for petroleum refineries?

B.  What are the secondary impacts?

C.  What are the economic impacts?

D.  What are the benefits?

IX.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with 

    Indian Tribal Governments

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from 

    Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations That

    Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J.  Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address 

    Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

    Populations

II.  Background Information

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

New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which cause, or
contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  The primary purpose
of the NSPS is to attain and maintain ambient air quality by ensuring
that the best demonstrated emission control technologies are installed
as the industrial infrastructure is modernized.  Since 1970, the NSPS
have been successful in achieving long-term emissions reductions in
numerous industries by assuring cost-effective controls are installed on
new, reconstructed, or modified sources.

Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application of the
best system of emission reductions which (taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-air quality health
and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.  This level of control is
commonly referred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT).

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review and
revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect
improvements in methods for reducing emissions.

B.  What are the current petroleum refinery NSPS?

NSPS for petroleum refiners (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) apply to fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fuel gas combustion
devices that commence construction or modification after June 11, 1973. 
Fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators are subject to
standards for particulate matter (PM), opacity, and carbon monoxide
(CO).  Fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators that commence
construction after January 17, 1984 are also subject to standards for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) (or a feed sulfur content limit).  Fuel gas
combustion devices are subject to concentration limits for hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) as a surrogate for SO2 emissions.

The current NSPS also apply to all Claus sulfur recovery plants (SRP) of
more than 20 long tons per day (LTD) that commence construction or
modification after October 4, 1976.  Claus SRP are subject to standards
for either SO2 or both reduced sulfur compounds and H2S.

The NSPS were originally promulgated on March 8, 1974 and have been
amended several times.  Significant changes to emission limits since the
original promulgation date include the addition of the sulfur oxide
standards for SRP and fluid catalytic cracking units (see 43 FR 10869,
March 15, 1978 and 54 FR 34027, August 17 1989).

III.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Summary of the Proposed Standards and
Proposed Amendments

We are proposing several amendments to provisions in the existing NSPS
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.  Many of these amendments are technical
clarifications and corrections that are also included in the proposed
standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja.  For example, we are proposing
language to change the definition of fuel gas to indicate that vapors
collected and combusted to comply with certain wastewater and marine
vessel loading provisions are not considered fuel gas and are exempt
from 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1).  These gas streams are not required to be
monitored.  In a related amendment, we are proposing to clarify that
monitoring is not required for fuel gases that are identified as
inherently low sulfur or can demonstrate a low sulfur content.  We are
also revising the coke burn-off equation to account for oxygen
(O2)-enriched air streams.  Other amendments include clarification of
definitions and correction of grammatical and typographical errors.

	The proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja include emission
limits for fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid coking units, SRP, and
fuel gas combustion devices.  They also include work practice standards
for minimizing the quantity of fuel gas streams flared from all refinery
process units and for minimizing the SO2 emissions from process units
that are subject to standards of performance for SO2 emissions. 
Proposed equipment standards would reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from delayed coker units.  Only those affected
facilities that begin construction, modification, or reconstruction
after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] would be affected by the proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ja.  Units for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction began on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS
PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] would continue to comply with the
applicable standards under the current NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
J, as amended. 

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

We are proposing to amend the definition of “fuel gas” to exempt
vapors that are collected and combusted in an air pollution control
device installed to comply with a specified wastewater or marine vessel
loading emissions standard.  The thermal combustion control devices
themselves would still be considered affected fuel gas combustion
devices, and all auxiliary fuel fired to these devices would be subject
to the fuel gas limit; however, continuous monitoring would not be
required for the collected vapors that are being incinerated because
these gases would not be considered fuel gases under the proposed
definition of “fuel gas” in subpart J.

We are also proposing to exempt certain fuel gas streams from all
continuous monitoring requirements.  Monitoring is currently not
required for events that are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR
60.104(a)(1) (flaring of process upset gases or flaring of gases from
relief valve leakage or emergency malfunctions).  Additionally,
monitoring would not be required for inherently low sulfur fuel gas
streams.  These streams include pilot gas flames, gas streams that meet
commercial-grade product specifications with a sulfur content 30 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) or less, fuel gases produced by process
units that are intolerant to sulfur contamination, and fuel gas streams
that an owner or operator can demonstrate are inherently low-sulfur. 
Owners and operators would be required to document the exemption for
which each fuel gas stream applies and ensure that the stream remains
qualified for that exemption.

We are proposing to amend the definitions of “Claus sulfur recovery
plant,” “oxidation control system,” and “reduction control
system” to clarify that a SRP may consist of multiple units, that
sulfur pits are part of the Claus SRP, and that the oxidized or reduced
sulfur is recycled to the beginning of a sulfur recovery train within
the SRP.  We are also proposing to add a fourth term to the coke
burn-off rate equation to account for the use of O2-enriched air.

Finally, the proposed amendments include a few technical corrections to
fix references and other miscellaneous errors in subpart J.  The
specific changes are detailed in section IV.D of this preamble.

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

	The proposed standards for new fluid catalytic cracking units include
emission limits for PM, SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and CO.  One
difference from the existing standards in subpart J is that new fluid
coking units would be subject to the same standards as fluid catalytic
cracking units.  Other differences from the existing standards are that
the proposed PM and SO2 emission limits are more stringent and the NOx
emission limit is a new requirement.  Unlike the existing standards, the
proposed standards include no opacity limit because the opacity limit
was intended to ensure compliance with the PM limit and because we are
now proposing that sources use direct PM monitoring or parameter
monitoring to ensure compliance with the PM limit.

The proposed PM emission limit for new fluid catalytic cracking units
and new fluid coking units is 0.5 kilogram (kg) per Megagram (kg/Mg)
(0.5 pound (lb)/1,000 lb) of coke burn-off in the regenerator.  Initial
compliance with this emission limit would be determined using Method 5
in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.  Procedures for computing the PM
emission rate using the total PM concentration, effluent gas flow rate,
and coke burn-off rate would be the same as in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
J, as amended.  To demonstrate ongoing compliance, an owner or operator
must either monitor PM emission control device operating parameters or
use a PM continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS).  If operating
parameters will be used to demonstrate ongoing compliance, the owner or
operator must monitor the same parameters during the initial performance
test, and develop operating parameter limits for the applicable
parameters.  The operating limits must be based on the lowest hourly
average values for the applicable parameters measured over the three
test runs.  The owner or operator must also conduct additional
performance tests at least once every 24 months to verify compliance
with the PM emission limit and confirm or reestablish operating limits. 
If ongoing compliance will be demonstrated using a PM CEMS, the CEMS
must meet the conditions in Performance Specification 11.  Thus,
separate performance tests are not required because the equivalent of an
initial performance test will be part of the initial correlation test
for the PM CEMS, and periodic response correlation audits (every 5
years) will include the equivalent of performance tests.  We are
co-proposing requiring reconstructed and modified fluid catalytic
cracking units to meet the current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
J, and we are requesting comments on the effects of the proposed PM
standard on modified or reconstructed facilities and if it is
appropriate to adopt a different standard for these sources.

The proposed SO2 emission limits for new fluid catalytic cracking units
and new fluid coking units are to maintain SO2 emissions to the
atmosphere less than or equal to 50 ppmv on a 7–day rolling average
basis, and less than or equal to 25 ppmv on a 365–day rolling average
basis (both limits corrected to 0 percent moisture and 0 percent excess
air).  Initial compliance with the proposed 50 ppmv SO2 emission limit
would be demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation of the SO2
CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 2 in appendix B of 40
CFR part 60, with Method 6, 6A, or 6C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as
the reference method.  Ongoing compliance with both proposed SO2
emission limits would be determined using the CEMS to measure SO2
emissions as discharged to the atmosphere, averaged over the 7-day and
365-day averaging periods.  Rolling average concentrations would be
calculated once per day using the applicable number of daily average
values.  We are co-proposing requiring reconstructed and modified fluid
catalytic cracking units to meet the current standards in 40 CFR part
60, subpart J, and we are requesting comments on the effects of the
proposed SO2 standard on modified or reconstructed facilities.

	The proposed NOx emission limits for new fluid catalytic cracking units
and new fluid coking units are 80 ppmv on a 7-day rolling average basis
(dry at 0 percent excess air).  Initial compliance with the 80 ppmv
emission limit would be demonstrated by conducting a performance
evaluation of the CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 2 in
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, with Method 7 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A
as the Reference Method.  Ongoing compliance with this emission limit
would be determined using the CEMS to measure NOx emissions as
discharged to the atmosphere, averaged over 7-day periods.  We are also
co-proposing no new standards for NOx emissions from fluid coking units
and for modified or reconstructed fluid catalytic cracking units.

	The proposed CO emission limit for new fluid catalytic cracking units
and new fluid coking units is 500 ppmv (1-hour average, dry at 0 percent
excess air).  Initial compliance with this emission limit would be
demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation for the CEMS in
accordance with Performance Specification 4 in appendix B to 40 CFR part
60, with Method 10 or 10A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as the Reference
Method.  For Method 10, the integrated sampling technique is to be used.
 Ongoing compliance with this emission limit would be determined on an
hourly basis using the CEMS to measure CO emissions as discharged to the
atmosphere.  An exemption from monitoring may be requested if the owner
or operator can demonstrate that average CO emissions are less than 50
ppmv (dry basis).  This limit and the compliance procedures are the same
as in the existing NSPS for fluid catalytic cracking units.

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

	The proposed standards include SO2 emission limits for all SRP.  The
proposed emission limit for new SRP greater than 20 LTD is 250 ppmv or
less of combined SO2 and reduced sulfur compounds as discharged to the
atmosphere (reported as SO2 on a dry basis at 0 percent excess air). 
For a SRP with a capacity of 20 LTD or less, the proposed standard is
mass emissions of combined SO2 and reduced sulfur compounds equal to 1
weight percent or less of sulfur recovered.  In addition, the proposed
standards include an H2S concentration limit of 10 ppmv or less (dry
basis at 0 percent excess air) for all new SRP.  Both SO2 and H2S
concentration limits would be determined hourly on a 12-hour rolling
average basis.  As in the amendments to subpart J, the proposed
definition of a SRP would include the sulfur pit.

Initial compliance with the emission limit for combined SO2 and reduced
sulfur compounds is demonstrated by conducting a performance evaluation
for the SO2 CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 2 in
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, with Method 6, 6A, or 6C in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A as the Reference Method to determine the SO2
concentration, and Method 15 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A as the
Reference Method to determine the SO2-equivalent concentration of the
reduced sulfur compounds.  The results of the test using Method 15 are
also used to demonstrate initial compliance with the H2S concentration
limit.  Initial compliance with the mass sulfur emission limit is
demonstrated by conducting a performance test as described above to
determine the combined SO2 and SO2-equivalent concentration, and then
converting that concentration to a mass fraction using the volumetric
flow rate of effluent gas and the mass rate of sulfur recovery during
the performance test.

Ongoing compliance with the combined SO2 and reduced sulfur compounds
emission limit would be determined using a CEMS that uses an air or O2
dilution and oxidation system to convert the reduced sulfur to SO2 and
then measures the total resultant SO2 concentration.  An O2 monitor
would also be required for converting the measured combined SO2
concentration to the concentration at 0 percent O2.  Ongoing compliance
with the mass sulfur emission limit would be determined using the same
types of CEMS.  A flow monitor that continuously monitors the volumetric
flow rate of gases released to the atmosphere would be required so that
the mass emitted can be calculated.  The hourly sulfur production rates
would also have to be tracked so that mass fraction emitted can be
calculated and compared with the proposed 1 percent emission limit.

Ongoing compliance with the H2S concentration limit would be determined
using either an H2S CEMS or, if the SRP is equipped with an oxidation
control system or followed by incineration, by continuous monitoring of
the operating temperature and O2 concentration.  Minimum operating
limits for the operating temperature and O2 concentration would be
established during the performance test.

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

	The proposed standards for new process heaters include both SO2 and NOx
emission limits.  Because of this, the fuel gas combustion units as
defined in the existing subpart J standards were divided into two
separate affected sources:  “process heaters” and “other fuel gas
combustion devices.”  The primary sulfur oxides emission limit for new
process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices is 20 ppmv or less
SO2 (dry at 0 percent excess air) on a 3-hour rolling average basis and
8 ppmv or less on a 365-day rolling average basis.  For process heaters
that use only fuel gas and other fuel gas combustion devices, we are
proposing an alternative concentration limit of 160 ppmv or less H2S or
total reduced sulfur (TRS) in the fuel gas on a 3-hour rolling average
basis (as in the existing NSPS) and 60 ppmv or less H2S or TRS in the
fuel gas on a 365-day rolling averaging basis.  The TRS concentration
limit is required for new fuel gas combustion devices that combust fuel
gas generated from coking units (as either the only fuel or as a mixture
of fuel gases from other units).  On the other hand, new fuel gas
combustion devices that do not combust fuel gas generated from coking
units are required to monitor H2S concentrations.  Compliance would be
demonstrated either by measuring H2S (or TRS) in the fuel gas or by
measuring SO2 in the exhaust gas.

	Initial compliance with the 20 ppmv SO2 limit or the 160 ppmv H2S or
TRS concentration limits would be demonstrated by conducting a
performance evaluation for the CEMS.  The performance evaluation for an
SO2 CEMS would be conducted in accordance with Performance Specification
2 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, with Method 6, 6A, or 6C as the
Reference Method.  The performance evaluation for an H2S CEMS would be
conducted in accordance with Performance Specification 7 in 40 CFR part
60, with Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 as the Reference Method.  The
performance evaluation for a TRS CEMS would be conducted in accordance
with Performance Specification 7 in 40 CFR part 60, with Method 16 as
the Reference Method.  Ongoing compliance with the proposed sulfur
oxides emission limits would be determined using the applicable CEMS to
measure either H2S or TRS in the fuel gas being used for combustion or
SO2 in the exhaust gas to the atmosphere, averaged over the 3-hour and
365-day averaging periods.

	Similar to proposed clarifications for 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, we
are proposing a definition of “fuel gas” that includes exemptions
for vapors collected and combusted in an air pollution control device
installed to comply with specified wastewater or marine vessel loading
provisions.  Also similar to subpart J, we are proposing to exempt from
continuous monitoring fuel gas streams exempt under 40 CFR 60.102a(i)
and fuel gas streams that are inherently low in sulfur.  We are also
proposing to streamline the process for an owner or operator to
demonstrate that a fuel gas stream not explicitly exempted from
continuous monitoring is inherently low sulfur.

	The proposed NOx emission limits for new process heaters is 80 ppmv on
a 7-day rolling average basis (dry at 0 percent excess air).  Initial
compliance with the 80 ppmv emission limit would be demonstrated by
conducting a performance evaluation of the CEMS in accordance with
Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, with Method
7 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A as the Reference Method.  Ongoing
compliance with this emission limit would be determined using the CEMS
to measure NOx emissions as discharged to the atmosphere, averaged over
7-day periods.

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

Three work practice standards are proposed to reduce both VOC and SO2
emissions from flares, start-up/shutdown/malfunction events, and delayed
coker units.  First, the proposed rule requires all new fuel gas
producing units at a refinery to be designed and operated in such a way
that the fuel gas produced by the new process units does not routinely
discharge to a flare.  Second, a requirement for a start-up, shutdown
and malfunction plan that includes procedures to minimize discharges
either directly to the atmosphere or to the flare gas system during the
planned startup or shutdown of these units, procedures to minimize
emissions during malfunctions of the amine treatment system or sulfur
recovery plant, and procedures for conducting a root-cause analysis of
an emissions limit exceedance or process start-up, shutdown, upset, or
malfunction that causes a discharge into the atmosphere, either directly
or indirectly, from any refinery process unit subject to the provisions
of this subpart in excess of 500 lb per day (lb/d) of SO2.  Third, the
proposed rule would require delayed coking units to depressure to 5 lbs
per square inch gauge (psig) during reactor vessel depressuring and vent
the exhaust gases to the fuel gas system.  For new, reconstructed, or
modified units, we are co-proposing to require only the last of these
work practice standards, the requirement to depressure coking units to
the flare. 

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

Because we are proposing a new subpart to 40 CFR part 60 for affected
sources at petroleum refineries beginning construction, reconstruction,
or modification after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], our proposed amendments to subpart J of 40 CFR
part 60 would impact only those affected sources that are already
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.  The proposed amendments to this
subpart include clarifications of the current requirements and technical
corrections to the regulatory language.  These changes to subpart J of
40 CFR part 60 are discussed below.

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

As we conducted our review of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, we found that
the definition of “fuel gas” has been broadly interpreted by States
and EPA Regions over the last 30 years.  Because of the increasing
complexity of petroleum refineries, this interpretation may be more
inclusive than originally intended in the 1970s.  We agree that the
interpretation ensures that all streams that could be considered fuel
gas and have the potential for high-sulfur emissions are included in the
regulatory requirements, but we recognize that this broad definition has
resulted in application of the fuel gas concentration limits to fuel gas
streams and combustion devices that were not originally considered in
the standards development process.  Furthermore, had these extended
applications been considered in the standards development process, some
of the applications would have been found to be either technically or
economically infeasible.  The existing requirements in subpart J of 40
CFR part 60 do recognize and limit the applicability of the fuel gas
concentration limits to certain gas streams.  For example, 40 CFR
60.101(d) excludes gases generated by catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators and fluid coking burners from the definition of “fuel
gas.”  These gases were excluded because the sulfur in the gases
generated by the catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fluid
coking burners is in the form of sulfur oxides rather than H2S.  As
such, these gases are not amenable to amine treatment, which was the
primary treatment technique on which the fuel gas concentration limits
were based.  In addition, 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1) exempts process upset
gases or fuel gas released to the flare as a result of relief valve
leakage or emergency malfunctions from the fuel gas H2S concentration
limits.  In this case, it was determined that requiring treatment of
these gases was either technically or economically infeasible. 
Therefore, it is entirely in keeping with the regulatory intent of the
NSPS and the specific requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J to
exclude or exempt sources based on technical and economic
considerations.

Since the development of the refinery fuel gas concentration limits in
the early 1970s, EPA has developed numerous other standards in which
incineration was promoted as a best air pollution management practice
for certain organic vapors which had traditionally been released
directly to the atmosphere.  These gas streams were never considered in
the development of the 40 CFR part 60, subpart J standards because they
were not directed to a fuel gas combustion device at the time.  As such,
the technical and economical feasibility of meeting the fuel gas
concentration limits was not specifically evaluated for these gas
streams at that time.  During our review, we evaluated the application
of the fuel gas concentration limits to a variety of process gas streams
that did not exist in the early 1970s.  We concluded that most of these
gas streams are amenable to amine treatment and that it is both
technically and economically feasible to treat those gas streams to meet
the fuel gas concentration limits.  However, we identified a few
specific streams that are not readily amenable to amine treatment (or
direct diversion to the SRP) and/or are not cost-effective to amine
treat due to the typically low (but potentially variable) H2S content
and the typical location of these gas streams in relationship to the
primary processing units at the refinery.

As a result of this evaluation, we are proposing to change the
requirements of the fuel gas concentration limits in keeping with a
broad definition of fuel gas, but recognizing the technical and economic
issues related to certain fuel gas streams or combustion devices. 
Specifically, we are proposing to exempt from the definition of “fuel
gas” vapors that are collected and combusted in an air pollution
control device installed to comply with the Standards of Performance for
VOC Emissions From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR part
60, subpart QQQ), National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste
Operations (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF), the National Emission Standards
for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y),
or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC), specifically either
40 CFR 63.647 or 40 CFR 63.651.  The wastewater and marine vessel
loading sources subject to these specific regulations are often located
at the edge of the refinery property, if not off-site, and compliance
with the regulations is generally demonstrated by capturing and
combusting the organic vapors.  The collected gases generally have low
sulfur content, but variability in the products being loaded and in
wastewater treatment process operations may result in the collected
gases exceeding the current fuel gas concentration limits for short
periods of time.  Due to the typical low sulfur content of these gases,
they are not generally suitable for amine treatment; due to the presence
of O2 in these collected gases, they cannot be routed to the fuel gas
system.  Furthermore, these sources are typically far from amine
treatment or the SRP, and it is not economically reasonable to propose
control beyond the existing regulations for these sources (e.g.,
requiring these streams to be routed to sulfur treatment rather than
being combusted).  Therefore, we are proposing to amend the definition
of “fuel gas” in 40 CFR 60.101(d) to exclude from the fuel gas
concentration limits the vapors collected and combusted in air pollution
control devices to comply with the specified regulations in 40 CFR part
60, subpart QQQ, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, or 40 CFR part 63, subparts
Y or CC.  The thermal combustion control devices would still be
considered affected fuel gas combustion devices and all auxiliary fuel
fired to these devices would be subject to the fuel gas concentration
limit; however, continuous monitoring would not be required for the
collected vapors that are being incinerated because these gases would
not be considered fuel gases under the proposed definition of “fuel
gas” in subpart J.

We are also proposing to clarify that monitoring is not required for
fuel gas streams that are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR
60.104(a)(1).  These streams include process upset gases or fuel gases
that are released to the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or
other emergency malfunctions.  To clarify this point, the proposed
introductory text for 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv) specifies that continuous
monitoring is not required for streams that are exempt from 40 CFR
60.104(a)(1).  We are also proposing to add the phrase “for fuel gas
combustion devices subject to 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1)” after “Instead of
the SO2 monitor in paragraph (a)(3) of this section” in 40 CFR
60.105(a)(4).  This proposed amendment is more consistent with the
language in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3).  Given our intent not to require fuel
gas monitoring of process upset gases, combustion devices such as
emergency flares would likely not require monitoring unless sources
other than process upset gases are burned, such as routine vents or
sweep gas.  We are aware of issues related to the identification and
exemption of these units from fuel gas monitoring.  We are requesting
comment on the need to provide specific language exempting these units,
and on appropriate methods for identifying emergency flares and 
verifying on an ongoing basis that no flaring of nonexempt gases is
occurring.

In addition to the exemptions described in the previous paragraphs, we
are proposing to exempt certain fuel gas streams from all monitoring
requirements.  These streams would still be subject to the fuel gas
concentration limits, but since we do not expect that these streams
would exceed this limit (except in the case of a process upset or
malfunction, in which case the fuel gases would be exempt from meeting
the limit), continuous monitoring of these streams is unnecessary.  We
have divided these streams into four overall categories, as specified in
proposed 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D).  The first category
includes pilot gas flames, which are fairly insignificant sources. 
Although previous determinations effectively excluded these gases from
the requirements of the rule, we believe it is good air pollution
control practice to fire pilot lights with natural gas or treated fuel
gas.  However, even when considering the pilot flame as part of the fuel
gas combustion device, the potential for sulfur oxide emissions from
these sources is insignificant and it is not cost-effective to require
continuous monitoring of these gas streams.  Therefore, we are changing
in the monitoring requirements that monitoring of pilot flame fuel gas
is not required.

The second category includes gas streams that meet commercial-grade
product specifications with a sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less. 
Placing a limit on the sulfur content of the products that we are
proposing to exempt from monitoring ensures that only low-sulfur
products are excluded.  The 30 ppmv limit for commercial-grade gas
products was selected because it provides a sufficient margin of safety
to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed annual average H2S
concentration limit of 60 ppmv regardless of normal fluctuations in the
composition of commercial grade products.

We are requesting comment on the appropriateness of an additional
exemption for gas streams that were generated from certain
commercial-grade liquid products (e.g., displaced vapors from a storage
tank or loading rack for gasoline or diesel fuel).  The most
straightforward approach would be to exempt gas streams associated with
commercial liquid products that contain sulfur below some specified
weight percent level.  For example, we expect that most of the
sulfur-containing compounds in gasoline meeting the Tier 2 sulfur
standards or in diesel fuel meeting the low-sulfur diesel fuel standards
have high molecular weights and low vapor pressures such that gas
streams in equilibrium with them would have sulfur contents below the
proposed 30 ppmv level.  To confirm this assumption, we are asking for
data on the typical concentrations and vapor pressures of the most
prevalent mercaptans, thiophenes, and other sulfur-containing compounds
in these or other commercial liquid products.  

We would use these data to calculate the corresponding vapor phase
concentrations of gas streams in equilibrium with the liquid products
using Raoult’s Law.  Given the extremely low concentrations of the
sulfur-containing compounds in the liquid products, we are also seeking
comment on whether Raoult’s Law gives a realistic estimate of their
vapor phase partial pressures.  We are also interested in any test data
to support this approach, and we are interested in any other approaches
to develop an exemption for gas streams associated with commercial-grade
liquid products.

The third category includes fuel gases produced by process units that
are intolerant of sulfur contamination.  There are a few process units
within a refinery whose operation is dependent on keeping the sulfur
content low.  If there is too much sulfur in the gas streams entering
these units, the process units could malfunction.  Specifically, the
methane reforming unit in the hydrogen plant, the catalytic reforming
unit, and the isomerization unit are intolerant of sulfur in the process
streams; therefore, these streams are treated to remove sulfur prior to
processing in these units.  Fuel gases subsequently formed in these
process units are low in sulfur because the process feedstocks are
necessarily low in sulfur.  As such, we find that requiring continuous
monitoring of the H2S content in these gas streams or requiring each
individual refinery to develop and implement an alternative monitoring
plan (AMP) is unnecessary and creates needless obstacles to using the
produced fuel gas directly in the heaters associated with these process
units.  We are asking for comment on whether fuel gas is generated from
any other process units that are intolerant of sulfur.  Comments
recommending the exemption of fuel gas streams from other units should
identify the problems sulfur cause in the unit, procedures used to
reduce sulfur in the gas stream before it is processed in the unit, and
the expected sulfur content of the outlet fuel gas stream.

For all of the above low-sulfur streams that an owner or operator
determines are exempt from all monitoring requirements, the owner or
operator must document which of the exemptions applies to each stream. 
If the refinery operations associated with an exempt stream change, the
owner or operator must document the change and determine whether the
stream continues to be exempt.  If the refinery operations or the
composition of an exempt stream change in such a way that the stream is
no longer exempt from monitoring, the owner or operator must begin
continuous monitoring within 15 days after the change occurs.

In addition, we are proposing a standardized, streamlined procedure to
exempt from continuous monitoring streams that an owner or operator can
demonstrate are inherently low-sulfur (i.e., consistently 5 ppmv or less
H2S) following the procedures specified in proposed 40 CFR 60.105(b). 
The information that an owner or operator must provide to EPA is similar
to the information and items needed to apply for an AMP, as described in
the EPA document “Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J
Refinery Fuel Gas.”  In general, once an AMP is approved for an
affected source, the owner or operator must continue to monitor the
stream, although a methodology other than a continuous monitor may be
used.  For this specific exemption, however, once an application to
demonstrate that a stream is inherently low-sulfur is approved by EPA,
that stream is exempt from monitoring until there is a change in the
refinery operation that affects the stream or the stream composition
changes.  If the sulfur content of the stream changes but is still
within the range of concentrations included in the original application,
the owner or operator will conduct H2S testing on a grab sample as proof
and record the results of the test.  If the sulfur content of the stream
changes such that the sulfur concentration is outside the range provided
in the original application, the owner or operator must submit a new
application that must be approved in order for the stream to continue to
be exempt from continuous monitoring.  If a new application is not
submitted, the owner or operator must begin continuous monitoring within
15 days.

B.  How is EPA proposing to amend definitions?

We are proposing to amend the definition of “Claus sulfur recovery
plant” in 40 CFR 60.101(i).  These changes would clarify that the SRP
may consist of multiple units, and the types of units that are part of a
SRP would be listed within the definition.  Note that sulfur pits would
be included as one of the units, which is consistent with the Agency’s
current interpretation of the existing definition.

In conjunction with this amendment, we are also proposing to amend the
definitions of “oxidation control system” and “reduction control
system” in 40 CFR 60.101(j) and 40 CFR 60.101(k), respectively.  The
amended definitions would specify that the oxidized or reduced sulfur is
recycled to the beginning of a sulfur recovery train within the SRP and
are consistent with the proposed definitions in 40 CFR 60.101a of
subpart Ja.  This clarification would ensure that thermal oxidizers that
convert the sulfur to SO2 but do not recycle and recover the oxidized
sulfur are not considered oxidation control systems.

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

	The current equation for calculating coke burn-off rate in 40 CFR
60.106(b)(3) assumes that each fluid catalytic cracking unit is using
air with 21 percent O2.  However, there are some fluid catalytic
cracking units that use O2-enriched air, and for these units, the
current equation is not completely accurate.  Equation 1 in 40 CFR
63.1564(b)(4)(i) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries:  Catalytic Cracking Units,
Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUU) includes an additional term to account for the use of an
O2-enriched air stream.  For accuracy in the calculation of the coke
burn-off rate, we are proposing to revise the coke burn-off rate
equation in 40 CFR 60.106(b)(3) to be consistent with the equation in 40
CFR 63.1564(b)(4)(i).  This revision also includes changing the constant
values and the units of the resulting coke burn-off rate from Megagrams
per hour (Mg/hr) and tons per hour (tons/hr) to kilograms per hour
(kg/hr) and pounds per hour (lb/hr).

D.  What miscellaneous corrections are being proposed?

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

Table 1.  Proposed Technical Corrections to 40 CFR part 60, Subpart J.

Section	Proposed Technical 

Correction and Reason

60.100	Replace instances of “construction or modification” with
“construction, reconstruction, or modification.”

60.100(b)	Replace “except Claus plants of 20 long tons per day (LTD)
or less” with “except Claus plants with a design capacity of 20 long
tons per day (LTD) or less” to clarify that the size cutoff is based
upon design capacity and sulfur content in the inlet stream rather than
the amount of sulfur produced.

60.100(b)	Insert ending date for applicability of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J; sources beginning construction, reconstruction, or
modification after this date will be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ja.

60.101	Rearrange definitions alphabetically for ease in locating a
specific definition.

60.102(b)	Replace “g/MJ” with “grams per Gigajoule (g/GJ)” to
correct units.

60.104(b)(1)	Replace “50 ppm by volume (vppm)” with “50 ppm by
volume (ppmv)” for consistency in unit definition.

60.104(b)(2)	Add “to reduce SO2 emissions” to the end of the phrase
“Without the use of an add-on control device” at the beginning of
the paragraph to clarify the type of control device to which this
paragraph refers.

60.105(a)(3)	Add “either” before “an instrument for continuously
monitoring” and replace “except where an H2S monitor is installed
under paragraph (a)(4)” with “or monitoring as provided in paragraph
(a)(4)” to more accurately refer to the requirements of §60.105(a)(4)
and clarify that there is a choice of monitoring requirements.

60.105(a)(3)(iv)	Replace “accurately represents the S2 emissions”
with “accurately represents the SO2 emissions” to correct a
typographical error.

60.105(a)(4)	Replace “In place” with “Instead” at the beginning
of this paragraph to clarify that there is a choice of monitoring
requirements.

60.105(a)(8)	Replace “seeks to comply with §60.104(b)(1)” with
“seeks to comply specifically with the 90 percent reduction option
under §60.104(b)(1)” to clearly identify the emission limit option to
which the monitoring requirement in this paragraph refers.

60.105(a)(8)(i)	Change “shall be set 125 percent” to “shall be set
at 125 percent” to correct a grammatical error.

60.106(e)(2)	Replace the incorrect reference to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(1) with
a correct reference to 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1).

60.107(c)(1)(i)	Replace both occurrences of “50 vppm” with “50
ppmv” for consistency in unit definition.

60.107(f)	Redesignate current 40 CFR 60.107(e) as 40 CFR 60.107(f) to
allow space for a new paragraph (e).

60.107(g)	Redesignate current 40 CFR 60.107(f) as 40 CFR 60.107(g) to
allow space for a new paragraph (e).

60.108(e)	Replace the incorrect reference to 40 CFR 60.107(e) with a
correct reference to 40 CFR 60.107(f).

60.109(b)(2)	Add a reference to 40 CFR 60.106(e)(3) to specify that
determining whether a fuel gas stream is low-sulfur may not be delegated
to States.

60.109(b)(3)	Redesignate current 40 CFR 60.109(b)(2) as 40 CFR
60.109(b)(3) to allow space for a new paragraph (b)(2).

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

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

1.  PM Control Technologies

	Filterable PM emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units are
predominately fine catalyst particles generated from the mechanical
grinding of catalyst particles as the catalyst is continuously
recirculated between the fluid catalytic cracking unit and the catalyst
regenerator.  Control of PM emissions from fluid catalytic cracking
units relies on the use of post-combustion controls to remove solid
particles from the flue gases.  Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and
wet scrubbers are the predominant technologies used to control PM from
fluid catalytic cracking units.  Either of these PM control technologies
can be designed to achieve overall PM collection efficiencies in excess
of 95 percent.  

	Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP).  An ESP operates by imparting an
electrical charge to incoming particles, and then attracting the
particles to oppositely charged metal plates for collection. 
Periodically, the particles collected on the plates are dislodged in
sheets or agglomerates (by rapping the plates) and fall into a
collection hopper.  The normal PM control efficiency range for an ESP is
between 90 and 99+ percent.  One of the major advantages of an ESP is
that it operates with essentially little pressure drop in the gas
stream.  They are also capable of handling high temperature conditions. 

Wet Scrubbers.  Wet scrubbers use a water spray to coat and agglomerate
particles entrained in the flue gas.  To improve wetting of fine
particulates, either enhanced spray nozzles or venturi acceleration is
used.  The wetted particles are then removed from the flue gas through
centrifugal separation.  Wet scrubbers have similar collection
efficiencies as dry ESP (90 to 98 percent), but they are also effective
in removing SO2 emissions.  Wet scrubbers may also be more effective in
controlling condensable PM as they often use water quench and thereby
operate at lower temperatures than ESP used to control fluid catalytic
cracking units.  Wet scrubbers are generally more costly to operate than
ESP due to higher pressure drops across the control device and because
of water treatment and disposal costs.  However, they become
economically viable if significant SO2 emissions reductions are also
needed.

	Fabric Filters.  A fabric filter collects PM in the flue gases by
passing the gases through a porous fabric material.  The buildup of
solid particles on the fabric surface forms a thin, porous layer of
solids, which further acts as a filtration medium.  Gases pass through
this cake/fabric filter, and all but the finest-sized particles are
trapped on the cake surface.  Collection efficiencies of fabric filters
can be as high as 99.99 percent.  Fabric filters tend to be more
efficient for fine particles (those less than 2.5 microns in diameter)
than ESP or wet scrubbers.

	The primary concern with fabric filters are maintenance requirements of
the baghouses given the long run times of typical fluid catalytic
cracking units.  Small process upsets (e.g., pressure changes) in the
fluid catalytic cracking unit and regenerator system can send high
concentrations of particles to the control system.  These particles
would likely blind the filter bags, causing a shut-down of the unit to
replace the filter bags.  Wet scrubbers and ESP can more easily
accommodate and control high concentrations of particles.

2.  SO2 Control Technologies

	During combustion, sulfur compounds present in the deposited coke are
predominately oxidized to gaseous SO2.  One approach to controlling SO2
emissions from catalytic cracking units is to limit the maximum sulfur
content in the feedstock to the catalytic cracking unit.  This can be
accomplished by processing crude oil that naturally contains low amounts
of sulfur or a feedstock that has been pre-treated to remove sulfur
(i.e., hydrotreatment or hydrodesulfurization).  A second approach is to
use a post-combustion control technology that removes SO2 from the flue
gases.  These technologies rely on either absorption or adsorption
processes that react SO2 with lime, limestone, or another alkaline
material to form an aqueous or solid sulfur by-product.  A third
approach is the use of catalyst additives, which capture sulfur oxides
in the regenerator and return them to the fluid catalytic cracking
reactor where they are transformed to H2S that is ultimately exhausted
to the SRP.

	Feedstock Selection or Pre-Treatment.  The SO2 emissions from the fluid
catalytic cracking unit are directly related to the amount of sulfur
deposited on the catalyst particles in the riser and reactor section of
the unit.  The amount of sulfur deposited on the catalyst is a function
of both the amount of sulfur in the feedstocks and the relative
composition of the sulfur-containing compounds in the feedstocks
(mercaptans, thiosulfates).  As the concentration of sulfur in the
feedstocks is reduced, the SO2 emissions from the regenerator portion of
the unit are also reduced.  Therefore, if a refinery processes
“sweet” crude (oil naturally low in sulfur) or if a refinery removes
sulfur from the feedstocks of the fluid catalytic cracking unit, the SO2
emissions from the catalyst regenerator will be lower than from
refineries that process feedstocks that have higher sulfur content.  At
a petroleum refinery, the primary means of removing sulfur compounds in
the liquid feedstocks is catalytic hydrotreatment.  Hydrotreatment
typically reduces the sulfur content in process streams to between 20
and 1,000 parts per million by weight.

	Alkali Wet Scrubbing.  The SO2 in a flue gas can be removed by reacting
the sulfur compounds with a solution of water and an alkaline chemical
to form insoluble salts that are removed in the scrubber effluent.  Wet
scrubbing processes used to control SO2 are generally termed flue-gas
desulfurization (FGD) processes.  The normal SO2 control efficiency
range for SO2 scrubbers is 80 percent to 90 percent for low efficiency
scrubbers and 90 percent to 99 percent for high efficiency scrubbers. 
In recent fluid catalytic cracking unit applications, control guarantees
of 25 ppmv SO2 are commonly provided by FGD suppliers.

	Spray Dryer Adsorption.  An alternative to using wet scrubbers is to
use spray dryer adsorber (SDA) technology.  A SDA operates by the same
principle as alkali wet scrubbing, except that instead of a bulk liquid
(as in wet scrubbing) the flue gas containing SO2 is contacted with fine
spray droplets of hydrated lime slurry in a spray dryer vessel.  This
vessel is located downstream of the air heater outlet where the gas
temperatures are in the range of 120OC to 180OC (250OF to 350OF).  The
SO2 is absorbed in the slurry and reacts with the hydrated lime reagent
to form solid calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate.  The water is
evaporated by the hot flue gases and forms dry, solid particles
containing the reacted sulfur.  Most of the SO2 removal occurs in the
spray dryer vessel itself, although some additional SO2 capture has also
been observed in downstream particulate collection devices.  The SO2
removal efficiencies of new lime spray dryer systems are generally
greater than 90 percent.  Only one refinery has ever used an SDA to
control SO2 from its fluid catalytic cracking unit; this system has
since been removed in favor of feedstock hydrotreatment.

	Catalyst Additives.  One common method used by refineries to reduce SO2
emissions from the fluid catalytic cracking unit is the use of catalyst
additives (typically various types of metal oxides).  The metal oxide
reacts with some of the SO3 in the catalyst regenerator to form a metal
sulfate.  The metal sulfate is then returned to the cracking unit where
the sulfur is converted to a metal sulfide and then to H2S and the
original metal oxide.  The H2S is subsequently recovered in the SRP, and
the metal oxide returns to the catalyst regenerator to repeat the
process.  The control efficiency of catalyst additives is difficult to
assess, but is generally around 50 percent (ranging from 20 to 70
percent, depending on the application).

3.  NOx Control Technologies

	NOx are formed in a catalyst regenerator (and downstream CO boiler, if
present) by the oxidation of molecular nitrogen (N2) in the combustion
air and any nitrogen compounds contained in the fuel (i.e., thermal NOx
and fuel NOx).  The formation of NOx from nitrogen in the combustion air
is dependent on two conditions occurring simultaneously in the unit's
combustion zone:  high temperature and an excess of combustion air. 
Under these conditions, significant quantities of NOx are formed,
regardless of the fuel type burned.  There are several NOx emission
control strategies that can be considered combustion controls (e.g., low
NOx burners or flue gas recirculation) that reduce the amounts of NOx
formed during combustion.  These control technologies are primarily
applicable to incomplete combustion fluid catalytic cracking units
controlled by CO boilers.  As there is limited or no direct flame in the
catalyst regenerator during normal operations, these control strategies
may be limited for complete combustion fluid catalytic cracking units. 
Most post-combustion control technologies involve converting the NOx in
the flue gas to N2 and water using either a process that requires a
catalyst (called selective catalytic reduction (SCR)) or a process that
does not use a catalyst (called selective noncatalytic reduction
(SNCR)).  A recently developed post-combustion technology (LoTOxTM) uses
ozone to oxidize NOx to nitric pentoxide, which is water soluble and
easily removed in a water scrubber. 

	NOx Combustion Controls.  Flue gas recirculation (FGR) uses flue gas as
an inert material to reduce flame temperatures.  In a typical FGR
system, flue gas is collected from the heater or stack and returned to
the burner via a duct and blower.  The addition of flue gas with the
combustion air reduces the O2 content of the inlet air stream to the
burner.  The lower O2 level in the combustion zone reduces flame
temperatures which in turn reduces NOx emissions.  The normal NOx
control efficiency range for FGR is 30 percent to 50 percent.  When
coupled with low-NOx burners (LNB), the control efficiency increases to
50-72 percent.

LNB technology utilizes advanced burner design to reduce NOx formation
through the restriction of O2, flame temperature, and/or residence time.
 The two general types of LNB are staged fuel and staged air burners. 
Staged fuel LNB are particularly well suited for boilers and process
heaters burning process and natural gas which generate higher thermal
NOx.  The estimated NOx control efficiency for LNB when applied to
petroleum refining fuel burning equipment is generally around 40
percent.

	One NOx combustion control technique that is applicable to complete
combustion fluid catalytic cracking units is the use of catalyst
additives and/or combustion promoters.  The control efficiency of these
additives varies from 10 to 50 percent.

	Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology.  The SCR process uses a
catalyst with ammonia (NH3) to reduce the nitrogen oxide (NO) and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the flue gas to N2 and water.  Ammonia is
diluted with air or steam, and this mixture is injected into the flue
gas upstream of a metal catalyst bed that typically is composed of
vanadium, titanium, platinum, or zeolite.  The SCR catalyst bed reactor
is usually located between the economizer outlet and air heater inlet
where temperatures range from 230ºC to 400ºC (450ºF to 750ºF).  The
SCR technology is capable of NOx reduction efficiencies of 90 percent or
higher.

	Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) Technology.  An SNCR process is
based on the same basic chemistry of reducing the NO and NO2 in the flue
gas to N2 and water, but it does not require the use of a catalyst to
promote these reactions.  Instead, the reducing agent is injected into
the flue gas stream at a point where the flue gas temperature is within
a specific temperature range of 870ºC to 1,090ºC (1,600ºF to
2,000ºF).  The NOx reduction levels for SNCR are in the range of
approximately 30 to 50 percent.

	LoTOxTM Technology.  The LoTOxTM process (i.e., low–temperature
oxidation) is a patented technology that uses ozone to oxidize NOx to
nitric pentoxide and other higher order NOx, all of which are water
soluble and easily removed from exhaust gas in a wet scrubber.  The
system operates optimally at temperatures below 300°F.  Thus, ozone is
injected after scrubber inlet quench nozzles and before the first level
of scrubbing nozzles.  Outlet NOx emission levels have been reduced to
less than 20 ppmv, and often as low as 10 ppmv, when inlet NOx
concentrations ranged from 50 to 200 ppmv.

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

Refinery fuel gas is generally used in process heaters and boilers to
meet the energy demands of the refinery.  Excess refinery fuel gas is
typically combusted using flares.  Flares also serve an important safety
function to destroy organics and convert H2S to SO2 during process
upsets and malfunctions.  

Over the past several years, many refineries have reduced flaring
episodes by adding flare gas recovery systems and/or by changing their
start-up and shutdown procedures to limit flaring.  Installing a flare
gas recovery system and implementing new start-up and shutdown
procedures are expected to reduce VOC, sulfur oxides, and NOx emissions
from flares.  Improved amine scrubbing systems are expected to reduce
sulfur oxide emissions from all fuel gas combustion systems.  In
addition, excess capacity in the SRP will help to minimize sour gas
flaring that might be caused by a malfunction in the SRP.  Each of these
“control” techniques are described in the following paragraphs.

Flare Gas Recovery Systems.  Flare gas recovery systems recover fuel gas
from the flare gas header prior to the flare’s liquid seal.  A flare
gas recovery system consists of a compressor, separator, and process
controls (to maintain slight positive pressure on the flare header). 
Flare gas recovery systems are typically designed to recover fuel gas
from miscellaneous processes that might regularly be relieved to the
flare header system and can effectively recover 100 percent of these
fuel gases.  However, flare gas recovery systems cannot recover large
quantities of fuel gas that might be suddenly released to the flare
header system as a result of a process upset or malfunction.  These
gases would still be flared as necessary to maintain the integrity of
the process units and the safety of the plant personnel.

Modified Start-up and Shutdown Procedures.  Although flaring is
necessary to ensure safety during process upsets and malfunctions,
start-up and shutdown procedures can be designed so as to minimize
flaring.  For example, depressurization of process vessels can be
performed more slowly so as to not overwhelm the fuel gas needs of the
refinery and/or the capacity of the flare gas recovery system. 
Depending on the number of units being shut down at a given time, nearly
100 percent of flaring can be eliminated during start-up and shutdown. 
There are cases, such as emergency shutdowns for safety reasons or
approaching hurricanes, where the timing of the shutdown and the
magnitude of the number of processes needing to be shut down would
warrant the use of flaring.  However, modified procedures should be able
to eliminate flaring associated with process start-ups and shutdowns due
to routine maintenance of select processes.

Amine Scrubbers.  Amine scrubber systems remove H2S and other impurities
from sour gas.  Lean amine solution absorbs the H2S from the sour gas in
an absorption tower.  The acid gas is removed from the rich amine
solution in a stripper, or still column.  The resulting lean amine is
recirculated to the absorption tower, and the stripped H2S is generally
sent to the SRP.  Vendors generally provide redundant pumps to ensure
continuous operation of the system.  Some refineries choose to store a
day’s worth of lean amine solution in case the stripper fails; this
allows the continuous operation of the absorption tower.  This option
also requires adequate empty storage space for the rich amine solution
produced by the absorption tower while the stripper is out of service.

Redundant Sulfur Recovery Capacity.  When a sulfur recovery unit (SRU)
malfunctions, the sour gas is typically flared to convert the highly
toxic H2S to less toxic SO2.  As many SRU recover more than 20 long tons
of elemental sulfur per day, even short sulfur recovery process upsets
can result in several tons of SO2 emissions.  Furthermore, refineries
often operate multiple Claus sulfur recovery processes in parallel. 
Having an extra Claus sulfur recovery train can dramatically reduce the
likelihood of sour gas flaring.  Depending on the severity of the
process upset, having a redundant SRU can reduce these large SO2
releases by as much as 100 percent.

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

	The mechanisms by which NOx are formed in process heaters are the same
as for their formation in catalyst regenerators.  The possible control
options are also the same.  See section V.A.3 of this preamble for a
discussion of these formation mechanisms and control technologies.

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

	Sulfur recovery (the conversion of H2S to elemental sulfur) is
typically accomplished using the modified-Claus process.  In the Claus
unit, one-third of the H2S is burned with air in a reaction furnace to
yield SO2.  The SO2 then reacts reversibly with H2S in the presence of a
catalyst to produce elemental sulfur, water, and heat.  This is a
multi-stage catalytic reaction in which elemental sulfur is removed
between each stage, thereby driving the reversible reaction towards
completion.  The gas from the final condenser of the Claus unit
(referred to as the "tail gas") consists primarily of inert gases with
less than 2 percent sulfur compounds.  Additionally, the sulfur recovery
pits used to store the recovered elemental sulfur also have a potential
for fugitive H2S emissions.  Typically a Claus unit recovers
approximately 94 to 97 percent of the inlet sulfur load as elemental
sulfur. 

There are some methods that extend the Claus reaction to improve the
overall sulfur collection efficiency of the SRP.  For example, the
Superclaus® SRU is similar to the Claus unit.  It contains a thermal
stage, followed by three to four catalytic reaction stages.  The first
two or three catalytic reactors use the Claus catalyst, while the last
reactor uses a selective oxidation catalyst.  The catalyst in the last
reactor oxidizes the H2S to sulfur at a very high efficiency, recovering
99 percent of the incoming sulfur. 

	There are a few refineries that operate non-Claus type SRU.  All of the
refineries that use non-Claus SRU technologies have very low sulfur
production rates (2 LTD or less).  There are several different trade
names for these "other" types of SRU, such as the LoCat®, Sulferox®,
and NaSH processes.  These processes can achieve sulfur recovery
efficiencies of 99 percent or more, although they typically yield a
sulfur product that has limited market value because the sulfur content
is much lower than in the sulfur product from a Claus unit (50 to 70
percent sulfur compared to 99.9 percent sulfur from the Claus process).

The primary means of reducing sulfur oxide emissions from the SRU is to
employ a tail gas treatment unit that recovers the sulfur compounds and
recycles them back to the inlet of the Claus treatment train.  There are
three basic types of tail gas treatment units:  (1) direct amine
adsorption of the Claus tail gas; (2) catalytic reduction of the tail
gas to convert as much of the tail gas sulfur compounds to H2S (coupled
with amine adsorption or Stretford solution eduction); and (3) oxidative
tail gas treatment systems to convert the Claus tail gas sulfur
compounds to SO2 (coupled with an SO2 recovery system).

	Direct Amine Adsorption.  Direct amine adsorption of the Claus tail gas
is the least efficient of the tail gas treatment methods because only
about two-thirds of the sulfur in the direct Claus tail gas is amenable
to scrubbing (i.e., in the form of H2S).  Direct amine adsorption is
therefore expected to increase the overall sulfur recovery efficiency of
the sulfur plant to approximately 99 percent.  However, direct amine
adsorption alone is generally not expected to reduce sulfur oxide
concentrations to below 250 ppmv (i.e., enough to meet the existing NSPS
emission limits for Claus units greater than 20 LTD).

Reductive Tail Gas Catalytic Systems.  The most common reductive tail
gas catalytic systems in use at refineries include:  (1) the Shell®
Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) unit; (2) the Beavon/amine system; and (3)
the Beavon/Stretford system.  Each of these systems consist of a
catalytic reactor to convert the sulfur compounds remaining in the Claus
tail gas to H2S and an H2S recovery system (an amine scrubber or a
Stretford solution) to strip the H2S from the tail gas.  The recovered
H2S is then recycled to the front of the Claus unit.  The overhead of
the amine scrubber or Stretford unit (caustic scrubber) may be vented to
the atmosphere or incinerated to convert any remaining H2S or other
reduced sulfur compounds to SO2.  The total sulfur recovery efficiency
of a Claus/catalytic tail gas treatment train is expected to be 99.7 to
99.9 percent.  

	Oxidative Tail Gas Treatment Systems.  The Wellman-Lord is the only
oxidative tail gas treatment system used in the United States.  The
Wellman-Lord process uses thermal oxidation followed by scrubbing with a
sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite solution to remove SO2.  The rich
bisulfite solution is sent to an evaporator-recrystallizer where the
bisulfite decomposes to SO2 and water and sodium sulfite is
precipitated.  The recovered SO2 is then recycled back to the Claus
plant for sulfur recovery.  The total sulfur recovery efficiency of a
Claus/oxidative tail gas treatment train is expected to be 99.7 to 99.9
percent.

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

	Four sources of information were considered in reviewing the
appropriateness of the current NSPS requirements for new sources:  (1)
source test data from recently installed control systems; (2) applicable
State and local regulations; (3) control vendor emission control
guarantees; and (4) consent decrees.  (A significant number of
refineries, representing about 77 percent of the national refining
capacity, are subject to consent decrees that limit the emissions from
subpart J process units.)  Once we identified potential emission limits
for various process units, we evaluated each limit in conjunction with
control technology, costs, and emission reductions to determine BDT for
each process unit. 

	The cost methodology incorporates the calculation of annualized costs
and emission reductions associated with each of the options presented. 
Cost-effectiveness is the annualized cost of control divided by the
annual emission reductions achieved.  Incremental cost-effectiveness
refers to the difference in annualized cost from one option to the next
divided by the difference in emission reductions from one option to the
next.  For NSPS regulations, the standard metric for expressing costs
and emission reductions is the impact on all affected facilities
accumulated over the first 5 years of the regulation.  Details of the
calculations can be found in the public docket.  Our BDT determinations
took all relevant factors into account, including cost considerations
which were generally consistent with other Agency decisions. 

1.  Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units

	Particulate Matter (PM) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).  In order to
determine the appropriate emission limits for PM and SO2, we evaluated
PM and SO2 limits in conjunction with one another.  One of the reasons
for this is that wet scrubbers control both PM and SO2 emissions, and
refineries will decide whether to choose a wet scrubber as opposed to an
ESP with catalyst additives based on both the PM and the SO2 emission
limit to be met.  

Currently, 40 CFR part 60, subpart J limits PM emissions from the fluid
catalytic cracking unit to 1.0 kg/Mg of coke burn-off.  The limit
applies to filterable PM as measured by Method 5B or 5F in 40 CFR part
60, Appendix A.  It excludes condensable PM such as sulfuric acid (under
Method 5B), sulfates that condense at temperatures greater than 320°F
(under Method 5F), and all other condensables (using either Method). 
The measurement of condensable PM is important to EPA's goal of reducing
ambient air concentrations of fine PM.  Since promulgation of Method 202
in 1991, EPA has been working to overcome problems associated with the
accuracy of Method 202 and will promulgate improvements to the method in
the future.  The existing NSPS also requires opacity, as measured using
a continuous opacity monitoring system, to be no more than 30 percent.

The current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J for SO2 include three
alternative formats:  (1) if using an add-on control device, reduce SO2
emissions by at least 90 percent or to less than 50 ppmv, (2) if not
using an add-on control device, limit sulfur oxides emissions
(calculated as SO2) to no more than 9.8 kg/Mg of coke burn-off, or (3)
process in the fluid catalytic cracking unit fresh feed that has a total
sulfur content no greater than 0.30 percent by weight.  The 90 percent
reduction, 9.8 kg/Mg, and 0.3 percent feed sulfur formats were
determined to be equivalent for a unit operating with a feed that
contains 3.5 percent sulfur by weight before implementing a control
measure.

	In reviewing the PM and SO2 emission limits, we evaluated five combined
options and a baseline.  The baseline is considered to be the current
requirements, as described in the two previous paragraphs.  The first
option is to maintain the existing subpart J standard for PM and provide
only the 50 ppmv concentration limit for SO2.  The additional options
are a range of emission limits coupled with a change in the compliance
test method to Method 5 to measure a portion of the condensable PM.  The
second option is to combine Method 5 with the existing 1.0 kg/Mg coke
burn-off performance level, and a third option is to lower the PM
emission limit to 0.5 kg/Mg.  Both the second and third options include
an SO2 limit of 50 ppmv.  A fourth option includes the PM limit of 0.5
kg/Mg presented in the third option and a lower SO2 limit of 25 ppmv. 
The fifth option is to lower the PM emission limit to 0.15 kg/Mg with an
SO2 limit of 25 ppmv.  Costs and emission reductions for each option
were estimated as the increment between complying with subpart J and
subpart Ja.  

Option 1 includes the same emissions and requirements for PM as the
current 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.  For SO2, this option excludes the
alternative compliance options of meeting a higher emission limit
without an SO2 control device or meeting a limit on the sulfur content
of the fresh feed.  These two alternatives are less stringent than the
outlet concentration limit, and available information indicates the
concentration limits are achievable.  An advantage of the proposed
concentration limit is that ongoing compliance can be directly measured
using a CEMS.  The impacts of this option are limited to the impacts of
removing those alternative compliance options for SO2 and are presented
in Table 2 to this preamble.  To comply with Option 1 (i.e., meet the 50
ppmv limit for SO2) we expect that the fraction of new sources choosing
wet scrubbers instead of ESP would be greater than under the existing
subpart J.  Filterable PM emissions are assumed to be the same for both
types of control devices because the PM performance levels are the same
under both option 1 and the baseline subpart J requirements.  However,
because condensable PM emissions are lower from wet scrubbers than from
ESP, this shift in the ratio of wet scrubbers to ESP would also result
in an estimated reduction in total PM emissions of 17 tons per year, as
shown in Table 2 to this preamble.

Option 2 includes the same emission limit as current subpart J for PM
but requires compliance using Method 5 rather than Method 5B or Method
5F.  As noted above, Methods 5B and 5F exclude all PM that condenses at
temperatures below 320°F, and Method 5F also excludes sulfates that
condense at temperatures greater than 320°F.  The PM measured by Method
5 includes filterable PM that condense above 250°F in the front half of
the Method 5 sampling train.  Thus, the estimated PM emission reductions
achieved by this option equal the amount of sulfates and other
condensable PM between 250°F and 320°F that would be measured by
Method 5 but not Method 5B or 5F.  The baseline emissions were estimated
assuming Method 5B is used for wet scrubbers and Method 5F is used for
ESP.  For SO2, Option 2 includes the same emission limit as described in
Option 1, and the estimated SO2 emission reductions are also the same. 
The impacts of this option are presented in Table 2 to this preamble.

	Option 3 lowers the PM limit to 0.5 kg/Mg coke burn, again using Method
5, and includes the same emission limit as described in Option 1 for
SO2.  The existing NSPS limit was based on control with ESP.  Those ESP
were rated at efficiencies of only 85 to 90 percent.  More recently
installed ESP have greater specific plate area, which should result in
better control efficiencies.  In addition, many refineries have
installed wet scrubbers to control both PM and SO2.  At petroleum
refineries, wet scrubbers typically perform as well as, if not better
than, ESP.  Available test data indicate that at least one ESP and one
wet scrubber are reducing total filterable PM to 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn
or less, as measured by Method 5-equivalent test methods.  Based on this
information, both ESP and wet scrubbers can achieve PM emission levels
below the level of the existing PM standard, and a lower standard for
new units is technically feasible.  The impacts of this option are
presented in Table 2 to this preamble.

Option 4 includes the same PM limit as Option 3, and the discussion
presented for Option 3 applies to Option 4 as well.  It also includes a
long-term limit for SO2 of 25 ppmv, averaged over 365 days, in addition
to the current subpart J limit of 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 days.  These
limits have been shown to be readily achievable by flue gas
desulfurization systems.  Many fluid catalytic cracking units are now
subject to consent decrees that require control to these levels. 
Petroleum refiners typically use wet scrubbers to control SO2 emissions,
and test data indicate that outlet concentrations below 25 ppmv are
common.  At least one wet scrubber manufacturer also provides
performance guarantees to meet a 25 ppmv emission limit.  The
incremental SO2 reductions for this option relative to Option 3 are
achieved by using catalyst additives in the fluid catalytic cracking
units that are assumed to be controlled with ESP; fluid catalytic
cracking units controlled with wet scrubbers have the same SO2 emissions
as under Option 3 because wet scrubbers under all options are assumed to
achieve SO2 emissions below 25 ppmv.  The impacts of this option are
presented in Table 2 to this preamble.

	The final option, Option 5, includes a lower PM limit, 0.15 kg/Mg of
coke burn, measured using Method 5, and the same SO2 limits as Option 4.
 This PM limit is equivalent to the limit of 0.005 gr/dscf required by
California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).  To
meet this PM limit, we expect that a refinery would need an ESP rather
than a wet scrubber because we are unaware of any wet scrubber that is
meeting this PM limit (and as in Option 4, catalyst additives in the
fluid catalytic cracking unit would be needed to meet the SO2 limit). 
In addition, the refinery would likely need ammonia injection to improve
the performance of the ESP.  Based on test data from at least three
fluid catalytic cracking units, ammonia injection improves the control
of filterable PM in ESP, but it also produces a considerable amount of
condensable PM.  Therefore, the estimated total PM reduction for this
option is much lower (worse) than the reduction that would be achieved
under Option 4.  The shift to ESP for all new fluid catalytic cracking
units under this option also slightly degrades the estimated SO2
emissions reduction relative to Option 4 because available data indicate
that wet scrubbers achieve lower SO2 emissions than ESP and catalyst
additives.  In addition to reduced performance relative to Option 4, the
capital and annual costs of this option are considerably higher than for
Option 4.  The reduced performance of this option relative to Option 4
means that incremental cost-effectiveness is not meaningful for this
option.  The impacts of this option are presented in Table 2 to this
preamble.  

Table 2.  National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for PM and SO2 Limits
Considered for Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ja

Option	Capital Cost ($1,000)	Total Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)	Emission
Reduction (tons PM/yr)a	Emission Reduction (tons SO2/yr)
Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

	Overall	Incremental

1	500	3,100	17	6,800	460

	2	670	3,600	350	6,800	500	1,400

3	40,000	9,200	1,200	7,200	1,100	4,400

4	40,000	9,500	1,200	8,300	1,000	220

5	140,000	30,000	460	7,900	3,600	N/A

a Both filterable and condensable PM.

Based on our review of performance data and potential impacts, we have
determined that control of PM emissions (as measured by Method 5) to 0.5
kg/Mg of coke burn or less and control of SO2 emissions to 25 ppmv or
less averaged over 365 days and 50 ppmv or less averaged over 7 days is
BDT for new, reconstructed, or modified fluid catalytic cracking units. 
The more stringent filterable PM control level in Option 5 is
technically achievable, but we rejected this option because it results
in higher total PM and SO2 emissions than Option 4.  Option 4 was
selected as BDT because it achieves the best performance of the
remaining options, and both overall and incremental costs are
reasonable.

	Table 3 to this preamble shows the impacts of Option 4 for modified and
reconstructed sources.  Although the impacts of Option 4 are reasonable,
we are aware that there is some concern about the ability to retrofit
reconstructed and modified sources to meet these emission limits. 
Specifically, there may be issues with physical space availability,
process unit or control device configurations, or other factors that are
not adequately included in our impacts analyses.  Therefore, we are
co-proposing requiring reconstructed and modified units to meet the
current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.  We are requesting
comment on specific examples, supported by data, of situations that
would support this proposed option.

Table 3.  National Fifth Year Impacts of Proposed Option for PM and SO2
Limits for Reconstructed and Modified Sources

Capital Cost ($1,000)	Total Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)	Emission Reduction
(tons PM/yr)	Emission Reduction (tons SO2/yr)	Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

31,000	6,200	700	3,700	1,400

Finally, available test data indicate that the two control devices (an
ESP and a wet scrubber) that reduce filterable PM to less than 0.5 kg/Mg
coke burn (as well as at least one other ESP) also can meet a total PM
limit, including condensables, of 1.0 kg/Mg of coke burn (i.e.,
demonstrate compliance using Method 5 for filterable PM and Method 202
for condensable PM).  Condensable sulfates and other condensable
compounds measured by Method 5 and Method 202 vary widely, but the
average is about 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn-off.  In an attempt to create
some incentive to begin measuring condensables using improved Method
202, we are considering establishing an alternative PM limit of 1 kg/Mg
coke burn, including condensables.  Therefore, we are asking for
comments with rationale to either support or reject an alternative PM
limit that would be based on both filterable PM and condensable PM.

Carbon Monoxide.  The current standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J
limit CO emissions to 500 ppmv or less.  This limit was established for
fluid catalytic cracking units that operate in either “partial
combustion” catalyst regeneration mode or “complete combustion”
catalyst regeneration mode.  In partial combustion mode, relatively
large amounts of CO are generated in the regenerator.  The resulting CO
is then combusted in a CO or waste heat boiler.  This operation results
in nearly complete combustion of the CO, with outlet concentrations on
the order of 25 to 50 ppmv being common.  In complete combustion mode
the CO emissions from the regenerator are much lower, and a downstream
CO or waste heat boiler is impractical.  However, complete combustion
catalyst regeneration was a recent advance at the time the current NSPS
was promulgated; test data were limited at that time, and a CO level of
500 ppmv was estimated to be a practical limit for the technology. 

	After consideration of available information, we are proposing to
retain the current CO standard for new fluid catalytic cracking units. 
Although test data show CO emissions from complete combustion
regenerators can be less than 500 ppmv, the lower levels generally are
achieved by operating with higher levels of excess air.  Unfortunately,
this operation is likely to result in higher NOx emissions.  If a
trade-off is necessary, limiting NOx emissions is a higher priority than
limiting CO emissions because NOx is a precursor to fine PM and
ground-level ozone, both of which have more significant health impacts
than CO.  Available data also indicate that formaldehyde emissions tend
to increase with the higher oxidation/combustion conditions needed to
reduce CO emissions.  Therefore, we determined that control to 500 ppmv
or less is still BDT for CO emissions, and the proposed standards are
based on this emission limit.  Accordingly, the proposed limit for 40
CFR part 60, subpart Ja poses no additional costs over those incurred to
comply with the existing NSPS.

NOx.  NOx emissions are not subject to control under the existing NSPS
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.  However, several petroleum refiners limit
NOx emissions based on State regulations and consent decrees.  The
emission limits to which refineries are subject vary from facility to
facility.  We evaluated three options as part of the BDT determination: 
outlet NOx emission levels of 80 ppmv, 40 ppmv, and 20 ppmv, each
averaged over 7 days or less.  Each of these limits is technically
feasible, but the technology needed to meet them depends on the current
NOx concentrations in the vented gas streams, which are either
uncontrolled or controlled to levels required by existing State and
local requirements.

The estimated fifth year emission reductions and costs for each of the
options are summarized in Table 4.  To estimate impacts for Option 1, we
assumed that a few units have current NOx emissions below 80 ppmv, and
many other units can meet this level with combustion controls (e.g.,
limiting excess O2 or using non-platinum catalyst combustion promoters
in a complete combustion catalyst regenerator, or using flue gas
recirculation or low-NOx burners in a CO boiler after a partial
combustion catalyst regenerator).  Other units with higher uncontrolled
NOx emissions levels will need to install more costly control technology
such as LoTOxTM or SCR in order to meet the 80 ppmv option.  All units
will also incur costs for a continuous NOx monitor.  The costs for
Options 2 and 3 are higher than for Option 1 because the ratio of add-on
controls to combustion controls would increase in order to meet the
lower limits of 40 and 20 ppmv.

Based on the impacts shown in Table 4, we determined that BDT is option
1, a NOx emission limit of 80 ppmv.  The costs of option 1 are
commensurate with the emission reductions while the more stringent
options would impose compliance costs that are not warranted for the
emissions reductions that would be achieved as shown by the incremental
cost effectiveness impacts shown in table 4.  In general, we expect that
most sources will be able to meet the NOX limit through combustion
controls.  In cases where add-on controls would be necessary, however,
there may be retrofit concerns for modified and reconstructed sources. 
Therefore, we are co-proposing no new standards for NOx emissions on
modified or reconstructed sources and are requesting comments on the
necessity, feasibility and costs of retrofits to meet the 80 ppmv limit
for modified and reconstructed sources.

Table 4.  National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for NOx Limits
Considered for Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ja

Option	Total capital cost, $ (millions)	Total Annual

Cost, $/yr (millions)	Emission reduction, tons NOx/yr	Cost effectiveness

($/ton)

Overall	Incremental

1	28	7.3	3,500	2,100

	2	80	20	5,200	4,200	7,600

3	120	30	5,800	5,500	16,000

	Available test data for units controlled with SCR indicate that
emissions less than 20 ppmv are continuously achievable when averaged
over long periods of time such as 365 days.  Although we determined that
the average costs to meet such a limit are unreasonable, we are
requesting comment on whether there may be a subset of units for which
costs would be reasonable to meet lower limits such as 20 or 40 ppmv,
averaged over 365 days.  

Opacity.  The current standards require fluid catalytic cracking units
to meet an opacity limit of 30 percent.  This limit was included as a
means of identifying failure of the PM control device.  This objective
is achieved much more effectively by monitoring control device operating
parameters or by using a PM CEMS.  These monitoring options are included
in the proposed standards for PM.  Therefore, the proposed standards do
not include an opacity emissions limit.

2.  Fluid Coking Units

	The current NSPS includes no requirements for fluid coking units. 
There are few fluid coking units at refineries in the U.S., but data in
the National Emission Inventory database shows the few existing units
are significant sources of PM, SO2, and NOx emissions.  Therefore, we
evaluated several options as part of a BDT determination for fluid
coking units.  All of the options we considered are comparable to
options that we considered for fluid catalytic cracking units because of
similarities in the function, operation, and emissions of the two types
of units.

Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide

To determine BDT for PM and SO2 emissions we evaluated two options. 
Because control technology can reduce both pollutants simultaneously,
the options also consider both pollutants.  Option 1 is a PM limit of
1.0 kg/Mg coke burn and a short-term SO2 limit of 50 ppmv, averaged over
7 days; and Option 2 is a PM limit of 0.5 kg/Mg coke burn, a short-term
SO2 limit of 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 days, and a long-term SO2 limit of
25 ppmv, averaged over 365 days.  (Because catalyst additives are not a
feasible option for reducing SO2 from a fluid coking unit, we did not
consider the fifth option evaluated for fluid catalytic cracking units.)

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report
2006 lists six fluid coking units; at least two of these coking units
are flexi-coking units that use the coking exhaust as a synthetic fuel
gas.  Therefore, there are at most four fluid coking units in the United
States that could potentially become subject to the standard.  Although
coking capacity is expected to increase, most new units are expected to
be delayed coking units.  For this analysis, we assumed that one
existing fluid coking unit becomes a modified or reconstructed source in
the next 5 years.  A wet scrubber is the most likely technology that
would be used to meet either Option 1 or Option 2.  To estimate the
impacts, we estimated costs for a basic wet scrubber to meet Option 1
and an enhanced wet scrubber to meet Option 2.  The resulting emission
reductions and costs for both of the options are shown in Table 5 to
this preamble.  The costs for both options are reasonable.  Therefore,
we determined that BDT is Option 2 which requires technology that
reduces PM emissions to 0.5 kg/Mg of coke burn and reduces SO2 emissions
to 50 ppmv, averaged over 7 days, and 25 ppmv, averaged over 365 day. 
We are proposing standards consistent with these levels.

Table 5.  National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for PM and SO2 Limits
Considered for Fluid Coking Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja

Option	Capital Cost ($1,000)	Total Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)	Emission
Reduction (tons PM/yr)	Emission Reduction (tons SO2/yr)
Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

	Overall	Incremental

1	14,000	4,700	1,700	21,000	210

	2	14,000	4,800	2,000	21,000	210	120

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

	To determine BDT for NOx emissions, we evaluated three options:  outlet
NOx emission levels of 80 ppmv, 40 ppmv, and 20 ppmv, each averaged over
7 days or less.  The specific technology that will be needed to meet
these levels will depend on the NOx concentration in the exhaust gas
stream from uncontrolled fluid coking units.  As noted in the discussion
above for PM and SO2 options, we estimated that only one fluid coking
unit will be modified or reconstructed in the next 5 years, and there
will be no new units constructed.  Because each unit is likely to have a
different uncontrolled NOx concentration in its exhaust stream, we
developed impacts for a composite model unit based on a weighted
distribution of all the various types of controls (low-efficiency
combustion controls, higher efficiency combustion controls, and add-on
controls such as LoToxTM or SCR).  As in the analysis for fluid
catalytic cracking units, the ratio of add-on controls to combustions
controls increases from Option 1 through Option 3.  The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 6 to this preamble.

Table 6.  National Fifth Year Impacts Options for NOx Limits Considered
for Fluid Coking Units Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja

Option	Total capital cost, $ (millions)	Total Annual

Cost, $/yr (millions)	Emission reduction, tons NOx/yr	Cost-effectiveness

($/ton)

Overall	Incremental

1	4.5	0.97	760	1,300

	2	9.5	2.1	980	2,200	5,300

3	13	2.9	1,000	2,800	12,000

	The costs for option 1 are commensurate with the emission reductions,
but the incremental impacts for options 2 and 3 are not reasonable, as
shown in Table 6.  Based on these potential impacts and available
performance data, we have determined that BDT is technology needed to
meet an outlet NOx concentration of 80 ppmv or less, and we are
proposing this emission limit as the performance standard for NOx
emissions from fluid coking units.  However, there are uncertainties in
this analysis.  For example, if the few existing units are not readily
amenable to retrofitting NOx controls, the cost and emission reduction
impacts might no longer be favorable, and we would conclude that no
control is BDT.  Therefore, we are co-proposing no new standard for NOx
emissions from fluid coking units.

3.  Sulfur recovery plants

	Emission limits in the existing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) apply
to Claus SRP with a capacity greater than 20 LTD.  The emission limits
are consistent with an overall sulfur recovery efficiency of 99.9
percent (i.e., 250 ppmv SO2 for the Claus unit followed by oxidative
tail gas treatment, and 10 ppmv H2S and 300 ppmv total reduced sulfur
compounds for a Claus unit followed by reductive tail gas treatment). 
Although small SRP and non-Claus SRP are not subject to the existing
NSPS, they are often subject to control.  For example, Texas requires
sulfur removal efficiencies of 99.8 percent for SRP with capacities
greater than 10 LTD and 96 percent to 98.5 percent for SRP with
capacities less than or equal to 10 LTD.  In addition, a few consent
decrees require 95 percent sulfur recovery for Claus SRP with capacities
less than 20 LTD.  

	To determine BDT we evaluated 4 options.  The options are based on
various sulfur recovery efficiencies for SRP with capacities less than
20 LTD, and all of the options include the same 99.9 percent efficiency
as in the current standards for SRP with capacities greater than 20 LTD.
 Option 1 is based on 99 percent recovery for SRP with capacities
between 10 LTD and 20 LTD, and 95 percent recovery for SRP with
capacities less than 10 LTD.  Option 2 is based on 99 percent recovery
for all SRP with capacities less than 20 LTD.  Option 3 is based on 99.9
percent recovery for SRP with capacities between 10 LTD and 20 LTD, and
99 percent recovery for SRP with capacities less than 10 LTD.  Option 4
is based on 99.9 percent recovery for all SRP, regardless of size or
design.  All of the options include 99.9 percent recovery for SRP larger
than 20 LTD (both Claus and non-Claus units) because we are not aware of
a more effective SO2 control technology.  The 95 percent option is
equivalent to the efficiency of a two-stage Claus unit without controls.
 The 99 percent and 99.9 percent recovery levels are achievable for SRP
of all sizes by various types of tail gas treatments, as discussed in
section V.D of this preamble.

The estimated fifth year emission reductions and costs for each of the
options are summarized in Table 7.  These values reflect the impacts
only for SRP smaller than 20 LTD because we expect that all non-Claus
units will be smaller than 20 LTD and because the impacts for larger
Claus units would be the same as to comply with the existing standards
in subpart J.  The costs for Options 1, 2, and 3 are reasonable.  We
then evaluated the incremental costs and emission reductions between the
options.  We found that Option 2 is the most stringent option for which
incremental costs are reasonable compared to the incremental emission
reduction between the options.

Based on the available performance data and cost considerations, we have
concluded that tail gas treatments that achieve 99.9 percent control are
still BDT for SRP with capacities greater than 20 LTD, and tail gas
treatments that achieve 99 percent recovery are BDT for SRP with
capacities less than 20 LTD.  Therefore, we are proposing standards for
SO2 and H2S emissions from SRP with capacities larger than 20 LTD that
are equivalent to the existing standards, and we are proposing standards
for SRP with capacities smaller than 20 LTD that would limit emissions
of sulfur to less than 1 percent by weight of the sulfur recovered.

Table 7.  National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for SO2 Limits
Considered for Sulfur Recovery Plants Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ja

Option	Total capital cost, $ (millions)	Total Annual

Cost, $/yr (millions)	Emission reduction, tons SO2/yr	Cost effectiveness

($/ton)

Overall	Incremental

1	0.27	0.14	180	780

	2	1.1	0.68	550	1,200	1,500

3	1.9	1.0	590	1,700	8,200

4	4.5	2.3	670	3,400	15,000

4.  Process Heaters and Other Fuel Gas Combustion Devices

Sulfur Dioxide.  The current NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J limits
SO2 emissions from fuel gas combustion devices by specifying that the
H2S content of fuel gas must be less than or equal to 230 mg/dscm,
averaged over 3 hours (equivalent to 160 ppmv averaged over 3 hours). 
Alternatively, any fuel gas may be combusted, provided the outlet SO2
emissions are controlled to no more than 20 ppmv (dry basis, 0 percent
excess air).  When the current NSPS was promulgated, we concluded that
amine scrubbing as well as new processes that use other scrubbing media
represented BDT for continuous reduction of H2S from fuel gas.  The 160
ppmv concentration limit was consistent with good operation of such
scrubbing processes.  In addition, burning such fuel gas will result in
an SO2 concentration in the exhaust gas of about 20 ppmv.

After consideration of current operating practices, we concluded that
amine scrubbing units are still the predominant technology for reduction
of H2S in fuel gas (and SO2 emissions from subsequent fuel gas
combustion).  Considering the variability of the fuel gas streams from
various refinery processing units, 160 ppmv also is still a realistic
short term H2S concentration limit.  However, one California Air Quality
Management District rule sets a 40 ppmv H2S limit in fuel gas (averaged
over 4 hours), and several refiners have reported that the typical fuel
gas H2S concentrations (after scrubbing) are in the same range. 
Additionally, amine scrubbing technology can be designed and is, in
fact, being used to achieve much lower (1 to 5 ppmv) H2S concentrations
in product gas applications.  Based on this information, we concluded
that additional SO2 control could be achieved by requiring SO2 emission
limits with both long-term and short-term averaging periods.

We considered three options for increasing SO2 control of fuel gas
combustion units:  outlet SO2 emission levels of 10 ppmv, 8 ppmv, and 5
ppmv SO2, each averaged over 365 days.  Each of the options also
includes the same 20 ppmv 3-hour SO2 concentration limit as in the
current NSPS.  To achieve each of these options, we expect that
petroleum refiners will increase their amine recirculation rates to
reduce the H2S concentration in the fuel gas.  We estimate that meeting
the options will increase steam consumption for a typical scrubbing unit
by about 5, 7, and 10 percent, respectively.  No new equipment or other
capital expenditures would be necessary.  The estimated fifth-year
impacts of each of these options are presented in Table 8 to this
preamble.  Overall costs for all the options are reasonable compared to
the emission reduction achieved.  We further evaluated the incremental
costs and reductions between the 3 options and found that they were
reasonable for Options 1 and 2, while the incremental cost for Option 3
is not.

Table 8.  National Fifth Year Impacts of Options for SO2 Limits
Considered for Process Heaters and Other Fuel Gas Combustion Devices
Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja

Option	Capital Cost ($1,000)	Total Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)	Emission
Reduction (tons SO2/yr)	Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

Overall	Incremental

1	0	2,000	1,000	1,900

	2	0	2,900	1,300	2,200	3,500

3	0	4,100	1,600	2,600	4,700

Based on these impacts and consideration of current operating practices,
we concluded that BDT is use of technology that reduces the SO2
emissions from fuel gas combustion units to 8 ppmv or less averaged over
365 days and 20 ppmv or less averaged over 3 hours.  Therefore, we are
proposing SO2 standards consistent with this determination.  We are also
requesting comment on the proposed long-term concentration limit and the
length of the averaging period.

Although the proposed emission limits are based primarily on the fuel
gas desulfurization technologies (e.g., amine scrubbing), new process
heaters, regardless of fuel type, also would be subject to these
emission limits.  New process heaters can elect to meet these emission
limits by using treated fuel gas, low sulfur distillate fuel oils, or
flue gas desulfurization or other SO2 add-on controls.  Considering the
low sulfur fuel standards and available control technologies, we believe
the 20 ppmv 3-hour average SO2 emission limit and an 8 ppmv 365-day
average emission limit represent the performance of BDT regardless of
whether the new process heaters use gaseous or liquid fuels.

The current NSPS allows refineries to demonstrate compliance with fuel
gas concentration limits for H2S as a surrogate for SO2 emission limits.
 This approach is reasonable when H2S is the only sulfur-containing
compound in the fuel gas because the H2S concentration in the fuel gas
that is equivalent to the SO2 concentration in the exhaust from the fuel
gas combustion unit can be easily estimated.  However, based on
available data, we understand that a significant portion of the sulfur
in fuel gas from coking units is in the form of methyl mercaptan and
other reduced sulfur compounds.  These compounds will also be converted
to SO2 in the fuel gas combustion unit, which means the SO2 emissions
will be higher than the amount predicted when H2S is the only
sulfur-containing compound in the fuel gas.  Therefore, for process
heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices that burn only fuel gas,
we are proposing two alternatives to the SO2 emission limit.  The first
option would require measurement of H2S if none of the fuel gas is from
a coking unit.  The H2S concentration limits that would be equivalent to
the SO2 emission limits are 160 ppmv, averaged over 3 hours, and 60 ppmv
averaged over 365-days.  The second option would require measurement of
TRS instead of H2S when any of the fuel gas burned in the process heater
or other fuel gas combustion unit is from a coking unit.  The TRS
concentration limits would be the same as the H2S concentration limits. 
We are requesting comment on the proposed requirement to measure the TRS
concentration.  We are interested in any technological limitations of
this option and whether there are other fuel gas streams that contain
reduced sulfur compounds that should not be subject to the same
requirement.

In addition to the proposed SO2 emission limits and H2S and TRS
concentration limits, we are also proposing to include the same
exemptions from fuel gas continuous monitoring requirements that we are
proposing for subpart J.  See section IV.A of this preamble for a
discussion of our rationale for these proposed exemptions.

NOx.  NOx emissions from process heaters are not subject to control
under the existing NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.  However, several
petroleum refiners are subject to NOx control requirements for process
heaters in their consent decrees and State regulations.  The emission
limits to which refineries are subject vary from facility to facility. 
We evaluated four options as part of the BDT determination.  Each option
consists of a potential NOx emission limit and applicability based on
process heater size.  Option 1 would limit NOx emissions to 80 ppmv or
less for all process heaters with a capacity greater than 20 million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr).  Option 2 would limit NOx
emissions to 40 ppmv or less for all process heaters with a capacity
greater than 20 MMBtu/hr.  Option 3 would limit NOx emissions to 30 ppmv
or less for all process heaters with a capacity greater than 40
MMBtu/hr.  Option 4 would limit NOx emissions to 40 ppmv or less for
process heaters with a capacity greater than 20 MMBtu/hr or less than or
equal to 100 MMBtu/hr, and to 20 ppmv or less for process heaters with a
capacity greater than 100 MMBtu/hr.  In each option, the NOx
concentration is based on a 24-hour rolling average.

The estimated fifth year emission reductions and costs for each option
are summarized in Table 9.  We believe that nearly all process heaters
at refineries that will become subject to subpart Ja can meet Option 1
using combustion controls (low NOx burners or ultra low NOx burners). 
Stepping from Option 1 through Option 4 increases the fraction of
process heaters that would need to use more efficient control
technologies, such as LoTOxTM or SCR, to meet the NOx concentration
limit.  The options include a minimum 20 MMBtu/hr size threshold because
none of the control technologies are cost effective for units with
smaller capacities.

Table 9.  National Fifth Year Impacts Options for NOx Limits Considered
for Process Heaters Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja

Option	Total capital cost, $ (millions)	Total Annual

Cost, $/yr (millions)	Emission reduction, tons NOx/yr	Cost effectiveness

($/ton)

Overall	Incremental

1	140	28	17,000	1,600

	2	200	38	20,000	1,900	3,100

3	280	52	21,000	2,600	85,000

4	470	88	22,000	4,000	27,000

Based on the impacts in Table 9, the overall costs of option 1 and
option 2 are reasonable compared to the emission reductions.  The
incremental cost, however, between options 1 and 2 is not commensurate
with the additional emission reduction achieved.  Therefore, BDT for
process heaters greater than 20 MMBtu/hr was determined to be technology
that achieves an outlet NOx concentration of 80 ppmv or less, and we are
proposing standards for NOx emissions from process heaters consistent
with this determination. 

5.  Work practice standards for fuel gas production units.

	We reviewed applicable state and local regulations and consent decree
requirements and met with individual refinery representatives regarding
their pollution prevention practices.  The pollution prevention
practices identified included flare minimization plans, fuel gas
recovery requirements, start-up and shutdown requirements, and sulfur
shedding plans (including redundant sulfur recovery capacity).  Based on
our review, all of these approaches could be expected to reduce
emissions of VOC and SO2 to the atmosphere.  As described in the
following subsections, we reviewed these pollution prevention practices
and are proposing three different work practice standards.  Work
practice standards are being proposed because it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a standard of performance for these emission
sources.  As provided in section 111(h) of the Clean Air Act, we may
promulgate design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards
when it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of
performance.  It is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of
performance for these sources because either the pollution prevention
measures eliminates the emission source, so that there are no emissions
to capture and convey, or the emissions are so transient, and in some
cases, occur so randomly, that the application of a measurement
methodology to these sources is not technically and economically
practical. 

Elimination of Routine Flaring.  Flares are first and foremost a safety
device used to reduce emissions from emergency pressure relief of gases
from refinery process units.  We in no way want to limit the use of
flares for emergency releases.  However, many refineries also routinely
use flares as an emission control device under normal operating
conditions.  

	Fuel gases produced within the refinery can be roughly divided into two
categories based on the fuel gas stream pressure.  Fuel gases produced
in processes operated at higher pressures are easily routed to the fuel
gas system; however, fuel gases that are produced from units operated
near atmospheric pressures are not as easily routed to the fuel gas
system.  These “low pressure” fuel gases are often routed to flares
because the flare gas system operates at a much lower pressure than the
fuel gas system.  Flare gas recovery systems are designed to compress
the low pressure fuel gases, creating a high pressure fuel gas stream
that can readily be added to the fuel gas system.  

In 1998, the South Coast Air Quality Management District developed a
rule requiring refineries to measure the flow rate and hydrocarbon
content of the gases sent to a flare.  This South Coast rule, although
it did not set prescriptive emission limits, led to reduced flaring as
refinery operators, armed with the monitoring results, identified
cost-effective flare gas minimization or recovery projects.  In 2005,
South Coast amended this rule and established a no routine flaring goal
based on the cost and anticipated emission reductions of flare gas
recovery systems.  The Bay Area Air Quality Management District also
adopted a rule requiring flare monitoring in 2003 and adopted a rule to
minimize flaring in 2006. 

We considered adopting the South Coast and Bay Area rules for this NSPS
for new flare systems.  However, many refinery flares operate for 50
years, so very few flares or flare systems are expected to become
subject to NSPS requirements, even after several decades.  Instead, we
are proposing to add “fuel gas producing units” as a new affected
source under subpart Ja and focus the requirement on eliminating routine
flaring of fuel gas at the process units producing the fuel gas.  A
refinery owner or operator installing a new process unit that produces
low pressure fuel gas has options for eliminating routine flaring,
including, but not limited to, diverting the fuel gas to a nearby
low-pressure heater or boiler, pressurizing the fuel gas so that it can
be diverted to the fuel gas system, or installing a flare gas recovery
system.  The proposed work practice standard is designed to allow
flexibility in compliance approaches without imposing undue restrictions
on the use of flares during malfunctions or other conditions wherein
flaring is the best environmental management practice considering the
safety of the plant personnel and surrounding people.  Additionally,
several new fuel gas producing units are expected to be installed every
year, so by regulating the fuel gas producing units we not only provide
flexibility, but we also increase the rate at which the no routine
flaring requirement is implemented within the industry.

The impacts for this work practice are highly dependent on the amount of
fuel gas generated by different fuel gas combustion units.  Recovered
fuel gas reduces the amount of natural gas a refinery must purchase to
operate their process heaters.  For example, fuel gases generated by
fluid catalytic cracking units and coking units are routinely recovered
into the fuel gas system due to the quantity of fuel gas generated in
the process.  For these systems, the savings associated with the
recovered fuel gas provides a return on the capital investment
associated with the compressor and ancillary equipment needed to recover
the fuel gas.  For other fuel gas producing units, such as reforming
units, it is possible to route the fuel gas directly to the unit’s
process heater without additional gas compression.  For a few
refineries, a flare gas recovery system may be used. 

We estimated planning and design costs for assessing methods to recover
or otherwise avoid the release of fuel gas from new fuel gas producing
units.  As described previously, for many fuel gas producing units, the
cost savings associated with the recovered fuel recovers the costs of
the recovery equipment within the life-span on the equipment so that the
annualized cost of controls is zero or slightly negative (indicating a
cost savings).  As a worst-case scenario, we used the impacts developed
by the Bay Area for a system-wide flare gas recovery system.  The total
annualized cost of the system was estimated to be approximately $2
million; no credit was provided for the heating value of the flare gas
recovered.  VOC emission reductions were estimated to be approximately
1,000 tons per year and SO2 emissions were estimated to be 3,500 tons
per year.  The cost-effectiveness on the flare gas recovery system was
estimated to be approximately $2,000/ton of VOC removed and
approximately $570/ton of SO2 removed, assuming total costs are assigned
to each pollutant.  Therefore, even when fuel credits are not
considered, flare gas recovery is cost-effective as an emissions control
device.  When properly sized, these flare gas recovery systems can
eliminate all routine flaring.  Therefore, eliminating routine flaring
by use of fuel gas recovery, in-process fuel use, or system wide flare
gas recovery is determined to be BDT. 

We request comment on alternative means of eliminating routine flaring. 
As noted previously, a simple requirement to monitor gas flow and
composition of gases sent to the flares resulted in reduced use of
flares.  An exemption from this monitoring requirement for flare systems
that install flare gas recovery could provide refineries an incentive to
install flare gas recovery systems.  We request comment on this
alternative and on the need to monitor flares that have flare gas
recovery systems to ensure that the flare gas recovery system is
properly sized and that no routine flaring is occurring.

Additionally, we understand that there are a limited number of
refineries that produce more fuel gas than they can use in the refinery
process heaters or steam boilers.  These “fuel gas rich” refineries
contend that flaring is BDT for these refineries.  Although we believe
that other options exist, such as building an electric co-generating
unit, the cost-effectiveness of such an endeavor is very site-specific. 
We cannot conclude at this time that co-generation or other projects
that use fuel gas are BDT.  Therefore, we are co-proposing no
requirement for fuel gas producing units.  We request comment on the
actual number and location of “fuel gas rich” refineries.  We also
request comment and data regarding the technical and economical
feasibility of alternatives for “fuel gas rich” refineries to avoid
routine flaring.  

Emission Prevention During Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunctions.  

The current NSPS includes no requirements for a start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.  We identified three emission prevention methods that
can be addressed within the context of a start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.  These are:  flare minimization during planned
start-ups and shutdowns; flare minimization during malfunctions of the
sour gas amine treatment units and sulfur recovery plants; and
performing root-cause analyses of malfunctions that release in excess of
500 lb per day of SO2.  Our rationale for including each of these three
emission prevention methods are described in the following paragraphs.

	Flaring and direct venting of certain gas streams have been routinely
used during planned start-up and shutdown of process units to quickly
bring a process unit online or offline.  These flaring and venting
episodes have traditionally been exempt from any emission limitations. 
Nonetheless, some refineries have chosen to evaluate their start-up and
shutdown emissions and alter their procedures so as to reduce or
eliminate direct venting or flaring during planned start-up and shutdown
events.

Typically, alternative start-up and shutdown procedures that reduce
atmospheric emissions or flaring require more time to complete than
conventional procedures.  Therefore, there is a cost associated with the
alternative procedures in terms of potential product/productivity loss. 
For refineries that have system-wide flare gas recovery systems, it may
be a simple matter of scheduling the start-up or shutdown during a time
when limited other flare gas is being generated so as to not overwhelm
the flare gas recovery system.  The cost-effectiveness of the
alternative procedures would depend on the amount of gas flared or
vented using the traditional procedures, the amount of these emissions
that can be avoided using alternative procedures, the amount of product
lost due to the increased start-up/shutdown time period, and the value
of that product.  As such, it is difficult to conclude that significant
or complete emission reductions during planned start-up or shutdown
events will be cost-effective under all conditions; therefore, we chose
not to set a specific venting or flaring limit (or prohibition).  

We estimate that the engineering review revision of a unit’s start-up
and shutdown plan would require approximately 20 engineering hours per
process unit, at total cost of $1,300 to $1,500 per process unit
(one-time costs).  Assuming the unit requires maintenance shut-down only
once every 5 years and the revised procedures only reduce VOC and SO2
emissions by 1 ton each per event, the cost-effectiveness of the
engineering review is $1,300 to $1,500 per ton of VOC and the same for
SO2.

Based on this simplistic analysis, we are proposing that implementing a
start-up and shutdown plan focused on reducing emissions during planned
start-up and shutdown events would be BDT.  

	We evaluated several different requirements to promote continuous
compliance with the SO2 emission limits associated with fuel gas
combustion devices and sulfur recovery plants even during times of
process upsets or malfunctions associated with the amine system or
sulfur recovery plant.  “Process upset gas” is “gas generated by a
petroleum refinery process unit as a result of upset or malfunction.” 
Process upset gas is exempt from the SO2 emission limits.  However, when
there is a malfunction of the amine treatment system or the sulfur
recovery plant, there has been some uncertainty as to whether combustion
or flaring of the sour gas is considered to be exempt from the SO2
emission limit.  This is because the amine treatment system or sulfur
recovery plant is not “generating” the gas stream, it is merely
treating it.  As such, the amine treatment system and sulfur recovery
plant are essentially control devices, and refinery owners and operators
are required to minimize emissions during these control system
malfunctions, up to and including the shutdown of the emissions
generating units.

A variety of prescriptive requirements were reviewed, such as requiring
24-hour storage capacity of lean amine solution and empty tank storage
capacity to receive 24 hours worth of rich amine solution, requiring
inventory of critical spare parts, and requiring redundant amine
scrubbing and sulfur recovery capacity.  While these are all viable
options that a plant can employ to minimize malfunction emissions
associated with the amine treatment system or sulfur recovery plant, the
most cost-effective means to minimize these emissions are highly
site-specific, being dependent on the number and location of the amine
units or sulfur recovery trains within the sulfur recovery plant. 

We evaluated two alternatives, which are not mutually exclusive, for
minimizing flaring of H2S-rich fuel gas in the event of a malfunction in
the amine stripper or sulfur recovery plant.  Option 1 is to store 24
hours worth of lean amine solution in case of a malfunction in the amine
stripper.  We estimate that this alternative would require a capital
cost of approximately $10 million (for 2 storage tanks and excess amine)
for a 50 long LTD SRU system, resulting in an annualized cost of $1
million/year.  If the 24 hours of excess amine was used one time per
year for an entire day, 50 LTD of sulfur would have resulted in 110 tons
of SO2 emissions avoided.  If there are three occurrences per year where
the excess amine solution is used, 330 tons of emissions would be
reduced.  This scenario results in a cost-effectiveness ranging from
$3,000 to 9,000 per ton of SO2 reduced.  

Option 2 is to have a redundant Claus unit.  The capital cost of a 50
LTD Claus unit is also approximately $10 million, resulting in an
annualized cost of $1 million/year.  Again, if there are one to three
days of emissions avoided, this option results in a cost-effectiveness
ranging from $3,000 to $9,000 per ton of SO2 reduced.  For sulfur
recovery plants consisting of multiple Claus units, the likelihood of
needing the additional Claus train more than three times per year
increases significantly, making the redundant Claus unit a
cost-effective option.

It is difficult to predict the quantity of emissions avoided as they are
dependent on random malfunction events of variable durations.  While the
cost-effectiveness values of these options are not necessarily
compelling given the uncertainty in the emissions avoided, the options
evaluated are expected to be extreme measures.  It is likely, for
example, that maintaining appropriate spare parts for the system would
provide a cost-effective means of reducing emissions.  This, along with
short-term reductions in high-sulfur fuel gas production could be used
to eliminate the need to flare or otherwise combust these high
sulfur-containing fuel gases. 

Based on this analysis, we are proposing that a start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan that specifically addresses the minimization of fuel
gas combustion of high sulfur-containing fuel gases during malfunctions
of an amine treatment system or sulfur recovery plant is BDT.  The
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan will address specific process
upset and malfunction events associated with the amine treatment system
and sulfur recovery plant and the standard operating procedures to
follow to minimize emissions during these events.  Compliance is
demonstrated by following the procedures in the plan.  As previously
mentioned, we are proposing a work practice standard rather than an
equipment standard to provide flexibility to the refinery owner or
operator regarding the best way to minimize malfunction emissions given
the refinery’s specific configuration and sulfur loads. 

	Finally, we evaluated a requirement for performing root-cause analyses
as a means to minimize the frequency of process malfunctions and thereby
reduce malfunction emissions.  Even though process upset gas is exempt
from the SO2 emission limits associated with fuel gas combustion units,
we believe it is good air pollution practice to investigate the causes
of significant atmospheric releases caused by process upsets or
malfunctions to determine if similar upsets or malfunctions can be
reasonably prevented from recurring.  Similarly, we believe it is good
pollution control practice to investigate significant emission
exceedances to determine the cause of the exceedance and to implement
procedures to prevent its recurrence.  The cost-effectiveness of these
investigations is dependent on the frequency and magnitude of the
emission episodes; for very small emission episodes, the manpower
required to perform the investigations do not justify the potential
emission reductions that might be realized from the root-cause analysis.
 We estimate that a root-cause analysis would cost approximately $2,500
to perform.  For emissions of less than 500 pounds per day, the
cost-effectiveness of the root-cause analysis, even assuming it would
completely eliminate a future recurrence, would be approximately $10,000
per ton of SO2 reduced.  Similarly, for emissions of 1,000 pounds per
day, the cost- effectiveness would be on the order of $5,000 per ton of
SO2 reduced.  As the probability of successfully identifying a means to
avoid future emissions from each root-cause analysis performed is
certainly less than 100 percent, we determined that it was not cost
effective to perform root-cause analyses for SO2 emissions exceedances
of 500 pounds per day or less and request comment on alternative
thresholds in the range of 500 to 1,000 lbs per day.  

For SO2 releases of greater than 500 pounds per day, the emissions
reductions potential of the root-cause analyses increases and the
cost-effectiveness improves, so we are proposing that performing
root-cause analyses for SO2 releases of greater than 500 pounds per day
would be BDT.  Any emission limit exceedance or any process start-up,
shutdown, upset or malfunction that causes a discharge into the
atmosphere in excess of 500 pounds per day of SO2 would require a root
cause analysis to be performed.  We also considered a similar
requirement for hydrocarbon flaring events with the purpose of reducing
VOC emissions.  However, we expect refinery owners and operators to
investigate large hydrocarbon releases as these releases represent lost
revenues.  Furthermore, as flares are efficient in destroying VOC, the
potential to significantly reduce VOC emissions by performing root-cause
analysis is much less than the potential for reducing SO2 emissions.  We
request comment on the need to include root cause analyses for
hydrocarbon releases.  If root-cause analyses are recommended, please
provide in your comments the recommended release quantities that would
trigger the root-cause analysis and justification for the
recommendation.  If root cause analyses are not recommended, please
provide in your comments the rationale for not requiring root-cause
analysis for any VOC (hydrocarbon) releases.

The proposed rule is intended to provide flexibility for each refinery
owner and operator to develop procedures that are efficient and
effective for their process configuration.  The scope of these
requirements is limited to affected facilities under this rule.  We
request comment on the need to implement this requirement to all new
process units at the refinery, not just fuel gas producing units such as
fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid coking units, fuel gas combustion
devices, and sulfur recovery plants.

On the other hand, based on site-specific conditions and given the
nature of the types of emissions events that are being addressed by the
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan, it is impossible to
conclusively determine that one or all of the emission reduction methods
addressed in the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan will achieve
any set level of emissions reduction or that those reductions, if any,
will be cost-effective.  Therefore, we are co-proposing no requirement
for a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan.  We request comments and
supporting data that indicate the emission reductions that could be
reasonably expected from a flare minimization plan for planned start-up
and shutdown events, the number of planned events that occur per year
(or over a 5 year period), and any other information that can be used to
justify either the inclusion or exclusion of this provision in the final
rule.  We also request comments and supporting data that indicate the
number and duration of malfunctions in the amine stripper and sulfur
recovery plants, the costs associated with alternative sulfur shedding
practices, and other information that can be used to justify either the
inclusion or exclusion of this provision in the final rule.  

Finally, we request comment, along with supporting data, that indicate
the frequency of emission events exceeding 500 pounds per day, the
percentage of times the root-cause analysis results in positive steps
that may avoid future recurrence of the event, and other information
that can be used to justify either the inclusion or exclusion of this
provision in the final rule 

Delayed Coking Unit Depressurization.  The primary emission releases
from delayed coking units occur as the coking vessels are depressurized
and petroleum coke is removed from the unit.  When the delayed coking
cycle is completed, the coke-filled vessel is steam stripped.  Most of
the gases from this process continue to be sent to the coking unit
distillation column.  At some point in time, the steam gas discharge is
diverted to the blow-down system.  The delayed coking unit typically has
a fuel gas recovery system (compressor) due to the quantity of fuel gas
produced by the unit.  Therefore, it is cost-effective to require the
blow-down system gases to be recovered in the unit’s fuel gas recovery
system, in keeping with the proposed work practice standard that fuel
gas from fuel gas producing units will not be routinely flared.

As the process unit continues to depressurize, there is a point where
the gases can no longer be discharged to the blow-down system or fuel
gas recovery line, at which point the remaining steam and gases are
vented to the atmosphere.  To achieve maximum reduction of uncontrolled
releases, the unit should be depressurized to as low a pressure as
possible before venting to the atmosphere.  Below a pressure of 5 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig) in the delayed coking unit drum, it is not
technically feasible to divert the emissions for recovery.  Above a
vessel pressure of 5 psig, it is technically feasible to divert the
emissions for recovery.  Furthermore, as the unit already has a gas
compressor, the costs associated with recovering these gases is minimal.

We estimate that this practice can reduce VOC emissions by 120 tons per
year and SO2 emissions by at 200 tons per year.  The total annualized
costs are expected to be minimal for new units, but installing the
appropriate piping for a modified or reconstructed unit may result in
annualized costs of up to $100,000 per year.  Even under this extreme
condition, the cost effectiveness of the requirement is about $800 per
ton of VOC reduced and $500 per ton of SO2 reduced.  Therefore, we
conclude that a work practice standard that requires delayed coking unit
shall depressure to 5 psig during reactor vessel depressuring and vent
the exhaust gases to the fuel gas system for recovery is BDT.  Note this
determination is independent of the work practice to eliminate routine
flaring from fuel gas producing units and requires flare gas recovery of
depressurization gases even under the option of no work practice
requirement to minimize flaring.   

In addition to the depressurization emissions, we also identified at
least one refinery that has designed an enclosed system for their
coke-cutting operations.  Coke cutting operations were identified as a
significant VOC emission source at refineries during an Alberta Research
Council study, with an estimated VOC emissions rate of 1,300 tons per
year.  We do not have any data regarding the effectiveness of the
coke-cutting enclosure system, whether the enclosure seals are air tight
or if they allow some percentage of the emissions escape.  The enclosure
may simply suppress the emissions until the coke is removed from the
unit, at which time the emissions are released.  Additionally, we do not
have any data on the costs of these systems and whether or not existing
units can be retrofitted if the delayed coking unit is modified or
reconstructed.  Therefore, we cannot conclude that an enclosed coke
cutting system is BDT, but we request comment and additional information
on coke-cutting system controls, their cost, their effectiveness, and
their limitations.

VI.  Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

Existing affected sources that are modified or reconstructed would be
subject to the proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja.  A
modification is any physical or operational change to an existing
facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the
atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies (see 40 CFR
60.14).  Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an
increase in the emission rate, as well as certain changes that have been
exempted under the General Provisions (see 40 CFR 60.14(e)) are not
considered modifications.

	Rebuilt petroleum refinery process units would become subject to the
proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja under the
reconstruction provisions, regardless of changes in emission rate. 
Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards (40 CFR 60.15).

	With the exception of the standards for fluid catalytic cracking units,
we are proposing that modified or reconstructed sources be subject to
the same proposed standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja, as new
sources.  The decision to maintain consistent standards for both new and
modified or reconstructed sources was based on an evaluation of the
cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of the proposed
standards on both types of sources and on the feasibility of
retrofitting existing units.  We have included in the docket a table
(Impacts Summary) which summarizes our estimates costs for different
control options for both new and reconstructed or modified process
units.  We request comment on these cost estimates and on specific
issues related to the feasibility of retrofitting existing units, as
well as our assessment that cost-effectiveness numbers are similar
enough such that it is appropriate to have identical standards for both
new and modified or reconstructed sources. 

VII.  Request for Comments

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

Table 10.  Summary of Topics on Which Comment is Requested

Topic	Section in this preamble where topic is discussed

Effects of proposed PM, SO2 and NOx standard on modified or
reconstructed fluid catalytic cracking units. Also co-proposed 40 CFR
part 60, Subpart J standards for SO2 and PM and no NOx limits for
modified and reconstructed sources.	III.B. and V.E.1

Exemption for emergency flares.	IV.A

Exemption from monitoring for fuel gas streams related to commercial
liquid products.	IV.A

Exemption from monitoring for fuel gas streams generated by process
units that are intolerant of sulfur.	IV.A

Alternative PM limit for fluid catalytic cracking units based on
condensable PM as well as filterable PM.	V.E.1

Alternative lower (20 ppmv,40 ppmv) NOx limit, averaged over 365 days,
for fluid catalytic cracking units.	V.E.1

Co-propose no new NOx standard for fluid coking units.	V.E.2

Appropriate long-term average H2S concentration limit for fuel gas
combustion units, and requirement to monitor TRS instead of H2S for fuel
gas from coker units.	V.E.4

Various aspects of work practice standards to minimize routine flaring
and enhance SO2 control versus no standards:  alternative means of
eliminating flaring, number of “fuel gas rich” refineries, need for
a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP), including rationale
for or against requiring a root cause analysis for hydrocarbon releases
and sulfur shedding practices, and information about emission control
systems for coke cutting operations.

Also co-propose no requirements for routine flaring and no SSMP.	V.D.5

 

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

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

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

We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed requirements
of subpart Ja that change the performance standards:  the emission
limits for fluid catalytic cracking units, sulfur recovery plants, fluid
coking units, fuel gas combustion devices, and process heaters, as well
as the work practice standards.  The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part
60, subpart J are clarifications to the existing rule, and they have no
emission reduction impacts.  The cost, environmental, and economic
impacts presented in this section are expressed as incremental
differences between the impacts of petroleum refining process units
complying with the proposed subpart Ja and the current NSPS requirements
of subpart J (i.e., baseline).  The impacts are presented for petroleum
refining process units that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification over the next 5 years.  The analyses and the documents
referenced below can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011.

In order to determine the incremental costs and emission reductions of
this proposed rule, we first estimated baseline impacts.  For new
sources, baseline costs and emission reductions were estimated for
complying with subpart J; incremental impacts for subpart Ja were
estimated as the costs to comply with subpart J subtracted from the
costs to comply with proposed subpart Ja.  Sources that are modified or
reconstructed over the next 5 years would comply with subpart J in the
absence of proposed subpart Ja.  We assumed that prior to reconstruction
or modification, these sources would either be subject to a consent
decree (equivalent to about 77 percent of the industry by capacity),
complying with subpart J or equivalent limits, or complying with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UUU (MACT II).  Baseline costs and emission reductions
were estimated as the effort needed to comply with subpart J from one of
those three starting points.  The costs and emission reductions to
comply with proposed subpart Ja were estimated from those starting
points as well.  The estimated costs presented for work practice
standards include only the labor cost to prepare the required plan or
analysis; we did not attempt to quantify costs and emission reductions
for the variety of ways a facility may choose to implement those plans. 
We assumed that each facility would evaluate their options and choose
the most cost-effective option for the facility’s unique position. 
For further detail on the methodology of these calculations, see Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011.

When considering and selecting emission limits for the proposed rule, we
evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each option for new sources
separately from reconstructed and modified sources.  However, since our
selections for each process unit and pollutant were consistent for all
units, we are presenting our costs and emission reductions for the
overall rule.  We estimate that the proposed amendments will reduce
combined emissions of PM, SO2, and NOx about 55,800 tons/yr from the
baseline.  The estimated increase in annual cost, including annualized
capital costs, is about $54,100,000.  The overall cost-effectiveness is
about $970 per ton of pollutants removed.  The estimated nationwide
5-year incremental emissions reductions and cost impacts for the
proposed amendments are summarized in Table 11 of this preamble.

Table 11.  National Incremental Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for
Petroleum Refinery Units Subject to Proposed Standards Under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Ja (Fifth Year After Proposal)

Process Unit	Pollutant	Total Capital Cost ($1,000)	Total Annual

Cost 

($1,000/yr)	Annual Emission Reductions (tons/yr)	Cost-Effective-ness
($/ton)

FCCU	PM and SO2	40,000	9,500	9,500	1,000

FCCU	NOx	28,000	7,300	3,500	2,100

Fluid Coker	PM and SO2	14,000	4,800	23,000	210

Fluid Coker	NOx	4,500	970	760	1,300

SRP	SO2	1,100	680	550	1,200

Process Heaters and Fuel Gas Combustion	SO2	0	2,880	1,300	2,200

Process Heaters	NOx	140,000	28,000	17,000	1,600

Work Practices

	250

Total

230,000	54,000	56,000	970

B.  What are the secondary impacts?

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts of this proposed rule would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices.  Assuming that plants would purchase
electricity from a power plant, we estimate that the standards as
proposed would increase secondary emissions of criteria pollutants,
including PM, SO2, NOX, and CO from power plants.  For new, modified or
reconstructed sources, this proposed rule would increase secondary PM
emissions by 24 Mg/yr (27 tpy); secondary SO2 emissions by about 970
Mg/yr (1,100 tpy); secondary NOX emissions by about 480 Mg/yr (530 tpy);
and secondary CO emissions by about 16 Mg/yr (17 tpy) for the 5 years
following proposal.

As explained earlier, we expect that affected facilities will control
emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units by installing and
operating ESP or wet gas scrubbers.  We also expect that the emissions
from the affected fluid coker will be controlled with a wet scrubber. 
For these process units, we estimated solid waste impacts for both types
of control devices and water impacts for wet gas scrubbers.  In
addition, the controls needed by small sulfur recovery plants will
generate condensate.  We project that this proposed rule will generate
4.5 billion gallons of water per year for the 5 years following
proposal.  We also estimate that this proposed rule will generate 8,600
Mg/yr (7,800 tpy) of solid waste over those 5 years.

Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate
control devices and other equipment that would be required under the
proposed rule.  Our estimate of the increased energy demand includes the
electricity needed to produce the required amounts of steam as well as
direct electricity demand.  We project that this proposed rule would
increase overall energy demand by about 170 gigawatt-hours per year (590
billion British thermal units per year).

C.  What are the economic impacts?

This proposal affects certain new and reconstructed/modified sources
found at petroleum refineries as defined earlier in this preamble.  We
performed an economic impact analysis that estimates changes in prices
and output for gasoline nationally using the annual compliance costs
estimated for this proposal.  The methodology for this analysis
incorporates changes in producer and consumer behavior by considering
passthrough of increased production costs from producers to consumers. 
All estimates are for the fifth year after proposal since this is the
year for which the compliance cost impacts are estimated.  

The analysis estimates a price increase in gasoline of less than 0.02
percent nationally will take place along with a corresponding reduction
in gasoline output of less than 0.004 percent (or less than 6 million
gallons a year).  The overall total annual social costs, which reflect
changes in consumer and producer behavior in response to the compliance
costs, are $53.0 million (2005 dollars) or almost identical to the
compliance costs. 

For more information, please refer to the economic impact analysis
report that is in the public docket for this proposed rule.

D.  What are the benefits?

    D.  What are the benefits?

    We estimate the monetized benefits of this proposed rule to be $957
million (2005$) in the fifth year after proposal.  We base the portion
of the benefits estimate derived from the PM2.5 and SO2 emission
reductions on the approach and methodology laid out in EPA's 2004
benefits analysis supporting the regulation of emissions from the
Industrial Boilers MACT (included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP, February
2004).  We chose the benefit analysis contained in this RIA as the basis
for estimating the benefits from emission reductions of these two
pollutants since most of the elements in that rule are similar to those
covered here.  These elements, which are the stack height, a number of
the controls applied, and the pollutants affected - PM2.5 and SO2, but
not NOx - are similar to those covered by the Industrial Boiler MACT
standard.  

     We base the portion of the benefits estimate derived from the NOx
emission reductions on the approach and methodology laid out in EPA’s
2005 benefits analysis supporting the regulation of emissions from the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (included in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Clean Air Interstate Rule, March 2005).  We chose the
CAIR analysis as the basis for estimating the benefits from emission
reductions of this pollutant since most of the elements in CAIR are
similar to those covered here.  These elements, which are the stack
height, a number of the controls applied, and the pollutant affected –
in this case, NOx only - are similar to those covered by CAIR.  These
three factors lead us to believe that we might reasonably estimate
benefits for this proposed rule using a benefits transfer approach and
values from the Industrial Boilers MACT analysis for estimating the SO2
and PM2.5 benefits of this rule, and the CAIR analysis for the NOx
benefits of the rule. Specifically, these estimates are based on
application of the benefits scaling approach derived from the benefits
analyses completed for these rulemakings.  As mentioned above, the
methodologies are laid out in the Industrial Boilers MACT and CAIR RIA. 
A summary of the benefits estimates is in Table 12 below.

Table 12.  Summary of Benefits Estimates For Proposed NSPS

Pollutant	Monetized Benefits per Ton Emission Reduction 	Emission
Reductions (tons)	Total Monetized Benefits*(millions of 2005 dollars)

PM2.5	$88,000	3,221	$283.4 

SO2	20,000	31,358	627.2

NOx	2,200	21,266	46.8

	Grand Total: $957.4

* All estimates are for the analysis year (fifth year after proposal). 
Emission reductions reflect the combination of proposed options for both
new and reconstructed/modified sources. 

	The specific estimates of benefits per ton of pollutant reductions
included in this analysis are largely driven by the concentration
response function for premature mortality, which is based on the
American Cancer Society cohort (ACS) (Pope, C.A. III, et al., “Lung
Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution,” JAMA, 2002). Since the publication of
CAIR, the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has adopted a different
format for its benefits analysis in which characterization of the
uncertainty in the concentration response function is integrated into
the main benefits analysis.   The PM NAAQS analysis provides an
indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of alternative
concentration response functions, including those derived from the
recently completed expert elicitation study.  Specifically, compared to
the final PM NAAQS estimate of the mean mortality from the ACS cohort,
the expert-based premature mortality incidence ranged from 50 percent of
the mean ACS estimate to more than five times the size of the ACS mean
estimate.  The Agency is currently updating the estimates used here to
calculate the benefits of the proposed NSPS and intends to consider
using these updated benefits estimates as part of an approach similar to
that used in the PM NAAQS RIA in the benefits analyses for the final
NSPS.  

	  With the annualized costs of this rulemaking estimated at $54 million
(2005$) in the fifth year after proposal and with estimated benefits of
$957 million (2005$) for that same year, EPA believes that the benefits
are likely to exceed the costs by a significant margin even when taking
into account the uncertainties in the cost and benefit estimates.  For
more information, please refer to the RIA for this proposed rule that is
available in the docket.

IX.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an "economically
significant regulatory action”  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  because it is
likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket
for this action.

	    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action.  This analysis
is contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed
Petroleum Refinery NSPS, EPA-452/R-07-006.  A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized here.  The monetized benefits of this action are estimated at
$957 million (2005 dollars), and the annualized costs of this action are
estimated at $54 million (2005 dollars).  We also estimated the economic
impacts, small business impacts, and energy impacts associated with this
action.  These analyses are included in the RIA and are summarized
elsewhere in this preamble.    

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed amendments to the existing standards of performance for
petroleum refineries would add a monitoring exemption for fuel gas
streams combusted in a fuel gas combustion device that are inherently
low in sulfur content.  The exemption would apply to fuel gas streams
that meet specified criteria or that the owner or operator demonstrates
are low sulfur according to the rule requirements.  The owner or
operator would submit a written application for the exemption containing
information needed to document the low sulfur content.  The application
is not a mandatory requirement and the incremental reduction in
monitoring burden that would occur as a result of the exemption would
not be significant compared to the baseline burden estimates for the
existing rule.  Therefore, we have not revised the information
collection request (ICR) for the existing rule.  The OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements in the existing rule
(40 CFR part 60, subpart J) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0022, EPA ICR number 1054.07.

A copy of the OMB-approved ICR for the Standards of Performance for
Petroleum Refineries may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection
Strategies Division, Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at   HYPERLINK
"mailto:auby.susan@epa.gov"  auby.susan@epa.gov , or by calling (292)
566-1672.

The information collection requirements in the proposed standards of
performance for petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja) have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The ICR document prepared by EPA has been assigned
EPA ICR number 2263.01.

The proposed standards of performance for petroleum refineries include
work practice requirements for delayed coking reactor vessel
depressuring and written plans to minimize emissions during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions.  Plants also would be required to analyze
the cause of any exceedance that releases more than 500 pounds per day
of SO2 above an allowable limit.  EPA is co-proposing work practice
standards that would include the requirement for delayed coking reactor
vessel depressuring but exclude the requirements for written plans and
root-cause analyses for SO2 emissions discharges exceeding allowable
limits by at least 500 pounds per day.  The proposed standards also
include testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions. 
Monitoring requirements may include control device operating parameters,
bag leak detection systems, or CEMS, depending on the type of process,
pollutant, and control device.  Exemptions are also proposed for small
emitters.  These requirements are based on recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the NSPS General Provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
A, and on specific requirements in subpart J or subpart Ja which are
mandatory for all operators subject to new source performance standards.
 These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414).  All information
submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded
according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 6,084 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $526,241 per year.  The annualized capital costs are
estimated at $2,736,000 per year and operation and maintenance costs are
estimated at $1,627,200 per year.  We note that the capital costs as
well as the operation and maintenance costs are for the continuous
monitors; these costs are also included in the cost impacts presented in
section VIII.A of this preamble.  Therefore, the burden costs associated
with the continuous monitors presented in the ICR are not additional
costs incurred by affected sources subject to proposed subpart Ja.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this
ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011.  Submit any comments
related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.  See
‘Addresses’ section at the beginning of this document for where to
submit comments to EPA.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

	For purposes of assessing the impact of today’s proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as:  (1) a small business whose
parent company has no more than 1,500 employees and no more than 125,000
barrels per day total operable atmospheric crude oil distillation
capacity, depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code
(as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards); (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impact of today’s proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Of the 58
entities that we expect could be affected by today’s proposed action,
24 of these (or 41 percent) are classified as small according to the SBA
small business size standard listed previously.  Of these 24 affected
entities, one small entity is expected to incur an annualized compliance
cost of more than 1.0 percent to comply with today’s proposed action. 
In addition, the impact on gasoline prices nationwide is expected to be
less than 0.02 percent of the baseline gasoline price, and this
represents less than a 1 cent increase in the price per gallon of
gasoline. Also, the output of gasoline in the U.S. is expected to fall
by less than 0.004 percent, or less than 6 million gallons per year in
the U.S.  For more information, please refer to the economic impact
analysis that is in the public docket for this rulemaking.  

Although this proposed action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed action on small entities by
incorporating specific standards for small sulfur recovery plants and
streamlining procedures for exempting inherently low-sulfur fuel gases
from continuous monitoring.  We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed action on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

EPA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year.  As discussed earlier in this preamble, the
estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year after
proposal are $54 million.  Thus, this proposed action is not subject to
the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  In addition, EPA
has determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.  This proposed action contains no requirements that apply
to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would not
result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any 1 year or
any disproportionate impacts on them.  Therefore, this proposed action
is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.”  “Policies that have federalism
implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.”

This proposed action does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  None of the affected facilities are
owned or operated by State governments.  Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments,
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and
local officials.

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

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

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

Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that:  (1) is determined to be “economically
significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis
required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence
the regulation.  This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or
safety risks.  

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

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

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.  The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.

	Today’s proposed rule (subpart Ja) involves technical standards.  The
EPA cites the following standards: EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6,
6A, 6B, 6C, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 10, 10A, 11, 15, 15A, and 16 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A; Performance Specifications 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11 in
40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 60.  This
rule also cites ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,” for its manual methods of measuring the content of the
exhaust gas.  This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7C, and 15A. 

	Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in
addition to these methods.  No applicable VCS were identified for EPA
Methods 7D and 11; EPA Performance Specifications 3, 4, 5, and 7; and
Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60.  The search and review results are in the
docket for this rule.

	The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 22 other
VCS.  The EPA determined that these 22 standards identified for
measuring emissions of the targeted pollutants or surrogates subject to
emission standards in this rule were impractical alternatives to EPA
test methods for the purposes of this rule.  Therefore, EPA does not
intend to adopt these standards for this purpose.  The reasons for the
determinations for the 22 standards are discussed in the memorandum
submitted to the docket to this rule.

	Both the proposed amendments for subpart J and the proposed rule
(subpart Ja) cite the Gas Processor’s Association Method 2377-86,
“Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using
Length of Stain Tubes” (incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR 60.17)
as an acceptable method for determining the H2S content of low sulfur
streams.  The amendments to subpart J do not include any other technical
standards.  

	Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in
addition to Gas Processor’s Association Method 2377-86.  No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for Gas Processor’s
Association Method 2377-86.  The search and review results are in the
docket for this rule.

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures in the proposed rule and
amendments.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.  EPA has determined that the proposed amendments would
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they
do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.  The proposed 

amendments are clarifications which do not relax the control measures on
sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not 

cause emissions increases from these sources.  EPA has determined that
the proposed standards would not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because they would increase the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population.  These proposed standards would
reduce emissions of criteria pollutants from all new, reconstructed, or
modified sources at petroleum refineries, decreasing the amount of such
emissions to which all affected populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

		

Dated:

				

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter
I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[AMENDED]

	2.  Section 60.17 is amended by:

	a.  Revising paragraph (h)(4), 

	b.  Revising the last sentence of paragraph (m) introductory text, and 

	c.  Revising paragraph (m)(1) to read as follows:

§60.17  Incorporations by reference.

*  *  *  *  *

	(h)  *  *  *

	(4)  ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Tables 1 and 3 of
subpart EEEE, Tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, §60.106(e)(2) of subpart
J, §§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(6), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(6), (i)(3), (i)(4),
(j)(3), (j)(4), (j)(4)(iii), and 60.105a(d)(4), (e)(4), (f)(2), and
(f)(4), and 60.106a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iv),
(a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iv), and (a)(4)(iii), and 60.107a(a)(1)(ii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), and (c)(4) of subpart Ja, and
§§60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.

*  *  *  *  *

	(m)  *  *  *  You may inspect a copy at EPA’s Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

	(1)  Gas Processors Association Method 2377-86, Test for Hydrogen
Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes,
IBR approved for §§60.105(b)(1)(iv), 60.107a(b)(1)(iv), 60.334(h)(1),
60.4360, and 60.4415(a)(1)(ii).

*  *  *  *  *

Subpart J--[AMENDED]

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

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

	(a)  The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities in petroleum refineries:  fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and all Claus
sulfur recovery plants except Claus plants with a design capacity of 20
long tons per day (LTD) or less. *  *  *

	(b)  Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator or fuel gas
combustion device under paragraph (a) of this section which commences
construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973, and
on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], or any Claus sulfur recovery plant under paragraph
(a) of this section which commences construction, reconstruction, or
modification after October 4, 1976, and on or before [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], is subject
to the requirements of this subpart except as provided under paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section.

	(c)  Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator under
paragraph (b) of this section which commences construction,
reconstruction, or modification on or before January 17, 1984, is
exempted from §60.104(b).

(d)  Any fluid catalytic cracking unit in which a contact material
reacts with petroleum derivatives to improve feedstock quality and in
which the contact material is regenerated by burning off coke and/or
other deposits and that commences construction, reconstruction, or
modification on or before January 17, 1984, is exempt from this subpart

*  *  *  *  *

	4.  Section 60.101 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (i), (j), and
(k) to read as follows: 

§60.101  Definitions.

*  *  *  *  *

	(d)  Fuel gas means any gas which is generated at a petroleum refinery
and which is combusted.  Fuel gas also includes natural gas when the
natural gas is combined and combusted in any proportion with a gas
generated at a refinery.  Fuel gas does not include gases generated by
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fluid coking burners. 
Fuel gas does not include vapors that are collected and combusted to
comply with the wastewater provisions in §60.692, 40 CFR 61.343 through
61.348, or 40 CFR 63.647, or the marine tank vessel loading provisions
in 40 CFR 63.562 or 40 CFR 63.651.

*  *  *  *  *

	(i)  Claus sulfur recovery plant means a series of process units which
recover sulfur from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by a vapor-phase catalytic
reaction of sulfur dioxide and H2S.  The Claus sulfur recovery plant
includes the reactor furnace and waste heat boiler, catalytic reactors,
sulfur pits, and, if present, oxidation or reduction control systems. 
One Claus sulfur recovery plant may consist of multiple trains.

	(j)  Oxidation control system means an emission control system which
reduces emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these
emissions to sulfur dioxide and recycling the sulfur dioxide to the
reactor furnace or the first-stage catalytic reactor of the Claus sulfur
recovery plant.

	(k)  Reduction control system means an emission control system which
reduces emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these
emissions to H2S and recycling the H2S to the reactor furnace or the
first-stage catalytic reactor of the Claus sulfur recovery plant.

*  *  *  *  *

	5.  Section 60.102 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

§60.102  Standard for particulate matter.

*  *  *  *  *

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

	6.  Section 60.104 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
to read as follows:

§60.104   Standards for sulfur oxides.

*  *  *  *  *

	(b)  *  *  *

(1)  With an add-on control device, reduce SO2 emissions to the
atmosphere by 90 percent or maintain SO2 emissions to the atmosphere
less than or equal to 50 ppm by volume (ppmv), whichever is less
stringent; or

(2)  Without the use of an add-on control device to reduce SO2
emissions, maintain sulfur oxides emissions calculated as SO2 to the
atmosphere less than or equal to 9.8 kg/Mg (20 lb/ton) coke burn-off; or

*  *  *  *  *

	7.  Section 60.105 is amended by:

	a.  Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3) introductory text;

	b.  Revising paragraph (a)(3)(iv);

	c.  Revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text;

	d.  Adding paragraph (a)(4)(iv);

	e.  Revising paragraph (a)(8) introductory text;

	f.  Revising paragraph (a)(8)(i); and 

	g.  Adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§60.105  Monitoring of emissions and operations.

	(a)  *  *  *

(3)  For fuel gas combustion devices subject to §60.104(a)(1), either
an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration by volume (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of SO2
emissions into the atmosphere or monitoring as provided in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section). * * *

*  *  *  *  *

(iv)  Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may
be monitored at only one location (i.e., after one of the combustion
devices), if monitoring at this location accurately represents the SO2
emissions into the atmosphere from each of the combustion devices.

	(4)  Instead of the SO2 monitor in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for
fuel gas combustion devices subject to §60.104(a)(1), an instrument for
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration (dry basis) of
H2S in fuel gases before being burned in any fuel gas combustion device.

*  *  *  *  *

	(iv)  The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device is not
required to comply with paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section for
streams that are exempt under §60.104(a)(1) and fuel gas streams
combusted in a fuel gas combustion device that are inherently low in
sulfur content.  Fuel gas streams meeting one of the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section will be considered
inherently low in sulfur content.  If the composition of a fuel gas
stream changes such that it is no longer exempt under §60.104(a)(1) or
it no longer meets one of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A)
through (D) of this section, the owner or operator must begin continuous
monitoring under paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section within 15 days
of the change.

	(A)  Pilot gas for heaters and flares.

	(B)  Gas streams that meet commercial-grade product specifications and
have a sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less.

	(C)  Fuel gas streams produced in process units that are intolerant to
sulfur contamination, such as fuel gas streams produced in the hydrogen
plant, the catalytic reforming unit, and the isomerization unit.

	(D)  Other streams that an owner or operator demonstrates are
low-sulfur according to the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.

*  *  *  *  *

(8)  An instrument for continuously monitoring and recording
concentrations of SO2 in the gases at both the inlet and outlet of the
SO2 control device from any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerator for which the owner or operator seeks to comply specifically
with the 90 percent reduction option under §60.104(b)(1).

(i)  The span value of the inlet monitor shall be set at 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential SO2 emission concentration
entering the control device, and the span value of the outlet monitor
shall be set at 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO2
emission concentration entering the control device.

*  *  *  *  *

	(b)  An owner or operator may demonstrate that a gas stream combusted
in a fuel gas combustion device subject to §60.104(a)(1) that is not
specifically exempted in §60.105(a)(4)(iv) is inherently low in sulfur.
 A gas stream that is determined to be low-sulfur is exempt from the
monitoring requirements in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section
until there are changes in operating conditions or stream composition.

	(1)  The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a written
application for an exemption from monitoring.  The application must
contain the following information:

	(i)  A description of the gas stream/system to be considered, including
submission of a portion of the appropriate piping diagrams indicating
the boundaries of the gas stream/system, and the affected fuel gas
combustion device(s) to be considered;

	(ii)  A statement that there are no crossover or entry points for sour
gas (high H2S content) to be introduced into the gas stream/system (this
should be shown in the piping diagrams);

	(iii)  An explanation of the conditions that ensure low amounts of
sulfur in the gas stream (i.e., control equipment or product
specifications) at all times;

	(iv)  The supporting test results from sampling the requested gas
stream/system demonstrating that the sulfur content is less than 5 ppmv.
 Minimum sampling data must consist of 2 weeks of daily monitoring (14
grab samples) for frequently operated gas streams/systems; for
infrequently operated gas streams/systems, seven grab samples must be
collected unless other additional information would support reduced
sampling.  The owner or operator shall use detector tubes
(“length-of-stain tube” type measurement) following the Gas
Processor Association’s Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide
in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes, 1986 revision with ranges
0-10/0-100 ppm (N =10/1) to test the applicant stream (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17).

	(v)  A description of how the 2 weeks (or seven samples for
infrequently operated gas streams/systems) of monitoring results
compares to the typical range of H2S concentration (fuel quality)
expected for the gas stream/system going to the affected fuel gas
combustion device (e.g., the 2 weeks of daily detector tube results for
a frequently operated loading rack included the entire range of products
loaded out, and, therefore, should be representative of typical
operating conditions affecting H2S content in the gas stream going to
the loading rack flare).

	(2)  Once EPA receives a complete application, the Administrator will
determine whether an exemption is granted.  The owner or operator shall
continue to comply with the monitoring requirements in paragraph (a)(3)
or (paragraph (a)(4) of this section until an exemption is granted.  

	(3)  Once an exemption from continuous monitoring is granted, no
further action is required unless refinery operating conditions change
in such a way that affects the exempt gas stream/system (e.g., the
stream composition changes).  If such a change occurs, the owner or
operator will follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii),
or (b)(2)(iii) of this section.

	(i)  If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is still
within the range of concentrations included in the original application,
the owner or operator shall conduct an H2S test on a grab sample and
record the results as proof that the concentration is still within the
range.

	(ii)  If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is
outside the range of concentrations included in the original
application, the owner or operator may submit a new application
following the procedures of paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60
days (or within 30 days after the seventh grab sample is tested for
infrequently operated process units).

	(iii)  If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is
outside the range of concentrations included in the original application
and the owner or operator chooses not to submit a new application, the
owner or operator must begin continuous monitoring as specified in
paragraphs (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section within 60 days of the
operation change.

*  *  *  *  *

	8.  Section 60.106 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory
text and revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:

§60.106   Test methods and procedures.

*  *  *  *  *

	(b)  *  *  *

(3)  The coke burn-off rate (Rc) shall be computed for each run using
the following equation:

 − K3Qr(%CO/2 + %CO2 + %O2) + K3Qoxy (%Ooxy)

Where:

Rc 	= Coke burn-off rate, kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (lb/hr).

Qr	= Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from fluid

       catalytic cracking unit regenerator before  

       entering the emission control system, dscm/min

	  (dscf/min).

Qa 	= Volumetric flow rate of air to fluid catalytic

       cracking unit regenerator, as determined from the

       fluid catalytic cracking unit control room  

	  instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min).

Qoxy   = Volumetric flow rate of O2 enriched air to fluid 

       Catalytic cracking unit regenerator, as determined

       from the fluid catalytic cracking unit control room 

       instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min).

%CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration in fluid catalytic

       cracking unit regenerator exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis).

%CO  = CO concentration in FCCU 

       regenerator exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis).

%O2  = O2 concentration in fluid catalytic cracking unit

       regenerator exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis).

%Ooxy = O2 concentration in O2 enriched air stream inlet to 

       the fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerator,

       percent by volume (dry basis).

K1 	= Material balance and conversion factor, 0.2982 (kg-

       min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.0186 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].

K2 	= Material balance and conversion factor, 2.088 (kg-

       min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.1303 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].

K3 	= Material balance and conversion factor, 0.0994 (kg-

       min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.00624 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].

*  *  *  *  *

	(e)  *  *  *

(2)  Where emissions are monitored by §60.105(a)(3), compliance with
§60.104(a)(1) shall be determined using Method 6 or 6C and Method 3 or
3A.  The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 6.  *  *  *

*  *  *  *  *

	9.  Section 60.107 is amended by:

	a.  Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(i);

	b.  Redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as (f) and (g); and 

	c.  Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§60.107  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

*  *  *  *  *

	(c)  *  *  *

	(1)  *  *  *

(i)  The average percent reduction and average concentration of sulfur
dioxide on a dry, O2-free basis in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from any fluid cracking unit catalyst regenerator for which
the owner or operator seeks to comply with §60.104(b)(1) is below 90
percent and above 50 ppmv, as measured by the continuous monitoring
system prescribed under §60.105(a)(8), or above 50 ppmv, as measured by
the outlet continuous monitoring system prescribed under §60.105(a)(9).
*  *  *

*  *  *  *  *

(e)  For each stream combusted in a fuel gas combustion device subject
to §60.104(a)(1), if an owner or operator determines that one of the
exemptions listed in §60.105(a)(4)(iv) applies to that stream, the
owner or operator shall maintain records of the specific exemption
chosen for each stream.  If the owner or operator applies for the
exemption described in §60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), the owner or operator must
keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from the
Administrator granting approval of the application.

*  *  *  *  *

	10.  Section 60.108 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§60.108  Performance test and compliance provisions.

*  *  *  *  *

(e)  *  *  * The owner or operator shall furnish the Administrator with
a written notification of the change in the semiannual report required
by §60.107(f).

	11.  Section 60.109 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
(b)(3) and adding paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§60.109  Delegation of authority.

*  *  *  *  *

	(b)  *  *  *

	(1)  *  *  *

	(2)  Section 60.105(b), and

*  *  *  *  *

	12.  Part 60 is amended by adding subpart Ja to read as follows:

Subpart Ja--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After [INSERT
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

Sec.

60.100a  Applicability, designation of affected facility,

         and reconstruction.

60.101a  Definitions.

60.102a  Emissions limitations.

60.103a  Work practice standards.

60.104a  Performance tests.

60.105a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for fluid 

         catalytic cracking units (FCCU) and fluid coking

    	    units.

60.106a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for sulfur 

         recovery plants.

60.107a  Monitoring of emissions and operations for process

         heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices.

60.108a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

60.109a  Delegation of authority.

Subpart Ja--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After [INSERT
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

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

	(a)  The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected
facilities in petroleum refineries:  fluid catalytic cracking units
(FCCU), fluid coking units, delayed coking units, process heaters, other
fuel gas combustion devices, fuel gas producing units, and sulfur
recovery plants.  The sulfur recovery plant need not be physically
located within the boundaries of a petroleum refinery to be an affected
facility, provided it processes gases produced within a petroleum
refinery.

	(b)  The provisions of this subpart apply only to affected facilities
under paragraph (a) of this section which commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(c)  For purposes of this subpart, under §60.15, the “fixed capital
cost of the new components” includes the fixed capital cost of all
depreciable components which are or will be replaced pursuant to all
continuous programs of component replacement which are commenced within
any 2-year period following [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  For purposes of this paragraph,
“commenced” means that an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of component replacement or that an owner or operator
has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete,
within a reasonable time, a continuous program of component replacement.

§60.101a  Definitions.

	Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §60.2,
and in this section.

	Coke burn-off means the coke removed from the surface of the FCCU
catalyst by combustion in the catalyst regenerator.  The rate of coke
burn-off is calculated by the formula specified in §60.104a.

	Contact material means any substance formulated to remove metals,
sulfur, nitrogen, or any other contaminant from petroleum derivatives.

	Delayed coking unit means one or more coking units in which high
molecular weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and
petroleum coke is produced in a series of closed, batch system reactors.

	Flexicoking unit means one or more coking units in which high molecular
weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and petroleum coke is
produced then gasified to produce a synthetic fuel gas.

	Fluid catalytic cracking unit means one or more units in which
petroleum derivatives are continuously charged and hydrocarbon molecules
in the presence of a catalyst suspended in a fluidized bed are fractured
into smaller molecules, or react with a contact material suspended in a
fluidized bed to improve feedstock quality for additional processing and
the catalyst or contact material is continuously regenerated by burning
off coke and other deposits.  The unit includes the riser, reactor,
regenerator, air blowers, spent catalyst or contact material

stripper, catalyst or contact material recovery equipment, and
regenerator equipment for controlling air pollutant emissions and for
heat recovery.

	Fluid coking unit means one or more coking units in which high
molecular weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and
petroleum coke is continuously produced in a fluidized bed system and in
which the fluid coking burner exhaust gas is continuously released to
the atmosphere.  The fluid coking unit includes equipment for
controlling air pollutant emissions and for heat recovery on the fluid
coking burner exhaust vent.  Flexicoking units that use gasifiers to
generate a synthetic fuel gas for use in other processes and that do not
exhaust to the atmosphere are not considered fluid coking units under
this subpart. 

	Fresh feed means any petroleum derivative feedstock stream charged
directly into the riser or reactor of a FCCU except for petroleum
derivatives recycled within the FCCU, fractionator, or gas recovery
unit.

	Fuel gas means any gas which is generated at a petroleum refinery and
which is combusted.  Fuel gas includes natural gas when the natural gas
is combined and combusted in any proportion with a gas generated at a
refinery.  Fuel gas does not include gases generated by catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators and fluid coking burners, but does
include gases from flexicoking unit gasifiers.  Fuel gas does not
include vapors that are collected and combusted to comply with the
wastewater provisions in §60.692, 40 CFR 61.343 through 61.348, 40 CFR
63.647, or the marine tank vessel loading provisions in 40 CFR 63.562 or
40 CFR 63.651.

	Fuel gas producing unit means any refinery process unit that produces
fuel gas as a routine part of normal operations.  A fuel gas producing
unit includes, but is not limited to, the atmospheric distillation unit,
the FCCU, the catalytic hydrocracking unit, all types of coking units,
and the catalytic reforming unit. 

	Other fuel gas combustion device means any equipment, such as boilers
and flares, used to combust fuel gas, except process heaters and
facilities in which gases are combusted to produce sulfur or sulfuric
acid. 

	Oxidation control system means an emission control system which reduces
emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these emissions to
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and recycling the SO2 to the reactor furnace or the
first-stage catalytic reactor of the Claus sulfur recovery plant.

	Petroleum means the crude oil removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.

	Petroleum refinery means any facility engaged in producing gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, asphalt
(bitumen) or other products through distillation of petroleum or through
redistillation, cracking, or reforming of unfinished petroleum
derivatives.

	Process gas means any gas generated by a petroleum refinery process
unit, except fuel gas and process upset gas as defined in this section. 

	Process heater means an enclosed combustion device used to transfer
heat indirectly to process stream materials (liquids, gases, or solids)
or to a heat transfer material for use in a process unit instead of
steam.

	Process upset gas means any gas generated by a petroleum refinery
process unit as a result of upset or malfunction.

	Reduced sulfur compounds means hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl
sulfide, and carbon disulfide.

	Reduction control system means an emission control system which reduces
emissions from sulfur recovery plants by converting these emissions to
H2S and recycling the H2S to the reactor furnace or the first-stage
catalytic reactor of the Claus sulfur recovery plant.

	Refinery process unit means any segment of the petroleum refinery in
which a specific processing operation is conducted.

	Sulfur recovery plant means all process units which recover sulfur from
H2S and/or SO2 at a petroleum refinery.  The sulfur recovery plant also
includes vessels, tanks, or pits used to store the recovered sulfur
product.  For example, a Claus sulfur recovery plant includes:  reactor
furnace and waste heat boiler, catalytic reactors, sulfur pits, and, if
present, oxidation or reduction control systems, or incinerator, thermal
oxidizer, or similar combustion device.

§60.102a  Emissions limitations.

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

Option 1 for paragraph (b):

	(b)  An owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any
FCCU or fluid coking unit:

	(1)  Particulate matter (PM) in excess of 0.5 gram per kilogram (g/kg)
coke burn-off (0.5 pound (lb) PM/1,000 lbs coke burn-off) or 0.020
grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) corrected to 0 percent
excess air; and

	(2)  NOx in excess of 80 parts per million by volume (ppmv), dry basis
corrected to 0 percent excess air, on a 7-day rolling average basis; and

	(3)  SO2 in excess of 50 ppmv dry basis corrected to 0 percent excess
air, on a 7-day rolling average basis and 25 ppmv, dry basis corrected
to 0 percent excess air, on a 365-day rolling average basis; and 

	(4)  Carbon monoxide (CO) in excess of 500 ppmv, dry basis corrected to
0 percent excess air, on an hourly average basis.

Option 2 for paragraph (b)

	(b)  Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an owner
or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not
discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from any FCCU or
fluid coking unit:

	(1)  Particulate Matter (PM) in excess of 0.5 gram per kilogram (g/kg)
coke burn-off (0.5 lb PM/1,000 lbs coke burn-off) or 0.020 grains per
dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) corrected to 0 percent excess air; and

	(2)  NOx in excess of 80 parts per million by volume (ppmv), dry basis
corrected to 0 percent excess air, on a 7-day rolling average basis. 
This emissions limit does not apply to a fluid coking unit subject to
this subpart;

	(3)  SO2 in excess of 50 ppmv dry basis corrected to 0 percent excess
air, on a 7-day rolling average basis and 25 ppmv, dry basis corrected
to 0 percent excess air, on a 365-day rolling average basis; and 

	(4)  Carbon monoxide (CO) in excess of 500 ppmv, dry basis corrected to
0 percent excess air, on an hourly average basis.

	(c)  The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that uses
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) according to
§60.105a(b)(1) shall comply with the applicable control device
parameter operating limit in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.

	(1)  If the FCCU or fluid coking unit is controlled using an
electrostatic precipitator:

	(i)   The hourly average total power and secondary current to the
control device must not fall below the level established during the most
recent performance test; and

	(ii)  The exhaust coke burn-off rate must not exceed the level
established during the most recent performance test.

	(2)  If the FCCU or fluid coking unit is controlled using a wet
scrubber:

	(i)  The hourly average pressure drop must not fall below the level
established during the most recent performance test; and

	(ii)  The hourly average liquid-to-gas ratio must not fall below the
level established during the most recent performance test.

	(d)  The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is
exempted from the requirement for a CO continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) under §60.105a(g)(3) shall comply with the parameter
operating limits in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.

	(1)  For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with no post-combustion control
device:

	(i)  The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gases exiting the
FCCU or fluid coking unit must not fall below the level established
during the most recent performance test.

	(ii)  The hourly average oxygen (O2) concentration of the exhaust gases
exiting the FCCU or fluid coking unit must not fall below the level
established during the most recent performance test.

	(2)  For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with a post-combustion control
device:

	(i)  The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gas vent stream
exiting the control device must not fall below the level established
during the most recent performance test.

	(ii)  The hourly average O2 concentration of the exhaust gas vent
stream exiting the control device must not fall below the level
established during the most recent performance test.

	(e)  Each owner or operator that is subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the following emissions limits for each sulfur
recovery plant:

	(1)  For a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity greater than 20 long
tons per day (LTD), the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause
the discharge of any gases into the atmosphere containing a combined SO2
and reduced sulfur compounds concentration in excess of 250 ppmv as SO2
(dry basis) at 0 percent excess air determined hourly on a 12-hour
rolling average basis.  If the sulfur recovery plant consists of
multiple process trains or release points the owner or operator shall
comply with the 250 ppmv limit for each process train or release point
or comply with a flow rate weighted average of 250 ppmv for all release
points from the sulfur recovery plant.

	(2)  For a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity of 20 LTD or less, the
owner or operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any
gases into the atmosphere containing combined SO2 and reduced sulfur
compounds mass emissions in excess of 1 percent by weight of sulfur
recovered, measured as the mass ratio of sulfur emitted (from all
release points combined) to sulfur recovered determined hourly on a
12-hour rolling average basis.

	(3)  For all sulfur recovery plants, regardless of size, the owner or
operator shall not discharge or cause the discharge of any gases into
the atmosphere containing H2S in excess of 10 ppmv (dry basis) at 0
percent excess air determined hourly on a 12-hour rolling average basis.

	(f)  The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant subject to the
H2S emissions limit in paragraph (e)(3) of this section and that uses
CPMS pursuant to §60.106a(a)(4) shall comply with the following
operating limits:

	(1)  The hourly average temperature of the exhaust gases exiting the
sulfur recovery plant must not fall below the level established during
the most recent performance test.

	(2)  The hourly average O2 concentration of the exhaust gases exiting
the sulfur recovery plant must not fall below the level established
during the most recent performance test.

	(g)  Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall comply with the emission limitations in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3) for each process heater and other fuel gas combustion device, except
as provided in paragraph (h) and (i) of this section.  

	(1)  SO2 in excess of 20 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess
air) on a 3-hour rolling average basis; and

(2)  SO2 in excess of 8 ppmv (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess
air), determined daily on a 365 successive day rolling average basis;
and

	(3)  For process heaters with a rated capacity of greater than 20
million British thermal units per hour, NOx in excess of 80 ppmv (dry
basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air) on a 24-hour rolling average
basis.

(h)  For process heaters that combust only fuel gas and for other fuel
gas combustion devices, the following emission limitations may be used
instead of the SO2 emission limits in paragraph (g)(1) and (2) of this
section:

	(1)  For process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices that do
not combust fuel gas generated from a coking unit: 

	(i)  H2S in excess of 160 ppmv determined hourly on a 3-hour rolling
average basis; and

	(ii)  H2S in excess of 60 ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive
calendar day rolling average basis.

	(2)  For process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices that
combust fuel gas generated from a coking unit or fuel gas that is mixed
with fuel gas generated from a coking unit:

 	(i)  Total reduced sulfur (TRS) in excess of 160 ppmv determined
hourly on a 3-hour rolling average basis; and

	(ii)  TRS in excess of 60 ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive
calendar day rolling average basis.

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

Option 1 for §60.103a:

§60.103a  Work practice standards.

	(a)  Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall not routinely release fuel gas to a flare from any fuel gas
producing unit.  The combustion in a flare of process upset gases or
fuel that that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve
leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt from this paragraph.

	(b)  The owner or operator shall develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures for operating
and maintaining each affected facility during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment
used to comply with the requirements of this subpart.  The owner or
operator may use the affected source's standard operating procedures
(SOP) manual, or an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
or other plan, provided the alternative plans meet all the requirements
of this section and are made available for inspection or submitted when
requested by the Administrator. 

	(1)  The written plan must cover fluid catalytic cracking units, fluid
coking units, sulfur recovery plants (including tail gas treatment
system), amine treatment system, and fuel process heaters and other gas
combustion devices.  The written plan must include procedures to
minimize discharges either directly to the atmosphere or to the flare
gas system during the planned startup or shutdown of these units,
procedures to minimize emissions during malfunctions of the amine
treatment system or sulfur recovery plant, and procedures for conducting
a root-cause analysis of any emissions limit exceedance or process
start-up, shutdown, upset, or malfunction that causes a discharge into
the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly, from any refinery process
unit subject to the provisions of this subpart in excess of 500 lb per
day (lb/d) of SO2.

	(2)  When actions taken by the owner or operator during a startup or
shutdown (and the startup or shutdown causes the source to exceed any
applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission standards), or
malfunction (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are
consistent with the procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, the owner or operator must keep records for that event
which demonstrate that the procedures specified in the plan were
followed.  These records may take the form of a “checklist,” or
other effective form of recordkeeping that confirms conformance with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and describes the actions taken
for that event.  The owner or operator must identify the exceedance in
the semiannual excess emissions report and certify that the actions
taken during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with
the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

	(3)  If an action taken by the owner or operator during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (including an action taken to correct a
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures specified in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and the source exceeds any
applicable emission limitation, then the owner or operator must record
the actions taken for that event and identify the exceedance in the
semiannual excess emissions report.

	(4)  The owner or operator must maintain at the affected facility a
current startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and must make the plan
available to the Administrator upon request. 	(5)  The Administrator may
require the owner or operator to make changes to the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan if the Administrator finds:

	(i)  The plan does not address a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
event that has occurred;

	(ii)  The plan fails to provide for the minimization of emissions
during operation of the source (including associated air pollution
control and monitoring equipment) during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction event;

	(iii)  The plan does not provide adequate procedures for correcting
malfunctioning process and/or air pollution control and monitoring
equipment as quickly as practicable; or

	(6) The owner or operator may periodically revise the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan as necessary to satisfy the requirements
of this subpart or to reflect changes in equipment or procedures at the
affected facility. However, each such revision to a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan must be reported in the semiannual report.

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

Option 2 for §60.103a  

§60.103a  Work practice standards.

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

§60.104a  Performance tests.

	(a)  The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for a FCCU,
fluid coking unit, sulfur recovery plant, process heater and other fuel
gas combustion device to demonstrate initial compliance with each
applicable emissions limit in §60.102a according to the requirements of
§60.8.  The notification requirements of §60.8(d) apply to the initial
performance test and to subsequent performance tests required by
paragraph (b) of this section (or as required by the Administrator), but
does not apply to performance tests conducted for the purpose of
obtaining supplemental data because of continuous monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments
as provided in §60.105a(l).

	(b)  The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that elects
to monitor control device operating parameters according to the
requirements in §60.105a(b) shall conduct a PM performance test at
least once every 24 months and furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of each test.

	(c)  In conducting the performance tests required by this subpart (or
as requested by the Administrator), the owner or operator shall use the
test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or other methods as specified
in this section, except as provided in §60.8(b).

	(d)  The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the PM, NOx,
SO2, and CO emissions limits in §60.102a(b) for FCCU and fluid coking
units using the following methods and procedures:

	(1)  Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses.

	(2)  Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.

	(3)  Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(4)  Method 5 for determining PM emissions and associated moisture
content from affected facilities.

	(i)  The PM performance test consists of 3 valid test runs; the
duration of each test run must be no less than 60 minutes.

	(ii)  The emissions rate of PM (EPM) is computed for each run using
Equation 1 of this section:

 			 (Eq. 1)		

Where:

E 	=	Emission rate of PM (EPM), g/kg,

          lbs per 1,000 lbs (lb/1,000 lbs) of coke burn-	off;

cs 	=	Concentration of total PM, grams per dry standard 

		cubic meter (g/dscm), gr/dscf;

Qsd   =	Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dry standard   	cubic
meters per hour, dry standard cubic feet per 	hour;

Rc 	=	Coke burn-off rate, kilograms per hour (kg/hr), lbs 	per hour
(lbs/hr) coke; and

K 	=	Conversion factor, 1.0 grams per gram (7,000 	grains per lb).

	(iii)  The coke burn-off rate (Rc) is computed for each run using
Equation 2 of this section:

(Eq. 2)

 

Where:

Rc 	= Coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (lb/hr);

Qr 	= Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from FCCU

       regenerator or fluid coking burner before any 

       emissions control or energy recovery system that

       burns auxiliary fuel, dry standard cubic meters per

       minute (dscm/min), dry standard cubic feet per

       minute (dscf/min);

Qa 	= Volumetric flow rate of air to FCCU regenerator or 

       fluid coking burner, as determined from the unit’s 

       control room instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);

Qoxy  =	Volumetric flow rate of O2 enriched air to FCCU regenerator or
fluid coking unit, as determined from the unit’s control room
instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);

%CO2 =	Carbon dioxide concentration in FCCU regenerator or fluid coking
burner exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);

%CO  =	CO concentration in FCCU regenerator or fluid coking burner
exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);

%O2  =	O2 concentration in FCCU regenerator or fluid coking burner
exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);

%Ooxy =	O2 concentration in O2 enriched air stream inlet to the FCCU
regenerator or fluid coking burner, percent by volume (dry basis);

K1   = Material balance and conversion factor, 0.2982 (kg-

       min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.0186 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)];

K2    = Material balance and conversion factor, 2.088 (kg-

       min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.1303 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)]; and

K3   = Material balance and conversion factor, 0.0994 (kg-

       min)/(hr-dscm-%) [0.00624 (lb-min)/(hr-dscf-%)].

	(iv)  During the performance test, the volumetric flow rate of exhaust
gas from catalyst regenerator (Qr) before any emission control or energy
recovery system that burns auxiliary fuel is measured using Method 2.

	(v)  For subsequent calculations of coke burn-off rates or exhaust gas
flow rates, the volumetric flow rate of Qr is calculated using average
exhaust gas concentrations as measured by the monitors in
§60.105a(b)(2), if applicable, using Equation 3 of this section:

 		(Eq. 3)

Where:

Qr 	= Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from FCCU

       regenerator or fluid coking burner before any 

       emission control or energy recovery system that 

       burns auxiliary fuel, dscm/min (dscf/min);

Qa 	= Volumetric flow rate of air to FCCU regenerator or 

       fluid coking burner, as determined from the unit’s

       control room instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min);

Qoxy  = Volumetric flow rate of O2 enriched air to FCCU 

       regenerator or fluid coking unit, as determined from 

       the unit’s control room instrumentation, dscm/min 

       (dscf/min);

%CO2 =	Carbon dioxide concentration in FCCU regenerator or fluid coking
burner exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis);

%CO  =	CO concentration FCCU regenerator or fluid coking burner exhaust,
percent by volume (dry basis).  When no auxiliary fuel is burned and a
continuous CO monitor is not required in accordance with
§60.105a(g)(3), assume %CO to be zero;

%O2  =	O2 concentration in FCCU regenerator or fluid coking burner
exhaust, percent by volume (dry basis); and

%Ooxy =	O2 concentration in O2 enriched air stream inlet to the FCCU
regenerator or fluid coking burner, percent by volume (dry basis).

	(5)  Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E for moisture content and for the
concentration of NOx calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2); the duration
of each test run must be no less than 4 hours.  

	(6)  Method 6, 6A, or 6C for moisture content and for the concentration
of SO2; the duration of each test run must be no less than 4 hours.  The
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,”
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 6 or 6A.

	(7)  Method 10, 10a, or 10B for moisture content and for the
concentration of CO.  The sampling time for each run must be 60 minutes.

	(8)  The owner or operator shall adjust PM, NOx, SO2, and CO pollutant
concentrations to 0 percent excess air or 0 percent O2 using Equation 4
of this section: 

				

  			(Eq. 4)

Where:

Cadj	= pollutant concentration adjusted to 0 percent 

       excess air or O2, parts per million (ppm) or g/dscm;

Cmeas  = pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis, ppm

       or g/dscm;

−0.0 percent O2 (defined O2 correction basis), percent;

20.9 =	O2 concentration in air, percent; and

%O2   = 	O2 concentration measured on a dry basis, percent.

	(e)  The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is
controlled by an electrostatic precipitator or wet scrubber and that is
subject to control device operating parameter limits §60.102a(c) shall
establish the limits based on the performance test results according to
the following procedures:

	(1)	Reduce the parameter monitoring data to hourly averages for each
test run;

	(2)	Determine the operating limit for each required parameter as the
lowest hourly average voltage and secondary current and the highest coke
burn-off rate (if you use an electrostatic precipitator) or the lowest
average pressure drop and liquid-to-gas ratio (if you use a wet
scrubber) measured during a test run that achieves the applicable PM
emission limit.

	(f)  The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is
exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CO CEMS pursuant to
§60.105a(g)(3) and that is subject to control device operating
parameter limits in §60.102a(d) shall establish the limits based on the
performance test results using the following procedures:

	(1)  Reduce the temperature and O2 concentrations from the parameter
monitoring systems to hourly averages for each test run.

	(2)  Determine the operating limit for temperature and O2
concentrations as the lowest hourly average temperature and O2
concentration measured during a test run achieving the emission
limitation.

	(g)  The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the SO2 and
H2S emissions limits for sulfur recovery plants in §60.102a(e) using
the following methods and procedures:

	(1)  Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses.

	(2)  Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.

	(3)  Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(4)  Method 6, 6A, or 6C to determine the SO2 concentration.  The
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,”
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 6 or 6A.

	(5)  Method 15 or 15A to determine the reduced sulfur compounds and H2S
concentrations.

	(i)  Each run consists of 16 samples taken over a minimum of 3 hours.

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall calculate the average H2S
concentration after correcting for moisture and O2 as the arithmetic
average of the H2S concentration for each sample during the run (ppmv,
dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air).

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall calculate the SO2 equivalent for
each run after correcting for moisture and O2 as the arithmetic average
of the SO2 equivalent of reduced sulfur compounds for each sample during
the run (ppmv, dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air).

	 (iv)  The owner or operator shall use Equation 4 of this section to
adjust pollutant concentrations to 0 percent O2 or 0 percent excess air.

	(6)  The owner or operator shall calculate the combined SO2 and reduced
sulfur compound concentrations for a sulfur recovery plant with a
capacity greater than 20 LTD that is subject to the emissions limit in
§60.102a(e)(1) using Equation 5 of this section: 

  	(Eq. 5)

Where:

Ccombined 	= Cmbined SO2 and reduced sulfur compounds 	 	 	     		 
concentration, ppmv, dry basis, at 0 percent 	    	 		  excess air;

CSO2,M6 	= SO2 concentration in the exhaust stream measured 	 	 	  using
Method 6, 6A, or 6C as required in 	 	 	   		  paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, ppmv, dry 	  	 		  basis at 0 percent excess air;  The method
ASME PTC 			  19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” 				 
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an 				  acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.

CSO2_eq,M15    = SO2 equivalent concentration of reduced sulfur 			 	 
compounds in the exhaust stream measured using 			 	  Method 15 or 15A
as required in paragraph (c)(5) 		 	  of this section, ppmv, dry basis
at 0 percent 			 	  excess air.  The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue
			  and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by 				  reference-see
§60.17) is an acceptable alternative 			  to EPA Method 15A.

	(7)  The owner or operator shall calculate the mass sulfur emission
percentage for a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity of 10 LTD or less
that is subject to the emissions limit in §60.102a(e)(2) using the
following procedures:

	(i)  Calculate the combined SO2 and reduced sulfur compound
concentration using Equation 5 of this section.

	(ii)  Calculate the mass sulfur emissions percentage using Equation 6
of this section:

 	(Eq. 6)

Where:

FS,emit 	=	Mass fraction of sulfur emitted, weight percent;

K4 	   = Conversion factor, 0.5 [lbs S/lb SO2] × 60 					[min/hr] ×
1.66E-7 [lbs/dscf per ppmv]/2,240 				[lbs/long ton] = 2.22E-9 (lbs
S·min·long   					ton·lbs/dscf)/(lbs SO2·hr·lb·ppmv);

Ccombined  = Combined SO2 and reduced sulfur compounds    			
concentration, ppmv, dry basis at 0 percent 					excess air;

Qsd 	   = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas dscf/min; and

Msulfur   = Mass rate of sulfur recovery, long tons/hr.

	(h)  The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant that is subject
to the operating limits in §60.102a(f) shall establish the limits based
on the results of the performance test according to the following
procedures:

	(1)	 Reduce the temperature and O2 concentrations from the CPMS to
hourly averages for each test run;

	(2)	 Determine the operating limit for temperature and O2
concentrations as the lowest hourly average temperature and O2
concentration measured during a test run achieving the H2S emissions
limit.

	(i)  The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the SO2 and
NOx emissions limits in §60.102a(g) for a process heater or other fuel
gas combustion device according to the following test methods and
procedures:

	(1)  Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses; 

	(2)  Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate;

	(3)  Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.;

	(4)  Method 6, 6A, or 6C to determine the SO2 concentration.  The
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,”
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 6 or 6A.

	(i)  The performance test consists of 3 valid test runs; the duration
of each test run must be no less than 1 hour.

	(ii)  If a single fuel gas combustion device having a common source of
fuel gas is monitored as allowed under §60.107a(a)(2)(v), only one
performance test is required.  That is, performance tests are not
required when a new affected fuel gas combustion device is added to a
common source of fuel gas that previously demonstrated compliance.

	(5)  Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E for moisture content and for the
concentration of NOx calculated as NO2; the duration of each test run
must be no less than 4 hours.

	(j)  The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the H2S or
TRS emissions limit in §60.102a(h) for a process heater or other fuel
gas combustion device according to the following test methods and
procedures:

	(1)  Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses; 

	(2)  Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate;

	(3)  Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.;

	(4)  Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 for determining the H2S concentration
for affected plants using an H2S monitor as specified in §60.107a(a)(1)
or Method 16 for determining the TRS concentration.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A.

	(i)  For Method 11, the sampling time and sample volume must be at
least 10 minutes and 0.010 dscm (0.35 dscf).  Two samples of equal
sampling times must be taken at about 1-hour intervals.  The arithmetic
average of these two samples constitute a run.  For most fuel gases,
sampling times exceeding 20 minutes may result in depletion of the
collection solution, although fuel gases containing low concentrations
of H2S may necessitate sampling for longer periods of time.

	(ii)  For Method 15 or 16, at least three injects over a 1-hour period
constitutes a run.

	(iii)  For Method 15A, a 1-hour sample constitutes a run.  The method
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated
by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
15A.

	(iv)  If monitoring is conducted at a single point in a common source
of fuel gas as allowed under §60.107a(a)(1)(iv), only one performance
test is required.  That is, performance tests are not required when a
new affected fuel gas combustion device is added to a common source of
fuel gas that previously demonstrated compliance.

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

	(a)  FCCU and fluid coking units subject to PM emissions limit.  Each
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall
monitor each FCCU and fluid coking unit subject to the PM emissions
limit in §60.102a(b)(1) according to the requirements in paragraph (b),
(c), or (d) of this section.

	(b)  Control device operating parameters.  Each owner or operator of a
FCCU or fluid coking unit subject to the PM emissions limit in
§60.102a(b)(1) shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.

	(1)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain
continuous parameter monitor systems (CPMS) to measure and record
operating parameters for each control device according to the
requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    	(i)  For units controlled using an electrostatic precipitator, the
owner or operator shall use CPMS to measure and record the hourly
average total power input and secondary voltage to the control device.

	(ii)  For units controlled using a wet scrubber, the owner or operator
shall use CPMS to measure and record the hourly average pressure drop,
liquid feed rate, and exhaust gas flow rate.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
CPMS according to the manufacturer’s specifications and requirements.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and
maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring the concentrations of
CO2, O2 (dry basis), and if needed, CO in the exhaust gases prior to any
control or energy recovery system that burns auxiliary fuels.

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each CO2, O2, and CO monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c)
and Performance Specification 3.  The owner or operator shall use Method
3 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, including
quarterly accuracy determinations for CO2 and CO monitors, annual
accuracy determinations for O2 monitors, and daily calibration drift
tests.

	(3)  The owner or operator shall determine and record the average coke
burn-off rate and hours of operation for each FCCU or fluid coking unit
using the procedures in §60.104a(d)(4)(vii).	 

	(c)  Bag leak detection systems.  Each owner or operator of a FCCU or
fluid coking unit shall install, operate, and maintain a bag leak
detection system for each baghouse that is used to comply with the PM
emissions limit in §60.102a(b)(1) according to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section; prepare and operate by a site-specific monitoring plan
according to paragraph (c)(2) of this section; take corrective action
according to paragraph (c)(3) of this section; and record information
according to paragraph (c)(4) of this section. 

	(1)  Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section. 

	(i)  The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot or less.

	(ii)  The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings.  The owner or operator shall continuously record
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).

	(iii)  The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located such
that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

	(iv)  In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, the
owner or operator must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by
adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the
device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.

	(v)  Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not
adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time
without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as
provided in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section.

	(vi)  Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal
effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures
identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.

	(vii)  The owner or operator shall install the bag leak detection
sensor downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.

	(viii)  Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall develop and submit to the
Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each
baghouse and bag leak detection system.  The owner or operator shall
operate and maintain each baghouse and bag leak detection system
according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all times.  Each
monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(vii) of this section.

	(i)  Installation of the bag leak detection system;

	(ii)  Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
including how the alarm set-point will be established;

	(iii)  Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;

	(iv)  How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;

	(v)  How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored;

	(vi)  Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section.  In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators more
than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an alarm if
the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this specific
condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately explains why it
is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 hours of the time
the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested time will ensure
alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as practicable; and

	(vii)  How the baghouse system will be operated and maintained,
including monitoring of pressure drop across baghouse cells and
frequency of visual inspections of the baghouse interior and baghouse
components such as fans and dust removal and bag cleaning mechanisms.

	(3)  For each bag leak detection system, the owner or operator shall
initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour
of the alarm.  Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this
section, the owner or operator shall alleviate the cause of the alarm
within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are
necessary.  Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the
following:

	(i)  Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
particulate emissions;

	(ii)  Sealing off defective bags or filter media;

	(iii)  Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing
the control device;

	(iv)  Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;

	(v)  Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system; or

	(vi)  Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

	(4)  The owner or operator shall maintain records of the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section for each
bag leak detection system.

	(i)  Records of the bag leak detection system output;

	(ii)  Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the
date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection system
settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and

	(iii)  The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the
time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated,
the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, the date
and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether the alarm
was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.

	(d)  Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).  The owner or
operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit subject to the PM emissions
limit (gr/dscf) in §60.102a(b)(1) shall install, operate, calibrate,
and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration (0 percent excess air) of PM in the exhaust gases prior to
release to the atmosphere.  The monitor must include an O2 monitor for
correcting the data for excess air.  

	(1)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each PM
monitor according to Performance Specification 11 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.  The span value of this PM monitor is 0.08 gr/dscf PM.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each PM monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 11.  The owner or operator shall use Method 5
for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.

	(3)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O2
monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.  The span value of this O2 monitor is 25 percent.

	(4)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each O2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be used for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(5)  The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 2 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each PM
CEMS and procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each O2 monitor,
including quarterly accuracy determinations for each PM monitor, annual
accuracy determinations for each O2 monitor, and daily calibration drift
tests.

	(e)  FCCU and fluid coking units subject to NOx limit.  

Each owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit subject to the NOx
emissions limit in §60.102a(b)(2) shall install, operate, calibrate,
and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration by volume (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of NOx
emissions into the atmosphere.  The monitor must include an O2 monitor
for correcting the data for excess air. 

	(1)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
NOx monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value of this NOx monitor is 200 ppmv NOx.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each NOx monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2.  The owner or operator shall use Methods 7,
7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for conducting the
relative accuracy evaluations.

	(3)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O2
monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.  The span value of this O2 monitor is 25 percent.

	(4)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each O2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be used for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.  

	(5)  The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each SO2
and O2 monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations for SO2
monitors, annual accuracy determinations for O2 monitors, and daily
calibration drift tests.

	(f)  FCCU and fluid coking units subject to SO2 limit.  The owner or
operator a FCCU and fluid coking unit subject to the SO2 emissions limit
in §60.102a(b)(3) shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration
by volume (dry basis, corrected to 0 percent excess air) of SO2
emissions into the atmosphere.  The monitor shall include an O2 monitor
for correcting the data for excess air. 

	(1)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
SO2 monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value of this SO2 monitor is 200 ppmv SO2.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each SO2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2.  The owner or operator shall use Methods 6,
6A, or 6C (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for conducting the relative
accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A.

	(3)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O2
monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.  The span value of this O2 monitor is 10 percent.

	(4)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each O2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be used for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(5)  The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each SO2
and O2 monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations for SO2
monitors, annual accuracy determinations for O2 monitors, and daily
calibration drift tests.

	(g)  FCCU and fluid coking units subject to CO emissions limit.  Except
as specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, the owner or operator
shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume (dry
basis) of CO emissions into the atmosphere from each FCCU and fluid
coking unit subject to the CO emissions limit in §60.102a(b)(4).

	(1)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each CO
monitor according to Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for this instrument is 1,000 ppm CO.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each CO monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).  The owner or
operator shall use Methods 10, 10A, or 10B for conducting the relative
accuracy evaluations using the procedures specified in §60.106a(b).

	(3)  A CO CEMS need not be installed if the owner or operator
demonstrates that the average CO emissions are less than 50 ppm (dry
basis) and also submits a written request for exemption to the
Administrator and receives such an exemption.

  	(i)  The demonstration shall consist of continuously monitoring CO
emissions for 30 days using an instrument that meets the requirements of
Performance Specification 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  The span
value shall be 100 ppm CO instead of 1,000 ppm, and the relative
accuracy limit shall be 10 percent of the average CO emissions or 5 ppm
CO, whichever is greater.  For instruments that are identical to Method
10 and employ the sample conditioning system of Method 10A, the
alternative relative accuracy test procedure in section 10.1 of
Performance Specification 2 may be used in place of the relative
accuracy test.

	(ii)  The written request for exemption must include descriptions of
the CPMS for exhaust gas temperature and O2 monitor required in
paragraph (g)(4) of this section and operating limits for those
parameters to ensure combustion conditions remain similar to those that
exist during the demonstration period. 

	(4)  The owner or operator of a FCCU or fluid coking unit that is
exempted from the requirement to install and operate a CO CEMS in
paragraph (g)(3) of this section shall install, operate, calibrate, and
maintain CPMS to measure and record the operating parameters in
paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.  The owner or operator
shall install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the
manufacturer’s specifications.

	(i)  For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with no post-combustion control
device, the temperature and O2 concentration of the exhaust gas stream
exiting the unit.

	(ii)  For a FCCU or fluid coking unit with a post-combustion control
device, the temperature and 

O2 concentration of the exhaust gas stream exiting the control device.

	(h)  Excess emissions.  For the purpose of reports required by
§60.7(c), periods of excess emissions for a FCCU or fluid coking unit
subject to the emissions limitations in §60.102a(b) are defined as
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section.  Note:
Determine all averages as the arithmetic average of the applicable
1-hour averages, e.g., determine the rolling 3-hour average as the
arithmetic average of three contiguous 1-hour averages.

	(1)  All 24-hour periods during which the average PM control device
operating characteristics, as measured by the continuous monitoring
systems under §60.105a(b)(1), fall below the levels established during
the performance test.  Alternatively, if a PM CEMS is used according to
§60.105a(d), all 7-day periods during which the average PM emission
rate, as measured by the continuous PM monitoring system under
§60.105a(a)(2) exceeds 0.020 gr/dscf.

	(2)  All rolling 7-day periods during which the average concentration
of NOx as measured by the NOx CEMS under §60.105a(e) exceeds 80 ppmv.

	(3)  All rolling 7-day periods during which the average concentration
of SO2 as measured by the SO2 CEMS under §60.105a(f) exceeds 50 ppmv,
and all rolling 365-day periods during which the average concentration
of SO2 as measured by the SO2 CEMS exceeds 25 ppmv.

	(4)  All 1-hour periods during which the average CO concentration as
measured by the CO continuous monitoring system under §60.105a(g)
exceeds 500 ppmv or, if applicable, all 1-hour periods during which the
average temperature and O2 concentration as measured by the continuous
monitoring systems under §60.105a(g)(4) fall below the operating limits
established during the performance test.

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

	(a)  Sulfur recovery plants.  The owner or operator of a sulfur
recovery plant shall comply with the applicable requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.

	(1)  The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity
greater than 20 LTD that is subject to an SO2 emissions limit in
§60.102a(e)(1) shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument using an air or O2 dilution and oxidation system to convert
any reduced sulfur to SO2 for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) of the total resultant
SO2.  The monitor must include an O2 monitor for correcting the data for
excess O2.

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
SO2 CEMS according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for this monitor is 500 ppm SO2.

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each SO2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  The owner or
operator shall use Methods 6 or 6C and 15 or 15A (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,”
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 6 or 15A.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
O2 monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for the O2 monitor is 25 percent O2.

	(iv)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
the O2 monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  The owner or operator shall use Methods 3,
3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated
by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(v)  The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality
assurance procedures of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each monitor,
including quarterly accuracy determinations for each SO2 monitor, annual
accuracy determinations for each O2 monitor, and daily calibration drift
determinations.

	(2)  The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant with a capacity
of less than 20 LTD that is subject to an SO2 emissions limit in
§60.102a(e)(2) shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument using an air or O2 dilution and oxidation system to convert
any reduced sulfur to SO2 for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration of the total resultant SO2 and an instrument for
continuously monitoring the volumetric flow rate of gases released to
the atmosphere.  The SO2 monitor must include an O2 monitor for
correcting the data for excess O2.

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
SO2 monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for the SO2 monitor shall be set at 125
percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO2 emission
concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit at full
sulfur production capacity.

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
the SO2 monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  Methods 6,
6A, 6C, 15, or 15A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6, 6A,
or 15A.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
O2 monitor and flow monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40
CFR part 60, appendix B).  The span value for the O2 monitor is 25
percent O2.  The span value for the volumetric flow monitor shall be set
at 125 percent of the maximum estimated volumetric flow rate when the
unit is operating at full process capacity.

	(iv)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
the O2 monitor and flow monitor according to the requirements of
§60.13(c) and Performance Specification 3.  The owner or operator shall
use Methods 3, 3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy
evaluations.  The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(v)  The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality
assurance requirements in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each monitor,
including quarterly accuracy determinations for SO2 and flow monitors,
annual accuracy determinations for O2 monitors, and daily calibration
drift tests.

	 (3)  Except as provided under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the
owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant that is subject to the H2S
emissions limit in §60.102a(e)(3) shall install, operate, calibrate,
and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration of H2S (dry basis, 0 percent excess air) emissions into
the atmosphere.  The H2S monitor must include an O2 monitor for
correcting the data for excess O2.

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
H2S monitor according to Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for this instrument is 20 ppmv H2S.

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
each H2S monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  The owner or
operator shall use Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME
PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
O2 monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.  The span value of this O2 monitor is 25 percent.

	(iv)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each O2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be used for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(v)  The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each
monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests. 

	(4)  In place of the H2S monitor required in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, the owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant that is
subject to the H2S emissions limit in §60.102a(e)(3) and that is
equipped with an oxidation control system, incinerator, thermal
oxidizer, or similar combustion device can use a CPMS for continuously
monitoring and recording the temperature of the exhaust gases and an O2
monitor for continuously monitoring and recording the O2 concentration
of the exhaust gases.

	(i)  The span values for the temperature monitor is 1,500°F.

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
O2 monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for the O2 monitor is 25 percent O2.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
the O2 monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  The owner or operator shall use Methods 3,
3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated
by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(iv)  The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality
assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each O2 monitor,
including annual accuracy determinations.

	(5)  The owner or operator of a sulfur recovery plant subject to an
emissions limit in §60.102a(b) shall determine and record the hourly
sulfur production rate and hours of operation for each sulfur recovery
plant.

	(b)  Excess emissions.  For the purpose of reports required by
§60.7(c), periods of excess emissions for sulfur recovery plants
subject to the emissions limitations in §60.102a(b) are defined as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.  Note: 
Determine all averages as the arithmetic average of the applicable
1-hour averages, e.g., determine the rolling 3-hour average as the
arithmetic average of three contiguous 1-hour averages.

	(1)  For sulfur recovery plants with a capacity greater than 20 LTD,
all 12-hour periods during which the average concentration of SO2 and
reduced sulfur compounds as measured by the SO2 continuous monitoring
system under paragraph (a)(1) of this section exceeds 250 ppmv (dry
basis, 0 percent excess air).

	(2)  For sulfur recovery plants with a capacity of 20 LTD or less, all
12-hour periods during which the mass rate of SO2 and reduced sulfur
compounds as measured by the continuous monitoring systems under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section exceeds 1 percent of sulfur recovered.

	(3)  All 1-hour periods during which the average concentration of H2S
as measured by the H2S continuous monitoring system under paragraph
(a)(3) of this section exceeds 10 ppm (dry basis, 0 percent excess air)
or, if applicable, all 1-hour periods during which the average
temperature and O2 concentration as measured by the continuous
monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(4) of this section fall below the
operating limits established during the performance test.

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

	(a)  Process heaters and other fuel gas combustion devices subject to
SO2, H2S, or TRS limit.  The owner or operator of a process heater or
other fuel gas combustion device that is subject to the requirements in
§60.102(a)(g) shall comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section for SO2 emissions.  Alternatively, the owner or operator of
a process heater or other fuel gas combustion device who elects to
satisfy the requirements of §60.102(a)(h) shall comply with the
requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for H2S concentration
limits or paragraph (a)(3) of this section for TRS concentration limits.
 Certain exceptions to all of these requirements are provided in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(1)  The owner or operator of a process heater or other fuel gas
combustion device subject to the SO2 emissions limits in §60.102a(g)(i)
and (ii) shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument
for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration (dry basis,
0 percent excess air) of SO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  The monitor
must include an O2 monitor for correcting the data for excess air.

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
SO2 monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span values for the SO2 monitor is 50 ppm SO2. 

	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
the SO2 monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  The owner or
operator shall use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or
6A.  Method 6 samples shall be taken at a flow rate of approximately 2
liters/min for at least 30 minutes.  The relative accuracy limit shall
be 20 percent or 4 ppm, whichever is greater, and the calibration drift
limit shall be 5 percent of the established span value.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
O2 monitor according to Performance Specification 3 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for the O2 monitor is 25 percent O2.

	(iv)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
the O2 monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  The owner or operator shall use Methods 3,
3A, or 3B for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated
by reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.

	(v)  The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality
assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, including quarterly
accuracy determinations for SO2 monitors, annual accuracy determinations
for O2 monitors, and daily calibration drift tests.

	(vi)  Process heaters or other fuel gas combustion devices having a
common source of fuel gas may be monitored at only one location (i.e.,
after one of the combustion devices), if monitoring at this location
accurately represents the SO2 emissions into the atmosphere from each of
the combustion devices.

	(2)  The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device subject to
the H2S concentration limits in §60.102a(h)(1) shall install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and
recording the concentration by volume (dry basis) of H2S in the fuel
gases before being burned in any fuel gas combustion device. 

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
H2S monitor according to Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for this instrument is 425 ppmv H2S.

  	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
each H2S monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 7 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  The owner or
operator shall use Method 11, 15, 15A, or 16 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
A) for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME
PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 15A.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality
assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each H2S monitor.

	(iv)  Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas
may be monitored at only one location, if monitoring at this location
accurately represents the concentration of H2S in the fuel gas being
burned.

	(3)  The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device subject to
the TRS concentration limits in §60.102a(h)(2) shall install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and
recording the concentration by volume (dry basis) of TRS in the fuel
gases before being burned in any fuel gas combustion device. 

	(i)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
TRS monitor according to Performance Specification 5 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value for this instrument is 425 ppmv TRS.

  	(ii)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations for
each TRS monitor according to the requirements of §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).  The owner or
operator shall use Method 16 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for conducting
the relative accuracy evaluations.

	(iii)  The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable quality
assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each TRS monitor.

	(iv)  Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas
may be monitored at only one location, if monitoring at this location
accurately represents the concentration of TRS in the fuel gas being
burned.

	(4)  The owner or operator of a process heater or other fuel gas
combustion device is not required to comply with paragraph (a)(1),
paragraph (a)(2), or paragraph (a)(3) of this section for streams that
are exempt under §60.102(a)(i) and fuel gas streams combusted in a
process heater or other fuel gas combustion device that are inherently
low in sulfur content.  Fuel gas streams meeting one of the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section will be considered
inherently low in sulfur content.

	(i)  Pilot gas for heaters and flares.

	(ii)  Gas streams that meet commercial-grade product specifications and
have a sulfur content of 30 ppmv or less.

	(iii)  Fuel gas streams produced in process units that are intolerant
to sulfur contamination, such as fuel gas streams produced in the
hydrogen plant, catalytic reforming unit, and isomerization unit.

	(iv)  Other streams that an owner or operator demonstrates are
low-sulfur according to the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.

	(5)  If the composition of an exempt stream changes such that it is no
longer exempt under §60.102(a)(i) or it no longer meets one of the
criteria in paragraph (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section, the owner
or operator must begin continuously monitoring the stream within 15 days
of the change.

	(b)  Exemption from H2S monitoring requirements for low-sulfur gas
streams.  The owner or operator of a fuel gas combustion device may
apply for an exemption from the H2S monitoring requirements in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section or the TRS monitoring requirements in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section for a gas stream that is inherently low in sulfur
content.  A gas stream that is demonstrated to be low-sulfur is exempt
from the monitoring requirements of paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
section until there are changes in operating conditions or stream
composition.

	(1)  The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator a written
application for an exemption from the H2S or TRS monitoring
requirements.  The owner or operator shall include the following
information in the application:

	(i)  A description of the gas stream/system to be considered, including
submission of a portion of the appropriate piping diagrams indicating
the boundaries of the gas stream/system, and the affected fuel gas
combustion device(s) to be considered;

	(ii)  A statement that there are no crossover or entry points for sour
gas (high H2S content) to be introduced into the gas stream/system (this
should be shown in the piping diagrams);

	(iii)  An explanation of the conditions that ensure low amounts of
sulfur in the gas stream (i.e., control equipment or product
specifications) at all times;

	(iv)  The supporting test results from sampling the requested gas
stream/system demonstrating that the sulfur content is less than 5 ppm
H2S or TRS.  Sampling data must include, at minimum, 2 weeks of daily
monitoring (14 grab samples) for frequently operated gas
streams/systems; for infrequently operated gas streams/systems, seven
grab samples must be collected unless other additional information would
support reduced sampling.  The owner or operator shall use detector
tubes (“length-of-stain tube” type measurement) following the “Gas
Processor Association’s Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide
in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes,” 1986 Revision
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17) with ranges 0-10/0-100 ppm (N
=10/1) to test the applicant stream for H2S or Method 16 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A) for TRS.

 	(v)  A description of how the 2 weeks (or seven samples for
infrequently operated gas streams/systems) of monitoring results
compares to the typical range of H2S concentration (fuel quality)
expected for the gas stream/system going to the affected fuel gas
combustion device (e.g., the 2 weeks of daily detector tube results for
a frequently operated loading rack included the entire range of products
loaded out, and, therefore, should be representative of typical
operating conditions affecting H2S or TRS content in the gas stream
going to the loading rack flare).

	(2)  Once EPA receives a complete application, the Administrator will
determine whether an exemption is granted.  The owner or operator shall
continue to comply with the monitoring requirements in paragraph (a)(2)
or paragraph (a)(3) of this section until an exemption is granted.

	(3)  Once an exemption from H2S or TRS monitoring is granted, no
further action is required unless refinery operating conditions change
in such a way that affects the exempt gas stream/system (e.g., the
stream composition changes).  If such a change occurs, the owner or
operator shall follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)
(ii), or (b)(3)(iii) of this section.

	(i)  If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is still
within the range of concentrations included in the original application,
the owner or operator shall conduct an H2S test on a grab sample (or TRS
test, if applicable) and record the results as proof that the
concentration is still within the range.

	(ii)  If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is
outside the range of concentrations included in the original
application, the owner or operator may submit a new application
following the procedures of paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60
days (or within 30 days after the seventh grab sample is tested for
infrequently operated process units).

	(iii)  If the operation change results in a sulfur content that is
outside the range of concentrations included in the original
application, and the owner or operator chooses not to submit a new
application, the owner or operator must begin continuous H2S or TRS
monitoring as required in paragraph (a)(2) or paragraph (a)(3) of this
section within 15 days of the operation change.

(c)  Process heaters subject to NOx limit.  The owner or operator of a
process heater subject to the NOx emissions limits in §60.102a(g)(iii)
shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration (dry basis, 0
percent excess air) of NOx emissions into the atmosphere.  The monitor
must include an O2 monitor for correcting the data for excess air.

	(1)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each
NOx monitor according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B).  The span value of this NOx monitor is 200 ppmv NOx.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each NOx monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2.  The owner or operator shall use Methods 7,
7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for conducting the
relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 7 or 7C.

	(3)  The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain each O2
monitor according to Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.  The span value of this O2 monitor is 25 percent.

	(4)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each O2 monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 3.  Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be used for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.  

	(5)  The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F for each SO2
and O2 monitor, including quarterly accuracy determinations for SO2
monitors, annual accuracy determinations for O2 monitors, and daily
calibration drift tests.

	(d)  Excess emissions.  For the purpose of reports required by
§60.7(c), periods of excess emissions for process heaters and other
fuel gas combustion devices subject to the emissions limitations in
§60.102a(g) or §60.102a(h) are defined as specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (3) of this section.  Note:  Determine all averages as the
arithmetic average of the applicable 1-hour averages, e.g., determine
the rolling 3-hour average as the arithmetic average of three contiguous
1-hour averages.

	(1)  All rolling 3-hour periods during which the average concentration
of SO2 as measured by the SO2 continuous monitoring system under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section exceeds 20 ppmv, and all rolling
365-day periods during which the average concentration as measured by
the SO2 continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section exceeds 8 ppmv.

	(2)  All rolling 3-hour periods during which the average concentration
of H2S as measured by the H2S continuous monitoring system under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section or the average concentration of TRS as
measured by the TRS continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(3)
of this section exceeds 160 ppmv, and all rolling 365-day periods during
which the average concentration as measured by the H2S continuous
monitoring system under paragraph (a)(2) or the average concentration as
measured by the TRS continuous monitoring system under paragraph (a)(3)
of this section exceeds 60 ppmv.

	(3)  All rolling 24-hour periods during which the average concentration
of NOx as measured by the NOx continuous monitoring system under
paragraph (c) of this section exceeds 80 ppmv (dry basis, 0 percent
excess air).

§60.108a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

	(a)  Each owner or operator subject to the emissions limitations in
§60.102a shall comply with the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in §60.7 and other requirements as specified in
this section.

	(b)  Each owner or operator subject to an emissions limitation in
§60.102a shall notify the Administrator of the specific monitoring
provisions of §§60.105a, 60.106a, and 60.107a with which the owner or
operator seeks to comply.  Notification shall be submitted with the
notification of initial startup required by §60.7(a)(3).

Option 1 for paragraph (c):

	(c)  The owner or operator shall maintain the following records:

	(1)  A copy of the startup and shutdown plan required in §60.103a(b).

	(2)  Records of information to document conformance with operation and
maintenance requirements in §60.105a(c).

	(3)  Records of bag leak detection system alarms and corrective actions
according to §63.105a(c).

	(4)  For each catalytic cracking unit or fluid coking unit subject to
the monitoring requirements in §60.105a(b)(3), records of the average
coke burn-off rate and hours of operation. 

	(5)  For each sulfur recovery plant subject to monitoring requirements
in §60.106a(a)(5), records of the hourly sulfur production rate and
hours of operation for each sulfur recovery plant.

(6)  For each fuel gas stream to which one of the exemptions listed in
§60.107a(a)(4) applies, records of the specific exemption determined to
apply for each stream.  If the owner or operator applies for the
exemption described in §60.107a(a)(4)(iv), the owner or operator must
keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from the
Administrator granting approval of the application.

Option 2 for paragraph (c):

	(c)  The owner or operator shall maintain the following records:

	(1)  Records of information to document conformance with operation and
maintenance requirements in §60.105a(c).

	(2)  Records of bag leak detection system alarms and corrective actions
according to §63.105a(c).

	(3)  For each catalytic cracking unit or fluid coking unit subject to
the monitoring requirements in §60.105a(b)(3), records of the average
coke burn-off rate and hours of operation. 

	(4)  For each sulfur recovery plant subject to monitoring requirements
in §60.106a(a)(5), records of the hourly sulfur production rate and
hours of operation for each sulfur recovery plant.

(5)  For each fuel gas stream to which one of the exemptions listed in
§60.107a(a)(4) applies, records of the specific exemption determined to
apply for each stream.  If the owner or operator applies for the
exemption described in §60.107a(a)(4)(iv), the owner or operator must
keep a copy of the application as well as the letter from the
Administrator granting approval of the application.

Option 1 for paragraph (d):

	(d)  The owner or operator shall record and maintain records of
discharges from any affected unit to the flare gas system.  These
records shall include:

	(1)  A description of the discharge;

	(2)  The date and time the discharge was first identified and the
duration of the discharge;

	(3)  The measured or calculated cumulative quantity of gas discharged
over the discharge duration.  If the discharge duration exceeds 24
hours, record the discharge quantity for each 24 hour period. 
Engineering calculations are allowed.

	(4)  The measured or estimated concentration of H2S and SO2 of the
stream discharged.  Process knowledge can be used to make these
estimates;

	(5)  The cumulative quantity of H2S and SO2 released into the
atmosphere.  For releases controlled by flares or other fuel gas
combustion units, assume 99 percent conversion of H2S to SO2 and no
reduction of SO2.

	(6)  Results of any root-cause analysis conducted as required in
§60.103a(b).

Option 2 for paragraph (d):

	(d)  The owner or operator shall record and maintain records of
discharges from any affected unit to the flare gas system.  These
records shall include:

	(1)  A description of the discharge;

	(2)  The date and time the discharge was first identified and the
duration of the discharge;

	(3)  The measured or calculated cumulative quantity of gas discharged
over the discharge duration.  If the discharge duration exceeds 24
hours, record the discharge quantity for each 24 hour period. 
Engineering calculations are allowed.

	(4)  The measured or estimated concentration of H2S and SO2 of the
stream discharged.  Process knowledge can be used to make these
estimates;

	(5)  The cumulative quantity of H2S and SO2 released into the
atmosphere.  For releases controlled by flares or other fuel gas
combustion units, assume 99 percent conversion of H2S to SO2 and no
reduction of SO2.

Option 1 for paragraph (e):

(e)  Each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall submit an
excess emissions report for all periods of excess emissions according to
the requirements of §60.7(c) except that the report shall contain the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section. 

	(1)  The date that the exceedance occurred;

	(2)  An explanation of the exceedance;

	(3)  Whether the exceedance was concurrent with a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of a process unit or control system; and

	(4)  A description of the corrective action taken, if any.

	(5)  A root-cause summary report that provides the information
described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section for all
discharges for which a root-cause analysis was required by §60.103a(b).

	(6)  For any periods for which monitoring data are not available, any
changes made in operation of the emission control system during the
period of data unavailability which could affect the ability of the
system to meet the applicable emission limit.  Operations of the control
system and affected facility during periods of data unavailability are
to be compared with operation of the control system and affected
facility before and following the period of data unavailability; and

	(7)  A written statement, signed by a responsible official, certifying
the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the
report.

Option 2 for paragraph (e):

	(e)  Each owner or operator subject to this subpart shall submit an
excess emissions report for all periods of excess emissions according to
the requirements of §60.7(c) except that the report shall contain the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of this section. 

	(1)  The date that the exceedance occurred;

	(2)  An explanation of the exceedance;

	(3)  Whether the exceedance was concurrent with a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of a process unit or control system;

	(4)  A description of the corrective action taken, if any.

	(5)  For any periods for which monitoring data are not available, any
changes were made in operation of the emission control system during the
period of data unavailability which could affect the ability of the
system to meet the applicable emission limit.  Operations of the control
system and affected facility during periods of data unavailability are
to be compared with operation of the control system and affected
facility before and following the period of data unavailability;

	(6)  A written statement, signed by a responsible official, certifying
the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the
report.

	(f)  The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the
reports required under this subpart to the Administrator semiannually
for each 6-month period.  All semiannual reports shall be postmarked by
the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period.

§ 60.109a  Delegation of authority.  

	(a)  This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a
delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency.  You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart
is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.

	(b)  In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval authorities
contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained
by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.

	(1)  Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard.

	(2)  Approval of a major change to test methods under 40 CFR 60.8(b). 
A “major change to test method” is defined in §63.90.

	(3)  Approval of a major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 60.13(i).  A
“major change to monitoring” is defined in §63.90.

	(4)  Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40 CFR
60.7(b) through (f).  A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is
defined in §63.90.

ý

D

º

M

“

”

½

Ö

ü

ý

 

(

,

@

D

N

~

‚

–

º

Í

Î

 h3

愀Ĥ摧懫	

愀Ĥ摧懫	

愀Ĥ摧懫	

>* h3

4

4

4

4

4

4

 h3

4

4

4

4

4

 h

h

h

hH!

hH!

hÏ1

$

@

$

@

kd¡

欀ꡤ

摧判¬

>

Œ

=

>

B

‰

 

h”

 h‚

	T

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

h

&

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

# h‚

  h‚

	Ý

  h‚

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

&

&

&

Æ

`„Ðgd4

hâ

h4

h4

h4

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

&

&

&

Æ

&

Æ

*

+

4

5

9

Ñ

Ö

]

j

Ž

“

•

–

 

°

Â

Ã

Ë

Ì

Ï

 h

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

&

&

Æ

h3

옍)

 hÒ

&

]



Æ

Ô

]



›

©

Æ

Ô

&

C

D

Z

z

z

œ

¸

ó

@

@

 

 

,

-

|

}

U

V

8,000 in 2010 and $22,000 in 2015, both of which are quite close to the
estimate we use in this analysis.  We use the NOx benefits/ton estimate
from the CAIR benefits analysis since there is not one available from
the Industrial Boilers MACT benefits
analy楳⁳渨⁯低⁸敲畤瑣潩獮琠歡⁥汰捡⁥獡愠爠獥汵
⁴景琠敨䤠摮獵牴慩⁬潂汩牥⁳䅍呃⸩ഠ഍ഃЍ഍ഃЍ
഍倓䝁⁅ᔠ഍ግ䅐䕇†ㄔ㠲ക഍瑓湡慤摲⁳景倠牥潦浲
湡散映牯ഠ敐牴汯略⁭敒楦敮楲獥ⴭ慰敧
漠⁦ㄲവ഍ ഍഍