DAQ-2024-005009

1

DAQC-098-24
Site ID # 10122 (B5)
MEMORANDUM

TO: CEM FILE – BIG WEST OIL LLC

THROUGH: Harold Burge, Major Source Compliance Section Manager

FROM: Rob Leishman, Environmental Scientist

DATE: February 2, 2024

SUBJECT: Source: Milli-Second Catalytic Cracker Unit (MSCC), Primary and
Secondary Vapor Recovery Units (VRU)
Contact: Brady Miller – 385-324-1275
Location: 333 West Center Street, North Salt Lake, Davis County, UT
Test Contractor: Alliance Source Testing
FRS ID#: UT0000004901100008
Permit/AO#: AO DAQE-AN101220077-22 dated January 13, 2022
Subject: Review of RA/PST Protocol dated January 24, 2024

On January 24, 2024, DAQ received a protocol by email for a RA/PST (relative accuracy/performance
specification test) of the Big West Oil MSCC in North Salt Lake, UT. Testing will be performed on
March 12-14, 2024, to determine the relative accuracy of the O2, CO2, NOX, SO2, CO, and THC
monitoring systems.

PROTOCOL CONDITIONS:

1. RM 1 used to determine sample velocity traverses; OK
2. RM 3A used to determine dry molecular weight of the gas stream; OK
3. RM 6C used to determine SO2 emissions; OK
4. RM 7E used to determine NOX concentrations of emissions; OK
5. RM 10 used to determine CO concentrations of emissions; OK
6. RM 205 used to certify gas dilution systems; OK
7. RM 25B used to determine total hydrocarbon concentration by non-dispersive infrared
analyzer; OK

DEVIATIONS: No deviations were noted.

CONCLUSION: The protocol appears to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: Send attached protocol review and test date confirmation notice.

1 8 2

Site Specific Test Plan

Big West Oil, LLC
333 West Center Street
North Salt Lake, UT 84054

Sources to be Tested: MSCC & VRU (North & South)
Proposed Test Dates: March 12-14, 2024

Project No. AST-2024-0384

Prepared By
Alliance Technical Group, LLC
3683 W 2270 S, Suite E
West Valley City, UT 84120

Site Specific Test Plan
Test Program Summary

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page i

Regulatory Information

Permit No. Approval Order DAQE-AN101220077-22
Regulatory Citations 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, PS 2, 3, 4, and 8
40 CFR 60, Subpart J
40 CFR 63, Subpart CC
40 CFR 63, Subpart UUU

Source Information

Source Name Source ID Target Parameters
Milli-Second Catalytic Cracking
Process (MSCC) -- O2, CO2, SO2, NOx, CO
VRU Primary – AT-7114 THC Backup – AT-7113

Contact Information

Test Location Test Company
Big West Oil, LLC
333 West Center Street
North Salt Lake, UT 84054

Brady Miller
[e-mail]
[phone]

Faithe Schwartzengraber
[e-mail]
[phone]

Alliance Technical Group, LLC
3683 W 2270 S, Suite E
West Valley City, UT 84120

Project Manager
Charles Horton
[e-mail]
[phone]

Field Team Leader
Alan Jensen
[e-mail]
[phone]
(subject to change)

QA/QC Manager
Kathleen Shonk
[e-mail]
[phone]

Test Plan/Report Coordinator
Sarah Perry
[e-mail]

Site Specific Test Plan
Table of Contents

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Emission Unit and Control Unit Descriptions .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 CEMS Descriptions .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Project Team ............................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Safety Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 1-2
2.0 Summary of Test Program ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 General Description ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Process/Control System Parameters to be Monitored and Recorded ....................................................... 2-1
2.3 Proposed Test Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Emission Limits ....................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Test Report ............................................................................................................................................... 2-3
3.0 Testing Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 1 – Sample Point Determination ........................................................ 3-1
3.2 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 3A – Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide ........................................................... 3-1
3.3 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 6C – Sulfur Dioxide .......................................................................... 3-1
3.4 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 7E – Nitrogen Oxides ........................................................................ 3-2
3.5 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 10 – Carbon Monoxide ...................................................................... 3-2
3.6 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 25B – Total Hydrocarbons ................................................................ 3-2
3.7 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 205 – Gas Dilution System Certification ........................................... 3-3
3.8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control – U.S. EPA Reference Test Methods 3A, 6C, 7E and 10 ................ 3-3
4.0 Quality Assurance Program .......................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Equipment ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Field Sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Project Team ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2
Table 2-1: Program Outline and Tentative Test Schedule ........................................................................................ 2-2
Table 2-2: Relative Accuracy Requirements and Limits .......................................................................................... 2-2
Table 3-1: Source Testing Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Method 1 Data
Appendix B Example Field Data Sheets
Appendix C Sample Train Diagrams

Site Specific Test Plan
Introduction

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 1-1

1.0 Introduction
Alliance Technical Group, LLC (Alliance) was retained by Big West Oil, LLC (BWO) to conduct performance
specification (PS) at the North Salt Lake, Utah refinery. Portions of the facility are subject to provisions of the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Petroleum Refineries 40 CFR 63,
Subpart CC, 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUU, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 40 CFR 60, Subpart J, 40 CFR
60, Appendix B, PS 2, 3, 4, and 8 and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality
(UDAQ) Approval Order DAQE-AN101220077-22. Testing will include conducting a relative accuracy test audit
(RATA) to determine the relative accuracy (RA) of the oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) serving the
MSCC. Testing will also include conducting a RATA to determine the RA of the total hydrocarbons (THC) Primary
and Backup analyzers serving the Vapor Recovery Unit (VRU). The Primary analyzer is defined as the North VRU
(AT-7114) and the Backup is defined as the South VRU (AT-7113).

This site-specific test plan (SSTP) has been prepared to address the notification and testing requirements of the
UDAQ permit and the NESHAP.
1.1 Emission Unit and Control Unit Descriptions
MSCC
The MSCC is a type of Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) process that converts heavy crude oil fractions into lighter,
more valuable hydrocarbon products at high temperature and moderate pressure in the presence of a finely divided
silica/alumina-based catalyst. In the course of cracking large hydrocarbon molecules into smaller molecules, a
nonvolatile carbonaceous material, commonly referred to as coke, is deposited on the catalyst. The coke laid down
on the catalyst acts to deactivate the catalytic cracking activity of the catalyst by blocking access to the active
catalytic sites. In order to regenerate the catalytic activity of the catalyst, the coke deposited on the catalyst is burned
off with air in the regenerator vessel.

VRU
The VRU includes two vessels of activated carbon for emissions control. The gasoline loading, and transportation
shall not exceed 384 million gallons per 12-month period.
1.2 CEMS Descriptions
MSCC
Pollutant Pollutant Diluent Pollutant
Parameter: CO / CO2 NOx O2 SO2
Make: ABB ABB ABB ABB
Model: Uras26 Limas11 Magnos206 Limas11
Serial No.: 01400301913010L 400000744810 01400100978401L 400000744810

VRU
Pollutant
Parameter: THC – Primary/Secondary
Analyzer ID 100-1
Analyzer Scale (ppm) 0-10,000
Calibration Range (ppm) 10,000

Site Specific Test Plan
Introduction

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 1-2

1.3 Project Team
Personnel planned to be involved in this project are identified in the following table.

Table 1-1: Project Team

BWO Personnel Brady Miller
Faithe Schwartzengraber
Regulatory Agency UDAQ
Alliance Personnel Alan Jensen
other field personnel assigned at time of testing event
1.4 Safety Requirements
Testing personnel will undergo site-specific safety training for all applicable areas upon arrival at the site. Alliance
personnel will have current OSHA or MSHA safety training and be equipped with hard hats, safety glasses with side
shields, steel-toed safety shoes, hearing protection, fire resistant clothing, and fall protection (including shock
corded lanyards and full-body harnesses). Alliance personnel will conduct themselves in a manner consistent with
Client and Alliance’s safety policies.

A Job Safety Analysis (JSA) will be completed daily by the Alliance Field Team Leader.

Site Specific Test Plan
Summary of Test Programs

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 2-1

2.0 Summary of Test Program
To satisfy the requirements of the UDAQ permit, NESHAP and NSPS, the facility will conduct a performance test
program to determine the compliance status of the MSCC and the VRU Primary and Backup analyzers.
2.1 General Description
All testing will be performed in accordance with specifications stipulated in U.S. EPA Reference Test Methods 3A,
6C, 7E, 10, and 25B. Table 2-1 presents an outline and tentative schedule for the emissions testing program. The
following is a summary of the test objectives.

 Testing will be performed to demonstrate compliance with the UDAQ permit, NESHAP and NSPS and 40
CFR 60, PS 2, 3, 4 and 8.
 Emissions testing will be conducted on the MSCC and the VRU Primary and Backup analyzers.
 Performance testing will be conducted at least 50 percent of max operating load or maximum representative
operating capacity.
 Each of the nine to twelve (9-12) test runs will be approximately 21 minutes in duration for each source.
2.2 Process/Control System Parameters to be Monitored and Recorded
Plant personnel will collect operational and parametric data at least once every 15 minutes during the testing. The
following list identifies the measurements, observations and records that will be collected during the testing
program:

 CEMS Data
2.3 Proposed Test Schedule
Table 2-1 presents an outline and tentative schedule for the emissions testing program.

Site Specific Test Plan
Summary of Test Programs

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 2-2

Table 2-1: Program Outline and Tentative Test Schedule

Testing Location Parameter US EPA Method No. of Runs Run Duration Est. Onsite
Time
DAY 1 – March 11, 2024
Equipment Setup & Pretest QA/QC Checks 6 hr
DAY 2 – March 12, 2024
MSCC
O2/CO2 3A
9-12 21-min 10-hr SO2 6C
NOx 7E
CO 10
DAY 3 – March 13, 2024
VRU Primary
Analyzer THC 25B 9-12 21-min 8-hr
DAY 4 – March 14, 2024
VRU Backup
Analyzer THC 25B 9-12 21 minutes 8 hr
DAY 5 – March 15, 2024
Contingency Day (if needed)
2.4 Emission Limits
Emission limits for each pollutant are below.

Table 2-2: Relative Accuracy Requirements and Limits

Source CEMS Required Relative
Accuracy
Applicable Standard /
Limit Citation
MSCC
O2 ≤20 % (RM) or |d| ≤ 1% -- 60, Appendix B, PS 3
CO2 ≤20 % (RM) or |d| ≤ 1% -- 60, Appendix B, PS 3
SO2 ≤20 % (RM) or ≤10 % (AS) 50 ppm @ 0% O2
(7-day limit) 60, Appendix B, PS 2
NOx ≤20 % (RM) or ≤10 % (AS) 60 ppm @ 0% O2
(7-day limit) 60, Appendix B, PS 2
CO ±10 % (RM) or ±5 % (AS) 500 ppm @ 0% O2 60, Appendix B, PS 4
VRU
Primary &
Backup
THC ≤20 % (RM) or ≤10 % (AS) 11,000 ppmvw 60, Appendix B, PS 8

Site Specific Test Plan
Summary of Test Programs

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 2-3

2.5 Test Report
The final test report must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of the performance test and will include the
following information. In addition to the final test report, the MSCC O2 and CO test results must be entered into the
U.S. EPA Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) for submittal via CEDRI.
 Introduction – Brief discussion of project scope of work and activities.
 Results and Discussion – A summary of test results and process/control system operational data with
comparison to regulatory requirements or vendor guarantees along with a description of process conditions
and/or testing deviations that may have affected the testing results.
 Methodology – A description of the sampling and analytical methodologies.
 Sample Calculations – Example calculations for each target parameter.
 Field Data – Copies of actual handwritten or electronic field data sheets.
 Quality Control Data – Copies of all instrument calibration data and/or calibration gas certificates.
 Process Operating/Control System Data – Process operating and control system data (as provided by
BWO) to support the test results.

Site Specific Test Plan
Testing Methodology

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 3-1

3.0 Testing Methodology
This section provides a description of the sampling and analytical procedures for each test method that will be
employed during the test program. All equipment, procedures and quality assurance measures necessary for the
completion of the test program meet or exceed the specifications of each relevant test method. The emission testing
program will be conducted in accordance with the test methods listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Source Testing Methodology

Parameter U.S. EPA Reference
Test Methods Notes/Remarks
Sample Point Determination 1 --
Oxygen / Carbon Dioxide 3A Instrumental Analysis
Sulfur Dioxide 6C Instrumental Analysis
Nitrogen Oxides 7E Instrumental Analysis
Carbon Monoxide 10 Instrumental Analysis
Total Hydrocarbons 25B Instrumental Analysis
Gas Dilution System Certification 205 --

All stack diameters, depths, widths, upstream and downstream disturbance distances and nipple lengths will be
measured on site with an EPA Method 1 verification measurement provided by the Field Team Leader. These
measurements will be included in the test report.
3.1 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 1 – Sample Point Determination
The sampling location will be evaluated in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 1. The upstream and
downstream distances will be measured and equated to equivalent diameters to confirm compliance with U.S. EPA
Reference Test Method 1.
3.2 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 3A – Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide
The oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) testing will be conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test
Method 3A. Data will be collected online and reported in one-minute averages. The sampling system will consist
of a stainless steel probe, Teflon sample line(s), gas conditioning system and the identified gas analyzer. The gas
conditioning system will be a non-contact condenser used to remove moisture from the stack gas. If an unheated
Teflon sample line is used, then a portable non-contact condenser will be placed in the system directly after the
probe. Otherwise, a heated Teflon sample line will be used. The quality control measures are described in Section
3.8.

The relative accuracy of the O2 and CO2 CEMS will be determined based on procedures found in 40 CFR 60,
Performance Specification 3.
3.3 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 6C – Sulfur Dioxide
The sulfur dioxide (SO2) testing will be conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 6C. Data
will be collected online and reported in one-minute averages. The sampling system will consist of a heated stainless
steel probe, Teflon sample line(s), gas conditioning system and the identified analyzer. The gas conditioning system

Site Specific Test Plan
Testing Methodology

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 3-2

will be a non-contact condenser used to remove moisture from the source gas. If an unheated Teflon sample line is
used, then a portable non-contact condenser will be placed in the system directly after the probe. Otherwise, a
heated Teflon sample line will be used. The quality control measures are described in Section 3.8.

The relative accuracy of the SO2 CEMS will be determined based on procedures found in 40 CFR 60, Performance
Specification 2.
3.4 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 7E – Nitrogen Oxides
The nitrogen oxides (NOx) testing will be conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 7E. Data
will be collected online and reported in one-minute averages. The sampling system will consist of a stainless steel
probe, Teflon sample line(s), gas conditioning system and the identified gas analyzer. The gas conditioning system
will be a non-contact condenser used to remove moisture from the stack gas. If an unheated Teflon sample line is
used, then a portable non-contact condenser will be placed in the system directly after the probe. Otherwise, a
heated Teflon sample line will be used. The quality control measures are described in Section 3.8.

The relative accuracy of the NOx CEMS will be determined based on procedures found in 40 CFR 60, Performance
Specification 2.
3.5 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 10 – Carbon Monoxide
The carbon monoxide (CO) testing will be conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 10.
Data will be collected online and reported in one-minute averages. The sampling system will consist of a stainless
steel probe, Teflon sample line(s), gas conditioning system, and the identified gas analyzer. The gas conditioning
system will be a non-contact condenser used to remove moisture from the gas. If an unheated Teflon sample line is
used, then a portable non-contact condenser will be placed in the system directly after the probe. Otherwise, a
heated Teflon sample line will be used. The quality control measures are described in Section 3.8.

The relative accuracy of the CO CEMS will be determined based on procedures found in 40 CFR 60, Performance
Specification 4.
3.6 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 25B – Total Hydrocarbons
Total Hydrocarbons (THC) emissions will be measured in accordance with EPA Method 25B.

Each sampling period will consist of extracting a gas sample from the stack at a constant flow rate of approximately
four (4) liters per minute and into the sampling port of a CAI ZRH series non-dispersive infrared analyzer (or
equivalent). THC concentrations will be displayed on the analyzer front panel in units of part per million, wet
volume basis (ppmvw) and logged to a computerized data acquisition system (CDAS).

Prior to sampling, the analyzer will be challenged with the zero and high-level EPA Protocol 1 calibration gases to
linearize the instrument. Then the low and mid-level calibration gases will be introduced through the sampling
system. The sampling system is acceptable, if the linear relationship between the zero and high-level calibration
gases predict the low and mid-level calibration gas measurement system response within 5% of the respective
calibration gas value. To ensure no system bias, the analyzer calibrations will be conducted by introducing all gases
to the analyzers at the sampling probe at stack pressure.

Site Specific Test Plan
Testing Methodology

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 3-3

After each sampling period, the measurement system will be challenged with the zero and mid-level calibration gas.
If the analyzer drift exceeds 3% of the analyzer span (80-90% of high-level calibration gas), then the system will be
re-linearized with the zero and high-level calibration gases, and the measurement system verified with the low and
mid-level calibration gases. If the drift limits are exceeded, the results will be reported using both sets of calibration
data.

Following sampling, the CDAS data will be averaged in one-minute increments, corrected for instrumental drift, and
reported as average emission concentrations for each sampling period in units of parts per million, wet volume basis
(ppmvw).

The relative accuracy of the THC CEMS will be determined based on procedures found in 40 CFR 60, Performance
Specification 8.
3.7 U.S. EPA Reference Test Method 205 – Gas Dilution System Certification
A calibration gas dilution system field check will be conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Reference Method
205. Multiple dilution rates and total gas flow rates will be utilized to force the dilution system to perform two
dilutions on each mass flow controller. The diluted calibration gases will be sent directly to the analyzer, and the
analyzer response recorded in an electronic field data sheet. The analyzer response must agree within 2% of the
actual diluted gas concentration. A second Protocol 1 calibration gas, with a cylinder concentration within 10% of
one of the gas divider settings described above, will be introduced directly to the analyzer, and the analyzer response
recorded in an electronic field data sheet. The cylinder concentration and the analyzer response must agree within
2%. These steps will be repeated three (3) times.
3.8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control – U.S. EPA Reference Test Methods 3A, 6C, 7E and 10
Cylinder calibration gases will meet EPA Protocol 1 (+/- 2%) standards. Copies of all calibration gas certificates
will be included in the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Appendix of the report.

Low Level gas will be introduced directly to the analyzer. After adjusting the analyzer to the Low Level gas
concentration and once the analyzer reading is stable, the analyzer value will be recorded. This process will be
repeated for the High Level gas. For the Calibration Error Test, Low, Mid, and High Level calibration gases will be
sequentially introduced directly to the analyzer. The Calibration Error for each gas must be within 2.0 percent of the
Calibration Span or 0.5 ppmv/% absolute difference.

High or Mid Level gas (whichever is closer to the stack gas concentration) will be introduced at the probe and the
time required for the analyzer reading to reach 95 percent or 0.5 ppm/% (whichever was less restrictive) of the gas
concentration will be recorded. The analyzer reading will be observed until it reaches a stable value, and this value
will be recorded. Next, Low Level gas will be introduced at the probe and the time required for the analyzer reading
to decrease to a value within 5.0 percent or 0.5 ppm/% (whichever was less restrictive) will be recorded. If the Low
Level gas is zero gas, the acceptable response must be 5.0 percent of the upscale gas concentration or 0.5 ppm/%
(whichever was less restrictive). The analyzer reading will be observed until it reaches a stable value and this value
will be recorded. The measurement system response time and initial system bias will be determined from these data.
The System Bias for each gas must be within 5.0 percent of the Calibration Span or 0.5 ppmv/% absolute difference.

High or Mid Level gas (whichever is closer to the stack gas concentration) will be introduced at the probe. After the
analyzer response is stable, the value will be recorded. Next, Low Level gas will be introduced at the probe, and the

Site Specific Test Plan
Testing Methodology

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 3-4

analyzer value will be recorded once it reaches a stable response. The System Bias for each gas must be within 5.0
percent of the Calibration Span or 0.5 ppmv/% absolute difference or the data is invalidated and the Calibration
Error Test and System Bias must be repeated.

The Drift between pre- and post-run System Bias must be within 3 percent of the Calibration Span or 0.5 ppmv/%
absolute difference or the Calibration Error Test and System Bias must be repeated.

To determine the number of sampling points, a gas stratification check will be conducted prior to initiating testing.
The pollutant concentrations will be measured at twelve traverse points (as described in Method 1) or three points
(16.7, 50.0 and 83.3 percent of the measurement line). Each traverse point will be sampled for a minimum of twice
the system response time.

If the pollutant concentration at each traverse point do not differ more than 5% or 0.5 ppm/0.3% (whichever is less
restrictive) of the average pollutant concentration, then single point sampling will be conducted during the test runs.
If the pollutant concentration does not meet these specifications but differs less than 10% or 1.0 ppm/0.5% from the
average concentration, then three (3) point sampling will be conducted (stacks less than 7.8 feet in diameter - 16.7,
50.0 and 83.3 percent of the measurement line; stacks greater than 7.8 feet in diameter – 0.4, 1.0, and 2.0 meters
from the stack wall). If the pollutant concentration differs by more than 10% or 1.0 ppm/0.5% from the average
concentration, then sampling will be conducted at a minimum of twelve (12) traverse points. Copies of stratification
check data will be included in the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Appendix of the report.

An NO2 – NO converter check will be performed on the analyzer prior to initiating testing or at the completion of
testing. An approximately 50 ppm nitrogen dioxide cylinder gas will be introduced directly to the NOx analyzer and
the instrument response will be recorded in an electronic data sheet. The instrument response must be within +/- 10
percent of the cylinder concentration.

A Data Acquisition System with battery backup will be used to record the instrument response in one (1) minute
averages. The data will be continuously stored as a *.CSV file in Excel format on the hard drive of a computer. At
the completion of testing, the data will also be saved to the Alliance server. All data will be reviewed by the Field
Team Leader before leaving the facility. Once arriving at Alliance’s office, all written and electronic data will be
relinquished to the report coordinator and then a final review will be performed by the Project Manager.

Site Specific Test Plan
Quality Assurance Program

AST-2024-0384 BWO – North Salt Lake, UT Page 4-1

4.0 Quality Assurance Program
Alliance follows the procedures outlined in the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Management Plan to ensure the
continuous production of useful and valid data throughout the course of this test program. The QC checks and
procedures described in this section represent an integral part of the overall sampling and analytical scheme.
Adherence to prescribed procedures is quite often the most applicable QC check.
4.1 Equipment
Field test equipment is assigned a unique, permanent identification number. Prior to mobilizing for the test
program, equipment is inspected before being packed to detect equipment problems prior to arriving on site. This
minimizes lost time on the job site due to equipment failure. Occasional equipment failure in the field is
unavoidable despite the most rigorous inspection and maintenance procedures. Therefore, replacements for critical
equipment or components are brought to the job site. Equipment returning from the field is inspected before it is
returned to storage. During the course of these inspections, items are cleaned, repaired, reconditioned and
recalibrated where necessary.

Calibrations are conducted in a manner, and at a frequency, which meets or exceeds U.S. EPA specifications. The
calibration procedures outlined in the U.S. EPA Methods, and those recommended within the Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume III (EPA-600/R-94/038c, September 1994) are utilized.
When these methods are inapplicable, methods such as those prescribed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) or other nationally recognized agency may be used. Data obtained during calibrations is checked
for completeness and accuracy. Copies of calibration forms are included in the report.

The following sections elaborate on the calibration procedures followed by Alliance for these items of equipment.

 Barometer. The barometric pressure is obtained from a nationally recognized agency or a calibrated
barometer. Calibrated barometers are checked prior to each field trip against a mercury barometer. The
barometer is acceptable if the values agree within ± 2 percent absolute. Barometers not meeting this
requirement are adjusted or taken out of service.
 Other Equipment. A mass flow controller calibration is conducted on each Environics system annually
following the procedures in the Manufacturer’s Operation manual. Other equipment such as probes,
umbilical lines, cold boxes, etc. are routinely maintained and inspected to ensure that they are in good
working order. They are repaired or replaced as needed.
4.2 Field Sampling
Field sampling will be done in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the applicable test
method(s). General QC measures for the test program include:
 The sampling port will be sealed to prevent air from leaking from the port.
 All raw data will be maintained in organized manner.
 All raw data will be reviewed on a daily basis for completeness and acceptability.

Appendix A

Method 1 Data
Location
Source
Vertical
Circular
108.00 in
16.50 in
91.50 in
45.66 ft2
2
60.0 ft
7.9 (must be > 0.5)
60.0 ft
7.9 (must be > 2)
3
23456789101112
1 14.6 16.7 6.7 -- 4.4 -- 3.2 -- 2.6 -- 2.1 1 16.7 15.28 31.78
2 85.4 50.0 25.0 -- 14.6 -- 10.5 -- 8.2 -- 6.7 2 50.0 45.75 62.25
3 -- 83.3 75.0 -- 29.6 -- 19.4 -- 14.6 -- 11.8 3 83.3 76.22 92.72
4 -- -- 93.3 -- 70.4 -- 32.3 -- 22.6 -- 17.7 4 -- -- --
5 -- -- -- -- 85.4 -- 67.7 -- 34.2 -- 25.0 5 -- -- --
6 -- -- -- -- 95.6 -- 80.6 -- 65.8 -- 35.6 6 -- -- --
7 -- -- -- -- -- -- 89.5 -- 77.4 -- 64.4 7 -- -- --
8 -- -- -- -- -- -- 96.8 -- 85.4 -- 75.0 8 -- -- --
9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 91.8 -- 82.3 9 -- -- --
10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 97.4 -- 88.2 10 -- -- --
11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 93.3 11 -- -- --
12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 97.9 12 -- -- --
*Percent of stack diameter from inside wall to traverse point.
A = 60 ft.
B = 60 ft.
Depth of Duct = 91.5 in.
Cross Sectional Area of Duct:
Big West Oil - North Salt Lake City, UT
Milli-Second Catalytic Cracking Process (MSCC)
Stack Parameters
Duct Orientation:
Duct Design:
Distance from Far Wall to Outside of Port:
Nipple Length:
Depth of Duct:
No. of Test Ports:
Distance A:
Distance A Duct Diameters:
Distance B:
Distance B Duct Diameters:
Actual Number of Traverse Points:
CIRCULAR DUCT
Number of traverse points on a diameter
Stack Diagram
Cross Sectional Area
LOCATION OF TRAVERSE POINTS
Traverse
Point
% of
Diameter
Distance
from inside
wall
Distance
from
outside of
port
Upstream
Disturbance
Downstream
Disturbance
B
A

Appendix B

O2 Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
O2 Concentration O2 Concentration Difference
Start End % dry % dry % dry
1 -- --
2 -- --
3 -- --
4 -- --
5 -- --
6 -- --
7 -- --
8 -- --
9 -- --
10 -- --
11 -- --
12 -- --
-
RA ≤ 20%
PS 3
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom value
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, % dry
RA - = relative accuracy, %

Run
No.Date Time
Average
Relative Accuracy (RA)
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
Standard Deviation (Sd)
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
CC ൌ t ଴.ଽ଻ହ
n ൈ 𝑆d
RA ൌ d ൅ 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑀ൈ 100
CO2 Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
CO2 Concentration CO2 Concentration Difference
Start End % dry % dry % dry
1 -- --
2 -- --
3 -- --
4 -- --
5 -- --
6 -- --
7 -- --
8 -- --
9 -- --
10 -- --
11 -- --
12 -- --
-
RA ≤ 20%
PS 3
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom value
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, % dry
RA - = relative accuracy, %
Average
Date TimeRun
No.
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
Relative Accuracy (RA)

Standard Deviation (Sd)
CC ൌ t ଴.ଽ଻ହ
n ൈ 𝑆d
RA ൌ d ൅ 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑀ൈ 100
SO2 Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
SO2 Concentration SO2 Concentration Difference
Start End ppmvd ppmvd ppmvd
1 -- --
2 -- --
3 -- --
4 -- --
5 -- --
6 -- --
7 -- --
8 -- --
9 -- --
10 -- --
11 -- --
12 -- --
-
RA ≤ 20%
PS 2
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom value
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, ppmvd
RA = relative accuracy, %

DateRun
No.
Time
Average
Standard Deviation (Sd)
Applicable Source Standard (AS)
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
Relative Accuracy (RA)
CC ൌ t଴.ଽ଻ହ
n ൈ 𝑆d
RA ൌ d ൅ 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑀ൈ 100
NOx Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
NOx Concentration NOx Concentration Difference
Start End ppmvd ppmvd ppmvd
1 ----
2 ----
3 ----
4 ----
5 ----
6 ----
7 ----
8 ----
9 ----
10 ----
11 ----
12 ----
-
RA ≤ 20%
PS 2
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom value
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, ppmvd
RA = relative accuracy, %

Run
No.Date Time
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
Average
Standard Deviation (Sd)
Applicable Source Standard (AS)
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
Relative Accuracy (RA)
CC ൌ t ଴.ଽ଻ହ
n ൈ 𝑆d
RA ൌ d ൅ 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑀ൈ 100
CO Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
CO Concentration CO Concentration Difference
Start End ppmvd ppmvd ppmvd
1 -- --
2 -- --
3 -- --
4 -- --
5 -- --
6 -- --
7 -- --
8 -- --
9 -- --
10 -- --
11 -- --
12 -- --
-
RA ≤ 10%
PS 4A
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom value
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, ppmvd
RA = relative accuracy, %
Alternative Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RA -- = relative accuracy, ppm
Relative Accuracy (RA)

Run
No.Date Time
Average
Standard Deviation (Sd)
Applicable Source Standard (AS)
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
CC ൌ t ଴.ଽ଻ହ
n ൈ 𝑆d
RA ൌ d ൅ 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑀ൈ 100
RA ൌ d ൅𝐶𝐶
THC Summary
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Reference Method CEMS Average
THC (as C3H8) Concentration THC (as C3H8) Concentration Difference
Start End ppmvd ppmvd ppmvd
1 -- --
2 -- --
3 -- --
4 -- --
5 -- --
6 -- --
7 -- --
8 -- --
9 -- --
10 -- --
11 -- --
12 -- --
-
RA ≤ 20%
PS 8
Confidence Coefficient, CC
where,
t0.975 #N/A = degrees of freedom value
n 0 = number of runs selected for calculating the RA
Sd = standard deviation of difference
CC = confidence coefficient
Relative Accuracy, RA
where,
d = average difference of Reference Method and CEMS
CC = confidence coefficient
RM = reference method, ppmvd
RA = relative accuracy, %

Standard Deviation (Sd)
Applicable Source Standard (AS)
DateRun
No.
Time
Average
Confidence Coefficient (CC)
Performance Required - Mean Reference Method
Performance Specification Method
Relative Accuracy (RA)
CC ൌ t଴.ଽ଻ହ
n ൈ 𝑆d
RA ൌ d ൅ 𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝑆 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑀ൈ 100
Emissions Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
123456789101112
Date ------------
Start Time -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Stop Time -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Calculated Data
O2 Concentration % dry CO2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
CO2 Concentration % dry CCO2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SO2 Concentration ppmvd CSO2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NOx Concentration ppmvd CNOx -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
CO Concentration ppmvd CCO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
THC (as C3H8) Concentration ppmvd CTHC -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Run Number
-
-
-
QA Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
O2 CO2 SO2 NOx CO THC
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
--
Cylinder Number ID
LOW NA NA NA NA NA
MID
HIGH
Cylinder Certified Values
LOW NA NA NA NA NA
MID
HIGH
LOW NA NA NA NA NA --
MID --
HIGH --
LOW NA NA NA NA NA
MID
HIGH
Cylinder EPA Gas Type Code
LOW ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO NA NA
MID NA NA
HIGH NA NA
Cylinder Vendor ID (PGVPID)
Cylinder Expiration Date

Make
Model
S/N
Operating Range
Parameter

Response Time Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
O2 CO2 SO2 NOx CO THC
Zero -- -- -- -- -- --
Low NA NA NA NA NA --
Mid -- -- -- -- -- --
High -- -- -- -- -- --
Average -- -- -- -- -- --

Parameter
Response Times, seconds
Calibration Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
O2 CO2 SO2 NOx CO THC
Expected Average Concentration -- -- -- -- -- --
Span Should be between:
Low ------
High ------
Desired Span -- -- -- -- -- --
Low Range Gas Should be between
Low NA NA NA NA NA -
High NA NA NA NA NA -
Mid Range Gas Should be between
Low ------
High ------
High Range Gas Should be between
Low NA NA NA NA NA -
High NA NA NA NA NA -
Actual Concentration (% or ppm)
Zero 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Low NA NA NA NA NA --
Mid -- -- -- -- -- --
High -- -- -- -- -- --
Response Time (seconds)-- -- -- -- -- --
Upscale Calibration Gas (CMA)Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid
Instrument Response (% or ppm)
Zero -- -- -- -- -- --
Low NA NA NA NA NA --
Mid -- -- -- -- -- --
High -- -- -- -- -- --
Performance (% of Span or Calibration Gas)
Zero -- -- -- -- -- 0.0
Low NA NA NA NA NA --
Mid -- -- -- -- -- --
High -- -- -- -- -- --
Linearity (% of Span or Cal. Gas Conc.)
-- -- -- -- -- --
Status
Zero -- -- -- -- -- PASS
Low NA NA NA NA NA --
Mid -- -- -- -- -- --
High -- -- -- -- -- --
Parameter

Runs 1-3 Bias/Drift Determinations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
O2 CO2 SO2 NOx CO THC
Span Value ------
Initial Instrument Zero Cal Response ------
Initial Instrument Upscale Cal Response ------
Final Instrument Zero Cal Response ------
Final Instrument Upscale Cal Response ------
Pretest System Zero Response ------
Posttest System Zero Response ------
Pretest System Mid Response ------
Posttest System Mid Response ------
Bias or System Performance (%)
Pretest Zero -- -- -- -- -- NA
Posttest Zero -- -- -- -- -- NA
Pretest Span -- -- -- -- -- NA
Posttest Span -- -- -- -- -- NA
Drift (%)
Zero ------
Mid ------
Span Value ------
Initial Instrument Zero Cal Response ------
Initial Instrument Upscale Cal Response ------
Final Instrument Zero Cal Response ------
Final Instrument Upscale Cal Response ------
Pretest System Zero Response ------
Posttest System Zero Response ------
Pretest System Mid Response ------
Posttest System Mid Response ------
Bias (%)
Pretest Zero -- -- -- -- -- NA
Posttest Zero -- -- -- -- -- NA
Pretest Span -- -- -- -- -- NA
Posttest Span -- -- -- -- -- NA
Drift (%)
Zero ------
Mid ------
Span Value ------
Initial Instrument Zero Cal Response ------
Initial Instrument Upscale Cal Response ------
Final Instrument Zero Cal Response ------
Final Instrument Upscale Cal Response ------
Pretest System Zero Response ------
Posttest System Zero Response ------
Pretest System Mid Response ------
Posttest System Mid Response ------
Bias (%)
Pretest Zero -- -- -- -- -- NA
Posttest Zero -- -- -- -- -- NA
Pretest Span -- -- -- -- -- NA
Posttest Span -- -- -- -- -- NA
Drift (%)
Zero ------
Mid ------
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3

-
Parameter
Run 1 Data
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
Time O2 CO2 SO2 NOx CO THC
Unit % dry % dry ppmvd ppmvd ppmvd ppmvw
Status Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
O2 CO2 SO2 NOx CO THC
Uncorrected Run Average (Cobs)------
Cal Gas Concentration (CMA)-- -- -- -- -- --
Pretest System Zero Response
Posttest System Zero Response
Average Zero Response (Co)------
Pretest System Cal Response
Posttest System Cal Response
Average Cal Response (CM)------
Corrected Run Average (Corr)-----NA
Parameter

-
Diluent Pollutant
NOx Converter Efficiency Check
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Analyzer Make --Pre-Test Date Time
Analyzer Model --Pre-Test Concentration, ppm
Analyzer Serial Number --Pre-Test Efficiency, %-
Cylinder ID #Post-Test Date Time
Cylinder Exp. Date Post-Test Concentration, ppm
Cylinder Concentration, ppm Post-Test Efficiency, %-
*Efficiency must be ≥ 90 %
Converter Check

EPA Method 205
Field Calibration of Dilution System
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date
EPA
O2
--
--
--
--
Cylinder Number ID
Zero NA
Mid --
High --
Cylinder Certified Values
Zero 0.0
Mid --
High --
Instrument Response (% or ppm)
Zero --
Mid --
High --
Calibration Gas Selection (% of Span)
Mid --
High --
Calibration Error Performance (% of Span)
Zero --
Mid --
High --
Linearity (% of Range)
--
(%) lpm (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( ± 2 %)
10L/10L* 90.0 7.0 ----
10L/10L* 80.0 7.0 ----
10L/5L 80.0 5.0 ----
10L/5L 50.0 5.0 ----
10L/1L 20.0 4.0 ----
10L/1L 10.0 4.0 ----
(%) ( ± 2 %)( ± 2 %)( ± 2 %)
----
----
----
----
----
----
Mid-Level Supply Gas Calibration Direct to Analyzer
Calibration Injection 1 Injection 2 Injection 3 Average
Gas Analyzer Analyzer Analyzer Analyzer
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( ± 2 %)
- ---
O2/N2
Difference
Average
Error
Cylinder Gas ID (Dilution):
Cylinder Gas Concentration (Dilution), %:
Cylinder Gas ID (Mid-Level):
Cylinder Gas Concentration (Mid-Level), %:
Average
Error
*Not all AST Environics Units have 2-10L Mass Flow Controllers. For these units the 90% @ 7lpm and 80% @ 7lpm injections will not be conducted.
Difference
Average
Analyzer
Concentration
Analyzer Make:
Analyzer Model:
Analyzer SN:
Environics ID:
Component/Balance Gas:
Target Mass Flow
Controllers
Target
Dilution
Method Criteria
Average
Analyzer
Concentration
Injection 1
Error
Injection 2
Error
Injection 3
Error
Target Flow Rate
Target
Concentration
Actual
Concentration
Injection 1
Analyzer
Concentration
Injection 2
Analyzer
Concentration
Injection 3
Analyzer
Concentration
Parameter
Make
Model
S/N
Span

QA Data
Stratification Check
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Date:
Time NOx CO SO2 O2 CO2
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (%)
A-1
2 0:00
3 0:00
4 0:00
5 0:00
6 0:00
B-1 0:00
2 0:00
3 0:00
4 0:00
5 0:00
6 0:00
-- -- -- -- --
Single Point Single Point Single Point Single Point Single Point
0
0
0
Traverse Point
Average
Status
Appendix A
Example Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Run/Method:
Oxygen Concentration (CO2), %
where,
Cobs - = average analyzer value during test, % vd
Co - = average of pretest & posttest zero responses, % vd
CMA -- = actual concentration of calibration gas, %vd
CM - = average of pretest & posttest calibration responses, % vd
CO2 - = O2 concentration, % vd
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (CCO2), %
where,
Cobs - = average analyzer value during test, % vd
Co - = average of pretest & posttest zero responses, % vd
CMA -- = actual concentration of calibration gas, % vd
CM - = average of pretest & posttest calibration responses, % vd
CCO2 - = CO2 concentration, % vd

Run 1 - Method 3A
Cେ୓ଶ ൌ C୭ୠୱ െ C୭ ൈ C୑୅
C୑ െ C୭
C୓మ ൌ C୭ୠୱ െ C୭ ൈ C୑୅
C୑ െ C୭
Appendix A
Example Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Run/Method:
Sulfur Dioxide Concentration (CSO2), ppmvd
where,
Cobs - = average analyzer value during test, ppmvd
Co - = average of pretest & posttest zero responses, ppmvd
CMA -- = actual concentration of calibration gas, ppmvd
CM - = average of pretest & posttest calibration responses, ppmvd
CSO2 - = SO2 concentration, ppmvd

Run 1 - Method 6C
Cୗ୓ଶ ൌ C୭ୠୱ െ C୭ ൈ C୑୅
C୑ െ C୭
Appendix A
Example Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Run/Method:
Nitrogen Oxides Concentration (CNOx), ppmvd
where,
Cobs - = average analyzer value during test, ppmvd
Co - = average of pretest & posttest zero responses, ppmvd
CMA -- = actual concentration of calibration gas, ppmvd
CM - = average of pretest & posttest calibration responses, ppmvd
CNOx - = NOx concentration, ppmvd

Run 1 - Method 7E
C୒୓୶ ൌ C୭ୠୱ െ C୭ ൈ C୑୅
C୑ െ C୭
Appendix A
Example Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Run/Method:
Carbon Monoxide Concentration (C CO), ppmvd
where,
Cobs - = average analyzer value during test, ppmvd
Co - = average of pretest & posttest zero responses, ppmvd
CMA -- = actual concentration of calibration gas, ppmvd
CM - = average of pretest & posttest calibration responses, ppmvd
CCO - = CO concentration, ppmvd

Run 1 - Method 10
Cେ୓ ൌ C୭ୠୱ െ C୭ ൈ C୑୅
C୑ െ C୭
Appendix A
Example Calculations
Location:
Source:
Project No.:
Run/Method:
Total Hydrocarbons Concentration (C THCd), ppmvd
where,
CTHCw -- = THC concentration, ppmvw (as C3H8)
BWS -- = moisture fraction, unitless
CTHCd -- = ppmvd

Run 1 - Method 25A
C୘ୌେୢ ൌ C୘ୌେ୵
1 െ BWS 

Appendix C

Stack
Sp
a
n

G
a
s

C
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
Ze
r
o

G
a
s

C
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
NOx SO2 CO O2/CO2
Exhaust
Bypass Flow
RegulatorManifold System
Electronic
Chiller
3-Way
Valve
Heated
Probe
Flow
Regulators
Reference Method Monitors Sampling System
(EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, and 10)
Teflon Calibration Line
Heated Teflon
Sample Line