## 1

**Date:** September 9 , 2011 **Subject:** Confirmation of Fuels Combusted at Oil - fired Sources during Maximum Achievable

Control Technology (MACT ) Floor Performance Testing and Updated Floor Limits with Potential Source Subcategories for Oil - fired Generating Units **From:** Jeffrey Cole (RTI International) **To:** Bill Maxwell

OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (D243 - 01) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 **Summary of Technical Directive**  The EPA requested that RTI determine what fuel oil ty pe (or other blended fuel) was combusted during the Mercury Air Toxics Study (MATS) information collection request (ICR) MACT floor performance tests used in the floor analysis for “oil - fired units.” The EPA work assignment manager (WAM) requested confirmation that the remainder of the emissions data received since proposal (i.e. , Puerto Rico and Guam facilities) had been entered into the MACT floor dataset . The EPA WAM also requested that RTI produce updated statistical analys e s to incorporate the new data and an analyses to evaluate how establishing potential subcategories for fuel oil grade (No. 2 and No. 6) and continental location (i.e., differentiating continental sources located in North America f rom non- continental sources) would affect the various MACT fl oor limits for oil - fired units. **Background** The EPA received comment s from industry advocates for oil - fired EGUs during the proposed rule’s public comment period that the fuel types listed for some oil - fired units in the proposed rule’s emission s data were incorrect. RTIwas tasked with contacting all companies participating in the MATS ICR that had uploaded data from testing of oil - fired units to confirm the fuels used during MACT floor performance tests. Then the EPA requested that once all the missing oil - fired EGU data had been loaded , RT I conduct a what- if analysis of a subcategorization scheme based on fuel oil grade (No. 2 and No. 6) and unit location (continental or non- continental) . The reason for this analysis was to determine the validity of conc erns expressed by commenters regarding the inherent differences between fuel grade s and fuel source s (i.e., continental versus non- continental) that would affect a unit ’ s ability to meet a standard based on the combination of fuel grades/sources. **Technical Approach**  With regard to the commenter ’ s assertion that erroneous fuel types were listed for oil - fired units within the proposal dataset, RT I identified two sources that were burning atypical fuels during the oil - fired MACT floor performance tests and excluded those sources from further analyses.

## 2

With regard to the potential subcategorization scheme based on fuel oil grade and facility location (continental vs. non- continental), subsequent MACT floor calculations were completed for the following groupings of EGUs : Group 1. All No. 2 and No. 6 oil - fired, continental, and non- continental sources. Group 2. All No. 2 oil - fired , continental sources; there are no non- continental No. 2 oil - fired EGUs

meeting the proposed applicability criteria. Group 3. All No. 6 oil - fired, continental, and non- continental sources. Group 4. All No. 2 and No. 6 oil - fired, continental sources. Group 5. All No. 6 oil - fired, non- continental sources; there are no non- continental No. 2 oil - fired

EGUs meeting the proposed applicability criteria. The number of sources included in each MACT floor data set for each potential subcategory was determined based on the number of sources with available emissions data using the criteria of CAA section 112(d)(3). **Data C**  **ollection and Fuel Verification**  RTI contacted the operators of the oil - fire d units that composed the MACT floor data set to confirm the fuel (s) used during the MACT floor performance tests. In confirming the fuel blends f or the proposal , RTI originally determined that there were five units which blended 10 percent or greater natu ral gas (based on the respondents reporting of natural gas co - f iring) and excluded these five sources from the MACT floor analys es because inclusion of sources using 10 percent or more natural gas c ould bias HAP emissions low and make the floor potentially unachievable for units firing greater than 90 percent fuel oil . However, during this post-proposal fuel verification , RTI found two additional sources that should be exclude d from the floor analys e s: 1. C.D. McIntosh, Unit 2 (ORIS Code 676) which averages firing only 30 percent fuel oil with natural gas , and 2. Santee Cooper

– Jefferies, Unit 2 (ORIS Code 3319) which is operated as a seasonal peaking and uses approximately 97 percent used motor oil and 3 percent (No. 2 fuel oil). Also, the Guam Power Authority provided comments (Docket ID : EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0234 - 18433) that indicated that natural gas was not available on the island and confirmed that only residual fuel oil was used in the largest generating units on the island. **Table 1** shows the fuel type s confirmed for all oil - fired units in the post-proposal review . The units excluded from MACT floor analyses are listed at the bottom of the table . **Table 1** shows both the oil - fired units that were tested under Part III of the ICR and those that submitted Hg emissi ons data under Part II of the ICR. As shown in **Table 1** , there are six units located at three continental U.S. facilities (two units each) that combust No. 2 fuel oil , exclusively . At one of these three facilities, two of their No. 2 , oil - fired EGUs

## 3 **Table 1.**  **Fuel Used During MACT Floor Performance Tests for Oil -** **fired Sources Facility ID**  **Plant Name Unit ID**  **Location Primary**  **Fuel Other Fuel**  **( s**  **) Other Fuel Description**  546 Montville Power 5 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 548 No rwalk Harbor Station 2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 562 Middletown Power Station 2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 617 Port Everglades PPE03 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residu al or bunker C) 617 Port Everglades PPE04 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 621 Turkey

Point PTF01 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 621 Turkey

Point PTF02 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 638 Suwannee River Suw_Cfg_2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 638 Suwannee River Suw_Cfg_3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 638 Suwannee River Suw_Cfg_1 Inside Co ntinental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 667 Northside 3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 764 Honolulu Power Plant H8 Outside Continental U.S. (Hawaii) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 764 Honolulu Power Plant H9 Outside Continental U.S. (Hawaii) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 765 Kahe Power Plant K3 Outside Continental U.S. (Hawaii) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 765 Kahe Power Plant K1 Outside Continental U.S. (Hawaii) No. 6 Fuel O il (residual or bunker C) 766 Wa iau Power Plant W6 Outside Continental U.S. (Hawaii) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 766 Wa iau Power Plant W7 Outside Continental U.S. (Hawaii) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 990 AES Harding Street 09 I nside Continental U.S. No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 990 AES Harding Street 10 Inside Continental U.S. No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 991 IP&L Eagle Valley 1, 2 (shared stack) Inside Continental U.S. No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 1507 Wi lliam F W ym an 1 I nside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 1507 Wi lliam F W ym an 2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 1564 Vienna Unit 8 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 1642 We st Springfiel d Unit 3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 1682 Cleary Flood 8 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 7 - 10% No. 2 ; 90 - 93% No. 6 2050 Baxter W ilson 001 Inside Continental U.S

. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2378 BL England 3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2411 PSEG Sewaren Generating Station SEW U4E4PT4OS0 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2411 PSEG Sewa ren Generating Station SEW U3E3PT3OS0 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2411 PSEG Sewaren Generating Station SEW U1E1PT1OS0 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2480 Dy negy Danskammer Generation

Stat ion 2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2480 Dy negy Danskammer Generation

Station 1 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 2493 East River 60 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunke r C) other Natural Gas 1 2516 Northport 2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 1 2516 Northport 3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 1

1 

### Accounting for <10 percent of the total heat content of the blended fuel mixture.

## Table 1. **Fuel Used During MACT Floor Performance Tests for Oil -** **fired Sources (cont’d)**

4 **Facility ID Plant Name**  **Unit ID Location**  **Primary Fuel**  **Other Fuel (**  **s )**  **Other Fuel Description** 2517 Port Jefferson 4 Inside Cont inental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 1 3148 Martins Creek U3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 3148 Martins Creek U4 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 3159 Cromby Unit 2 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 3181 Mitchell Power Station 1 Inside Continental U.S. No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 3181 Mitchell Power Station 3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 3804 Possum P oint Unit 5 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 3809 Yorktown Unit 3 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 6042 Manatee PM T01 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 6042 Mana tee PM T02 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 6043 Martin PM R01 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 6043 Martin PM R02 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 8054 Gerald And rus 001 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 8906 Astoria A- S0003 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 40429 Cabras Power Plant 2 Outside Continental U.S. (Guam) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70000 Aguirre Aguirre 1 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70000 Aguirre Aguirre 2 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70002 Costa Sur Costa Sur 3 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70002 Costa Sur Costa Sur 6 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70003 San Juan Plant San Juan 7 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70003 San Juan Plant San Juan 8 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70003 San Juan Plant San Juan 9 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) 70003 San Juan Plant San Juan 10 Outside Continental U.S. (Puerto Rico) No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) **Note: The units below were not used in any MACT Floor analyses because of their fuel blending.** 676 C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Unit 2 Inside Continental U.S

. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 2 3161 Eddystone Unit 3, Unit 4 (shared stack) Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 2 2500 Ravenswood Power Station 20 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 2 2500 Ravenswood Power Station 30 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 2 3319 Santee Cooper- Jefferies Unit 2 Inside Continental U.S. Used Motor Oil 3 No. 2 Fuel Oil (di stillate) 97% Used Motor Oil / 3% No. 2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 8002 Newington 1 Inside Continental U.S. No. 6 Fuel Oil (residual or bunker C) other Natural Gas 2

2 

### Accounting for > 10 percent of the total heat content of the blended fuel mixture. 3 

### As noted in the memorandum’s text , this use of used motor oil for fuel was deemed by the EPA to be incomparable with other oil - fired EGUs in these MACT Floor analyses .

## 5

share a common stack (IP&L Eagle Valley, Units 1 and 2). In the statistical spreadsheets, RTI treated data from EGUs sharing a common stack as separate sources however; the source did not provide a complete set of metals data. The result in this case was that, while most of the analyses resulted in a data set of six No. 2 oil - fired sources and a MACT floor analysis based on the top five sources, complete “total HAP metals” and cobalt emissions data were available for only four No. 2 oil - fired sources. RTI is waiting for one company to submit new data to correct a data entry error that has prevented the update of the HCl and HF acid gas MACT floor results for oil - fired EGUs. This company operates oil fired EGUs outside of the continental U.S. and, since such ICR data is limited, its inclusion is essential to complete those MACT floor analyses. **Em issi** **on Limit Determinations** In this memorandum, RTI is presenting updated MACT floors for mercury (Hg), total metals (with and without Hg), and non-mercury HAP metals for all the oil - fired units that provided complete data submittals under the MATS ICR. RTI wi ll complete the analysis of the acid gas MACT floors after these data are received. After compiling the final set of available oil - fired emissions data (Group 1), the dataset was divided into the previously mentioned five potential subcategories. The datas ets were sorted and the statistical analyses for upper predictive limit (UPL) were completed for each of the potential oil - fired subcategories . The statistical analysis calculated the 99 th 

## p ercentile UPL emission limits based on the average emission rates ( in contrast to the individual run data) from all available oil - fired performance tests. This use of average emission rates was consistent with how EPA performed its statistical analysis spreadsheets for the proposed rule’s MACT floors for oil - fired units . **Summary of Findings** It should be noted that when comparing the proposed MACT floors with the updated MACT floors from this analysis, some differences will be noticed that are attributed to the rounding conventions utilized for the proposed rule. In Table s 2 through 53 the data in the “proposed” rows in each table reflect the rounding conventions used in the proposal to convert the UPL calculated values to the form of the standard. All other rows reflect the complete set of updated data without rounding. B y examining the UPL, the reader can determine if the change in value is due to a data change or to the proposal’s rounding convention. The results of the subcategorization analysis are presented in a series of tables with all of the potential subcategories reflected in each table. The MACT floor values are presented for each pollutant in a group of four tables; existing input-based (i.e. lb/MMBtu), existing output-based (i.e. lb/MW), new outputbased (i.e. lb/MW), and a table describing the data set used to calculate the floor values.

## 6

**Subcategorization Analysis Results Mercury**  Table s 2, 3, and 4 , show the calculated MACT floors for each of the potential oil subcategories . Table 5 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. As shown in the tables , total metals are approximately twice as high for No. 6 oil as for No. 2 oil . Itis noteworthy that Hg emission rates from the top five No. 2 oil sources are approximately an order of magnitude higher than the top six residual oil sources. **Total Metals With and Without Hg**  Table s 6 , 7 , and 8 show the MACT floors calculated for total metals (including Hg) with subcategori es for oil grades and continental locations. Table 9 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. Tables 10 , 11 and 12 show the MACT floors calculated for total metals only (not including Hg) with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations . Table 13 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. Note that the low levels of Hg emissions relative to the other metals make the non-Hg metals MACT floor and the total metals MACT floor (including Hg) essentially identical. RTI assured that all performance test averages used in the analyses for total metal s (including Hg) were based on complete sets of all HAP metals. This criteria generally yielded smaller data sets for the total metals analyses than for individual metals analyses because any source test that omitted one or more HAP metals was excluded from the total metals analyses. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the complete total metals data set criteria removed two of the six No. 2 oil - fired sources ( IP&L Eagle Valley Units 1 and 2) leaving only 4 emission sourc es with available data for the total metals analyses for distillate sources. The updated results indicate there is a marked difference in total metals emissions from units firing No. 2 fuel oil versus units firing No. 6 fuel oil. The updated results also indicate that there is a substantial difference in total metal s emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. versus non- continental units . The total metal s MACT floors for units outside the continental U.S. are approximately 62 times greater than t

he total metals floors for non- continental sources. This large difference is because all floor units in the continental data set either burn No. 2 fuel oil (without PM control) or burn No. 6 fuel oil (with installed ESPs). This is would be expected given the potential for metals to have been removed during refining of the No. 2 fuel oil and this phenomenon is evidenced as well in the results reflected below for the individual metals. If we compare the total metal s floors for the units burning No. 6 fuel oil in the continental U.S. to the oil - fired units operated outside the continental U.S. (which all burn No. 6 fuel oil), the uncontrolled, non- continental sources are found to have emissions approximately 12 times higher than the ESP controlled continental s ources .

## 7

During completion of the updated analyses it was determined that the original MACT floor data set only had 42 valid total metals data sets. Similarly, the updated data set only has 42 valid total metals data sets. Therefore, the MACT floor total metals data set for existing oil - fired units should have been comprised of only five sources instead of the seven sources used for the proposed total metals floors. For the total metals UPL calculations, use of five sources rather than seven sources in com bination with the updated data set resulted in change to the MACT floor (including variability) of approximately 10 percent; however this change was not sufficiently large to change the rounded value that was proposed as the floor. **Antimony** Tables 14, 15, and 16 show the MACT floors calculated for antimony with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 17 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for antimony and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a marked difference in the antimony emissions from sources firing No. 2 fuel oil compared to sources firing No . 6 fuel oil. The MACT floor for the potential No. 6 fuel o il subcategory is approximately 5 times greater than the No. 2 fuel oil subcategory for antimony. There is also a notable difference between antimony emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The antimony MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 5 times greater than that of the antimony MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. **Arsenic** Tables 18, 19, and 20 show the MACT floors calculated for arsenic with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 21 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for arsenic and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a marked difference in the arsenic emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 2 fuel oil arsenic MACT floor is over 2 times greater than that of the No. 6 fuel oil arsenic MACT floor. There is also a substantial difference between arsenic emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The arsenic MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 8 times greater than that of the arsenic MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. **Beryllium** Tables 22, 23, and 24 show the MACT floors calculated for beryllium with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 25 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for beryllium and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a little difference in the beryllium emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil (approximately 1 percent) . However, there is a substantial difference between beryllium

## 8

emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The beryllium MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 8 times greater than that of the beryllium MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. **Cadmium** Tables 26, 27, and 28 show the MACT floors calculated for cadmium with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 29 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for cadmium and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a marked difference in the cadmium emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 2 fuel oil cadmium MACT floor is approximately 4 times greater than that of the No. 6 fuel oil cadmium MACT floor. There is al so a difference between cadmium emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The cadmium MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 2 times greater than that of the cadmium MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. **Cobalt** Tables 30, 31, and 32 show the MACT floors calculated for cobalt with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 33 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for cobalt and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. Itshould be noted that RTI did not receive cobalt data with each of the Method 29 results submitted under the ICR . This caused some of the cobalt MACT floor data sets to include fewer sources than the data sets for other individual metals. These incomplete Method 29 results are also the reason the total metals floors data set s having fewer sources than other individual metals floor data sets. The results indicate that there is a substantial difference in the cobalt emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 2 fuel oil cobalt MACT floor is approximately 7 times greater than that of the No. 6 fuel oil cobalt MACT floor. There is also a substantial difference between cobalt emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The cobalt MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 54 times greater than that of the cobalt MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. This large difference is because the floor units inside the continental U.S. MACT floor are all burning No. 2 fuel oil. If we compare cobalt emissions for the units burning No. 6 fuel oil in the continental U.S. (i.e., the No. 6 fuel only cobalt MACT floor) as opposed to units operated outside the continental U.S. (which all burn No. 6 fuel oil) a difference of 18 times is found. While this factor is less than the 54 times calculated above, it should be also noted that the No. 6 fuel only MACT floor (for cobalt emissions from sources within the continental U.S. ) contains five sources that are all controlled by ESPs. During completion of the updated analyses it was determined that the original MACT floor data set only had 4 4 valid cobalt data sets. Similarly, the updated data set only has 4 4 valid cobalt data sets. Therefore, the MACT floor cobalt data set for existing oil - fired units should have been comprised of only five sources instead of the seven sources used for the cobalt proposed floors. This reduced number of data averages was due to incomplete data submittals. For the cobalt UPL calculations, use of five sources

## 9

rather than seven sources combined with the updated data set resulted in change to the MACT floor (including variability) of approximately 10 percent; however this change was not sufficiently large to change the rounded value that was proposed as the floor. **Chromium** Tables 34, 35, and 36 show the MACT floors calculated for chromium with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 37 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for chromium and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a marked difference in the chromium emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 2 fuel oil chromium MACT floor is approximately 2 times greater than that of the No. 6 fuel oil chromium MACT floor. There is also a difference between chromium emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The chromium MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 3 times greater than that of the chromium MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. **Lead** Tables 38, 39, and 40 show the MACT floors calculated for lead with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 41 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subcategory for lead and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a substanti al difference in the lead emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 2 fuel oil lead MACT floor is approximately 6 times greater than that of the No. 6 fuel oil lead MACT floor. There is also a small difference between lead emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The lead MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 1.3 times greater than that of the lead MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. **Manganese** Tables 42, 43, and 44 show the MACT floors calculated for manganese with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 45 shows the number of sources with available emissions data in each potential subc ategory for manganese and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a marked difference in the manganese emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 6 fuel oil manganese MACT floor is approximately 2.5 times greater than that of the No. 2 fuel oil manganese MACT floor. There is also a substantial difference between manganese emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The manganese MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 7 times greater than that of the manganese MACT floor for units inside the continental United States.

## 10

**Nickel** Tables 46, 47, and 48 show the MACT f loors calculated for nickel with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 49 shows the number of sources in each subcategory for nickel and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is a substantial difference in the nickel emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 6 fuel oil nickel MACT floor is approximately 9 times greater than that of the No. 2 fuel oil nickel MACT floor. There is also a very substantial difference between nickel emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The nickel MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 94 times greater t han that of the nickel MACT floor for units inside the continental United States. This large difference is because all floor units in the continental data set burn No. 2 fuel oil (without PM control) . If we compare nickel floors for the units burning No. 6 fuel oil in the continental U.S. to the oil - fired units operated outside the continental U.S. (which all burn No. 6 fuel oil), the uncontrolled, non- continental sources are found to have emissions approximately 1 0 times higher than the ESP controlled continental sources.

**Selenium** Tables 50, 51, and 52 show the MACT floors calculated for selenium with subcategories for oil grades and continental locations. Table 53 shows the number of sources in each subcategory and the respective number of sources used in the floor analysis for the subcategory. The results indicate that there is little difference in the selenium emissions from units firing No. 2 vs. No. 6 fuel oil (approximately 7 percent) . There is a difference between selenium emissions from units operated in the continental U.S. as opposed to units operated outside the continental United States. The selenium MACT floor for units outside the continental U.S. is approximately 2 times greater than that of the selenium MACT floor for units inside the continental United States.

## 11

**Conclusions** Approximately 90 percent of oil - fired sources responding to the ICR burn almost exclusively No. 6 fuel oil. Approximately 12 percent of the No. 6 oil fired sources are controlled by ESPs only and about17 percent controlled by multiclones only . As shown in the following table, nickel and manganese are the predominant metal emitted from No. 6 oil - fired units that are controlled by ESPs. For No. 2 oil - fired units without PM controls, the predominant metals emitted are cobalt and lead. A comparison of the total metals emissions indicates that the best- controlled No. 6 oil units (controlled by ESPs) emitted approximately 60 percent more total metals than uncontrolled No. 2 oil units.

**Pollutant No. 2 Fuel Only** 

**Floor value (lb/T Btu)**  **No. 6 Fuel Only Floor value (lb/TBtu)**  **Comparison of Mean Emission Rates**  **with Variability**

**(UPL)** As 2.479E+00 1.146E+00 Uncontrolled No. 2 Oil Higher Be 7.000E - 02 7.000E - 02 Essentially No Difference Cd 3.952E - 01 1.105E - 01 Uncontrolled No. 2 Oil High er Co 1.925E+01 2.746E+00 Uncontrolled No. 2 Oil Higher Cr 4.944E+00 2.387E+00 Uncontrolled No. 2 Oil Higher Mn 5.071E+00 1.272E+01 ESP Controlled No. 6 Oil Higher Pb 1.593E+01 2.466E+00 Uncontrolled No. 2 Oil Higher Sb 2.261E - 01 1.216E+00 ESP Control led No. 6 Oil Higher Se 1.370E+00 1.473E+00 ESP Controlled No. 6 Oil Higher Nickel 5.541E+00 5.008E+01 ESP Controlled No. 6 Oil Higher **Pollutant No. 2 Fuel Only** 

**Floor value (lb/MMBtu) No. 6 Fuel Only**  **Floor value (lb/MMBtu) Comparison of Mean Emission**  **Rates with Variability** 

**(UPL)** Total Metals + Hg 6.148E+01 9.933E+01 ESP Controlled No. 6 Oil Higher 

## While the data in the preceding table supports the premise in a number of public comments that a well controlled No.6 oil - fire d unit cannot achieve the total metals emission rate of an uncontrolled No. 2 oil fired unit, the data indicates that ESP - controlled No. 6 oil sources can approach the total metals emission rates achieved by uncontrolled No. 2 oil - fired sources and in some cases achieve lower emiss ion rates of individual metals. Some commenters suggested that the EPA should establish a subcategory based on the continental location of a unit due to differences in the metals content of the oil from continental versus noncontinental sources . The publi c comments from several companies that operate No. 6 oil - fired units , however, focused on the difference between the total metals contents of No. 2 oil and No. 6 oil and not on the difference between the mercury content of the different oil grades. With regard to mercury, RTI found that based on the fuel analyses received, mercury makes up less than one percent of the metals content of fuel oil s used during performance testing and our analysis here indicates that t

he correlation between mercury content and fuel grade is not as clear as the relationship between the other metals content and fuel grade.

## 12

A s noted in the work of Wilhelm (see Appendix A) , more than half of the crude oil that is processed in the United States is imported so the long -term average concentrations in domestic fuel oils are likely to approach the world wide average. The ICR data for uncontrolled No. 6 oil - fired sources supports Wilhelm’s assertion because the average of all emission rates for uncontrolled, non- continental sources was within a 98 percent agreement with the average of the uncontrolled continental sources. The data in the preceding summary table indicates that effective PM controls can mitigate emissions of trace constituents (such as metals) from No.6 oil - fired sources . However, there are no sources outside of the continental United States equipped with any form of PM control or that burn any No. 2 fuel oil. This lack of PM controls on the non- continental sources is the primary factor accounting for the higher emissions from non - continental sources , and not the origin of the crude oil. Based on this data analysis , it is our opinion that subcategorization by fuel oil type may be warranted ; however , subcategorization by continental location due to crude oil source would not be warranted.

## 13 

# Mercury **Table 2. Existing Mercury (Hg) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Mercury (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.9880E - 08 4.8170E - 08 7 0.05 lb/TBtu Mercury (Updated) 1.8708E - 08 4.5807E - 08 7 0.05 lb/TBtu Mercury (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.3987E - 07 3.3913E - 07 5 0.34 lb/TBtu Mercury (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.7331E - 08 4.5986E - 08 6 0.05 lb/TBtu Mercury (Updated, Inside Contine ntal U.S.) 1.8432E - 08 5.9878E - 08 5 0.06 lb/TBtu Mercury (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.4958E - 08 4.3820E - 08 5 0.04 lb/TBtu 

### Table 3. Existing Mercury (Hg) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW**  **) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Mercury (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.2752E - 07 6.1287E - 07 7 0.0007 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated) 1.9251E - 07 4.8248E - 07 7 0.0005 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.8549E - 06 4.5684E - 06 5 0.005 lb/GW h Mercury (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.7745E - 07 4.8226E - 07 6 0.0005 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.2616E - 07 8.2568E - 07 5 0.0008 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.4618E - 07 4.4299E - 07 5 0.0004 lb/GWh

## 14 **Table 4. New Mercury (Hg) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Mercury (Proposed, 3/16/11) 6.4837E - 08 9.3613E - 08 1 0.0001 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated) 6.4837E - 08 9 .3613E - 08 1 0.0001 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.2567E - 06 5.3601E - 06 1 0.005 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 6.4837E - 08 9.3613E - 08 1 0.0001 lb/GWh Mercury (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 6.4837E - 08 9.3613E - 08 1 0.0001 lb/GWh

Mercury (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.6618E - 07 1.8700E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh 

## Table 5. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each **Mercury (Hg)**  

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in sub category**  **Number of**

**sources in the floor**  Mercury (Updated) 58 (all data) 7 Mercury (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 6 5 Mercury (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 52 6 Mercury (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 44 5 Mercury (Updated, Outside Continental U.S. ) 14 5

## 15 

# Total Metals + Mercury (Hg) and Total Metals Only **Table 6. Existing** 

## Total Metals + Mercury (Hg) **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Total Me tals + Hg (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.1024E - 05 2.1337E - 05 7 4 0.00003 lb/MMBtu Total Metals + Hg (Updated) 1.0259E - 05 2.4225E - 05 5 0.00002 lb/MMBtu Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.4738E - 05 6.1478E - 05 4 0.00006 lb/MMBtu Total Metals + Hg (Upd ated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 2.8607E - 05 9.9329E - 05 5 0.0001 lb/MMBtu Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 8.8728E - 06 1.7094E - 05 4 0.00002 lb/MMBtu Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.5341E - 04 1.2286E - 03 5 0.00123 lb/MMBt u 

### Table 7. Existing 

## Total Metals + Mercury (Hg) **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (alternate Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Total Metals + Hg (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.3679E - 04 2.8745 E - 04 7 5 0.0003 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated) 1.2695E - 04 3.3597E - 04 5 0.0003 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.0620E - 04 8.7628E - 04 4 0.0009 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 3.0014E - 04 1.0779E - 03 5 0.001 1 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.0481E - 04 1.7459E - 04 4 0.0002 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.8071E - 03 1.2518E - 02 5 0.0125 lb/MW h

4 

### The data set only contains 42 data averages (see Table 9); therefore, the proposed Total Metals + Hg MACT floor for ex isting oil - fired units should have only included five emission averages instead of just seven. 5 

### The data set only contains 42 data averages (see Table 9); therefore, the proposed Total Metals + Hg MACT floor for existing oil - fired units should have only included five emission averages instead of just seven.

## 16 **Table 8. New** 

## Total Metals + Mercury (Hg) **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Total Metals + Hg (Proposed, 3/16/11) 8.7795E - 05 3.3172E - 04 1 0.0003 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated) 8.7795E - 05 3.3172E - 04 1 0.000 33 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.0046E - 04 2.6415E - 04 1 0.00026 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 8.7795E - 05 3.3172E - 04 1 0.00033 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 8.7795E - 05 3.3 172E - 04 1 0.00033 lb/MW h Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 5.0411E - 03 6.2527E - 03 1 0.00625 lb/MW h 

## Table 9. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each Total Metals Mercury (Hg) **MACT Floor for Oil -** **Fired Uni ts Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Total Metals + Hg (Updated) 42 (all data) 5 Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 4 4 Total Metals + Hg (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 38 5 Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 35 4 Total Metals + Hg (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 7 5

## 17 **Table 10. Existing** 

## Total Metals **MACT Floors for Oil -** **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the f loor**  **Floor value Units**  Total Metals (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.0905E - 05 2.1072E - 05 7 6 0.00003 lb/MMBtu Total Metals (Updated) 1.0148E - 05 2.3899E - 05 5 0.00002 lb/MMBtu Total Metals (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.4559E - 05 6.0841E - 05 4 0.00006 lb/MMBtu Total Metals (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 2.8547E - 05 9.9293E - 05 5 0.0001 lb/MMBtu Total Metals (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 8.7881E - 06 1.7044E - 05 4 0.00002 lb/MMBtu Total Metals (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.5338E - 04 1.2285E - 03 5 0.00123 lb/MM Btu 

### Table 11. Existing 

## Total Metals **MACT Floors for Oil -** **Fired Units (alternate Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Total Metals (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.3527E - 04 2.8348E - 04 7 7 0.0003 lb/M Wh Total Metals (Updated) 1.2551E - 04 3.3081E - 04 5 0.0003 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.0370E - 04 8.6725E - 04 4 0.0009 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 2.9952E - 04 1.0774E - 03 5 0.0011 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.0375E - 04 1.7195E - 04 4 0.0002 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.8068E - 03 1.2517E - 02 5 0.0125 lb/MW h

6 

### The data set only contains 42 data averages (see Table 13); therefore, the proposed Total Metals + Hg MACT floor for existing oil - fired units should have only included five emission averages instead of just seven. 7 

### The data set only contains 42 data averages (see Table 13); therefore, the proposed Total Metals + Hg MACT floor for existing oil - fired units should have only included five emission averages instead of just seven.

## 18 **Table 12. New** 

## Total Metals **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -**  **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb /MW**  **) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Total Metals (Proposed, 3/16/11) 8.7194E - 05 3.3099E - 04 1 0.0004 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated) 8.7194E - 05 3.3099E - 04 1 0.00033 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 9.9204E - 05 2.6671E - 04 1 0.00027 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 8.7194E - 05 3.3099E - 04 1 0.00033 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 8.7194E - 05 3.3099E - 04 1 0.00033 lb/MW h Total Metals (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 5.040 8E - 03 6.2521E - 03 1 0.00625 lb/MW h 

## Table 13. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each Total Metals MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor** 

**Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Total Metals (Updated) 42 (all data) 5 Total Metals (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 4 4 Total Metals (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 38 5 Total Metals (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 35 4 Total Metals (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 7 5

## 19 

# Non **- Mercury Metals**  **Table 14. Existing Antimony (Sb) MACT Floors for Oil -** **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Sb (Proposed, 3/16/11) 8.6708E - 08 1.9652E - 07 7 0.2 lb/TBtu Sb (Updated) 8.6 708E - 08 1.9652E - 07 7 0.20 lb/TBtu Sb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 7.8694E - 08 2.2608E - 07 5 0.23 lb/TBtu Sb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.3134E - 07 1.2157E - 06 6 1.22 lb/TBtu Sb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 7.5487E - 08 2.0859E - 07 5 0.21 lb/TBtu S b (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 5.9078E - 07 1.3066E - 06 5 1.31 lb/TBtu 

### Table 15. Existing Antimony (Sb) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Un**  **its** Sb (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.1052E - 06 2.4682E - 06 7 0.003 lb/GWh Sb (Updated) 1.1052E - 06 2.4682E - 06 7 0.002 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.0610E - 06 2.9642E - 06 5 0.003 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.5100E - 06 1.2627E - 05 6 0.01 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 9.7455E - 07 2.6780E - 06 5 0.003 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.1239E - 06 1.2681E - 05 5 0.01 lb/GWh

## 20 **Table 16. New Antim ony (Sb) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean**  **(lb/MW )**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Sb (Proposed, 3/16/11) 3.1152E - 07 1.0740E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh Sb (Updated) 3.0233E - 07 1.0423E - 06 1 0.001 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 3.0233E - 07 1.0423E - 06 1 0.001 lb/GWh S b (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 9.9974E - 07 6.5591E - 06 1 0.01 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 3.0233E - 07 1.0423E - 06 1 0.001 lb/GWh Sb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 4.6207E - 06 7.7015E - 06 1 0.01 lb/GWh 

## Table 17. Number of Data Averages **in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each Antim** **ony** 

## (Sb) MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Sb (Updated) 

### 58 (all data) 7 Sb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Sb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 52 6 Sb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 43 5 Sb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 21 **Table 18. Existing Arsenic (As) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** As (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.7023E - 07 5.4091E - 07 7 0.6 lb/TBtu As (Updated) 2.7023E - 07 5.4091E - 07 7 0.54 lb/TBtu As (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 6.0625E - 07 2.4786E - 06 5 2.48 lb/TBtu As (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only ) 3.8533E - 07 1.1458E - 06 6 1.15 lb/TBtu As (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.3288E - 07 4.7926E - 07 5 0.48 lb/TBtu As (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.8634E - 06 3.9554E - 06 5 3.96 lb/TBtu 

### Table 19. Existing Arsenic (As) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Unit**  **s (alternate Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** As (Proposed, 3/16/11) 3.2301E - 06 6.8826E - 06 7 0.007 lb/GWh As (Updated) 3.2301E - 06 6.8826E - 06 7 0.007 lb/GWh As (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 7.7817E - 06 3.0341E - 05 5 0.03 lb/GWh As (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 3.9555E - 06 1.1480E - 05 6 0.01 lb/GWh As (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.7544E - 06 6.1604E - 06 5 0.006 lb/GWh As (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.8726E - 05 3.8322E - 05 5 0.04 lb/GWh

## 22 **Table 20. New Arsenic (As) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** As (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.4986E - 06 1.5529E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh As (Updat ed) 1.6590E - 06 1.7190E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh As (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 3.1052E - 06 1.2174E - 05 1 0.01 lb/GWh As (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.6590E - 06 1.7190E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh As (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.6590E - 06 1.7190E - 06 1 0.002 lb/ GW h As (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.5646E - 05 6.9465E - 05 1 0.07 lb/GWh 

## Table 21. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each **Arsenic (As)**  

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  As (Updated) 

### 59 (all data) 7 As (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 As (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 53 6 As (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 As (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 14 5

## 23 **Table 22. Existing Ber yllium (Be) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (Input Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MMBtu)**  **UPL (lb/MMBtu) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Be (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.7199E - 08 5.6981E - 08 7 0.06 lb/TBtu Be (Updated) 3.0197E - 08 6.4029E - 08 7 0.06 lb/TBtu Be (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.8429E - 08 7.3418E - 08 5 0.07 lb/TBtu Be (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.3308E - 08 7.3545E - 08 6 0.07 lb/TBtu Be (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.5382E - 08 5.4599E - 08 5 0.05 lb/TBtu Be (Updated, Outside C ontinental U.S.) 1.3391E - 07 4.1480E - 07 5 0.41 lb/TBtu 

### Table 23. Existing Beryllium (Be) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Be (Proposed, 3/16/11) 3.2934E - 07 6.2782E - 07 7 0.0007 lb/GWh Be (Updated) 3.6186E - 07 6.8646E - 07 7 0.0007 lb/GWh Be (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 3.8370E - 07 9.3304E - 07 5 0.001 lb/GWh Be (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.5301E - 07 7.9249E - 07 6 0.001 lb/GWh Be (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 3.1961E - 07 6.4112E - 07 5 0.001 lb/GWh Be (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.3316E - 06 3.8244E - 06 5 0.004 lb/GWh

## 24 **Table 24. New Beryllium (Be) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb /MW**  **) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Be (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.2836E - 07 6.7882E - 07 1 0.0007 lb/GWh Be (Updated) 2.2836E - 07 6.7882E - 07 1 0.0007 lb/GWh Be (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.2836E - 07 6.7882E - 07 1 0.0007 lb/GWh Be (Updated, N o. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 2.8769E - 07 8.5966E - 07 1 0.001 lb/GWh Be (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.2836E - 07 6.7882E - 07 1 0.0007 lb/GWh Be (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 7.7019E - 07 2.2522E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh 

## Table 25. Number of Data Averages in Each **Subcategory and Number of Units in Each Beryllium** **(Be)** 

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Be (Updated) 

### 59 (all data) 7 Be (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Be (Updated, No. 6 F uel Oil Only) 

### 53 6 Be (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 Be (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 14 5

## 25 **Table 26. Existing Cadmium (Cd) MACT Floors for Oil -** **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of source**  **s in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Cd (Proposed, 3/16/11) 4.3958E - 08 9.2940E - 08 7 0.1 lb/TBtu Cd (Updated) 4.3958E - 08 9.2940E - 08 7 0.09 lb/TBtu Cd (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 9.0057E - 08 3.9523E - 07 5 0.40 lb/TBtu Cd (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.671 0E - 08 1.1054E - 07 6 0.11 lb/TBtu Cd (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 3.9378E - 08 1.0123E - 07 5 0.10 lb/TBtu Cd (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 8.9237E - 08 1.8774E - 07 5 0.19 lb/TBtu 

### Table 27. Existing Cadmium (Cd) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alte**  **rnate Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Cd (Proposed, 3/16/11) 4.8715E - 07 1.0240E - 06 7 0.002 lb/GWh Cd (Updated) 4.8534E - 07 1.0167E - 06 7 0.001 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil On ly) 1.2120E - 06 5.4326E - 06 5 0.005 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.7749E - 07 1.1018E - 06 6 0.00 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 4.3667E - 07 1.1130E - 06 5 0.001 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 8.8216E - 07 1.8769E - 06 5 0.00 2 lb/GWh

## 26 **Table 28. New Cadmium (Cd) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Cd (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.2994E - 07 3.8828E - 07 1 0.0004 lb/GWh Cd (Updated) 1.2994E - 07 3.8828E - 07 1 0.0004 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 5.3245E - 07 2.2762E - 06 1 0.002 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.2994E - 07 3.8828E - 07 1 0.0004 lb/GWh Cd (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.2994E - 07 3.8828E - 07 1 0.0004 lb/ GW h Cd (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.0290E - 07 1.0847E - 06 1 0.001 lb/GWh 

## Table 29. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each **Cadm ium** **(Cd)** 

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategor y**  **Number of**

**sources in the floor**  Cd (Updated) 

### 60 (all data) 7 Cd (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Cd (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 54 6 Cd (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 Cd (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 27 **Table 30. Existing Cob alt (Co) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (Input Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MMBtu)**  **UPL (lb/MMBtu) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Co (Proposed, 3/16/11) 5.8610E - 07 2.0215E - 06 7 8 3 lb/TBtu Co (Updated) 3.9971E - 07 1.8317E - 06 5 1.83 lb/TBtu Co (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.0418E - 06 1.9250E - 05 5 19.25 lb/TBtu Co (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 9.9346E - 07 2.7461E - 06 5 2.75 lb/TBtu Co (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.5284E - 07 9.4275E - 07 4 0.94 lb/TBtu Co (Updated, Outside Conti nental U.S.) 2.5696E - 05 5.0270E - 05 5 50.27 lb/TBtu 

### Table 31. Existing **Cobalt ( Co) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Co (Proposed, 3/16/1 1) 6.1582E - 06 1.9352E - 05 7 9 0.02 lb/GWh Co (Updated) 4.4948E - 06 1.8090E - 05 5 0.018 lb/GWh Co (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.9010E - 05 2.7427E - 04 5 0.274 lb/GWh Co (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 9.6700E - 06 2.5926E - 05 5 0.03 lb/GWh Co (Updated, Inside C ontinental U.S.) 3.1618E - 06 1.1629E - 05 4 0.012 lb/GWh Co (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.7479E - 04 5.0567E - 04 5 0.51 lb/GWh

8 

### The data set only co ntains 44 data averages (see Table 33); therefore, the proposed cobalt MACT floor for existing oil -fired units should have only included five emission averages instead of just seven. 9 

### The data set only contains 44 data averages (see Table 33); therefore, the proposed cobalt MACT floor for existing oil -fired units should have only included five emission averages instead of just seven.

## 28 **Table 32. New Cobalt (**  **Co) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Co (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.1416E - 06 5.7337E - 06 1 0.02 lb/GWh Co (Updated) 1.1416E - 06 5.7337E - 06 1 0.006 lb/GWh Co (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.1416E - 06 5.7337E - 06 1 0.006 lb/GWh Co (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil O nly) 3.4404E - 06 2.0932E - 05 1 0.021 lb/GWh Co (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.1416E - 06 5.7337E - 06 1 0.006 lb/GWh Co (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.9888E - 04 2.5213E - 04 1 0.25 lb/GWh 

## Table 33. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Nu **mber of Units in Each Cobalt (Co)**  

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Co (Updated) 

### 44 (all data) 5 Co (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 4 5 Co (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 40 5 C o (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 37 4 Co (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 7 5

## 29 **Table 34. Existing Chromium (Cr) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor**  **value Units**  Cr (Proposed, 3/16/11) 7.8696E - 07 1.5677E - 06 7 2 lb/TBtu Cr (Updated) 7.8696E - 07 1.5677E - 06 7 1.6 lb/TBtu Cr (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.4164E - 06 4.9444E - 06 5 4.94 lb/TBtu Cr (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 9.8380E - 07 2.3867E - 06 6 2.39 lb/TBtu Cr (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 7.3324E - 07 1.7877E - 06 5 1.79 lb/TBtu Cr (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.9744E - 06 5.1772E - 06 5 5.18 lb/TBtu 

### Table 35. Existing Chromium (Cr) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Stan**  **dard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Cr (Proposed, 3/16/11) 8.9730E - 06 1.8550E - 05 7 0.02 lb/GWh Cr (Updated) 8.9730E - 06 1.8550E - 05 7 0.019 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.9224E - 05 7.0424E - 0 5 5 0.070 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.1160E - 05 3.1241E - 05 6 0.03 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 8.2181E - 06 2.0241E - 05 5 0.020 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 2.0497E - 05 5.1813E - 05 5 0.05 lb/GWh

## 30 **Table 36. Ne w Chromium (Cr) MACT Floors for Oil** **- Fired Units (Output** **- Based Standard)**  Pollutant Mean (lb/MW ) UPL (lb/MW) Number of sources in the floor Floor value Units Cr (Proposed, 3/16/11) 3.9709E - 06 1.1692E - 05 1 0.02 lb/GWh Cr (Updated) 4.3637E - 06 1.2849E - 05 1 0. 013 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 6.8809E - 06 3.6806E - 05 1 0.037 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.3637E - 06 1.2849E - 05 1 0.013 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 4.3637E - 06 1.2849E - 05 1 0.013 lb/GWh Cr (Updated, Outside Con tinental U.S.) 9.3654E - 06 1.2084E - 05 1 0.012 lb/GWh 

## Table 37. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each **Chrom ium** **(Cr)** 

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the f** **loor** Cr (Updated) 

### 60 (all data) 7 Cr (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Cr (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 54 6 Cr (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 Cr (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 31 **Table 38. Existing Lead (Pb) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **F ired Units (Input Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MMBtu)**  **UPL (lb/MMBtu) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Pb (Proposed, 3/16/11) 6.4748E - 07 1.9103E - 06 7 2 lb/TBtu Pb (Updated) 6.4748E - 07 1.9103E - 06 7 1.91 lb/TBtu Pb (Updated, No. 2 Fue l Oil Only) 3.6861E - 06 1.5931E - 05 5 15.93 lb/TBtu Pb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 7.5350E - 07 2.4657E - 06 6 2.47 lb/TBtu Pb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 5.6323E - 07 2.2959E - 06 5 2.30 lb/TBtu Pb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.2505E - 06 2.9406E - 06 5 2.94 lb/TBtu 

### Table 39. Existing Lead (Pb) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Pb (Proposed, 3/16/11) 7.2271E - 06 2.0418E - 05 7 0.03 lb/ GW h Pb (Updated) 7.2271E - 06 2.0418E - 05 7 0.02 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 4.9808E - 05 2.1064E - 04 5 0.211 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 7.8624E - 06 2.6019E - 05 6 0.026 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 6.4819E - 06 2.4811E - 05 5 0.025 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.2794E - 05 2.8317E - 05 5 0.03 lb/GWh

## 32 **Table 40. New Lead (Pb) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Pb (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.2618E - 06 5.3277E - 06 1 0.006 lb/GWh Pb (Updated) 1.3867E - 06 5.8548E - 06 1 0.006 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 7.4773E - 06 2.2520E - 05 1 0.023 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.3867E - 06 5.8548E - 06 1 0.006 l b/GWh Pb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.3867E - 06 5.8548E - 06 1 0.006 lb/GWh Pb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 7.8624E - 06 2.3734E - 05 1 0.024 lb/GWh 

## Table 41. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each **Lead (Pb)** 

## MAC **T Floor for Oil -** **Fired Units Floor Pollutant**  **Number of sources in subcategory**  **Number of**

**sources in the floor**  Pb (Updated) 

### 60 (all data) 7 Pb (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Pb (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 54 6 Pb (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 Pb (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 33 **Table 42. Existing Manganese (Mn) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Mn (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.4568E - 06 4.3093E - 06 7 5 lb/TBtu Mn (Updated) 1.4568E - 06 4.3093E - 06 7 4.31 lb/TBtu Mn (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.7673E - 06 5.0708E - 06 5 5.07 lb/TBtu Mn (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 3.7452E - 06 1.2719E - 05 6 12.72 lb/TBtu Mn (Updated, Inside Cont inental U.S.) 1.0346E - 06 2.8039E - 06 5 2.80 lb/TBtu Mn (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 9.4323E - 06 1.9942E - 05 5 19.94 lb/TBtu 

### Table 43. Existing Manganese (Mn) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UP L (lb/MW**  **) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Mn (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.8763E - 05 5.9894E - 05 7 0.06 lb/GWh Mn (Updated) 1.8763E - 05 5.9894E - 05 7 0.06 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.3512E - 05 6.9395E - 05 5 0.07 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, No . 6 Fuel Oil Only) 3.8913E - 05 1.3287E - 04 6 0.13 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.2565E - 05 3.6932E - 05 5 0.04 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 9.8582E - 05 2.1457E - 04 5 0.21 lb/GWh

## 34 **Table 44. New Manganese (Mn) MACT Floors for O il** **- Fired Units (Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Mn (Proposed, 3/16/11) 4.8608E - 06 2.4490E - 05 1 0.03 lb/GWh Mn (Updated) 5.3417E - 06 2.6912E - 05 1 0.03 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, No. 2 Fue l Oil Only) 1.1962E - 05 4.5895E - 05 1 0.05 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 5.3417E - 06 2.6912E - 05 1 0.03 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 5.3417E - 06 2.6912E - 05 1 0.03 lb/GWh Mn (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 6.7081E - 05 9.3682E - 05 1 0.09 lb/GWh 

## Table 45. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each **Manganese (Mn)** 

## MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Mn (Updated) 

### 59 (all data) 7 M n (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Mn (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 53 6 Mn (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 44 5 Mn (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 35 **Table 46. Existing Nickel (Ni) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Nickel (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.3887E - 06 7.2536E - 06 7 8.00 lb/TBtu Nickel (Updated) 2.3887E - 06 7.2536E - 06 7 7.25 lb/TBtu Nickel (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.7195E - 06 5.5413E - 06 5 5.54 lb/TBtu Nickel (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.5940E - 05 5.0079E - 05 6 50.08 lb/TBtu Nickel (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.7195E - 06 5.5413E - 06 5 5.54 lb/TBtu Nickel (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 4.2402E - 04 5.2232E - 04 5 5 22.32 lb/TBtu 

### Table 47. Existing Nickel (Ni) MACT Floors for Oil**- Fired Units (alternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Nickel (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.8419E - 05 7.8157E - 05 7 0.08 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated) 2.8419E - 05 7.8157E - 05 7 0.078 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.3335E - 05 7.8849E - 05 5 0.079 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 1.6172E - 04 5.1256E - 04 6 0.51 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2. 1876E - 05 6.8953E - 05 5 0.069 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 4.0618E - 03 6.1361E - 03 5 6.14 lb/GWh

## 36 **Table 48. New Nickel (Ni) MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Nickel (Proposed, 3/16/11) 1.1470E - 05 3.7526E - 05 1 0.04 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated) 1.1132E - 05 3.6419E - 05 1 0.04 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 1.1132E - 05 3.6419E - 05 1 0.04 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil O nly) 3.3038E - 05 2.0944E - 04 1 0.21 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 1.1132E - 05 3.6419E - 05 1 0.04 lb/GWh Nickel (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 3.5205E - 03 7.4115E - 03 1 7.4 lb/GWh 

## Table 49. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory a **nd Number of Units in Each Nickel**  

## (Ni) MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategory Number of** 

**sources in the floor**  Nickel (Updated) 

### 60 (all data) 7 Nickel (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Nickel (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 54 6 Nickel (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 Nickel (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 37 **Table 50. Existing** 

## Selenium (Se) **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Input Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MMBtu) UPL (lb/MMBtu)**  **Number of sou**  **rces in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Se (Proposed, 3/16/11) 5.0320E - 07 1.0922E - 06 7 2 lb/TBtu Se (Updated) 5.0320E - 07 1.0922E - 06 7 1.09 lb/TBtu Se (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 5.1970E - 07 1.3698E - 06 5 1.37 lb/TBtu Se (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 7.11 92E - 07 1.4734E - 06 6 1.47 lb/TBtu Se (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 4.3962E - 07 1.1212E - 06 5 1.12 lb/TBtu Se (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.1564E - 06 2.1122E - 06 5 2.11 lb/TBtu 

### Table 51. Existing 

## Selenium (Se) **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (al ternate Output** **- Based Standard)**  **Pollutant Mean (lb/MW)**  **UPL (lb/MW) Number of**  **sources in the floor**  **Floor value Units**  Se (Proposed, 3/16/11) 6.1244E - 06 1.3004E - 05 7 0.02 lb/GWh Se (Updated) 6.1244E - 06 1.3004E - 05 7 0.013 lb/GWh Se (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil O nly) 6.8780E - 06 1.7632E - 05 5 0.018 lb/GWh Se (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 7.5148E - 06 1.4973E - 05 6 0.015 lb/GWh Se (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 5.4858E - 06 1.4199E - 05 5 0.014 lb/GWh Se (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 1.1661E - 05 2.0950E - 05 5 0. 021 lb/GWh

## 38 **Table 52. New** 

## Selenium (Se) **MACT Floors for Oil -**  **Fired Units (Output -** **Based Standard) Pollutant**  **Mean (lb/MW) UPL (lb/MW)**  **Number of sources in**  **the floor Floor value**  **Units** Se (Proposed, 3/16/11) 2.5693E - 06 3.8753E - 06 1 0.004 lb/GWh Se (Updated ) 2.5693E - 06 3.8753E - 06 1 0.004 lb/GWh Se (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 2.5693E - 06 3.8753E - 06 1 0.004 lb/GWh Se (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 4.0341E - 06 1.4859E - 05 1 0.015 lb/GWh Se (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 2.5693E - 06 3.8753E - 06 1 0.004 lb/GWh Se (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 7.6945E - 06 1.7693E - 05 1 0.018 lb/GWh 

## Table 53. Number of Data Averages in Each Subcategory and Number of Units in Each Selenium (Se) MACT Floor for Oil**- Fired Units Floor**  **Pollutant Number of sources**  **in subcategor y**  **Number of**

**sources in the floor**  Se (Updated) 

### 60 (all data) 7 Se (Updated, No. 2 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 6 5 Se (Updated, No. 6 Fuel Oil Only) 

### 54 6 Se (Updated, Inside Continental U.S.) 

### 45 5 Se (Updated, Outside Continental U.S.) 

### 15 5

## 39 

# Appendix A **Disc ussion on Fate of Mercury**  **During Distillation of Crude Oil**

## 40

With regard to crude oil sources in the world-wide market and the variability of mercury content in grades of fuel oil, Wilhelm 10 

## states the fate of mercury during distillation of crude oil depends on several factors:

“ ...Crude oil contains both dissolved and suspended mercury compounds. A typical analysis for total mercury in crude oil yields the sum of both forms, but the suspended amount is not necessarily reflective of the reservoir concentration. The sampling and analytical protocols for differentiation of the various forms of mercury in hydrocarbon liquids have been only recently applied, but the variations seen in THg [total mercury] from particular fields are due more to variation in the sus pended fraction as opposed to the truly dissolved fraction. For example, order of magnitude differences in total mercury concentration can be obtained for the same crude oil between samples taken upstream and downstream of separators and desalters. Crude o il sampled from tankers typically comes from the top of the tank where suspended forms can be lower in concentration due to settling in transit ”. Wilhelm also states that “ [t] he fates of dissolved and suspended forms of mercury in the refining process ... are different. The suspended forms (mostly HgS) are nonvolatile and tend to remain in the residuum in the primary and vacuum distillations. Dissolved forms (mostly Hg0 

## ) are volatile and are more likely to transfer to lighter products. Organic forms, if present, may be converted to Hg0 

## by hydrotreating. ”

10 

### S. Mark Wilhelm, Estimate of Mercury Emissions to the Atmosphere from Petroleum. Environmental Science and Technology, V ol. 35, No. 24, 2001. American Chemical Society.