# Environmental solutions de livered uncommonly well 

# BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM INC.

Modification to Sake Prospect Drilling Project

(Eastern Gulf of Mexico Exploratory Drilling Operations)

PSD Major Source Permit (OCS-EPA-R 4008-M1) Modification Application

Prepared	By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS

301	Main	Street

Suite	900

Baton	Rouge,	LA	70825

(225)	346‐4003

May	2013

Project	121901.0022

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants i 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1. Proposed Project Potential To Emit

...................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Application Contents

............................................................................................................................... ................... 2



# 2. DD1 STACK TEST ANALYSIS 4

3. EMISSION CALCULATIONS 6

3.1. Emission Calculation Methodology

....................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1. Main Power Plant Engines (EU

‐ 001 through EU

‐ 008)

................................................................................................. 6



# 4. REGULATORY APPLICABILITY 8

4.1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations

...................................................................................... 8

4.2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

...................................................................................................... 9

4.2.1. 40 CFR 60 Subpart A

– General Provisions

........................................................................................................................ 9

4.2.2. 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII

– Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

........................... 9

4.3. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR Part 61)

.................................... 10

4.3.1. 40 CFR 61 Subpart A

– General Provisions

...................................................................................................................... 10

4.4. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63)

.................................... 10

4.4.1. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A

– General Provisions

............................................................................................................ 10

4.4.2. 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ

‐ Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

..................................... 10

4.5. Federal Operating Permits Program (40 CFR Part 71)

................................................................................ 11



# 5. BACT ANALYSIS 12

5.1. PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT ANALYSIS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

............................................................................ 14

5.2. VOC BACT ANALYSIS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

................................................................................................ 24

5.3. CO 2 

# e BACT ANALYSIS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

.............................................................................................. 30



# 6. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 35

6.1. Modeling Analysis Summary

............................................................................................................................... . 35



# 7. PART 71 FORMS 37

APPENDIX A: STACK TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX A-1: PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# STACK TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX A-2: VOC AND CO 2 

# STACK TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX B: EMISSION CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX C: RBLC SEARCH RESULTS

APPENDIX D: MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS

APPENDIX E: MODEL FILES ON CD

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants ii 

# LIST OF TABLES

Table	1‐1.		Comparison	of	Currentl y	Permitted	and	Proposed	BACT Emission	Limits	for	DD1	Main	Engines	 2

Table	1‐2.		Existing	PTE	(Permit OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1)	and	Proposed Project	PTE	 2

Table	5‐1. DD1 E NGINES



# ‐ T OP 

# ‐D OWN 

# BACT A NALYSIS	FOR 

# P ARTICULATE 

# M ATTER 

# (PM), P ARTICULATE 

# M ATTER 

# L ESS 

# T HAN



# 10 M ICRONS 

# (PM 10 

# )

, P ARTICULATE 

# M ATTER 

# L ESS	THAN 

# 2.5 M ICRONS 

# (PM 2.5 

# ) 16

Table	5‐2.		Proposed	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT	Emission	Limits	for	DD1	Main	Engines	 24

Table	5‐3

. DD1 E NGINES



# ‐ T OP 

# ‐D OWN 

# BACT A NALYSIS	FOR 

# V OLATILE 

# O RGANIC 

# C OMPOUNDS 

# (VOC)	 26

Table	5‐4.		Proposed	VOC	BACT	Emission	Limits	for	DD1	Main	Engi nes	 29

Table	5‐5

. DD1 E NGINES



# ‐ T OP 

# ‐D OWN 

# BACT A NALYSIS	FOR 

# G REENHOUSE 

# G ASES 

# 31

Table	5‐6.		Proposed	CO 2 

# e BACT	Emission	Limits	for	DD1	Main	Engines	 34

Table	6‐1.	Comparison	of	Previous ly	Modeled	and	Revised	Modeled Emission	Rates	 35

Table	6‐2.		Model	Result	Comparis on	to	Class	I	Area	SILs	For	Pr oposed	Operations	 36

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 1 

# 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BHP	Billiton	Petroleum,	Inc.	(BH PB)	is	currently	authorized	to conduct	exploratory	dri lling	operations	on	the

Outer	Continental	Shelf	(OCS)	in accordance	with	Permit	No.	OCS ‐EPA‐R4008‐M1	as	issued	by	Environmental

Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Re gion	IV	on	March	13,	2013.

Since	the	issuance	of the	current	permit,	BH PB	has	conducted	co mpliance	stack	testing	on	the	main	engines	of

the	Transocean	semisubmersible	D evelopment	Driller	1	(DD1).		Ba sed	on	the	preliminary	st ack	test	results,	the

emission	rates	of	ni trogen	oxides	(NO X 

# )	and	carbon	monoxide	(CO)	demon strate	compliance	with	the	curr ent

Best	Available	Control	Technolog y	(BACT)	limits.		However,	the preliminary	stack	test	res ults	also	indicate	that

emissions	would	exceed	the	parti culate	matter	(PM),	PM	with	an aerodynamic	diameter	le ss	than	10	microns

(PM 10 

# ),	PM	with	an	aerodynamic	diam eter	less	than	2 .5	microns	(PM 2.5 

# ),	volatile	organic	co mpounds	(VOC),	and

greenhouse	gases	(CO 2 

# e)	BACT	limits	in	the	current	perm it.		As	a	result,	BHPB	is	pro posing	to	revise	the	current

BACT	limits	(based	on	AP‐42	emi ssion	factors)	to	reflect	operat ing	limits	that	correspond	to	actual	stack	test

results	and	are	achievable	over	th e	life	of	the	main	engines.

This	submittal	also	addresses	a recent	final	rulemaking	issued by	EPA	to	revise	the	defini tion	of	“NSR	regulated

pollutant”	thereby	remov ing	the	general	requi rement	to	include condensable	PM	when	me asuring	“particulate

matter	emissions”	in	th e	context	of	Preventi on	of	Significant	D eterioration	(PSD)	and NSR	regulations.		This

rulemaking	also	clarified	that	condensable	PM	measurements	cont inue	to	be	required	when	assessing	PM 10 

# and/or	PM 2.5 

# emissions. 1



# The	revision	in	BACT	limits	wil l	result	in	increases	in	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# emissions	and	air	qu ality	impacts	will

have	to	be	evaluated.		Hence,	BH PB	has	performed	Class	I	are	mo deling	analysis	with	the	revised	emission	rates

and	demonstrated	that	the	projec t	will	be	exempt ed	from	the	amb ient	impact	assessment as	provided	in	40	CFR

52.21(i)(3).

It	was	discussed	during	the	meet ing	on	April	10,	2013	that	BHPB would	submit	draft	stack	test	results	and	a

draft	BACT	analysis	in	advance	o f	submittal	of	a	complete	permi t	application	to	EPA	Region	IV.		Accordingly,

BHPB	submitted	a	draft	applicati on	focusing	on	the	revisions	to the	Best	Available	Cont rol	Technology	(BACT)

limits	for	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	on	April	24,	2013	and	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	and	PM 2.5 

# ,	on	April	30,	2013.		BHP B	is	now	submitting	a

complete	PSD	and	Title	V	applicat ion	including	potential‐to‐emi t	calculations,	regulatory	applicability	updates,

BACT	analyses,	modeling	files,	and	Part	71	Forms	to	EPA	Region 4	for	the	proposed	modifications	to	BACT

emission	limitations.

A	summary	of	the	proposed	and currently	perm itted	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5 

# ,	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	BACT	emission	limitations

for	the	main	engines	on	the	DD1	a re	provided	below	in	Table	1‐1

.

1 

# 77	FR	65107‐65119.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 2 

# Table 1

‐ 1. Comparison of Currently Permitted and Proposed BACT Emission Limits for DD1 Main

Engines

Emission Unit Pollutant* Proposed BACT

Emission Limit Currently

Permitted BACT

Emission Limit

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)	–

EU‐001	through	EU‐008 PM 5.91E‐04	lb/hp‐hr

(0.36	g/kW‐hr) 7.00E‐04	lb/hp‐hr	(0.43

g/kW‐hr)

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)	–

EU‐001	through	EU‐008 PM 10 

# 8.22E‐04	lb/hp‐hr

(0.50	g/kW‐hr) 4.01E‐04	lb/hp‐hr	(0.24

g/kW‐hr)

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)	–

EU‐001	through	EU‐008 PM 2.5 

# 8.05E‐04	lb/hp‐hr

(0.49	g/kW‐hr) 3.89E‐04	lb/hp‐hr	(0.24

g/kW‐hr)

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)	–

EU‐001	through	EU‐008 VOC 1.02E‐03	lb/hp‐hr

(0.62	g/kW‐hr) 6.42E‐04	lb/hp‐hr	(0.39

g/kW‐hr)

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)	–

EU‐001	through	EU‐008 CO 2 

# e 1.36	lb/hp‐hr

(829	g/kW‐hr) 1.16	lb/hp‐hr

(705	g/kW‐hr)



# *The	PM	limit	is	based	on	filterable	emissions	only	and	PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# limits	are	based on	filterable	and

condensable	emissions



# 1.1. PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL TO EMIT

The	currently	permitted emission	rates	as	we ll	as	the	proposed potential	to	emit	(PTE)	for	the	various

pollutants	are	provided below	in	Table	1‐2.

Table 1

‐ 2. Existing PTE (Permit OCS

‐ EPA

‐ R4008

‐ M1) and Proposed Project PTE

Pollutant DD1

Existing PTE

(Permit

OCS

‐ EPA

‐ R4008

‐ M1)

(tons/ year) DD1

Emission

Increase due to

Revised BACT

Limit (tpy) DD1

Proposed

Project PTE

(tons/year)

PM 61.62	 ‐6.96 54.66

PM 10 

# 37.04	 27.52 64.56

PM 2.5 

# 36.06	 27.23 63.29

NO X 

# 1,309.61	 0.00 1,309.61

SO 2 

# 0.88	 0.00 0.88

H 2 

# SO 4 

# 0.03	 0.00 0.03

CO 310.64	 0.00 310.64

VOC 85.88	 24.60 110.48

GHG	(CO 2 

# e) 97,953.30	 13,135.56 111,088.86

Lead 2.01E‐02	 0.00 2.01E‐02



# 1.2. APPLICATION CONTENTS

This	permit	modification	applicat ion	is	being	submitted	in	acco rdance	with	40	CFR	55.6(a) (1)	and	satisfies	all

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 3 

# applicable	requirements	of	40	CF R	52.21.		This	application	incl udes	the	following:

Section	2	contains	the	discussion of	stack	test	analysis	conduc ted	on	eight	main	engines	on	DD1;

Section	3	contains	the	discussion	of	emission	calculation	metho dology	for	pollutants	undergoing	BACT

emission	limit	changes	in	this	a pplication	from	eight	main	engi nes	on	DD1;

Section	4	contains	the	air	regulatory	applicability	analysis	up date	for	all	eight	main	engines	on	DD1;

Section	5	contains	the	BACT	revie w	for	the	eight	main	engines	a nd	proposed	BACT	emission	limit

modifications;

Section	6	contains	the		discussion	on	air	quality	impact	analys is	for	the	proposed	pr oject	based	on	the

revisions	proposed	in	this	application;

Section	7	includes	t he	Part	71	forms;

Appendix	A	includes	the	stack	te st	results	associated	with	the DD1main	engines;

Appendix	B	includes	the	potentia l‐to‐emit	calculations	associat ed	with	the	DD1main	engines;

Appendix	C	includes	RBLC	search	results;

Appendix	D	includes	a	summary	of the	model	input	parameters	;	a nd

Appendix	E	includes	a	summary	of	the	modeling	files	provided	on CD	with	this	application.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 4 

# 2. DD1 STACK TEST ANALYSIS

BHPB	commenced	compliance	stack testing	for	the	main	engines	on the	DD1	(EU‐001	through	EU‐008)	in

accordance	with	Permit	No.	O CS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1	on	March	31,	2013. Based	on	the	preliminar y	stack	test	results,

the	emission	rates	of	NO X 

# and	CO	demonstrate	compliance	w ith	the	current	BA CT	limits	of 12.1	g/kW‐hr	and

1.98	g/kW‐hr,	respectively.		Howev er,	the	preliminary	stack	tes t	results	also	indicate that	emissions	would

exceed	the	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5 

# ,	VOC,	and	CO 2 

# e	BACT	limits	in	the current	permit.		These	BACT	limits	were	ba sed	on

U.S.	EPA	AP‐42	emission	factors, which	were	the	best	available data	at	the	time	of the	original	permit

application.		Since	the	submitta l	of	the	original	application, BHPB	has	obtained	actual	data	from	the	operation	of

the	main	engines	across	low,	medium,	and	high	operating	loads	e xpected	during	the	proposed	exploratory

drilling	activities.		Therefore, BHPB	is	proposing	to	revise	th e	BACT	limits	to	reflect operating	limits	that

correspond	to	actual	stack	test results	and	are	achievable	over the	life	of	the	main	engines.

BHPB	is	proposing	to	revise	the	BACT	limits	of	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5



# , 

# VOC	and	CO 2 

# e for	the	eight	main engines	on	the

DD1	currently	authoriz ed	in	the	permit.

The	following	approach	was	used	to	establish	the	revised	BACT	l imits	for	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# for	the	main

engines.

The	compliance	stack	test	was	p erformed	for	three	runs	at	each load	(low,	medium	and	high).

The	average	emissions across	these	three	runs at	each	load	were calculated	for	each	engine.

The	calculation	methodology	us ing	Method	5	and	Method	202	resul ts,	proposed	in	the	letter	submitted

to	EPA	Region	4	on	April	16, 2013,	was	used	to	calculate	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# emissions	at	each	load.

An	analysis	of	the	test	results	w as	completed	to	develop	the	BA CT	limit	for	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# .		Based	on	a

review	of	the	engines,	the	Engin e	#3	and	Engine	#5	results	were excluded	from	the	BACT	determination.		Engine

#5	was	excluded	due	to	the	fact	that	it	did	not	have	the	same	e mission	controls	as	the other	seven	engines.

Engine	#3	was	excluded	due	to	t he	fact	that	one	of	the	three,	o ne‐hour	test	runs	was	cond ucted	prior	to	reaching

the	designated	low	load	operating condition	specified	in	the	si te	specific	test	protocol. Therefore,	the	three	run

average	test	result	for	Engine #3	was	deemed	not	representative of	normal	operating	load	conditions.		Based	on

a	review	of	the	remaining	test	da ta,	all	of	the	other	complianc e	test	results	are	expected	t o	represent	the	range	of

operations	that	are	encountered	o ver	the	life	of	the	main	engin es.		As	a	result,	the	B ACT	limits	have	been

established	based	on	the	highest 3‐run	average	test	result	from a	single	engine,	irrespe ctive	of	operating	load

(except	Engine	#3	and	Engine	#5 as	described	previously).

The	preliminary	res ults	of	the	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# compliance	stack	testing	are	p resented	in	Appendix	A‐1.		The

proposed	BACT	li mits	for	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# based	on	the	preliminary	stack test	results	and	the	methodolog y

described	above	are	pres ented	in	Table	5‐2.



# Additionally,	the	following	approa ch	was	used	to	establish	the revised	BACT	limits	for	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	for	the

main	engines.

The	compliance	stack	test	was	pe rformed	for	three	runs	at	each load	(low,	medium	and	high).

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 5 

# The	average	emissions	across	these	three	runs	at	each	load	were calculated	for each	engine.

An	analysis	of	the	test	results	was	completed	to	develop	the	BA CT	limit	for	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e.		Based	on

a	review	of	the	engines,	the	Engine	#5	results	were	excluded	fr om	the	BACT	determination	due	to

the	fact	that	it	did	not	have	the	same	emission	controls	as	the other	seven	engines.		As	a	result,	the

BACT	limits	were	set	equal	to	the	highest	3‐run	average	test	re sult from	a	single	engine,	irrespective

of	operating	load 

# (excluding	Engine	#5).

The	preliminary	results	of	the	VOC	and	CO 2 

# compliance	stack	testing	are	pre sented	in	Appendix	A‐2.		The

proposed	BACT	limits	for	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	based	on	the	preliminary	stack test	results	and	the	methodolo gy

described	above	are	presented	in Table	5‐4	and	Table	5‐6,	respe ctively.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 6 

# 3. EMISSION CALCULATIONS

As	described	in	Section	1,	BHPB is	proposing	to	revise	the	curr ent	AP‐42	emission	factors	based	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5



# , VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	BACT	limits	for	the eight	main	engines	o n	the	DD1	currently	a uthorized	in	the	permit.		This

section	provides	descriptions	of the	emissions	calculation	meth odologies,	sources	of	emission	factors,	and

operating	parameter	assumptions used	in	developing	emissions	ca lculations	for	the	aforementioned	pollutants.

The	detailed	emissions	calculatio ns	are	included	in	Appendix	B of	this	application.



# 3.1. EMISSION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

The	emissions	sources and	operations	on	the DDI	proposed	under this	modification	application	include	eight

main	power	plant	engines	on the	DD1	semisubmersible.



# 3.1.1. Main Power Plant Engines (EU

‐ 001 through EU

‐ 008)

The	DD1	consists	of	eight	identi cal	5,096	HP	diesel‐fired	engin es	that	each	drive	an electricity	generator

with	maximum	rated	output	of	3,800	kW	each	based	on	the	engine certifications.		The	power	generated	is

used	to	fulfill	all	drilling,	st ation	keeping	requirements	and other	operational	needs	of	the	DD1

semisubmersible	ship.		Emissions	a re	generated	as	a	result	of	c ombustion	of	diesel	fuel	in	the	engines.

Emissions Factors –	The	sources	of	emission	facto rs	used	to	estimate	emissions	f or	each	of	the	eight	engines

are	summarized	below.

EPA Guidance Documents –The	emission	factors	for	CH 4 

# and	N 2 

# O	are	based	on Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse

Gases and Sinks: 1990

‐ 2008 (April 2010) ,	U.S.	EPA	#	430‐R‐10‐006,	Annex 3,	Table	A‐81.		Emission	facto rs	for

petroleum	fuel	and	ind ustrial	sector	are	used.		Emission	factor s	converted	to	lb/hp‐hr	based	on	1	GJ

(Gigajoule)	=	109	joules.		O ne	joule	=	9.486×10‐4	Btu. 

# The	emission	factor	for	CO 2 

# e	has	been	calculated

using	the	Global	Warming	Potentials	(GWPs)	obtained	from	40	CFR 98	Subpart	A.

Proposed BACT Limits –	Emissions	estimates	for	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5 

# ,	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	are	based	on	data

obtained	from	stack	testing	cond ucted	on	the	eight	main	engines after	the	issuance	of	the	Permit	No.

OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1	on	March	31,	2013.		Three	test	runs	were	condu cted	on	each	engine	at	these

different	loads	and	methodologies	described	in	Section	2	were	f ollowed	to	establish	emission	factor

and	estimate	emissions.		The	PM	limit	is	based	on	filterable	em issions	only	and	PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# limits	are

based	on	filterable	and condensable	emissions.

Operating Parameters –	The	maximum	hourly	and	annual	emissions	from	the	power	plant engines	have	been

calculated	based	on	the	foll owing	operating	parameters.

Maximum Hourly Emissions

– The	maximum	electricity	requiremen t	for	station	keeping	and	dri lling	is

18,000	kW.		Since	each	engine/genera tor	is	capable	of	producing a	maximum	of	3,800	kW	of	electricity,	a

total	of	five	engines	operating	s imultaneously	at	94.8%	load	(1 8,000	kW)	is	assumed	to	represent	the

combined	maximum	hourly	emissions	from	all	eight	engines.		The maximum	hourly	emissi ons	estimate	for

each	engine	is	based	on	a	100%	loa d	assumption.		Please	note	th at	while	it	is	possibl e	that	more	than	five

engines	may	operate	simultaneousl y,	the	total	maximum	hourly	el ectricity	generate d	from	the	eight

engines/generators	wi ll	not	exceed	18,000	kW.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 7 

# Annual Emissions

– Annual	emissions	for	th e	eight	main	power	pl ant	engines	have	be en	calculated	based

on	an	operating	time	of	6,570	ho urs	per	year	per	engine.		Based on	an	annual	average	electricity

requirement	of	15,000	kW	for	statio n	keeping	and	drilling,	and a	maximum	generator	el ectric	output	rating

of	3,800	kW	per	generator/engine, an	average	load of	49%	for	ea ch	of	the	eight	main	p ower	plant	engines	is

used	to	estimate	potential	annual emissions.		Plea se	note	that while	it	is	possible	th at	one	or	more	of	the

eight	engines	may	opera te	at	a	load	greater than	49%,	the	annua l	emissions	for the	engines	will	not	exceed

the	proposed	potential	annua l	emissions	fo r	the	engines.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 8

Trinity Consultants 

# 4. REGULATORY APPLICABILITY

This	section	provides the	air	quality	regul ations	that	are	appl icable	to	this	permit	modif ication	application.		As

discussed	in	Section	1,	this	perm it	application	is	being	submit ted	to	revise	the	BA CT	limits	for	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5



# , VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	for	the	eight	main	engines	on the	DD1	currently	authorized	in Permit	No.	OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1.		As

the	proposed	exploratory	drilling operations	will	still	be	carr ied	out	beyond	25	miles of	the	nearest	States’

seaward	boundary,	it	will	be	out side	of	the	corresponding	state and	local	regulatory	authority	and	will	not	be

subject	to	any	state	or	local	regulations.

A	detailed	regulatory	applicabil ity	review	was	provided	in	the original	application	that resulted	in	the	Permit

No.	OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1.			BHPB	will continue	to	comply	with	all	a pplicable	regulatory	req uirements	as	specified

in	Permit	No.	OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1	i ssued	March	13,	2013.		Therefor e,	this	application	only	addresses	necessary

changes	in	regulatory	applicability	associated	with	the	propose d	modification	as	presente d	in	this	presentation.

A	detailed	overview	of	the	applic ability	of	each	federal	air	qu ality	regulation	applicable	t o	the	eight	main	engines

on	DD1	is	provided	in	the	following	sections.



# 4.1. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION REGULATIONS

To	determine	the	applicability of	PSD	permitting	requirements	a nd	the	pollutants	to	which	these	requirements

would	apply,	the	emissions	estima tes	from	the	proposed	operatio ns	were	compared	to	the respective	PSD	major

source	threshold	and	SER.		As required	by	40	CFR	55.13,	the	sou rce‐wide	potential	emissi ons	were	calculated	by

including	the	emissions	from	sou rces	associated	with	the	propos ed	exploratory	drilling operations	along	with

the	associated	support	vessels	w hile	at	the	sour ce,	and	while	e nroute	to	or	from	the source	when	within	25

miles	of	the	source.

After	proposed	modifications	the OCS	source	continues	to	qualif y	as	a	major	source	un der	the	PSD	program

because	potential	annual	emissions	of	NO X, 

# CO 2 

# e,	and	CO	are	each	greater	than the	applicable	major	source

threshold.		Additionally,	PSD review	is	required	for	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5 

# ,	CO 2 

# e,	and	VOCs,	because	emissions	of	these

pollutants	exceed	their	respectiv e	PSD	SERs	based	on	the	propos ed	modification.

In	accordance	with	40	CFR	52.21(i )(3),	the	requirements	under	4 0	CFR	52.21(k),	(m),	and	(o)	do	not	apply	to	a

major	stationary	source	or	major modification	with	respect	to	a particular	pollutant,	if	the	allowable	emissions

of	that	pollutant	from	the	sourc e,	or	the	net	increase	of	that pollutant	from	the	modific ation	would	not	impact	a

Class	I	area,	would	not	impact	a n	area	where	an	applicable	incr ement	is	known	to	be	violated,	and	when	the

source	would	be	temporary	(i.e., less	than	two	(2)	years	of	ope ration).		The	proposed project	meets	these

criteria	and	qualifies	for	the exemption	from	40	CFR	52.21(k), (m),	and	(o)	as	explained	below:

BHPB	is	proposing	to	limit	durat ion	of	the	proposed	Project	to two	years	and	hence,	the	proposed	OCS

source	qualifies	as a	temporary	source.

BHPB	performed	an	air	quality	modeling	analysis	as	a	part	of	th e	original	application	submitted	to	EPA

Region	4	and	FLM	to	demonstrate that	the	potential	emissions	fr om	the	proposed	project	will	not

adversely	impact	any	Class	I	area.		The	modeling	analyses	demon strated	that	PSD	Class	I	area	Increment

standards	and	AQRV	thresholds	fo r	regional	haze	and	deposition were	not	exceeded	a t	three	Class	I

areas	located	within	300	kilomet ers	of	the	proposed	project	ope rations.

The	proposed	project	location	is at	least	120	miles	from	the	ne arest	U.S.	shoreline.		Trinity	had

previously	contacted	the	regulat ory	agencies	of	Louisiana,	Miss issippi,	Alabama,	and	Florida	to	confirm

that	there	are	no	areas along	the	EGOM	state‐seaward	boundary	w ith	known	violations	of	PSD

increments.		As	such, the	proposed	project	would	impact	no	area where	an	applicable PSD	Increment	is

known	to	be	violated.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 9

Trinity Consultants 

# Since	the	proposed	project	meets the	above	discu ssed	criteria, the	project	will	not	be	su bject	to	the	following

requirements	under	40	CFR	52:

An	analysis	of	the	source’s	impact	on	total	air	quality	to	ensu re	compliance	with the	NAAQS	and	the

applicable	maximum	allowable	inc rease	over	the	baseline	concent ration	in	any	a rea,	per	40	CFR

52.21(k);

Ambient	air	qualit y	analysis	per	40	CFR	52.21(m);	and

An	analysis	of	source	related	gro wth	impacts	as	well	as	an	anal ysis	of	the	impairment	to	soils,

vegetation,	and visibility	per	40	CFR	52.21(o)



# 4.2. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

NSPS	require	new,	modified,	or	rec onstructed	sources	in	applica ble	source	categories	to	c ontrol	emissions	to	the

level	achievable	by	the	best	dem onstrated	technology	as	specifi ed	in	the	applicable	pro visions.		A	regulatory

applicability	determination	and	a	summary	of	potentially	applic able	NSPS	subparts	f or	the	equipment

associated	with	the	proposed	pro ject	operations	as	presented	in this	application	are	pr ovided	in	the	following

subsections.



# 4.2.1. 40 CFR 60 Subpart A

– General Provisions

All	affected	sources	subject	to an	NSPS	are	also	subject	to	the general	provisions	of	NSPS	Subpart	A	unless

specifically	excluded	by	the	sou rce‐specific	NSPS.		NSPS	Subpar t	A	requires	the	following	o f	facilities	subject	to	a

source‐specific	NSPS:

Initial	construction/recon struction	notification

Initial	startup	notification

Performance	tests

Performance	test	date initial	notification

General	monitoring	requirements

General	recordkeeping	requirements

Semiannual	monitoring	system	a nd/or	excess	emission	reports

General	control	device	and	w ork	practice	requirements

Source‐specific	NSPS	provisions can	supersede	NSPS	Subpart	A	as noted	in	the	relev ant	NSPS	Subpart.



# 4.2.2. 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII

– Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion

Engines

NSPS	Subpart	IIII, Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

, provides	standards	for	manufac turers,	owners,	and	operators	of stationary	compression	i gnition	(CI)	internal

combustion	engines	(ICE).		This subpart	provides	standards	for owners	and	operators	of	stationary	CI	ICE	that

commence	construction	after	July 11,	2005	where	the	stationary IC	engines	are:

Manufactured	after	April	1,	2006	a nd	are	not	fire	pump	engines [40	CFR	60.4200(a)(2)(i)];	or

Manufactured	 as	 a	 certified	Nati onal	 Fire	 Protection	Associatio n	NFPA)	 fire	 pump	 engine	 after	 July	 1,

2006	[40	CFR	60.4200(a)(2)(ii)].

This	subpart	is	also	applicable	to	owners	and	operators	of	stat ionary	CI	ICE	that	modif y	or	reconstruct	their

stationary	CI	ICE	after	Ju ly	11,	2005	[40	CFR	60.4200(a)(3)].

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 10

Trinity Consultants 

# 4.2.2.1. Non

‐ Applicability Analysis

The	eight	main	station ary	CI	ICE	engines	(EU‐001	through	EU‐008 )	with	an	engine	r ating	>	500	HP	were

manufactured	in	2002	and	are	not subject	to	this	regulation	bec ause	the	engines	were	not	manufactured	after

April	1,	2006	and	not	reconst ructed	after	July	11,	2005.



# 4.3. NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

(40 CFR PART 61)

Per	40	CFR	55.13(e),	40	CFR	Part 61	together	with	any	other	pro visions	promulga ted	pursuant	to	section	112	of

the	Clean	Air	Act	sha ll	apply	to	OCS	sources if	rationally	rela ted	to	the	attainment	and	m aintenance	of	federal	or

state	ambient	air	quality	standa rds	or	the	requirements	of	part C	of	title	I	of	the	Clean	Air	Act	(PSD).



# 4.3.1. 40 CFR 61 Subpart A

– General Provisions

40	CFR	61	Subpart	A	provides	the general	provisions	to	which	ea ch	source	subject	to	a nother	Part	61	subpart

must	comply	unless	specifically	e xcluded	by	the	applicable	subp art.		These	provisions	incl ude	initial	notification

and	performance	testing,	recordk eeping,	and	monitoring	requirem ents	for	all	other	subparts	as	applicable.		Part

61	applies	to	owners	or	operators of	any	stationary	source	for which	a	pollutant‐specific	standard	is	prescribed

under	this	part.		No	additional	s ubparts	under	the	40	CFR	Part 61	applies	to	the	modific ation	proposed	in	this

application.



# 4.4. NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

(40 CFR PART 63)

Per	40	CFR	55.13(e),	40	CFR	Part	63	together	with	any	other	pro visions	promulgated	pursuant	to	section

112	of	the	Clean	Air	Act	shall	apply	to	OCS	sources	if	rational ly	related	to	the	attain ment	and	maintenance

of	federal	or	state	ambient	air	quality	standards	or	the	requir ements	of	part	C	of	title	I	of	the	Clean	Air	Act

(PSD).

NESHAP	apply	to	major	sources	of HAP	or	specifically	designated area	sources	of	HAP.		A	HAP	major	source

is	defined	as	having	potential	emissions	in	excess	of	10	tons	p er	year	for	any	individual	HAP	and/or	25	tons

per	year	for	total	HAPs.		The	po tential	to	emit	for	the	explora tory	drilling	operations defines	the	proposed

activities	as	an	area	source	of HAP,	because	potential	HAP	emis sions	are	less	than	the	major	source

thresholds.		Potentially	applicable	NESHAP	subparts	for	area	so urces	are	discussed	below.



# 4.4.1. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A

– General Provisions

All	affected	sources	are	subject to	the	general	provisions	of	P art	63	NESHAP	Subpart	A	unless	specifically

excluded	by	the	source‐specific NESHAP.		These	provisions	inclu de	initial	notification	and	performance	testing,

recordkeeping,	reporting,	monitori ng,	and	control	device	and	wo rk	practice	standards	fo r	all	other	subparts	as

applicable.



# 4.4.2. 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ

‐ Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

NESHAP	Subpart	ZZZZ, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines ,	provides	emission	limitations	a nd	operating	limitations	for	H APs	emitted	from

stationary	reciprocating	internal combustion	engines	(RICE)	loc ated	at	major	sources	an d	area	sources	of	HAP

emissions.		BHPB's	pro posed	exploratory	dril ling	operations	in this	application	will	be an	area	source	for	HAPs

and	therefore	potentially	subject to	applicable	requirements	of this	subpart	for	area	sources.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 11

Trinity Consultants 

# Per	40	CFR	63.6590(a)(1)(iii),	stati onary	RICE	located	at	an	ar ea	source	of	HAP	emission s	would	be	defined	as

an	existing	source	under	the	req uirements	of	this	Subpart	if	th e	construction	of	the stationary	RICE	is

commenced	before	June	12,	2006.		T herefore,	the	eight	main	stat ionary	CI	ICE	engines (EU‐001	through	EU‐008)

proposed	in	this	application	are classified	as	existing	non‐eme rgency	stationary	CI	RIC E	located	at	an	area

source.

Per	40	CFR	63.6603(c),	if	an	existi ng	stationary	non‐emergency CI	RICE	with	a	site	rating	of	more	than	300	HP

located	on	an	offshore	vessel	that	is	an	area	source	of	HAP	and is	a	nonroad	vehicle	that is	an	Outer	Continental

Shelf	(OCS)	source	as	defined in	40	CFR	55.2,	it	does	not	need to	meet	the	numerical	CO	emission	limitations

specified	in	Table	2d	of	the	S ubpart	ZZZZ.		However,	the	follow ing	management	practices	needs	to	be	met:

Change	oil	every	1,000	hours	of	o peration	or	annually,	whicheve r	comes	first.		Or,	ut ilize	an	oil	analysis

program	as	prescribed	in	40	CFR 63.6625(i)	in	order	to	extend	t he	specified	oil	change	requirement;

Inspect	and	clean	air filters	every	750	hours	of	operation	or	a nnually,	whichever	comes first,	and	replace	as

needed;

Inspect	fuel	filters	and	belts, if	installed,	every	750	hours	o f	operation	or	annually, whichever	comes	first,

and	replace	as	needed;	and,

Inspect	all	flexible	hoses	ev ery	1,000	hours	of	operation	or	an nually,	whichever	comes first,	and	replace	as

needed.

Per	40	CFR	63.6655,	records	of	mana gement	practices	as	discusse d	above	need	to	be	kep t	in	readily	accessible

hard	or	electronic	form	for	at	l east	5	years	following	the	date of	each	maintenance	activity.



# 4.5. FEDERAL OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM (40 CFR PART 71)

The	Federal	Operating	Permits	Pro gram	(40	CFR	71)	sets	forth	th e	comprehensive	Federal air	quality	operating

permits	permitting	program	consi stent	with	the	requirements	of Title	V	of	the	Clean	Air	Act	and	defines	the

requirements	and	the	correspondin g	standards	and	procedures	by which	the	Administrato r	will	issue	operating

permits. 2 

# Using	the	procedures	of	40	CFR 71,	the	Administrator	will	iss ue	permits	to	any	source	which	is	an	OCS

source	that	is	located	beyond	25 miles	of	States'	seaward	bound aries,	as	defined	under	40	CFR	55.2. 3 

# Part	71

forms	relevant	to	the	proposed	mo dification	are	included	in	Sec tion	7	of	this	application.

2 

# 40	CFR	71.1(a)

3 

# 40	CFR	71.4(d)(1)

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 12

Trinity Consultants 

# 5. BACT ANALYSIS

As	required	by	40	CFR	52,	Best	Ava ilable	Control	Technology	(BA CT)	must	be	applied	to reduce	or	eliminate	air

emissions	from	a	new	or	modified	facility.		PSD	BACT	is	defined as: 4



# “an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on the maximum degree of reduction for each

pollutant subject to regulation under Act which would be emitted from any proposed major stationary source or

major modification which the Administrator, on a case

‐ by

‐ case basis, taking into account energy, environmental,

and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such source or modification through

application of production processes or available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or

treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of such pollutant. In no event shall application of

best available control technology result in emissions of any pollutant which would exceed the emissions allowed by

any applicable standard under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. If the Administrator determines that technological or

economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular emissions unit would make

the imposition of an emissions standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or

combination thereof, may be prescribed instead to satisfy the requirement for the application of best available

control technology. Such standard shall, to the degree possible, set forth the emissions reduction achievable by

implementation of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, and shall provide for compliance by means

which achieve equivalent results.”

EPA	has	developed	a	“top‐down”	p rocess	that	can	be	used	to	ensu re	that	a	BACT	analysis	satisfies	the	applicable

legal	criteria.		Presented	below are	the	five	basic	steps	of	a top‐down	BACT	review	as	identified	by	the	EPA. 5



# S TEP 

# 1

– I DENTIFY 

# A LL 

# C ONTROL 

# T ECHNOLOGIES



# Step	1	of	the	top‐down	approach requires	that	all	available	con trol	options	that	are	potentially	applicable	to	the

proposed	source	are	identified. It	is	the	applicant’s	responsi bility	to	identify	available	control	options	by

consulting	the	EPA’s	Reasonably Available	Control	Technology	(R ACT)/BACT/Least	Achi evable	Emission	Rate

(LAER)	clearinghouse	(RBLC),	along	with	other	reliable	sources. Viable	control	options are	those	technologies

that	have	a	practical	potential	for	application	to	the	emission s	unit	and	the	regulated	p ollutant	under	evaluation.

S TEP 

# 2

– E LIMINATE 

# T ECHNICALLY 

# I NFEASIBLE 

# O PTIONS



# Step	2	of	the	top‐down	approach	allows	for	the	elimination	of	c ontrol	options	that	are	technically	infeasible.

Also,	each	technology	should	be “demonstrated”	(previously	inst alled	and	operated	succe ssfully	on	a	similar

facility);	or	if	undemonstrated, then	the	applicant	must	determ ine	whether	the	technolo gy	is	both	“available”

and	“applicable.”		Technologies	i dentified	in	Step	1	that	are	n either	demonstrated	nor	fo und	to	be	both	available

and	applicable	are	elim inated	under	Step	2.

S TEP 

# 3

– R ANK 

# R EMAINING 

# C ONTROL 

# T ECHNOLOGIES



# Step	3	of	the	top‐down	approach requires	ranking of	the	remaini ng	control	technologie s	based	on	control

effectiveness.		If	there	is	only one	remaining	opt ion	or	if	all of	the	remaining	technologies	could	achieve

equivalent	control	efficiencies, ranking	based	on	control	effic iency	is	not	required.

S TEP 

# 4

– E VALUATE 

# M OST 

# E FFECTIVE 

# C ONTROLS



# Step	4	of	the	top‐down	approach	allows	for	the	elimination	of	c ontrol	options	based	on	collateral	impacts.		In

descending	order,	the	applicant	sh ould	evaluate	and	compare	the collateral	impacts	of	each	control	option.		The

permitting	authority	(EPA)	has	discretion	on	weighting	each	are a	of	collateral	impact.		This	step	validates	the

suitability	of	the	top	control	o ption	identified	or	provides	a clear	justification	as	to why	the	top	option	should

4 

# 40	CFR	52.21(b)(12)

5 

# U.S.	EPA. Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual ,	Chapter	B.	Research	Triangle	Park,	North	Carolina,	October,	1 990.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 13

Trinity Consultants 

# not	be	selected	as	BACT.		Costs	of	installing	and	operating	con trol	technologies	are	es timated	and	annualized

following	the	methodologies	o utlined	in	the	U.S.	EPA’s OAQPS Control Cost Manual (CCM). 6



# STEP 5

– SELECT BACT

Step	5	of	the	top‐down	approach requires	selection	of	BACT	for the	emissions	unit	and	t he	regulated	pollutant

under	evaluation.		The	most	effe ctive	control	alternative	not	e liminated	in	Step	4	is	s elected	as	BACT	with	a

corresponding	emission	l imit	established.		The	selection	of	BAC T	in	the	fifth	step	involves	an	evaluation	of

emission	rates	achievable	with	t he	selected	control	technology. BACT	is	an	emissions	li mit	unless	technological

or	economic	limitations	of	the	measurement	methodology	would	ma ke	the	imposition	of	a n	emissions	standard

infeasible,	in	which	case	a	work practice	or	operating	standard can	be	imposed.		Selected	BACT	can	be	no	less

stringent	than	an	applicable	NSPS,	MACT,	or	RACT.

BHPB	is	proposing	to	modify	BA CT	emission	limits	for	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5 

# ,	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e	associated	with	operation

of	the	eight	main	engines	on	DD1 .		As	a	result,	PSD	BACT	must	b e	reevaluated	for the	eight	main	e ngines	in	this

application	for	emissions	of	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	PM 2.5 

# ,	VOC	and	CO 2 

# e.

6 

# Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards	(OAQPS), EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual ,	Sixth	Edition,	EPA	452‐02‐001

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/pr oducts.html#cccinfo),	Daniel	C. Mussatti	&	William	M.	Vatavuk,	January	2002.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 14

Trinity Consultants 

# 5.1. PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT ANALYSIS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

In	this	section	BACT	is addressed	for	the	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# emissions	from	the	eight	internal

combustion	main	engines	on	DD1.

A	general	review	of	EPA’s	Reasona bly	Available	Control	Technolo gy	(RACT)/BACT/Lowest

Achievable	Emission	Rate	(LAER)	Clearinghouse	(RBLC)	has	been	p erformed	for	diesel‐fired	engines

located	at	both,	offshore	and	onshore	sources.		For	the	RBLC	re view,	only	the	most	recent

determinations	from	the	previous ten	years	were	considered	(fro m	January	1,	2003	onwards).

However,	it	should	be noted	that	the	control	technologies	evalu ated	in	the	“top‐down”	analysis	for

engines	were	not	limited	to	the	c ontrols	listed	in	the	RBLC	dat abase.		The	permits	recently

proposed/issued	for	similar	OCS sources	have	also	been	reviewed in	addition	to	su rveying	available

literature	and	discussion	w ith	engine	manufacturers 7 

# to	identify	potential	c ontrol	technologies.

Details	of	the	BACT	analysis	are discussed	in	the	remainder	of this	section.

Diesel	particulate	emi ssions	are	primarily	products	of	incomple te	combustion	of	diesel	fuel	in	the

combustion	chamber.		These	particulate	emissions	contain	a	mixt ure	of	soot,	sulfates,	dust,

inorganic	metals,	trace	metals,	and	a	soluble	organic	fraction (SOF)	that	is	composed	of	lube	oil‐

derived	hydrocarbons	and	unburne d	diesel	fuel.		The	majority	of PM	emissions	fr om	stationary

diesel	engines	are	PM 2.5



# . 8 

# Therefore,	BACT	for	PM,	PM 10 

# and	PM 2.5 

# is	addressed	together	as	any

control	technology	available	for	control	of	PM 2.5 

# will	also	effectively	control	PM	and	PM 10 

# .		The	main

diesel	engines	are	used	to	power the	thrusters	that	hold	the	sh ip	on	location	(i.e.,	station	keeping),

as	well	as	power	the	drilling	equ ipment	and	other	operational	n eeds	of	the	ship.		The	main	diesel

engines	operate	at	variable	load s	based	on	drilling	and	operati onal	power	demand,	and	extensive

“reserve”	power	is	required	to	a djust	for	environmental	conditi ons,	currents,	and the	demands	of

the	rig.			In	addition,	engine	e fficiency	and	performance	typic ally	degrade	over	time,	resulting	in

increased	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# emissions.		These	fact ors	are	important	considerations	in	the	B ACT

analysis	for	these	engines.

Based	on	a	review	of	RBLC	resul ts,	recently	proposed/issued	OCS permits,	and	available	literature,

the	following	techno logies	were	identified as	potentially	appli cable	for	controlling	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# emissions	from	the	diesel	engines:

 Baghouse	(Fabric	Filter);

 Diesel	Oxidation	Catalyst	(DOC);

 Diesel	Particulate	Filter	(DPF)/ Catalytic	Diesel	Particulate	Fi lter	(CDPF);

 4‐Way	Catalyst	Converter	with	Ex haust	Gas	Recirculation	System;

 Ultra	Low	Sulfur	Fuel/Low	Ash	Fuel;

 Fuel	Injection	T iming	Retard;

 Positive	Crankcase	Ventilation	(PCV);

 Turbocharger	and	Aftercooler;

7 

# Phone	communication	between	Ms.	Kalindi	Khadapkar	(Trinity	Con sultants	Inc.)	and	Mr.	Chimas	Sylve	(Caterpillar)	on	April	26,

2013.

8 

# Per	Section	3.1.2.1, Alternative Control Techniques Document: Stationary Diesel Engines (Final Report) ,	Prepared	For:	Energy

Strategies	Group,	U.S.	Environme ntal	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Of fice	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 15

Trinity Consultants 

#  High	Pressure	Fuel	Injection	(HPF I)/High	Efficiency	Fuel	Inject ion	(HEFI)	System;

 Replacement	of	Older	Engines	wit h	New	Engines/EPA	Tier	2	Standa rds;	and

 Good	Combustion	Practices.

A	complete	list	of	recent	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT	determinations	found	in	the	RBLC	Database	is

included	in	Appendix	C.		A	five	step	“top‐down”	process	develop ed	by	EPA	was	followed	to	ensure

that	the	BACT	analysis	satisfies	the	applicable	criteria	as	ide ntified	by	the	EPA. 9 

# The	top‐down	BACT

analysis	for	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# from	the	engines	is	presen ted	in	Table	5‐1	below.

9 

# U.S.	EPA. Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual ,	Chapter	B.	Research	Triangle	Park,	North	Carolina,	October,	1 990.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 16Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)	 PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]Baghouse(Fabric	Filter)Fabric	filters	(or	baghouses)	collect	particulatematter	on	the	surfaces	of	filter	bags.		Most	of	theparticles	are	captured	by	inertial	impaction,interception,	Brownian	diffusion,	and	sieving	onalready	collected	particles	that	have	formed	a	dustlayer	on	the	bags.		A	baghouse	consists	of	severalfiltering	elements	(bags)	and	a	bag	cleaning	system,all	contained	in	a	main	shell	structure	equipped	withdust	hoppers.Listed	in	RBLCDatabase	foronshoresources	only.Infeasibleforallengines.Baghouses	are	considered	to	betechnically	infeasible	forall	engines	as	use	of	a	baghouse	would	lead	to	a	highpressure	drop	across	exhaustflow	resulting	in	excessiveback	pressure	on	the	enginethat	could	cause	plugging	ofthe	engine,	thus	posing	safety	concerns	for	the	types	ofoffshore	operations	proposed.The	pressure	drop	will	alsocause	a	reduction	in	fuel	economy.		To	avoid	anunacceptable	pressure	drop	across	the	baghouse,	the	useof	a	large	fabric	area	would	be	required	which	in	turnwould	require	a	significant	amount	of	space	on	a	vessel.[8]Required	space	would	include	the	size	of	the	baghouseitself	as	well	as	the	removal	system	for	the	collectedmaterial.		Installation	ofa	baghouse	would	requiresignificant	space	reassignment	on	a	MODU,	which	isunavailable,	and	therefore	mayrequire	recertification	ofthe	vessel	itself.DieselOxidationCatalyst	(DOC)Diesel	Oxidation	Catalysts(DOCs)	contain	preciousmetals	[for	e.g.,	platinum	(Pt)	or	palladium	(Pd)]impregnated	onto	a	high	geometric	surface	areacarrier	and	are	placed	inthe	exhaust	stream	of	theengine	to	reduce	emissionsof	PM,	THC,	and	CO.		TheDOC	works	by	oxidizing	CO,	gaseous	hydrocarbonsand	liquid	hydrocarbon	particles	(unburned	fuel	andoil)	in	the	exhaust	gas	to	CO2and	H2O.		The	reductionof	PM,	THC,	and	CO	variesdepending	on	the	catalystformulations	in	the	DOC.		Oxidation	catalysts	reduceparticulate	emissions	from	diesel	engines	byoxidizing	the	soluble	organic	fraction	(SOF)	of	theparticulate.		Under	certainoperating	conditions,oxidation	catalysts	are	known	to	have	achieved	SOFremoval	efficiencies	of80	to	90	percent	with	anoverall	PM	reduction	of	approximately	20	to	50percent.[2]In	addition,	DOCs	have	been	verified	to	reduceemissions	of	CO	and	THC	by	as	much	as	90	percent.However,	actual	emission	reductions	vary	as	a	resultof	engine	type,	size,	age,	duty	cycle,	condition,maintenance	procedures,baseline	emissions,	testprocedure,	product	manufacturer	and	the	fuel	sulfurlevel.		[2]Not	Listed	inRBLCDatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.Due	to	the	large	load	variations	typical	of	theseexploratory	drilling	operations,the	engines	are	not	able	tosustain	constant	steady	stateloads/exhaust	temperaturesfor	sufficient	time	periodsthat	are	necessary	for	highcatalyst	performance,	resulting	in	limited	control.		Use	ofDOCs	would	also	lead	to	some	pressure	drop	acrossexhaust	flow	resulting	in	back	pressure	on	the	engine	thatcould	cause	plugging	of	the	engine,	thus	posing	safetyconcerns	for	the	types	of	offshore	operations	proposed.Several	non‐combustible	chemical	elements	that	may	bepresent	in	engine	lube	oils,	such	as	phosphorous,	lead	andheavy	metals,	may	collect	over	time	and	damage	thecatalyst	in	the	DOC.This	technology	has	not	beendesigned,	engineered,	ortested	on	a	commercially	available	scale	for	safe	operationon	the	large	diesel	engines	found	on	DD1.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 17Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)	 PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]DieselParticulateFilter	(DPF)/CatalyticDieselParticulateFilter	(CDPF)The	DPF	is	typically	designed	around	a	wall	flowsubstrate	that	captures	PM	from	the	diesel	engineexhaust	in	the	cell	walls.As	the	diesel	exhaust	gaspasses	through	the	particulate	filter	unit,	PM	iscollected	and	stored	in	the	unit.		The	gaseouscompounds	then	exit	out	of	the	filter	to	theatmosphere.		The	collectedPM	is	oxidized	eitherthrough	the	use	of	a	catalyzed	DPF	or	CDPF,	orthrough	a	fuel	burner	or	electrical	heater	whichheats	the	filter	to	the	combustion	temperature	of	thePM.		CDPFs	are	used	when	the	exhaust	gastemperature	of	the	engine	is	high	enough	over	anextended	period	of	time	to	allow	for	filterregeneration.		DPFs	are	used	when	the	exhausttemperature	is	not	high	enough	or	does	not	remainelevated	for	a	sufficientperiod	to	allow	for	theaccumulated	particulate	to	be	oxidized.[5]The	CDPF	works	the	same	way	as	the	DPF,	exceptthat	the	filter	substrate	contains	a	base	or	preciousmetal	coating	that	helps	oxidize	the	deposited	PM.The	oxidized	compounds	diffuse	through	the	filterwall	and	are	exhausted	from	the	filter	device.[5]For	DPFs,	PM	emission	reductions	have	beenreported	to	be	in	the	range	of	20	‐	90%.[3]	Forvarious	types	of	CDPFs,	verifications	by	CaliforniaAir	Resources	Board	(CARB)	have	shown	PMemission	reductions	of85	to	97	percent.[4]	Inaddition	to	the	PM	reductions,	the	catalyst	in	theCDPF	filter	also	reduces	emissions	of	CO	and	THC	by90	percent	but	requires	sufficient	exhausttemperatures	to	facilitate	regeneration	by	thecatalyst.[5]DPF	and	CDPFnot	listed	inRBLCdatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.DPFs	and	CDPFs	add	back	pressure	on	the	engines	thatcould	cause	plugging	of	the	engine,	thus	posing	safetyconcerns	for	the	types	of	offshore	operations	proposed.The	pressure	drop	will	also	cause	a	reduction	in	fueleconomy.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 18Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]4‐WayCatalystConverterwith	ExhaustGasRecirculationSystemControl	system	consists	of	two	catalyst	beds	inseries.		The	first	bed	contains	a	lean	NOXcatalyst,	andNOXemissions	are	reduced	by	the	addition	ofsupplemental	fuel	to	create	a	fuel	rich	environmentallowing	NOXreduction.		The	second	bed	is	anoxidation	catalyst	(reduces	CO,	VOC,	and	PMemissions).		The	Exhaust	Gas	Recirculation	systemaugments	the	lean	NOXconverter.		The	low	pressureEGR	recirculates	exhaustthat	has	passed	through	afilter	and	is	cooled	before	it	enters	the	engine.		Thecooled	exhaust	gases	have	a	higher	heat	capacitythan	air	and	contain	less	oxygen	thereby	loweringNOXformation.Not	Listed	inRBLCDatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.Recirculating	exhaust	gases	can	reduce	the	powergenerated	by	the	engine,	thus	impairing	the	ability	tosafely	maintain	the	vessel'sposition	and	perform	otherfunctions	related	to	the	proposed	offshore	operations	suchas	drilling,	cementing,	and	wireline.Further,	due	to	large	load	variations	typical	of	theseexploratory	drilling	operations,	the	engines	will	not	beable	to	sustain	constant	steady	state	loads/exhausttemperatures	for	sufficient	time	periods	that	are	criticalfor	high	catalyst	performance,	resulting	in	inconsistentemission	control.		Several	non‐combustible	chemicalelements	that	may	be	present	in	engine	lube	oils,	such	asphosphorous,	lead	and	heavy	metals,	may	collect	over	timeand	damage	the	catalyst.		Thetechnical	infeasibilitydiscussed	under	DOC	is	also	applicable	for	this	technology.Ultra	LowSulfurFuel/Low	AshFuelSulfur	in	marine	fuel	isprimarily	emitted	as	SO2,with	a	small	fraction	(about	2	percent)	beingconverted	to	SO3.[6]			SO3almost	immediately	formssulfate	and	is	emitted	as	primary	PM	by	the	engineand	consists	of	carbonaceousmaterial,	sulfuric	acid,and	ash	(trace	metals).		The	use	of	lower	sulfur	fuel(for	e.g.	Ultra	Low	Sulfur	Diesel	(ULSD)	with	dieselsulfur	content	of	15	ppm)	reduces	the	formation	ofsulfur	oxides	and	particulate	sulfates	from	the	dieselengine	exhaust.		The	reductions	in	PM	are	typicallyexpected	to	be	approximately	5	to	30	percentdepending	on	the	sulfur	content	of	the	fuel	that	isreplaced.[9]			There	are	no	NOXor	CO	emissionreductions	that	occur	when	using	ULSD.Listed	in	RBLCDatabase	foronshoresources	only.Feasibleforallengines.All	DD1	engines	will	use	Ultra	Low	Sulfur	Fuel.NANABHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 19Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]Fuel	InjectionTiming	RetardFuel	injection	timing	retardrefers	to	the	practice	ofdelaying	the	start	of	fuel	injection	leading	to	delay	inthe	start	of	combustion	thus	causing	reduction	inNOXemissions	from	a	dieselengine.		Delaying	thestart	of	combustion	by	retarding	injection	timingaligns	the	heat	release	fromthe	fuel	combustion	withthe	portion	of	the	combustion	stroke	of	the	enginecycle	after	the	piston	has	begun	to	move	down.		Bydoing	so,	the	cylinder	volume	is	increasing	and	thatheat	is	being	extracted	from	the	hot	gases	thuslowering	the	temperature	in	the	combustion	gases.NOXis	reduced	because	the	premixed	burning	phaseis	shortened	and	because	cylinder	temperature	andpressure	are	lowered.		NOXemission	reductions	canvary	from	20	‐	30%.[7]		However,	timing	retardpotentially	increases	HC,	CO,	PM,	and	fuelconsumption	because	the	end	of	injection	comeslater	in	the	combustion	stroke	and	the	cylindertemperature	and	pressure	are	too	low	for	morecomplete	oxidation	of	PM[11].		These	tradeoffs	canbe	minimized	by	using	other	technologies	such	asExhaust	Gas.[10],[11]Not	Listed	inRBLCDatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.Fuel	injection	timing	retard	involves	derating	the	engineand	reduces	the	peak	power	available	from	the	engine	thusimpairing	the	ability	to	safely	maintain	the	vessel'sposition	and	perform	other	functions	related	to	theproposed	offshore	operations.Ignition	timing	increases	exhaust	temperatures,	whichmay	adversely	impact	exhaust	valve	life	and	turbochargerperformance.		Also	Brake‐specific	fuel	consumption	(BSFC)increases	and	CO	and	PM	emissions	may	increase	as	aresult	of	these	changes,	unless	used	in	conjunction	withother	technologies	such	as	Exhaust	Gas	Recirculation.Replacementof	OlderEngines	withNewerEngines/	EPATier	2The	certification	to	meet	these	standards	is	part	ofthe	inherent	design	of	the	engine	and	there	is	noupgrade	available	for	an	existing	IMO	Tier	1	certifiedengine	to	meet	EPA	Tier	2	standards.		In	order	forthe	main	diesel	engines	on	the	DD1	to	meet	EPA	Tier2	(40	CFR	94)	standards,	the	engines	would	have	tobe	replaced	with	newer	engines.Not	Listed	inRBLCDatabase.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesN/AInfeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesBased	on	a	comparisonof	the	EPA	Tier	2emission	standards	andthe	proposed	BACTbased	on	stack	test	dataassociated	with	theexisting	main	engines,there	is	no	reduction	inemissions	due	to	anupgrade	to	EPA	Tier	2compliant	engines	asemissions	calculatedfrom	the	recent	DD‐1stack	test	are	below	theEPA	Tier	2	emissionstandards.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 20Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)	 PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]PositiveCrankcaseVentilation(PCV)The	crankcase	of	a	combustion	engine	canaccumulate	gases	and	oil	mist	called	blow‐by	gasesthat	leak	into	the	crankcase	from	the	combustionchamber	and	other	sources.The	blow‐by	gases	mustbe	vented	from	the	crankcase	to	prevent	damage	tothe	engine	components.		The	blow‐by	gases	willcontribute	to	PM	emissionsif	not	controlled.		In	PCVsystems,	the	exhaust	gasfrom	the	PCV	controlsystem	is	routed	to	the	air	intake	manifold	of	theengine,	where	it	is	used	ascombustion	gas.		Enginesequipped	with	closed	crankcases	utilize	centrifugalforce	or	have	an	oil	separator	or	filtration	systemthat	removes	condensed	oil	from	the	crankcase	gasand	returns	it	back	to	the	oil	pan	to	prevent	foulingof	the	engine's	turbocharger.		The	oil	free	gas	is	thenrouted	to	the	engine	intake	where	it	is	used	ascombustion	gas.		The	PCV	unit	can	be	used	inconjunction	with	the	installed	separator	to	removeother	particulates	in	the	crankcase	gas	stream	or	canreplace	the	oil	separator.		The	removal	of	thecontaminants	from	the	crankcase	gas	by	the	PCVsystem	protects	the	diesel	engine’s	turbochargersand	aftercoolers	from	damage	by	smallparticulates.[12]Not	Listed	inRBLCDatabase.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesThe	Main	Power	Plant	Engines	are	each	equipped	with	aPCV	system.NANABHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 21Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)	 PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]TurbochargerandAftercoolerTurbocharging	is	primarily	used	to	increase	poweroutput	and	reduce	fuel	consumption	from	a	givendisplacement	engine.		At	rated	power,	a	typical	dieselengine	loses	about	30	percent	of	its	energy	throughthe	exhaust.		A	turbocharger	uses	the	waste	energyin	the	exhaust	gas	to	drive	a	turbine	linked	to	acentrifugal	compressor,	which	then	boosts	the	intakeair	pressure.		By	forcing	more	air	into	the	cylinder,more	fuel	can	also	be	added	at	the	same	air‐fuelratio,	resulting	in	higher	power	and	better	fuelconsumption	while	controlling	smoke	andparticulate	formation.[13]The	increase	in	poweralso	produces	an	increase	in	temperature,	whichmay	limit	the	amount	of	air	that	could	be	charged	tothe	cylinder	at	a	given	pressure.		Therefore,	a	heatexchanger,	called	an	aftercooler	is	normally	used	tolower	the	temperature	of	the	intake	air.		Reducingthe	intake	air	temperature	directly	reduces	the	peakcylinder	temperature	during	combustion	which	iswhere	NOXis	formed.		For	engines	in	marine	vessels,jacket‐water	or	raw‐water	aftercooling	are	used.[13]In	jacket‐water	cooling,	raw	water	is	pumped	into	aheat	exchanger	which	isused	to	cool	the	enginecoolant.		If	jacket‐water	cooling	is	applied,	thecoolant	coming	from	theheat	exchanger	passesthrough	the	aftercooler	before	entering	the	engine.Raw‐water	after	cooling	means	that	outside	water	ispumped	through	the	aftercooler	rather	than	enginecoolant.[13]Listed	in	RBLCDatabase	foronshoresources	only.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEngines.The	Main	Power	Plant	Engines	are	each	equipped	with	aTurbocharger	and	Aftercooler.NA	 NABHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 22Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐1.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORPARTICULATEMATTER(PM),PARTICULATEMATTERLESSTHAN10MICRONS(PM10),PARTICULATEMATTERLESS	THAN2.5MICRONS(PM2.5)ProcessSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTCOST-EFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008All		InternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines	(8)	 PM/PM10/PM2.5[1]GoodCombustionPracticesThe	formation	of	PM	can	be	controlled	by	using	goodcombustion	practices	(GCP)	for	operating	andmaintaining	the	engines	to	maximize	fuel	efficiencyand	minimize	emissions.		PM	is	formed	due	toincomplete	combustion	of	the	diesel	fuel	in	thecombustion	chamber	anddepends	in	varyingdegrees	on	the	extent	of	fuel	mixing,	resulting	air‐to‐fuel	ratios,	combustion	temperature,	and	residencetime.		All	of	the	engines	on	the	DD1	semisubmersiblewill	be	operated	using	good	combustion	practices,including	manufacturer	recommendations	whereapplicable,	to	maintain	proper	air‐to‐fuel	ratio,residence	time,	and	temperature	to	ensure	completecombustion,	so	that	formation	of	PM	can	becontrolled.		In	addition,all	of	the	engines	areincluded	in	a	preventive	maintenance	plan	to	ensureoptimum	performance	that	will	maximize	fuelefficiency	and	minimize	emissions.Listed	in	RBLCdatabase	foronshoresources.Listed	asBACT	foroffshoresources.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEngines.NANAHigh	PressureFuel	InjectionPumps	(HPFI)and	HighEfficiency	FuelInjectionPumps	(HEFI)Increasing	injection	pressure	achieves	betteratomization	of	the	fuel	droplets	and	enhances	mixingof	the	fuel	with	the	intake	air	to	achieve	morecomplete	combustion.HPFI/HEFINot	listed	inRBLCdatabase.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesNANA[1]	PM,	PM10and	PM2.5emissions	are	addressed	together	since	the	majority	of	PM	and	PM10are	PM2.5and	any	control	technology	available	for	control	of	PM2.5will	also	effectively	control	PM	and	PM10.		Note:		Per	Section	3.1.2.1,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	the	majority	ofemissions	of	PM	from	stationary	diesel	engines	are	PM2.5.		Based	onAlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[2]	Based	on	Sections	4.3,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[3]	Based	on	Section	6.1,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[4]	California	Air	Resource	Board,DieselPMControlTechnologies,	Appendix	IX,	October	2000.[5]	Based	on	Section	4.1.2,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[6]RegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsofAirPollutionfromCategory3MarineDieselEngines,	Assessment	and	Standards	Division,	Office	of	Transportation	and	Air	Quality,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	December2009.[7]	Based	onControllingNitrogenOxidesundertheCleanAirAct:AMenuofOptions,	STAPPA	and	ALAPCO,	July	1994.http://www.p2pays.org/ref/02/01245/3017106.pdf.[8]	Based	onAirPollutionControlTechnologyFactSheetforFabricFilter,	U.S.	EPA,	EPA‐452/F‐03‐025.[9]	Based	on	Section	4.7.1,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[10]	Based	on	Chapter	3,	Section	V.A,FinalRegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsfromMarineDieselEngines,	Engine	Programs	and	Compliance	Division,	Office	of	Mobile	Sources,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	November	1999.[11]	Based	onNonroadDieselEmissionStandardsStaffTechnicalPaper,	Assessment	and	Standards	Division	Office	of	Transportation	and	Air	Quality,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	October	30,	2001.[12]	Based	on	Section	4.6,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[13]	Based	on	Chapter	3,	Section	V.C,FinalRegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsfromMarineDieselEngines,	Engine	Programs	and	Compliance	Division,	Office	of	Mobile	Sources,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	November	1999.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 23

Trinity Consultants 

# As	discussed	in	Table	5‐1,	all	eight	main	diesel	engines	onboar d	the	DD1	are	cu rrently	equipped

with	HPFI/HEFI,	Positive	Crankca se	Ventilation	Systems,	and	Tur bochargers	and	Aftercoolers	which

help	reduce	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# emissions.		In	addition ,	the	following	PM	control	technologies are

considered	technically/economicall y	feasible	for	all	DD1	semisu bmersible	engines:

 Low	Sulfur	Fuel:		Use	of	Ul tra	Low	Sulfur	Diesel;

 Good	Combustion	Practices:		Use	o f	Good	Combustion	Practices	fo r	operating	and

maintaining	all	of	the	engines, and	implementing	the	engine	mai ntenance	plan	developed	by

Transocean	for	the	Main	Engines to	maximize	fuel	efficiency	and minimize	emissions.

All	other	control	technologies	a re	determined	to	be	technically /economically	infeasible,	as	discussed

in	Table	5‐1.		Therefore,	BHPB	pr oposes	the	use	of	Positive	Cra nkcase	Ventilation	Systems,

Turbochargers	and	Aftercoolers	G ood	Combustion	Practices,	and	H PFI/HEFI	in	addition	to	the	use

of	Ultra	Low	Sulfur	Diesel	as	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT	for	the	dies el	main	engines.

The	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT	emission	limit	for	the	eight main	engines	wa s	derived	base d	on

compliance	stack	testing	conduct ed	on	all	eight	engines	excludi ng	Engine	#5	(EU‐005)	and	low	load

test	results	for	Engine	#3	(EU‐ 003).		The	compliance	stack	test ing	data	was	analyzed	using	the

methodology	discussed	earlier	in Section	2	to	de termine	the	out put‐based	emission	limit	that	best

represents	implementati on	of	the	feasible	control	technologies listed	above.

At	the	time	of	compliance	stack	testing,	HPFI/HEFI	was	installe d	on	all	main	engines	onboard	the

DD1	except	for	Engine	#5	(EU‐005) .			As	a	result,	the	Engine	#5 (EU‐005)	compliance	test	results	for

all	loads	were	excluded from	the	BACT	emissi on	limit	analysis. Additionally,	the	Engine	#3	(EU‐

003)	test	results	obtained	at	low load	operations	were	deemed	i nvalid	due	to	the	fact	that	a

representative	sample	was	not	co llected	during	the	test.		Hence ,	the	BACT	limit	p roposed	for	the

main	engines	in	this	draft	applic ation	excludes	the	Engine	#3	( EU‐003)	test	results	obtained	at	low

load	operation.			BHPB	is	curren tly	in	the	process	of	recomplet ing	the	compliance	t esting	for	Engine

#5	(EU‐005)	and	Engine	#3	(EU‐003).

A	summary	of	the	proposed	PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT	emission	limitation	for	the	DD1	main	engines	is

provided	below	in	Table	5‐2.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 24

Trinity Consultants 

# Table 5

‐ 2. Proposed PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# BACT Emission Limits for DD1 Main Engines

Emission Unit Pollutant Proposed

BACT Emission

Limit* Proposed

Emission

Limit Basis BACT Control

Technologies

Main	Power	Plant	Engines

(8)	–	EU‐001	through	EU‐

008 PM 5.91E‐04	lb/hp‐hr

(0.36	g/kW‐hr) Stack	Testing

PM 10 

# 8.22E‐04	lb/hp‐hr

(0.50	g/kW‐hr) Stack	Testing HPFI/HEFI,	Positive

Crankcase	Ventilation,

Turbocharger	&	Aftercooler,

Ultra	Low	Sulfur	Diesel,	and

Good	Combustion	Practices

PM 2.5 

# 8.05E‐04	lb/hp‐hr

(0.49	g/kW‐hr) Stack	Testing



# *The	PM	limit	is	based	on	filterable	emissions	only	and	PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# limits	are	based on	filterable	and

condensable	emissions



# 5.2. VOC BACT ANALYSIS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

In	this	section	BACT	is	addresse d	for	the	VOC	em issions	from	th e	eight	internal	combustion	main

engines	on	DD1.

A	general	review	of	EPA’s	Reasona bly	Available	Control	Technolo gy	(RACT)/BACT/Lowest

Achievable	Emission	Rate	(LAER)	Clearinghouse	(RBLC)	has	been	p erformed	for	diesel‐fired	engines

located	at	both,	offshore	and	onshore	sources.		For	the	RBLC	re view,	only	the	most	recent

determinations	from	the	previous ten	years	were	considered	(fro m	January	1,	2003	onwards).

However,	it	should	be noted	that	the	control	technologies	evalu ated	in	the	“top‐down”	analysis	for

engines	were	not	limited	to	the	c ontrols	listed	in	the	RBLC	dat abase.		The	permits	recently

proposed/issued	for	similar	OCS sources	have	also	been	reviewed in	addition	to	su rveying	available

literature	and	discussion	w ith	engine	manufacturers 10 

# to	identify	potential	c ontrol	technologies.

Details	of	the	BACT	analysis	are discussed	in	the	remainder	of this	section.

VOC	are	formed	due	to	incomplete combustion	of	the	diesel	fuel in	the	combustion	chamber	and

depend	in	varying	degrees	on	the extent	of	fuel	mixing,	resulti ng	air‐to‐fuel	ratios,	combustion

temperature,	and	residence	time. Emissions	of	VOC	are	an	inter mediate	product	produced	by	the

incomplete	combustion	of	hydrocarbons.		Most	of	the	VOC	in	dies el	exhaust	are	the	result	of

unburned	fuel,	althoug h	some	are	formed	as combustion	products. Engine	operating	conditions

such	as	engine	load	and	injection	timing	play	a	role	in	the	for mation	of	VOC	emissions	from	the

diesel	engine.

Based	on	a	review	of	RBLC	resul ts,	recently	proposed/issued	OCS permits,	and	available	literature,

the	following	techno logies	were	identified as	potentially	appli cable	for	controll ing	VOC	emissions

from	the	diesel	engines: 11

10 

# Phone	communication	between	Mr. Dhesikan	Venkatesan	(Trinity	C onsultants	Inc.)	and	Mr.	Mike

Truxillo	(Caterpillar) on	April	16,	2013.

11 

# The	RBLC	database	also	listed	c ertain	other	such	technologies such	as	diesel	particula te	filter,	Selective

Catalytic	Reduction	(SCR),	and	turbocharger	and	aftercooler,	wh ich	do	not	offer	VOC		emission	control.

Therefore,	these	technologies	we re	not	considered	in	the	top‐do wn	BACT	analysis.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 25

Trinity Consultants 

#  Diesel	Oxidation	Catalyst;

 Catalytic	Diesel	Parti culate	Filter	(CDPF);

 4‐Way	Catalyst	Converter	with	Ex haust	Gas	Recirculation	System;

 Positive	Crankcase	Ventilation	(PCV);

 Good	Combustion	Practices;	and

 Aftercooling	with	High	Pressure Fuel	Injection	System/High	Effi ciency	Fuel	Injection

System.

A	complete	list	of	recent	VOC	BA CT	determinations	found	in	the RBLC	Database	is	included	in

Appendix	C.		A	five	step	“top‐do wn”	process	developed	by	EPA	wa s	followed	to	ensure	that	the	BACT

analysis	satisfies	the	applicable	criteria	as	identified	by	the EPA. 12 

# The	top‐down	BACT	analysis	for

VOC	from	the	engines	is	presented	in	Table	5‐3	below.

12 

# U.S.	EPA. Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual ,	Chapter	B.	Research	Triangle	Park,	North

Carolina,	October,	1990.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 26Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐3.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDS(VOC)PROCESSSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTEFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines(8)VOC	 DieselOxidationCatalystDiesel	Oxidation	Catalysts	(DOCs)	contain	precious	metals[for	e.g.,	platinum	(Pt)	or	palladium	(Pd)]	impregnated	ontoa	high	geometric	surface	area	carrier	and	are	placed	in	theexhaust	stream	of	the	enginethat	reduce	emissions	of	PM,THC,	and	CO.		The	DOC	worksby	oxidizing	CO,	gaseoushydrocarbons	and	liquid	hydrocarbon	particles	(unburnedfuel	and	oil)	in	the	exhaust	gas	to	CO2and	H2O.		Thereduction	of	PM,	THC,	and	CO	varies	depending	on	thecatalyst	formulations	in	theDOC.		Oxidation	catalystsreduce	particulate	emissions	ofdiesel	engines	by	oxidizingthe	soluble	organic	fraction	(SOF)	of	the	particulate.		Undercertain	operating	conditions,oxidation	catalysts	are	knownto	have	achieved	SOF	removal	efficiencies	of	80	to	90percent	with	an	overall	PM	reduction	of	approximately	20to	50	percent.[1]Actual	emission	reductions	vary	however,	as	a	result	ofengine	type,	size,	age,	duty	cycle,	condition,	maintenanceprocedures,	baseline	emissions,	test	procedure,	productmanufacturer	and	the	fuel	sulfur	level.		In	addition,	DOCshave	been	verified	to	reduce	emissions	of	CO	and	THC	by	asmuch	as	90	percent.[1]Not	listed	inRBLCdatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.Due	to	the	large	load	variationstypical	of	these	exploratory	drilling	operations,	the	enginesare	not	able	to	sustain	constant	steady	state	loads/exhausttemperatures	for	sufficient	time	periods	that	are	necessaryfor	high	catalyst	performance,	resulting	in	limited	control.Use	of	DOCs	would	also	leadto	some	pressure	drop	acrossexhaust	flow	resulting	in	back	pressure	on	the	engine	thatcould	cause	plugging	of	the	engine,	thus	posing	safetyconcerns	for	the	types	of	offshore	operations	proposed.Several	non‐combustible	chemical	elements	that	may	bepresent	in	engine	lube	oils,	such	as	phosphorous,	lead	andheavy	metals,	may	collect	over	time	and	damage	thecatalyst	in	the	DOC.VOC	 CatalyticDieselParticulateFilter	(CDPF)CDPF	works	the	same	way	as	aDiesel	Particulate	Filter(DPF),	except	that	the	filter	substrate	contains	a	base	orprecious	metal	coating	that	helps	oxidize	the	deposited	PM.The	oxidized	compounds	diffusethrough	the	filter	wall	andare	exhausted	from	the	filter	device.[3]For	various	types	of	CDPFs,	verifications	by	California	AirResources	Board	(CARB)	have	shown	PM	emissionreductions	of	85	to	97	percent.[2]		In	addition	to	the	PMreductions,	the	catalyst	inthe	CDPF	filter	also	reducesemissions	of	CO	and	THC	by90	percent	but	requiressufficient	exhaust	temperaturesto	facilitate	regenerationby	the	catalyst.[3]CDPF	notlisted	in	RBLCdatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.CDPFs	add	back	pressure	onthe	engines	that	could	cause	plugging	of	the	engine,	thusposing	safety	concerns	for	thetypes	of	offshore	operationsproposed.		The	pressure	drop	will	also	cause	a	reduction	infuel	economy.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 27Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐3.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDS(VOC)PROCESSSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTEFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines(8)VOC	 4‐WayCatalystConverterwith	ExhaustGasRecirculationSystemControl	system	consists	of	two	catalyst	beds	in	series.		Thefirst	bed	contains	a	lean	NOXcatalyst,	and	NOXemissionsare	reduced	by	the	addition	ofsupplemental	fuel	to	create	afuel	rich	environment	allowing	NOXreduction.		The	secondbed	is	an	oxidation	catalyst	(reduces	CO,	VOC	and	PMemissions).		The	Exhaust	Gas	Recirculation	systemaugments	the	lean	NOXconverter.		The	low	pressure	EGRrecirculates	exhaust	that	haspassed	through	a	filter	and	iscooled	before	it	enters	the	engine.		The	cooled	exhaustgases	have	a	higher	heat	capacity	than	air	and	contain	lessoxygen	thereby	lowering	NOXformation.Not	listed	inRBLCdatabase.Infeasibleforallengines.Recirculating	exhaust	gases	can	reduce	the	powergenerated	by	the	engine,	thus	impairing	the	ability	to	safelymaintain	the	vessel's	positionand	perform	other	functionsrelated	to	the	proposed	offshoreoperations	such	as	drilling,cementing,	and	wireline.		Also,the	emergency	generator	isneeded	for	backup	power	when	the	main	engines	areinoperable.		During	an	emergency,	the	generator	enginewill	need	to	perform	at	peak	power.Further,	due	to	large	load	variations	typical	of	theseexploratory	drilling	operations,the	engines	will	not	be	ableto	sustain	constant	steady	state	loads/exhausttemperatures	for	sufficient	time	periods	that	are	critical	forhigh	catalyst	performance,resulting	in	inconsistentemission	control.		Several	non‐combustible	chemicalelements	that	may	be	present	in	engine	lube	oils,	such	asphosphorous,	lead	and	heavy	metals,	may	collect	over	timeand	damage	the	catalyst.		Thetechnical	infeasibilitydiscussed	under	DOC	is	also	applicable	for	this	technology.VOC	 PositiveCrankcaseVentilation(PCV)The	crankcase	of	a	combustion	engine	can	accumulategases	and	oil	mist	called	blow‐by	gases	that	leak	into	thecrankcase	from	the	combustion	chamber	and	other	sources.The	blow‐by	gases	must	be	vented	from	the	crankcase	toprevent	damage	to	the	engine	components.		The	blow‐bygases	will	contribute	to	PM	and	VOC	emissions	if	notcontrolled.		In	PCV	systems,the	exhaust	gas	from	the	PCVcontrol	system	is	routed	to	theair	intake	manifold	of	theengine,	where	it	is	used	ascombustion	gas.		Enginesequipped	with	closed	crankcases	utilize	centrifugal	force	orhave	an	oil	separator	or	filtration	system	that	removescondensed	oil	from	the	crankcase	gas	and	returns	it	back	tothe	oil	pan	to	prevent	fouling	ofthe	engine's	turbocharger.The	oil	free	gas	is	then	routedto	the	engine	intake	where	itis	used	as	combustion	gas.		The	PCV	unit	can	be	used	inconjunction	with	the	installed	separator	to	remove	otherparticulates	in	the	crankcase	gas	stream	or	can	replace	theoil	separator.		The	removal	ofthe	contaminants	from	thecrankcase	gas	by	the	CCV	system	protects	the	dieselengine’s	turbochargers	and	aftercoolers	from	damage	bysmall	particulates.[4]Not	listed	inRBLCdatabase.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesThe	Main	Power	Plant	Enginesare	each	equipped	a	PCVsystem.NANABHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 28Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐3.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDS(VOC)PROCESSSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTEFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	Plant	Engines(8)VOCGoodCombustionPracticesThe	formation	of	VOC	can	becontrolled	by	using	goodcombustion	practices	(GCP)	for	operating	and	maintainingthe	engines	to	maximize	fuel	efficiency	and	minimizeemissions.		VOC	are	formed	due	to	incomplete	combustionof	the	diesel	fuel	in	the	combustion	chamber	and	depend	invarying	degrees	on	the	extent	offuel	mixing,	resulting	air‐to‐fuel	ratios,	combustion	temperature,	and	residence	time.All	of	the	engines	on	the	DD1semisubmersible	will	beoperated	using	good	combustion	practices,	includingmanufacturer	recommendations	where	applicable,	tomaintain	proper	air‐to‐fuel	ratio,	residence	time,	andtemperature	to	ensure	complete	combustion,	so	thatformation	of		VOC	can	be	controlled.		In	addition,	all	of	theengines	will	undergo	preventive	and	maintenance	plan	toensure	optimum	performance	that	will	maximize	fuelefficiency	and	minimize	emissions.Listed	in	RBLCdatabase	foronshoresources.Listed	asBACT	foroffshoresources.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesNA	 NAVOCAftercooling,Combinedwith	HighPressure	FuelInjectionPumps	(HPFI)and	HighEfficiency	FuelInjectionPumps	(HEFI)Increasing	injection	pressure	achieves	better	atomization	ofthe	fuel	droplets	and	enhances	mixing	of	the	fuel	with	theintake	air	to	achieve	more	complete	combustion.Listed	in	RBLCDatabase	foronshoresources.HPFI/HEFINot	listed	inRBLCdatabase.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEnginesNA	 NA[1]	Based	on	Section	4.3,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[2]	California	Air	Resource	Board,DieselPMControlTechnologies,	Appendix	IX,	October	2000.[3]	Based	on	Section	4.1.2,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.[4]	Based	on	Section	4.6,AlternativeControlTechniquesDocument:StationaryDieselEngines(FinalReport),	Prepared	For:	Energy	Strategies	Group	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	and	Standards,	March	5,	2010.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 29

Trinity Consultants 

# As	discussed	in	Table	5‐3,	all	eight	main	diesel	engines	onboar d	the	DD1	are	currently

equipped	with	Positive	Crankcase Ventilation	Systems	which	help reduce	VOC	emissions.

In	addition,	all	of	the	engines	on	the	DD1	will	be	operated	usi ng	Good	Combustion

Practices,	including	manufacture r	recommendations	where	applica ble,	to	maintain

proper	air‐to‐fuel	ratio,	residen ce	time,	and	temperature	to	en sure	complete	combustion,

so	that	formation	of	VOC	can	be	controlled.		All	of	the	engines are	included	in	a	preventive

maintenance	plan	to	ensure	optim um	performance	that	will	maximi ze	fuel	efficiency	and

minimize	emissions.		Also,	Transoc ean	has	installed	HPFI/HEFI	o n	all	main	engines

onboard	the	DD1.		At	the	time	of the	compliance	stack	testing, HPFI/HEFI	was	installed	on

all	main	engines	onboard	the	DD1 except	for	Engine	#5	(EU‐005). Hence,	the	BACT	limit

proposed	for	the	main	engines	in	this	draft	application	exclude s	the	Engine	#5	(EU‐005)

test	results.		BHPB	is	currently in	the	process	of	recompleting the	compliance	testing	for

Engine	#5	(EU‐005).

All	other	control	technologies	a re	determined	to	be	technically infeasible,	as	discussed	in

Table	5‐3.		Therefore,	for	VOC,	BH PB	proposes	the	use	of	existi ng	Positive	or	Closed

Crankcase	Ventilation	Systems,	G ood	Combustion	Practices,	and	H PFI/HEFI	as	BACT	for

the	main	engines.

The	VOC	BACT	emission	limit	for	t he	eight	main	engines	was	deri ved	based	on

compliance	stack	testing	conduct ed	on	all	eight	engines	excludi ng	Engine	#5	(EU‐005).

The	compliance	stack	testing	data	was	analyzed	using	the	method ology	discussed	earlier

in	Section	2	to	determine	the	ou tput‐based	emission	limit	that best	represents

implementation	of	the	feasible	c ontrol	technologies	listed	abov e.

A	summary	of	the	proposed	VOC	BAC T	emission	limit ation	for	the DD1	main	engines	is

provided	below	in	Table	5‐4.

Table 5

‐ 4. Proposed VOC BACT Emission Limits for DD1 Main Engines

Emission Unit Proposed BACT

Emission Limit Proposed

Emission

Limit Basis BACT Control

Technologies

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)

–	EU‐001	through	EU‐008 1.02E‐03	lb/hp‐hr

(0.62	g/kW‐hr) Stack	Testing HPFI/HEFI,	Positive	Crankcase

Ventilation,	and

Good	Combustion	Practices



# Additionally,	a	review	of	the	RBLC	database	indicates	that	a	lo wer	BACT	limit	(0.39	g/kW‐

hr)	has	been	established	for	mai n	engines	for	other	drilling	ri gs	in	the	Gulf	of	Mexico.		This

is	the	same	limit	that is	currently	included in	the	existing	BH PB	operating	permit	and	is

based	on	U.S.	EPA	AP‐42	emission factors.		At	the	time	of	this submittal,	BHPB	is	not

aware	of	a	compliance	demonstr ation	that	proves	the	0.39	g/kW‐h r	BACT	limit	is

achievable	for	the	main	engines on	any	drill	rig	permitted	to	o perate	on	the	OCS.		As	a

result,	BHPB	is	proposing	a	BACT	limit	that	is	based	on	actual source	test	data	and	will	be

achievable	for	the	life	of	the	main	engines	onboard	DD1.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 30

Trinity Consultants 

# 5.3. CO 2 

# e BACT ANALYSIS FOR DD1 MAIN ENGINES

In	this	section	BACT	i s	addressed	for	the	CO 2 

# e	emissions	from	the	eight	internal	combustion	main

engines	on	DD1.

The	majority	of	Greenho use	Gas	emissions	fr om	these	internal	co mbustion	engines	are	in	the	form

of	carbon	dioxide	(CO 2 

# ).		CO 2 

# is	formed	during	complete	combu stion	of	diesel	fuel	in	the	com bustion

chamber	when	carbon	in	the	fuel	is	converted	to	CO 2 

# .		Because	greenhouse	ga s	emissions	control	is

still	an	emerging	area	of technology	development, 

# the RBLC	search	was	not	li mited	to	just	diesel

engines	but	expanded	for	all	comb ustion	sources.		Extensive	res earch	to	identify	any	emerging

technologies	of	GHG	control	was	also	conducted.		The	following technologies	were identified	as

potentially	applicable	for	controlling	CO 2 

# e	emissions	from	the diesel	engines:

 Carbon	Capture	Storage	(CCS);

 Alternative/Biomass	Fuel	Sources;

 CSNOx	Emissions	Ab atement	System;

 Good	Combustion	Practices.

 High	Pressure	Fuel	Injection	Syst em/High	Efficiency	Fuel	Inject ion	System.

A	complete	list	of	recent	CO 2 

# e	BACT	determinations	found	in	th e	RBLC	Database	is	included	in

Appendix	C.		A	five	step	“top‐do wn”	process	developed	by	EPA	wa s	followed	to	ensure	that	the	BACT

analysis	satisfies	the	applicable	criteria	as	identified	by	the EPA. 13 

# The	top‐down	BACT	analysis	for

CO 2 

# e	from	the	engines	is	presented	in	Table	5‐5	below.

13 

# U.S.	EPA. Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual ,	Chapter	B.	Research	Triangle	Park,	North	Carolina,	October,	1 990.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 31Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐5.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORGREENHOUSEGASESPROCESSSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTEFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	PlantEngines	(8)CO2e	 Carbon	Capture	andStorage/	CarbonSequestrationCarbon	Capture	and	Storage/	Carbon	Sequestration	refers	tothe	processes	in	which	CO2that	would	otherwise	be	emittedinto	the	atmosphere,	is	captured	and	stored.		This	processrequires	the	separation	and	capture	of	CO2at	the	point	ofemissions,	transportation	of	the	captured	CO2to	the	storagelocation,	and	storing	the	captured	CO2in	deep	undergroundgeologic	formations		in	sucha	way	that	it	will	remainpermanently	stored.		Potential	sites	for	underground	storageof	CO2are	mature	oil	and	natural	gas	reservoirs,	deepunmineable	coal	seams,	deep	saline	formations,oil	and	gasrich	organic	shales,	and	basaltformations.[1]		Injection	ofcaptured	CO2into	the	ocean	at	greatdepths	has	also	beenproposed	as	a	potential	option	to	isolate	CO2from	theatmosphere	for	centuries.[2]Internal	combustion	engines	such	as	the	ones	on	the	DD1semisubmersible	are	designedfor	and	rely	on	air‐firedcombustion,	a	process	that	exhausts	CO2diluted	withnitrogen,	wherein	the	flue	gascontains	a	relatively	smallpercentage	(under	20%	by	volume)	of	CO2.		For	effectivecarbon	sequestration,	the	CO2in	the	exhaust	gases	must	beseparated	and	concentrated.		Currently	an	effective	methodfor	recovering	CO2from	combustion	exhaust	is	by	using	amineabsorbers	and	cryogenic	coolers.Not	listed	inthe	RBLCDatabase.Infeasible.The	Sake	Project	is	an	exploratorydrilling	project	in	remoteoffshore	areas.		Becausethis	area	has	not	been	previously	developed	for	oiland	gas	production,	currently	there	are	no	knownmature	oil	and	natural	gasreservoirs	in	relativeproximity	of	the	areas	proposed	for	exploratorydrilling	that	can	potentially	be	considered	forgeological	sequestration.Furthermore,	the	exhaustfrom	diesel	engines	is	diluted	with	nitrogen	in	theair	and	the	CO2must	be	separated	prior	totransport	for	storage.		This	separation	has	to	beachieved	using	an	absorption	process	that	uses	thechemical	reaction	of	an	aqueous	alkaline	solvent,usually	an	amine,	with	the	exhaust	gases.		Thisprocess	will	require	the	addition	of	equipment	suchas	absorber	columns,	stripper	columns,	condensers,reboilers,	heat	exchangers,etc.		Installation	of	suchequipment	would	require	significant	spacereassignment	on	a	MODU,	which	is	unavailable.Before	deploying	technologies	that	will	injectcaptured	and	separated	CO2into	the	ocean	at	greatdepths,	such	technologies	would	require	furtherdevelopment	and	field	testing.		Currently	suchtechnologies	have	only	been	tested	in	laboratoryexperiments.		Furthermore,	putting	CO2directlyinto	the	deep	ocean	means	that	the	chemicalenvironment	of	the	deep	ocean	would	be	alteredimmediately.		Given	only	rudimentaryunderstanding	of	deep‐sea	ecosystems,	only	alimited	and	preliminary	assessment	of	potentialecosystem	effects	can	be	given.[2]Even	if	the	above	constraints	are	overcome,separated	CO2from	the	MODU	would	have	to	betransported	using	pipelinesto	the	storage	location.Given	the	mobile	nature	ofthe	exploratory	drillingoperations	and	thus	the	emission	units,	it	will	beinfeasible	to	connect	theMODUs	with	a	staticpipeline	infrastructure	to	transport	CO2.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 32Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐5.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORGREENHOUSEGASESPROCESSSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTEFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	PlantEngines	(8)CO2e	 Biomass	FuelSources	–	BiodieselBiodiesel	is	a	fuel	made	from	plant	or	animal	feedstocks,	andmay	be	used	in	conventional	diesel	engines.	Biodiesel	iscomprised	of	specific	chemicalcomponents	defined	by	ASTMas	"mono‐alkyl	esters	of	longchain	fatty	acids	derived	fromvegetable	oils	or	animal	fats."In	the	United	States,	mostbiodiesel	is	made	from	soybean	oil.	However,	canola	oil,sunflower	oil,	recycled	cooking	oils,	palm	oil,	animal	fats,	andother	oils	are	also	used	as	feedstocks.		Biodiesel	in	its	pureform	is	known	as	B100,	but	it	can	be	blended	withconventional	diesel	fuel.	Themost	common	blends	are	B5	(5percent	biodiesel	and	95	percentconventional	diesel)	and	B20(20	percent	biodiesel	and	80	percent	conventional	diesel).[3]Because	biodiesel	is	made	usingfeedstock	that	contain	carbontaken	from	the	biosphere,	the	combustion	of	biodiesel	doesnot	add	new	carbon	and	so	does	not	add	to	GHG	emissions.However,	the	production	of	biodiesel	may	involve	use	of	fossilfuel	based	carbon.Not	listed	inthe	RBLCDatabase.Infeasible.The	diesel	engines	onboard	the	DD1semisubmersible	are	not	designed	to	burn	biodieseland	there	could	be	potential	engine	performanceissues	from	use	of	biodiesel.		Use	of	biodiesel	mayresult	in	degradation	of	some	fuel	lines	and	gaskets(e.g.	those	made	from	nitrile	and	natural	rubber).Biodiesel	use	also	results	in	reduced	power	and	fuelefficiency	of	engines,	thus	impairing	the	ability	tosafely	maintain	the	vessel's	position	and	performother	functions	related	tothe	proposed	offshoreoperations	such	as	drilling,cementing,	and	wireline.Requirements	for	handling	and	using	biodiesel	maydiffer	from	requirements	for	petroleum‐baseddiesel.	For	example,	biodiesel	can	gel	at	lowtemperatures	and	may	require	special	handling	incold	climates	during	winter.		There	may	also	bedegradation	of	biodiesel	due	to	long	storagetimes.[3]		Biodiesel	combustion	also	results	inincrease	in	NOXemissions	and	decrease	in	PM,	CO,and	VOC	emissions.[4]CSNOXEmissionAbatement	SystemECOSPEC	Global	Technology	PteLtd	has	patented	the	CSNOxemissions	abatement	system	that	is	designed	to	convert	CO2inexhaust	gases	from	ship	engines	into	bicarbonates,	using	UltraLow	Frequency	(ULF)	wave	electrolysis	treatment	to	increasethe	alkalinity	of	the	seawater	injected	into	a	scrubber.Seawater	is	pumped	in	to	the	control	system	from	the	oceanusing	suction	pumps,	making	the	system	ideal	for	offshoreapplications.		The	system	has	been	tested	onboard	a	100,000‐tonne	oil	tanker,	at	50%	gas	load	(equivalent	to	approximately5	MW	engine	output),	yielding	a	CO2removal	efficiency	of77%.[5][6]Not	listed	inthe	RBLCDatabase.Infeasible.The	CSNOXtechnology	has	beendesigned	for	and	tested	onvessels	that	operate	atstable	loads	continuously.Such	operations	provideexhaust	gases	that	are	consistent	in	theircomposition	and	properties	over	long	periods	oftime,	thereby	facilitating	efficient	operation	of	thecontrol	processes.		Due	to	the	large	load	variationswing	demanded	by	the	proposed	exploratorydrilling	operations	on	the	drill	floor	and	otherMODU	applications,	the	engines	onboard	the	MODUwill	not	be	able	sustain	constant	steady	state	loadsfor	sufficient	time	periods.		The	CSNOXtechnologyhas	not	been	tested	or	proven	effective	for	engineswith	these	types	of	load	variations.BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc.|OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 33Trinity ConsultantsTable	5‐5.DD1ENGINES‐TOP‐DOWNBACTANALYSIS	FORGREENHOUSEGASESPROCESSSTEP1.IDENTIFYAIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP2.ELIMINATETECHNICALLYINFEASIBLEOPTIONSSTEP3.RANKREMAININGCONTROLTECHNOLOGIESSTEP4.EVALUATEANDDOCUMENTMOSTEFFECTIVECONTROLSSTEP5.SELECTBACTIDProcessProcessDescriptionPSDPollutantControlTechnologyControlTechnologyDescriptionRBLCDatabaseInformationTechnicalFeasibilityTypicalOverallControlEfficiencyCostEffectiveness,$/tonEU‐001throughEU‐008Diesel‐FiredInternalCombustionEnginesPower	PlantEngines	(8)CO2e	 Good	CombustionPracticesThe	emissions	ofCO2ecan	be	controlled	by	using	goodcombustion	practices	(GCP)	for	operating	and	maintaining	theengines	to	maximize	fuel	efficiency	which	will	minimizeemissions	of	CO2e	on	an	energy	output	basis.		By	burninglesser	fuel	to	perform	the	same	amount	of	work,	lesseramounts	of	CO2,	CH4,	and	N2O	will	be	emitted	to	theatmosphere.		All	of	the	engineson	the	DD1	semisubmersiblewill	be	operated	using	good	combustion	practices,	includingmanufacturer	recommendations	where	applicable,	tomaintain	proper	air‐to‐fuel	ratio,	residence	time,	andtemperature	to	ensure	complete	combustion,	so	that	fuelefficiency	of	the	engines	can	bemaximized.		In	addition,	all	ofthe	engines	will	undergo	preventive	and	maintenance	plan	toensure	optimum	performance	that	will	further	maximize	fuelefficiency	and	minimize	CO2e	emissions.Listed	inRBLCdatabase	foronshoresources.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEngines.NANAHigh	Pressure	FuelInjection	Pumps(HPFI)/	HighEfficiency	FuelInjection	Pumps(HEFI)Increasing	injection	pressure	achieves	better	atomization	ofthe	fuel	droplets	and	enhances	mixing	of	the	fuel	with	theintake	air	to	achieve	more	complete	combustion.		Highefficiency	fuel	injection	will	increase	the	efficiency	of	fuelcombustion	and	minimize	emissions.HPFI/HEFINot	listed	inRBLCdatabase.FeasibleforallMainPowerPlantEngines.NANA[1]	Carbon	Sequestration	Atlas	of	the	United	States	and	Canada,U.S.	Department	of	Energy,	Office	of	Fossil	Energy,	National	Energy	Technology	Laboratory.[2]	Carbon	Dioxide	Capture	and	Storage,	Intergovernmental	Panelon	Climate	Change	(IPCC),	2005	‐Bert	Metz,	Ogunlade	Davidson,Heleen	de	Coninck,	Manuela	Loosand	Leo	Meyer	(Eds.),	Cambridge	University	Press,	UK.[3]	Guidance	for	Biodiesel	Producers	and	Biodiesel	Blenders/Users,	Transportation	and	Regional	Programs	Division	Office	of	Transportation	and	Air	Quality,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	EPA420‐B‐07‐019,November	2007.[4]	A	Comprehensive	Analysis	ofBiodiesel	Impacts	on	Exhaust	Emissions,	Draft	Technical	Report	Assessment	and	Standards	Division,	Office	of	Transportation	and	Air	Quality,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	EPA420‐P‐02‐001,	October	2002.[5]	CSNOXBrochure	from	http://www.ecospec.com	,	last	accessed	on	August28,	2010.[6]RegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsofAirPollutionfromCategory3MarineDieselEngines,	Assessment	and	Standards	Division,	Office	of	Transportation	and	Air	Quality,	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency,	December2009.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 34

Trinity Consultants 

# As	discussed	in	Table	5‐5,	the	use	of	Good	Combustion	Practices and	HPFI/HEFI	are	considered	the

only	technically	feasible	BACT	options	for	GHGs.		All	of	the	ma in	engines	onboard	the	DD1	will	be

operated	using	Good	Combustion	Pr actices,	including	manufacture r	recommendations	where

applicable,	to	maintain	proper	ai r‐to‐fuel	ratio,	residence	tim e,	and	temperature	to	ensure	complete

combustion,	so	that	fuel	efficie ncy	of	the	engines	can	be	maxim ized.		The	main	en gines	are	also

included	in	a	preventi ve	maintenance	plan	to	ensure	optimum	per formance	that	will maximize	fuel

efficiency	and	minimize	emissions.		In	addition,	Transocean	has installed	HPFI/HEFI	on	all	main

engines	onboard	the	DD 1.		At	the	time	of	th e	compliance	stack	t esting,	HPFI/HEFI	wa s	installed	on	all

main	engines	onboard	t he	DD1	except	for	Eng ine	#5	(EU‐005).		He nce,	the	BACT	limit	proposed	for

the	main	engines	in	this	draft	a pplication	excludes	the	Engine #5	(EU‐005)	test	results.		BHPB	is

currently	in	the	process	of	recom pleting	the	compliance	testing for	Engine	#5	(EU‐005).

All	other	control	technologies	a re	determined	to	be	technically infeasible,	as	discu ssed	in	Table	5‐5.

Therefore,	BHPB	proposes	the	use	o f	Good	Combustio n	Practices	a nd	HPFI/HEFI	as	CO 2 

# e	BACT	for	all

engines.

The	CO 2 

# e	BACT	emission	limit	for	the	eig ht	main	engines	was	derived	ba sed	on	compliance	stack

testing	conducted	on	all	eight	e ngines	excluding	Engine	#5	(EU‐ 005).		The	compliance	stack	testing

data	was	analyzed	using	the	meth odology	discussed	earlier	in	Se ction	2	to	determine	the	output‐

based	emission	limit	t hat	best	represents	i mplementation	of	the feasible	control	technologies	listed

above.

A	summary	of	the	proposed	CO 2 

# e	BACT	emission	limitation	for	th e	DD1	main	engines	is	provided

below	in	Table	5‐6.

Table 5

‐ 6. Proposed CO 2 

# e BACT Emission Limits for DD1 Main Engines

Emission Unit Proposed BACT

Emission Limit** Proposed

Emission Limit

Basis * BACT Control

Technologies

Main	Power	Plant	Engines (8)	–

EU‐001	through	EU‐008 1.36	lb/hp‐hr

(829	g/kW‐hr) Stack	Testing Good	Combustion	Practices,

HPFI/HEFI

*	The	emission	factor	for	CO 2 

# is	based	on	stack	testing. The	emission	factors	for	CH 4 

# andN 2 

# O	are	based	on	Inventory	of

U.S.	Greenhouse	Gases	and	Si nks:	1990‐2008	(April	2010),	U.S.	E PA	#	430‐R‐10‐006,	Annex	3,	Table	A‐81.

**The	emission	factor	for	CO 2 

# e	was	calculated	using	the	GWPs	obtained	from	40	CFR	98.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 35

Trinity Consultants 

# 6. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

As	presented	in	Section	1,	BHPB	i s	proposing	to revise	the	curr ent	AP‐42	emission	factors based	BACT	limits	for

PM,	PM 10 

# ,	and	PM 2.5 

# .		This	revision	in	the	BACT	li mits	will	result in	increases	in PM,	PM 10 

# ,	and	PM 2.5 

# emissions

and	air	quality	impacts	will	have	to	be	evaluated.



# 6.1. MODELING ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Air	quality	modeling	analyses	of impacts	on	federally	protected Class	I	areas	are	an	esse ntial	component	of	PSD

review,	and	are	performed	to	demon strate	compliance	with	the	ex emption	requirement	of	n o	project	impacts	to

any	PSD	Class	I	area as	provided	in	40	CF R	52.21(i)(3).		A	Clas s	I	area	air	dispersion modeling	analysis	report

was	originally	submitted	by	BHPB to	EPA	Region	4.		The	proposed project	emissions	of	PM,	PM 10 

# ,	and	PM 2.5 

# are

higher	than	the	emission	rates	tha t	were	modeled	in	the	origina l	application.		Hence,	BHPB		performed	Class	I

area	modeling	analysis	with	the revised	emission	rates	and	demo nstrated	that	the	projec t	will	be	exempted	from

the	further	ambient	im pact	assessment	as	pro vided	in	40	CFR	52. 21(i)(3).		Table	6‐1	p resented	below	gives	a

comparison	of	the	previously	mod eled	emission	rates	and	revised modeled	emissions	rates.

Table 6

‐ 1. Comparison of Previously Modeled and Revised Modeled Emission Rates

Pollutants Revised Modeled

Emission Rates,

lb/hr Previously Modeled

Emission Rates,

lb/hr

PM 10 

# 38.62	 24.91

PM 2.5 

# 37.46	 24.16

NO X 

# 800	 800

SO 2 

# 0.64	 0.64



# BHPB	utilized	the	same	modeling	approach	and	stack	parameters	a s	used	in	the	original	s ubmittal	that	resulted

in	the	current	Permit	No.	OCS‐E PA‐R4008.		The	input	parameters used	in	the	modeling	ana lyses	are	presented	in

Appendix	D.		To	accoun t	for	the	secondary	PM 2.5 

# formation,	BHPB	has	conservativ ely	modeled	both	the	24‐hour

and	annual	averaging	period	signi ficance	levels	(SILs)	without accounting	for	puff	depl etion	due	to	wet	or	dry

deposition.		The	aforementioned	m odeling	methodology	is	expecte d	to	capture	the	secondary	PM 2.5 

# emissions.		A

comparison	of	the	modeled	pollut ant	concentrations	with	the	Cla ss	I	areas	SILs	for	all averaging	periods	of	PM 10



# and	PM 2.5 

# is	presented	in	Table	6‐2	below.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 36

Trinity Consultants 

# Table 6

‐ 2. Model Result Comparison to Class I Area SILs For Proposed Operations

Class I Area Parameter Class I Area

Modeling

Significance

Level (μg/m 3 

# ) Year

2001

(μg/m 3 

# ) 2002

(μg/m 3 

# ) 2003

(μg/m 3 

# )

Breton	NWR PM 2.5 

# ‐	24	hour	 0.07	 0.0504	 0.0454	 0.0647

PM 2.5 

# ‐	Annual	 0.06	 0.0021	 0.0035	 0.0040

PM 10 

# ‐	24	hour	 0.32	 0.0603	 0.0543	 0.0774

PM 10 

# ‐	Annual	 0.16	 0.0025	 0.0041	 0.0048

St.	Marks	NWR

and	Bradwell	Bay

Wilderness	* PM 2.5 

# ‐	24	hour	 0.07	 0.0230	 0.0260	 0.0221

PM 2.5 

# ‐	Annual	 0.06	 0.0009	 0.0008	 0.0012

PM 10 

# ‐	24	hour	 0.32	 0.0275	 0.0311	 0.0265

PM 10 

# ‐	Annual	 0.16	 0.0010	 0.0009	 0.0015

*	St.	Marks	NWR	and	Bradwell	Bay	Wilderness	were	modeled	togeth er	by	including	all	receptors	from	both	of	these	Class	I	areas.

Therefore,	the	concentration	val ues	presented	here	represent	th e	worst‐case	pollutant	concent rations	for	both	Class	I	areas

considered	together.		Individual worst‐case	concentrations	for the	two	Class	I	areas	are	equal to	or	lower	than	this	estimate.



# Predicted	concentrations	of	PM 2.5 

# and	PM 10 

# do	not	exceed	the	corresponding SILs.		Hence,	the	proposed	pro ject

does	not	impact	any	PSD	Class	I	area.		The	summary	of	the	model ing	files	(modeling	in put	and	output	files)

provided	on	CD	are	presented	in	Appendix	E.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application 37

Trinity Consultants 

# 7. PART 71 FORMS

# EPA Form 5900-79 OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Program (40 CFR Part 71)

GENERAL INFORMATION AND SUMMARY (GIS)

A. Mailing Address and Contact Information

Facility name BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM) Inc. – Sake Drilling Project

Mailing address: Street or P.O. Box 1330 Post Oak Blvd.

City Houston State TX ZIP 77380 -________

Contact person: Susan Wilson Title: HSE Analyst Regulatory

Telephone (713) 599 - 6349 Ext. _________

Facsimile (______) ________ - ___________

B. Facility Location

Temporary source? X Yes ___No Plant site location Eastern Gulf of Mexico (49 Contiguous

Lease Blocks in DeSoto Canyon)

City N/A State N/A County N/A EPA Region 4

Is the facility located within:

Indian lands? ___YES X NO OCS waters? X YES ___ NO

Non-attainment area? ___ YES X NO If yes, for what air pollutants? N/A

Within 50 miles of affected State? __ YES X NO If yes, What State(s)? N/A

C. Owner

Name BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM) Inc. Street/P.O. Box 1330 Post Oak Blvd,

City Houston State TX ZIP 77380 -________

Telephone (713) 599 - 6349 Ext_________

D. Operator

Name BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM) Inc. Street/P.O. Box 1330 Post Oak Blvd,

City Houston State TX ZIP 77380 -________

Telephone (713) 599 - 6349 Ext_________

# GIS 2

EPA Form 5900-79 E. Application Type

Mark only one permit application type and answer t he supplementary question appropriate for the type

marked.

___ Initial Permit ___ Renewal X Significant Mod ___ Minor Permit Mod(MPM)

___ Group Processing, MPM ___ Administrative Amendment

For initial permits, when did operations commence? Operations expected to commence June 2013

For permit renewal, what is the expi ration date of current permit? _____/____/_____

F. Applicable Requirement Summary

Mark all types of applicable requirements that apply.

___ SIP ___ FIP/TIP X PSD ___Non-attainment NSR

___ Minor source NSR X Section 111 ___ Phase I acid rain ___Phase II acid rain

___ Stratospheric ozone X OCS regulations ___ NESHAP X Sec. 112(d) MACT

___ Sec. 112(g) MACT ___ Early reduction of HAP ___ Sec 112(j) MACT ___ RMP [Sec.112(r)]

___ Tank Vessel requirements, sec. 183(f)) ___ Section 129 Standards/Requirement

___ Consumer / comm. products, ' 183(e) ___ NAAQS, increments or visibility (temp. sources)

Has a risk management plan been registered? ___YES X NO Regulatory agency ____________

Phase II acid rain application submitted? ___YES X NO If yes, Permitting authority ____________

G. Source-Wide PTE Restrictions and Generic Applicable Requirements

Cite and describe any emissions-limiting requirements and/or facility-wide "generic" applicable requirements.



# Please see application attached herewith.

# GIS 3

EPA Form 5900-79 H. Process Description

List processes, products, and SIC codes for the facility.

Process Products SIC

OCS Exploratory Drilling Operations Petroleum Products 1381

I. Emission Unit Identification

Assign an emissions unit ID and describe each emissions unit at the facility. Control equipment and/or alternative

operating scenarios associated with emissions units should by listed on a separate line. Applicants may exclude

from this list any insignificant emissions units or activities.

Emissions Unit ID Description of Unit

EU-001 through EU-008 Eight 5,096 HP Main Engines

# GIS 4

EPA Form 5900-79 J. Facility Emissions Summary

Enter potential to emit (PTE) for the facility as a whole for each air pollutant listed below. Enter the name of the

single HAP emitted in the greatest amount and its PTE. For all pollutants stipulations to major source status

may be indicated by entering "major" in the space for PTE. Indicate the total actual emissions for fee purposes

for the facility in the space provided. Applications for permit modifications need not include actual emissions

information.

NOx 1,309.61 tons/year VOC 110.48 tons/year SO2 0.88 tons/year

PM-10 64.56 tons/year CO 310.64 tons/year Lead 0.02 tons/year

Total HAP 7.96 tons/year

Single HAP emitted in the greatest amount Xylene PTE 4.02 tons/year

Total of regulated pollutants (for fee calculation), Sec. F, line 5 of form FEE 1,486 tons/year

K. Existing Federally-Enforceable Permits

Permit number(s) OCS

‐ EPA

‐ R4008-M1 Permit type Major Modification Permitting authority EPA Region 4

L. Emission Unit(s) Covered by General Permits

Emission unit(s) subject to general permit _______________________________________________

Check one: ___ Application made ___ Coverage granted

General permit identifier ______________________________ Expiration Date ____/____/____

M. Cross-referenced Information

Does this application cross-reference information? ___ YES X NO (If yes, see instructions)

# FEE

EPA Form 5900-03 1

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires

06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Program (40 CFR Part 71)

FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET (FEE)

Use this form initially, or thereafter on an annual basis, to calculate part 71 fees.

A. General Information

Type of fee (Check one): X Initial ___Annual

Deadline for submitting fee calculation worksheet N/A

For initial fees, emissions are based on (Check one):

___ Actual emissions for the preceding calendar year. (Required in most circumstances.)

X Estimates of actual emissions for the current calendar year. (Required when

operations commenced during the preceding calendar year.)

Date commenced operations ____/____/______

___ Estimates of actual emissions for the preceding calendar year. (Optional after a

part 71 permit was issued to replace a part 70 permit, but only if initial fee

payment is due between January 1 and March 31; otherwise use actual

emissions for the preceding calendar year.)

For annual fee payment, you are required to use ac tual emissions for the preceding calendar year.

B. Source Information: Complete this section only if you are paying fees but not applying for a permit.

Source or facility name N/A

Mailing address: Street or P.O. Box _________________________________________________

City_______________________________________ State______ ZIP__________ - ______

Contact person__________________________________ Title_____________________________

Telephone (_____) _____ - _________ Ext________ Part 71 permit no. ___________________

C. Certification of Truth, Accuracy and Completeness : Only needed if not submitting a separate

form CTAC.

I certify under penalty of law, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the

statements and information contained in this submittal (form and attachments) are true, accurate and

complete.

Name (signed) N/A

Name (typed) ________________________________________ Date:____ /____ /_______

# FEE

EPA Form 5900-03 2

D. Annual Emissions Report for Fee Calculation Purposes -- Non-HAP

You may use this to report actual emissions (tons per year) of regulated pollutants (for fee

calculation) on a calendar-year basis for both initial and annual fee calculation purposes. Section

E is designed to report HAP emissions. Quantify all actual emissions, including fugitives, but do

not include insignificant emissions and certain regulated air pollutants that are not counted for fee

purposes, such as CO (see instructions). You may round to the nearest tenth of a ton on this

form. Sum the emissions in each column and enter a subtotal at the bottom of the page. If any

subtotal exceeds 4,000 tons, enter 4,000 for that column.

This data is for See Note 1 Below (year)

Emission Unit ID NOx VOC SO2 PM10 Lead Other

EU-001 – EU-008 1,007.02 66. 99 0.70 54.03 1.34E-02

OTHER SOURCES 302.59 43.49 0.18 10.53 0.0066

SUBTOTAL 1,309.61 110.48 0.88 64.56 0.02

Note 1 – The proposed project has not yet commenced operation. This application is being submitted to

obtain both construction and operation authorizati on. Therefore, the emission estimates presented here

represent potential emissions.

# FEE

EPA Form 5900-03 3

E. Annual Emissions Report for Fee Calculation Purposes -- HAP

HAP Identification. Identify individual HAP emitted at the facility, identify the CAS number, and

assign a unique identifier for use in the second table in this section. Whenever assigning identifier

codes, use "HAP1” for the first, "HAP2" for the second, and so on.

Name of HAP CAS No Identifier

1,3- Butadiene 00106-99-0 HAP1

Acetaldehyde 00075-07-0 HAP2

Acrolein 00107-02-8 HAP3

Benzene 00071-43-2 HAP4

Formaldehyde 00050-00-0 HAP5

Toluene 00108-88-3 HAP6

Xylene 001330-20-7 HAP7

Total PAH 130498-29-2 HAP8

Naphthalene 00091-20-3 HAP9



# HAP Emissions. Report the actual emissions of individual HAP identified above. Use the

identifiers assigned in the table above. Include all emissions, including fugitives, and do not

include insignificant emissions. You may round to the nearest tenth of a ton. Sum the emissions

in each column and enter a subtotal at the bottom of the page. If any subtotal exceeds 4,000 tons,

enter 4,000.

This data is for See Note 1 Below (year)

Emissions Unit ID Actual Emissions (Tons/Year)

HAP1 HAP2 HAP3 HAP4 HAP 5 HAP6 HAP7 HAP8 HAP9

EU-001 – EU-008 - 1.17E-02 3.64E-03 3.59E-01 3.65E-02 1.30E-01 8.93E-02 9.81E-02 6.01E-02



# OTHER SOURCES HAP 1-9 Total = 7.26

SUBTOTALS HAP 1-9 Total = 8.05

Note 1 – The proposed project has not yet commenced operation. This application is being submitted to

obtain both construction and operation authorizati on. Therefore, the emission estimates presented here

represent potential emissions.

# FEE

EPA Form 5900-03 4

F. Fee Calculation Worksheet

This section is used to calculate the total fee owed for both initial and annual fee payment

purposes. Reconciliation is only for cases where you are paying the annual fee and you used

any type of estimate of actual emissions when y ou calculated the initial fee. If you do not need

to reconcile fees, only complete line 1-5 and then skip down to lines 21 – 26. See instructions

for more detailed explanation.

1. Sum the emissions from section D of th is form (non-HAP) and enter the total (tons). 1,485.55

2. Sum the emissions from section E of this form (HAP) and enter the total (tons). 7.96

3. Sum lines 1 and 2. 1,493.51

4. Enter the emissions that were counted twice. If none, enter "0."

(Note: VOC-HAP emissions totaling 7.96 tons have been reported under line 1 and

2 of this calculation.) 7.96

5. Subtract line 4 from line 3, round to t he nearest ton, and enter the result here. 1,486

RECONCILIATION

(WHEN INITIAL FEES WERE BASED ON ESTIMATES

FOR THE “CURRENT” CALENDAR YEAR)

Only complete lines 6-10 if you are paying the first annual fee and initial fees were based on estimated actual

emissions for the calendar year in which you paid in itial fees; otherwise skip to line 11 or to line 21.

6. Enter the total estimated actual emissi ons for the year the initial fee was paid

(previously reported on line 5 of the initial fee form). N/A

7. If line 5 is greater than line 6, subtract line 6 from line 5, and enter the result.

Otherwise enter "0."

8. If line 6 is greater than line 5, subtract line 5 from line 6, and enter the result.

Otherwise enter "0."

9. If line 7 is greater than 0, multiply line 7 by last year’s fee rate ($/ton) and enter the

result here. This is the underpayment. Go to line 21.

10. If line 8 is greater than 0, multiply line 8 by last year's fee rate ($/ton) and enter the

result here. This is the overpayment. Go to line 21.

RECONCILIATION

(WHEN INITIAL FEES WERE BASED ON ESTIMATES

FOR THE “PRECEDING” CALENDAR YEAR)

Only complete lines 11-20 if you are paying the first a nnual fee and initial fees were based on estimated actual

emissions for the calendar year preceding initial fee payment; otherwise skip to line 21. If completing this

section, you will also need to complete sections D an d E to report actual emissions for the calendar year

preceding initial fee payment.

11. Sum the actual emissions from section D (non-HAP) for the calendar year preceding

initial fee payment and enter the result here. N/A

12. Sum the actual emissions from section E (HAP) for the calendar year preceding

initial fee payment and enter the result here.

13. Add lines 11 and 12 and enter the total here. These are total actual emissions for

the calendar year preceding initial fee payment.

14. Enter double counted emission from line 13 here. If none, enter "0."

15. Subtract line 14 from line 13, round to th e nearest ton, and enter the result here.

# FEE

EPA Form 5900-03 5

16. Enter the total estimated actual emissions previously reported on line 5 of the initial

fee form. These are estimated actual emissions for the calendar year preceding

initial fee payment.

17. If line 15 is greater than line 16, subtract line 16 from line 15, and enter the result

here. Otherwise enter "0."

18. If line 16 is greater than line 15, subtract line 15 from line 16, and enter the result

here. Otherwise enter "0."

19. If line 17 is greater than 0, multiply line 17 by last year’s fee rate ($/ton) and enter the

result here. This is the underpayment.

20. If line 18 is greater than 0, multiply line 18 by last year’s fee rate ($/ton) and enter the

result on this line. This is the overpayment.

FEE CALCULATION

21. Multiply line 5 (tons) by the current f ee rate ($/ton) and enter the result here. $71,818.38

22. Enter any underpayment from line 9 or 19 here. Otherwise enter "0."

23. Enter any overpayment from line 10 or 20 here. Otherwise enter "0."

24. If line 22 is greater than "0," add it to li ne 21 and enter the result here. If line 23 is

greater than "0," subtract this from line 21 and enter the result here. Otherwise enter

the amount on line 21 here. This is the fee adjusted for reconciliation.

25. If your account was credited for fee asse ssment error since the last time you paid

fees, enter the amount of the credi t here. Otherwise enter "0."

26. Subtract line 25 from line 24 and enter the re sult here. Stop here. This is the total

fee amount that you must remit to EPA.

# EPA Form 5900-84 OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-001

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 2

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-002

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 3

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-003

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 4

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-004

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 5

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-005

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 6

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-006

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 7

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-007

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EMISS

EPA Form 5900-84 8

OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Pr ogram (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form

GIS . If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual

emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID EU-008

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts, then list any

other regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

# You

may round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

PM N/A 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# N/A 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# N/A 4.08 6.62

NO

x 

# N/A 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# N/A 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# N/A 0.002 0.003

CO N/A 16.59 26.89

VOC N/A 5.17 8.37

Pb N/A 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e N/A 6944.93 11257.06

1,3-Butadiene N/A - - 00106-990

Acetaldehyde N/A 8.99E-04 1.46E-03 00075-07-0

Acrolein N/A 2.81E-04 4.56E-04 00107-02-8

Benzene N/A 2.77E-02 4.49E-02 00071-43-2

Formaldehyde N/A 2.81E-03 4.56E-03 00050-00-0

Toluene N/A 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 00108-88-3

Xylene N/A 6.88E-03 1.12E-02 001330-20-7

Total PAH N/A 7.56E-03 1.23E-02 130498-29-2

Naphthalene N/A 4.64E-03 7.52E-03 00091-20-3

# EPA Form 5900-85 OMB No. 2060-0336, Approval Expires 06/30/2015



# Federal Operating Permit Program (40 CFR Part 71)

POTENTIAL TO EMIT (PTE)

For each unit with emissions that count towards applicability, list the emissions unit ID and the PTE for

the air pollutants listed below and sum them up to show totals for the facility. You may find it helpful to

complete form EMISS before completing this form. Show other pollutants not listed that are present in

major amounts at the facility on attachment in a similar fashion. You may round values to the nearest

tenth of a ton. Also report facility totals in section J of form GIS

.

Emissions Unit ID Regulated Air Pollutants and Pollutants for which the Source is Major (tons/yr)

NOx VOC SO2 PM10 CO Lead HAP

EU-001 – EU-008 1,007.02 66.99 0.70 54.03 215.09 1.34E-02 7.88E-01

OTHER SOURCES 302.59 43.49 0.18 10.53 95.55 0.0066 7.26

FACILITY TOTALS 1,309.61 110.48 0.88 64.56 310.64 0.02 8.05

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX A: STACK TEST RESULTS

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX A-1: PM/PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# STACK TEST RESULTSMethod5Results Method202ResultsEmissionUnitIDEmissionUnitThreeRunEngineLoadAverage(kW)ThreeRunAverageTotalPMMassEmissionRate(g/kW‐hr)ThreeRunAverageFilterablePMMassEmissionRate(g/kW‐hr)ThreeRunAverageCondensiblePMMassEmissionRate(g/kW‐hr)PM10Emissionrate(g/kW‐hr)PM2.5Emissionrate(g/kW‐hr)PM(g/kW‐hr)PM10(g/kW‐hr)PM2.5(g/kW‐hr)Main	Engine	1	Low	Load 1,410 0.48 0.27 0.21 0.43 0.42Main	Engine	1	Medium	Load 1,987 0.36 0.26 0.10 0.31 0.30Main	Engine	1	High	Load 2,364 0.30 0.19 0.10 0.26 0.25Main	Engine	2	Low	Load 1,483 0.36 0.22 0.14 0.32 0.31Main	Engine	2	Medium	Load 1,945 0.33 0.22 0.10 0.28 0.28Main	Engine	2	High	Load 2,500 0.29 0.20 0.10 0.26 0.25Main	Engine	3	Low	Load 1,489 0.69 0.38 0.31 0.61 0.60Main	Engine	3	Medium	Load 1,995 0.30 0.18 0.13 0.27 0.26Main	Engine	3	High	Load 2,402 0.33 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.28Main	Engine	4	Low	Load 1,473 0.57 0.36 0.21 0.50 0.49Main	Engine	4	Medium	Load 2,013 0.40 0.24 0.16 0.35 0.34Main	Engine	4	High	Load 2,420 0.41 0.29 0.13 0.36 0.35Main	Engine	5	Low	Load 1,467 0.89 0.63 0.26 0.77 0.75Main	Engine	5	Medium	Load 2,018 0.61 0.46 0.15 0.52 0.51Main	Engine	5	High	Load 2,424 0.62 0.54 0.08 0.51 0.49Main	Engine	6	Low	Load 1,414 0.52 0.31 0.20 0.45 0.44Main	Engine	6	Medium	Load 2,006 0.31 0.20 0.12 0.28 0.27Main	Engine	6	High	Load 2,514 0.27 0.21 0.06 0.23 0.22Main	Engine	7	Low	Load 1,488 0.38 0.24 0.14 0.33 0.32Main	Engine	7	Medium	Load 1,991 0.31 0.17 0.14 0.28 0.27Main	Engine	7	High	Load 2,519 0.34 0.25 0.09 0.29 0.28Main	Engine	8	Low	Load 1,486 0.38 0.22 0.17 0.34 0.33Main	Engine	8	Medium	Load 2,017 0.27 0.15 0.12 0.24 0.23Main	Engine	8	High	Load 2,504 0.25 0.18 0.07 0.21 0.21Current	PM	Permit	Limit	(OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1) 0.43g/kw‐hr		(7.00E10‐4lb/hp‐hr)Current	PM10Permit	Limit	(OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1)0.24g/kw‐hr		(4.01E10‐4lb/hp‐hr)Current	PM2.5Permit	Limit	(OCS‐EPA‐R4008‐M1)0.24g/kw‐hr		(3.89E10‐4lb/hp‐hr)ProposedMethodologyforPM10andPM2.5estimationPM10=	Method	5	Results	*	(0.0496/0.0620)	+	Method	202	ResultsPM2.5=	Method	5	Results	*	(0.0479/0.0620)	+	Method	202	Results0.36 0.50 0.490.36 0.50 0.490.50 0.490.36 0.50 0.49EU‐008ProposedEmissionLimits0.36 0.50 0.490.36 0.50 0.490.36 0.50 0.490.36 0.50 0.490.36EU‐003EU‐005EU‐006EU‐007EU‐001EU‐002Table1‐SummaryofPM/PM10/PM2.5StackTestResultsSourceCalculatedEmissionRateEU‐004Draft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5Summary	SheetENGINE 1 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 1 - MID LOAD ENGINE 1 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,351 1,454 1,424 1,410 1,914 1,985 2,063 1,987 2,381 2,357 2,355 2,364Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.60 0.44 0.42 0.48 0.32 0.33 0.42 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.78 1.40 1.30 1.49 1.36 1.45 1.91 1.57 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.30 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.91 0.83 0.76 0.83 1.07 0.92 1.43 1.14 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.02Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.87 0.56 0.55 0.66 0.29 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.50 0.55 0.55 0.54Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)13,582 14,083 13,837 13,834 17,741 17,721 18,903 18,122 21,498 20,989 20,489 20,992Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,020 6,191 6,076 6,096 7,792 7,747 8,259 7,933 9,466 9,224 8,991 9,227Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,599 5,731 5,655 5,662 7,169 7,127 7,599 7,298 8,708 8,486 8,272 8,489Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)2,861 2,967 2,915 2,915 3,789 3,785 4,037 3,870 4,529 4,422 4,317 4,423Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)1.00 1.20 1.00 1.07 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.96 2.60 2.35 2.35 2.43Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)737 748 749 745 744 749 750 748 745 745 747 746Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)6.99 7.43 6.93 7.12 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50Table2‐Engine1StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5SummarySheetENGINE 2 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 2 - MID LOAD ENGINE 2 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,466 1,479 1,505 1,483 1,919 1,948 1,968 1,945 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.32 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.33 0.26 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.29Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.03 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.64 1.41 1.13 1.40 1.63 1.61 1.64 1.63Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.17 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.15 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.55 0.88 0.72 0.72 1.24 0.94 0.65 0.95 1.11 1.04 1.11 1.09Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.48 0.43 0.48 0.46 0.40 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.52 0.57 0.53 0.54Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)15,193 15,376 15,654 15,408 17,310 18,450 17,772 17,844 23,005 22,977 22,914 22,965Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,874 6,915 7,029 6,939 7,733 8,241 7,914 7,962 10,359 10,379 10,318 10,352Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)6,324 6,362 6,466 6,384 7,114 7,582 7,281 7,325 9,530 9,549 9,493 9,524Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)3,201 3,239 3,298 3,246 3,697 3,940 3,796 3,811 4,847 4,841 4,827 4,838Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.60 2.80 2.60 2.67Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)705 712 714 711 730 730 730 730 723 720 723 722Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 29.50Table3‐Engine2StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5SummarySheetENGINE 3 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 3 - MID LOAD ENGINE 3 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,488 1,476 1,502 1,489 2,007 2,000 1,978 1,995 2,402 2,402 2,402 2,402Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)1.09 0.42 0.56 0.69 0.28 0.38 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.33 0.33Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)3.58 1.35 1.86 2.26 1.26 1.67 1.06 1.33 1.91 1.67 1.73 1.77Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.60 0.24 0.29 0.38 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.24Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.98 0.77 0.96 1.24 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.24 1.33 1.25 1.28Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.49 0.18 0.27 0.31 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.09 0.09Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.59 0.58 0.91 1.03 0.48 0.89 0.28 0.55 0.66 0.34 0.48 0.49Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)14,276 14,423 14,403 14,367 18,287 18,166 18,014 18,156 21,428 21,604 21,616 21,550Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,408 6,488 6,454 6,450 8,150 8,138 8,074 8,121 9,620 9,658 9,682 9,653Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,895 5,969 5,938 5,934 7,498 7,487 7,428 7,471 8,851 8,885 8,907 8,881Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)3,049 3,080 3,076 3,068 3,905 3,880 3,847 3,877 4,512 4,549 4,551 4,537Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)0.80 1.10 1.00 0.97 1.90 1.80 1.90 1.87 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)714 712 716 714 725 723 723 724 715 720 720 719Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in) 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30 29.30Table4‐Engine3StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5Summary	SheetENGINE 4 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 4 - MID LOAD ENGINE 4 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,481 1,485 1,455 1,473 2,016 2,006 2,018 2,013 2,412 2,480 2,369 2,420Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.45 0.64 0.62 0.57 0.44 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.51 0.35 0.41Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.46 2.10 1.99 1.85 1.94 1.63 1.75 1.77 2.02 2.79 1.84 2.22Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.30 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.31 0.26 0.29Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.97 1.39 1.17 1.18 1.23 0.94 1.07 1.08 1.54 1.67 1.35 1.52Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.15 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.09 0.20 0.09 0.13Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.49 0.71 0.82 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.69 0.48 1.11 0.49 0.69Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)13,887 14,528 14,275 14,230 18,178 18,540 18,462 18,393 22,146 23,711 23,259 23,038Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,150 6,440 6,319 6,303 7,944 8,107 8,107 8,053 9,805 10,529 10,312 10,215Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,658 5,925 5,814 5,799 7,309 7,459 7,458 7,409 9,021 9,687 9,487 9,398Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)2,966 3,103 3,049 3,039 3,882 3,960 3,943 3,928 4,653 4,982 4,887 4,841Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)0.95 1.10 1.00 1.02 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.43 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)738 737 739 738 751 750 745 749 735 732 734 733Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)* 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3X 29.78 29.3 X 29.78 29.3 X 29.78 29.3 X 29.78Table5‐Engine4StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5Summary	SheetENGINE 5 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 5 - MID LOAD ENGINE 5 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,509 1,471 1,422 1,467 2,015 2,008 2,032 2,018 2,386 2,385 2,500 2,424Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.81 0.96 0.92 0.89 0.63 0.62 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.59 0.62 0.62Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2.68 3.10 2.87 2.88 2.82 2.77 2.60 2.73 3.39 3.08 3.40 3.29Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.59 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.50 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.57 0.51 0.54 0.54Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.97 2.16 1.98 2.04 2.24 2.11 1.84 2.06 3.00 2.67 2.99 2.89Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.21 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.71 0.94 0.89 0.85 0.58 0.65 0.76 0.66 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.40Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)16,666 16,610 16,216 16,497 18,336 18,314 18,462 18,371 20,406 20,908 20,866 20,727Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)7,213 7,203 7,047 7,154 7,928 7,909 7,983 7,940 8,867 9,086 9,069 9,007Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)6,631 6,655 6,483 6,590 7,296 7,283 7,334 7,304 8,158 8,359 8,343 8,287Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)3,099 3,089 3,015 3,068 3,916 3,911 3,943 3,923 4,358 4,465 4,456 4,427Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)762 760 759 760 765 767 760 764 756 754 754 755Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)8.07 7.61 8.00 7.89 7.97 7.91 8.14 8.01 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)* 31.4 X 31.4 31.4 X 31.4 31.4 X 31.4 31.4 X 31.4 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3Table6‐Engine5StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5Summary	SheetENGINE 6 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 6 - MID LOAD ENGINE 6 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,348 1,470 1,423 1,414 1,916 2,067 2,035 2,006 2,543 2,544 2,454 2,514Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.51 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.21 0.30 0.27Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.52 1.68 1.62 1.61 1.52 1.30 1.35 1.39 1.69 1.16 1.62 1.49Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.16 0.23 0.21Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.95 1.01 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.27 0.87 1.27 1.14Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.57 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.59 0.48 0.47 0.51 0.42 0.29 0.35 0.36Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)13,137 14,557 13,291 13,662 17,554 18,755 18,378 18,229 22,694 22,339 22,757 22,597Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)5,822 6,409 5,863 6,031 7,648 8,213 8,054 7,972 10,084 9,868 10,113 10,022Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,383 5,924 5,439 5,582 7,036 7,556 7,409 7,334 9,215 9,030 9,304 9,183Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)2,768 3,067 2,800 2,878 3,698 3,951 3,872 3,841 4,781 4,706 4,794 4,761Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)0.84 0.80 0.81 0.82 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 2.60 2.50 2.60 2.57Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)732 740 738 737 751 744 747 747 729 735 733 732Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)7.53 7.56 7.22 7.44 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.62 8.50 8.00 8.37Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)* 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5Table7‐Engine6StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5Summary	SheetENGINE 7 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 7 - MID LOAD ENGINE 7 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,492 1,477 1,496 1,488 1,963 2,037 1,972 1,991 2,518 2,518 2,521 2,519Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.36 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.51 0.34Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.19 1.25 1.26 1.23 1.37 1.36 1.39 1.37 1.46 1.39 2.81 1.89Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.36 0.25Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.75 0.77 0.80 0.77 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.76 1.09 1.02 1.99 1.37Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.09Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.44 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.61 0.37 0.36 0.82 0.52Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)14,307 14,396 14,562 14,422 20,165 18,816 18,349 19,110 22,711 21,871 21,816 22,133Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,412 6,465 6,514 6,463 8,889 8,314 8,112 8,438 10,025 9,670 9,662 9,786Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,899 5,948 5,993 5,946 8,177 7,649 7,463 7,763 9,223 8,897 8,889 9,003Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)3,056 3,074 3,110 3,080 4,307 4,019 3,919 4,081 4,850 4,671 4,659 4,727Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)721 718 723 721 737 734 734 735 740 735 734 736Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)* 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3 29.3 X 29.3Table8‐Engine7StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5Summary	SheetENGINE 8 - LOW LOAD ENGINE 8 - MID LOAD ENGINE 8 - HIGH LOADRun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AverageEngine Load (kW)1,463 1,482 1,514 1,486 2,006 2,038 2,008 2,017 2,504 2,507 2,503 2,504Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.37 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25Total Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)1.19 1.30 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.13 1.19 1.19 1.39 1.40 1.32 1.37Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.21 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18Filterable Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.69 0.75 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.59 0.66 0.66 1.05 0.99 0.95 1.00Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.15 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07Condensible Particulate Matter Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)0.50 0.55 0.58 0.55 0.52 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.34 0.41 0.37 0.37Maximum Six-Minute Average of Visible Emissions (% opacity)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)14,375 14,230 14,546 14,383 17,929 18,449 18,003 18,127 22,121 21,853 22,021 21,999Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,356 6,236 6,351 6,314 7,810 7,993 7,787 7,863 9,667 9,517 9,620 9,601Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,847 5,737 5,843 5,809 7,185 7,353 7,164 7,234 8,948 8,803 8,910 8,887Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)3,029 2,998 3,065 3,030 3,777 3,887 3,793 3,819 4,661 4,604 4,640 4,635Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)737 748 750 745 759 765 769 764 752 756 756 755Stack Gas Percent by Volume Moisture (%H2O)8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.44 7.51 7.38 7.44Measured Stack Inner Diameter (in)*29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X 29.5 29.5 X29.5Table9‐Engine8StackTestResultsDraft	Compliance	Field	Test	Data	for	PM	v2.0PM/PM10/PM2.5SummarySheet

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1 – Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX A-2: VOC AND CO 2 

# STACK TEST RESULTS

# Parameter

Engine Current Permit

Limit, g/kW-hr Run Run Run Load Average

Emissions,

g /kW-hr Proposed Emission

Limit, g/kW-hr

123

VOC En g . 1 0.39 0.63 0.61 0.61 Lo w 0.62 0.62

0.39 0.47 0.44 0.46 Me d 0.46 0.62

0.39 0.43 0.42 0.44 Hi g h 0.43 0.62

VOC En g . 2 0.39 0.56 0.54 0.56 Lo w 0.55 0.62

0.39 0.46 0.46 0.46 Me d 0.46 0.62

0.39 0.46 0.45 0.52 Hi g h 0.47 0.62

VOC En g . 3 0.39 0.52 0.57 0.50 Lo w 0.53 0.62

0.39 0.47 0.48 0.51 Me d 0.49 0.62

0.39 0.49 0.45 0.45 Hi g h 0.46 0.62

VOC En g . 4 0.39 0.56 0.59 0.63 Lo w 0.59 0.62

0.39 0.42 0.46 0.43 Me d 0.44 0.62

0.39 0.47 0.49 0.49 Hi g h 0.48 0.62

VOC En g . 5 0.39 0.58 0.51 0.47 Lo w 0.52 0.62

0.39 0.43 0.41 0.45 Me d 0.43 0.62

0.39 0.48 0.46 0.44 Hi g h 0.46 0.62

VOC En g . 6 0.39 0.54 0.62 0.60 Lo w 0.59 0.62

0.39 0.46 0.42 0.48 Me d 0.45 0.62

0.39 0.46 0.48 0.48 Hi g h 0.47 0.62

VOC En g . 7 0.39 0.54 0.52 0.50 Lo w 0.52 0.62

0.39 0.59 0.50 0.51 Me d 0.53 0.62

0.39 0.48 0.44 0.48 Hi g h 0.47 0.62

VOC En g . 8 0.39 0.51 0.52 0.50 Lo w 0.51 0.62

0.39 0.41 0.45 0.43 Me d 0.43 0.62

0.39 0.42 0.41 0.43 High 0.42 0.62 

# Table 1 - Summary of VOC Stack Test Results

Draft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DV VOC Summary Sheet

# Parameter

Engine Current CO 2 

# e

Permit Limit,

g /kW-hr Run Run Run Load Average

Emissions,

g/kW-hr Proposed CO 2 

# e

Emission Limit,

g /kW-hr

123

CO 2 

# Eng. 1 0.39 732.00 743.00 733.00 Low 736.00 829.00

0.39 712.00 681.00 693.00 Me d 695.33 829.00

0.39 696.00 683.00 662.00 Hi g h 680.33 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 2 0.39 833.00 829.00 825.00 Low 829.00 829.00

0.39 676.00 713.00 689.00 Me d 692.67 829.00

0.39 710.00 708.00 759.00 Hi g h 725.67 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 3 0.39 753.00 761.00 749.00 Low 754.33 829.00

0.39 726.00 715.00 756.00 Me d 732.33 829.00

0.39 690.00 687.00 697.00 Hi g h 691.33 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 4 0.39 766.00 793.00 810.00 Low 789.67 829.00

0.39 759.00 782.00 776.00 Me d 772.33 829.00

0.39 703.80 725.00 748.00 Hi g h 725.60 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 5 0.39 855.00 883.00 898.00 Low 878.67 829.00

0.39 692.00 693.00 693.00 Me d 692.67 829.00

0.39 658.00 662.00 646.00 Hi g h 655.33 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 6 0.39 717.00 766.00 717.00 Low 733.33 829.00

0.39 718.00 717.00 716.00 Me d 717.00 829.00

0.39 683.00 680.00 693.00 Hi g h 685.33 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 7 0.39 740.00 751.00 755.00 Low 748.67 829.00

0.39 785.00 715.00 726.00 Me d 742.00 829.00

0.39 708.40 665.00 667.00 Hi g h 680.13 829.00

CO 2 

# Eng. 8 0.39 752.00 741.00 741.00 Low 744.67 829.00

0.39 667.00 684.00 681.00 Me d 677.33 829.00

0.39 678.00 663.00 677.00 High 672.67 829.00 

# Table 2 - Summary of CO 2 

# Stack Test Results

Draft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DV CO2 Summary SheetEngine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1 Engine No. 1Run #1 2 312312 3Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date3/31/2013 3/31/2013 3/31/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/7/2013 4/7/2013 4/7/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,454 1,460 1,473 1,914 1,985 2,063 2,382 2,357 2,355Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)2.03 1.96 1.99 1.99 1.94 2.08 2.27 2.20 2.28Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.63 0.61 0.61 0.47 0.44 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.44Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)48.3 45.2 46.7 37.8 36.4 36.6 35.0 34.6 36.9Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2.59 2.71 2.72 3.08 2.92 3.11 4.10 3.85 3.68Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.81 0.84 0.84 0.73 0.67 0.68 0.78 0.74 0.71Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)103.2 105.7 108.3 98.8 93.6 93.3 108.5 103.9 101.7Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)16.63 17.18 16.87 22.76 22.48 24.25 26.99 26.05 25.43Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)5.19 5.34 5.20 5.39 5.14 5.33 5.14 5.01 4.90Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)612.4 615.2 613.3 662.1 657.9 665.0 645.8 639.2 639.7Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,347 2,391 2,379 3,003 2,982 3,153 3,655 3,547 3,437Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)732.0 743.0 733.0 712.0 681.0 693.0 696.0 683.0 662.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)5.98 5.93 5.99 6.10 6.08 6.05 6.16 6.13 6.10Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,135 6,312 6,223 7,792 7,747 8,259 9,466 9,224 8,991Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,644 5,807 5,725 7,169 7,127 7,599 8,708 8,486 8,272Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)745 746 744 745 749 749 745 745 747Table 3 - Engine 1 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 1Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2 Engine No. 2Run #12 3 1 2 3 12 3Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/5/20134/6/2013 4/6/2013 4/6/2013 4/8/2013 4/8/2013 4/8/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,466 1,479 1,505 1,919 1,948 1,968 2,546 2,547 2,350Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.81 1.77 1.87 1.94 1.99 1.98 2.56 2.51 2.69Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.56 0.54 0.56 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.52Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)38.4 37.3 38.9 36.5 36.8 36.5 35.9 35.3 38.1Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)3.33 3.49 3.41 3.35 3.53 3.80 4.52 4.33 4.33Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)1.03 1.07 1.03 0.79 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.77 0.84Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)120.5 125.1 120.4 107.3 108.9 119.4 108.4 103.7 104.4Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)18.65 19.09 19.32 23.13 24.20 23.20 27.64 28.24 28.03Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)5.77 5.85 5.82 5.47 5.63 5.35 4.92 5.03 5.41Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)614.5 625.0 622.6 677.3 682.8 664.1 604.8 618.7 617.7Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,691 2,704 2,737 2,860 3,061 2,990 3,991 3,979 3,937Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)833.0 829.0 825.0 676.0 713.0 689.0 710.0 708.0 759.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)6.19 6.17 6.14 5.90 6.09 6.04 6.15 6.14 6.12Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,874 6,915 7,029 7,733 7,883 7,914 10,364 10,349 10,278Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)6,324 6,362 6,466 7,114 7,382 7,281 9,535 9,522 9,455Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)705 712 714 730 730 730 742 745 747Table 4 - Engine 2 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 2Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3 Engine No. 3Run #12 3 12 3 12 3Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/10/2013 4/10/2013 4/10/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,480 1,476 1,502 2,007 2,000 1,978 2,403 2,402 2,401Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.69 1.86 1.64 2.06 2.12 2.23 2.58 2.39 2.36Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.52 0.57 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.49 0.45 0.45Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)38.3 41.7 37.0 36.9 38.0 40.4 39.1 36.1 35.4Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2.75 2.74 2.66 3.17 3.34 3.49 4.34 4.25 4.27Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.84 0.84 0.80 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.81Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)106.9 105.9 103.3 97.1 102.8 108.2 112.7 109.0 109.2Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)18.47 18.72 18.78 24.38 24.63 24.65 28.79 28.65 28.46Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)5.66 5.75 5.67 5.51 5.59 5.65 5.44 5.41 5.38Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)653.4 653.9 658.6 678.1 685.4 691.1 678.7 671.8 665.2Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,455 2,477 2,479 3,214 3,151 3,296 3,656 3,642 3,689Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)753.0 761.0 749.0 726.0 715.0 756.0 690.0 687.0 697.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)6.07 6.06 6.09 6.24 6.11 6.44 6.07 6.02 6.08Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,408 6,488 6,454 8,150 8,138 8,074 9,620 9,658 9,682Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,895 5,969 5,938 7,498 7,487 7,428 8,851 8,885 8,907Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)714 712 716 725 723 723 720 721 719Table 5 - Engine 3 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 3Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4 Engine No. 4Run #1 2 31 2 3 123Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/9/2013 4/9/2013 4/9/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,485 1,502 1,455 2,016 2,006 2,018 2,412 2,480 2,369Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.83 1.98 2.03 1.87 2.03 1.92 2.49 2.69 2.56Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.56 0.59 0.63 0.42 0.46 0.43 0.47 0.49 0.49Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)43.4 44.8 46.7 34.3 36.5 34.5 36.9 37.3 36.2Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)3.36 3.39 3.06 4.16 3.95 3.45 4.55 4.94 5.12Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)1.03 1.02 0.95 0.94 0.89 0.78 0.86 0.90 0.98Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)136.2 130.5 119.4 130.7 121.3 106.3 115.1 116.3 123.5Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)17.88 18.76 18.00 24.60 25.01 24.76 28.09 29.82 28.97Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)5.46 5.67 5.61 5.54 5.65 5.57 5.28 5.45 5.55Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)658.2 659.5 644.7 700.2 697.7 691.1 648.6 640.8 635.5Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,507 2,626 2,598 3,373 3,455 3,453 3,743 3,964 3,907Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)766.0 793.0 810.0 759.0 782.0 776.0 703.8 725.0 748.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)6.41 6.42 6.48 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.08 6.01 6.06Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,150 6,440 6,319 7,944 8,107 8,107 9,805 10,529 10,312Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,658 5,925 5,814 7,309 7,459 7,458 9,021 9,687 9,487Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)740 742 743 748 746 747 735 740 737Table 6 - Engine 4 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 4Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5 Engine No. 5Run #123 1 23 123Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/2/2013 4/10/2013 4/10/2013 4/10/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,509 1,471 1,422 2,015 2,008 2,032 2,386 2,385 2,385Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.93 1.67 1.49 1.90 1.80 2.01 2.50 2.44 2.34Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.58 0.51 0.47 0.43 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.46 0.44Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)39.1 33.7 30.7 35.2 33.5 36.7 41.1 39.1 37.5Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)3.96 4.05 4.14 6.51 6.51 6.38 7.63 7.59 7.56Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)1.19 1.25 1.32 1.47 1.47 1.42 1.45 1.44 1.44Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)136.8 138.5 145.6 206.6 206.8 201.4 213.4 207.4 206.4Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)23.80 23.49 22.80 26.49 26.29 26.34 27.58 27.90 27.27Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)7.16 7.24 7.28 5.96 5.94 5.88 5.24 5.30 5.19Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)747.5 735.3 732.8 756.1 751.9 748.0 704.1 694.9 681.2Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,844 2,862 2,815 3,074 3,069 3,104 3,461 3,481 3,398Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)855.0 883.0 898.0 692.0 693.0 693.0 658.0 662.0 646.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)6.22 6.24 6.30 6.16 6.16 6.19 6.23 6.12 5.99Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)7,213 7,203 7,047 7,928 7,909 7,983 8,867 9,086 9,069Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)6,631 6,655 6,483 7,296 7,283 7,334 8,158 8,359 8,343Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)745 745 745 746 745 747 756 754 754Table 7 - Engine 5 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 5Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6 Engine No. 6Run #1 2 3 123 1 2 3Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date3/31/2013 3/31/2013 3/31/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/9/2013 4/9/2013 4/9/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,470 1,455 1,467 1,916 2,067 2,035 2,543 2,544 2,544Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.76 1.98 1.94 1.93 1.93 2.15 2.56 5.51 2.72Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.54 0.62 0.60 0.46 0.42 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.48Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)43.5 46.7 48.2 36.7 34.3 38.9 37.1 40.0 39.1Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2.68 2.73 2.68 4.45 4.27 3.44 4.97 5.14 5.41Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)0.83 0.85 0.83 1.05 0.94 0.77 0.89 0.92 0.97Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)113.4 110.6 114.7 144.4 128.9 106.1 123.0 129.5 132.2Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)17.06 17.59 16.38 22.82 24.76 24.64 27.05 26.63 27.82Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)5.26 5.48 5.06 5.40 5.43 5.49 4.83 4.75 4.96Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)649.8 637.8 625.1 676.1 683.4 692.9 611.6 614.9 624.5Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,323 2,456 2,320 3,031 3,266 3,215 3,827 3,812 4,011Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)717.0 766.0 717.0 718.0 717.0 716.0 683.0 680.0 693.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)6.10 6.15 6.12 6.29 6.31 6.31 6.09 6.20 6.33Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)5,897 6,159 5,863 7,684 8,213 8,054 10,084 9,868 10,113Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,453 5,726 5,439 7,036 7,556 7,409 9,215 9,030 9,304Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)742 741 743 750 745 747 742 739 743Table 8 - Engine 6 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 6Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7 Engine No. 7Run #123 1 2 3 123Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/4/2013 4/8/2013 4/8/2013 4/8/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,484 1,477 1,497 1,963 2,037 1,972 2,518 2,519 2,521Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.80 1.70 1.70 2.57 2.25 2.21 2.68 2.44 2.37Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.54 0.52 0.50 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.48 0.44 0.48Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)39.9 38.2 37.3 42.2 39.4 39.7 39.0 36.7 40.3Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)3.53 3.55 3.65 3.29 3.31 3.31 4.44 4.26 4.32Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)1.08 1.09 1.11 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.80 0.77 0.78Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)136.4 135.9 138.4 92.7 100.1 102.3 109.7 109.0 110.8Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)17.00 17.24 17.58 23.11 22.88 23.04 26.40 25.43 25.09Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)5.20 5.30 5.33 5.34 5.10 5.30 4.75 4.58 4.51Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)601.0 603.9 610.8 588.9 623.3 643.3 596.3 595.4 587.6Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,421 2,444 2,490 3,397 3,211 3,155 3,932 3,696 3,707Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)740.0 751.0 755.0 785.0 715.0 726.0 708.4 665.0 667.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)5.97 5.96 6.02 6.03 6.08 6.15 6.26 6.10 6.12Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,412 6,465 6,514 8,889 8,314 8,112 10,025 9,670 9,662Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,899 5,948 5,993 8,177 7,649 7,463 9,223 8,897 8,889Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)720 718 723 738 735 734 740 743 735Table 9 - Engine 7 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 7Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8 Engine No. 8Run #1 23 1 2 3 1 2 3Load DesignationLowLowLowMidMidMidHighHighHighTest Date4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/5/2013 4/6/2013 4/6/2013 4/6/2013 4/7/2013 4/7/2013 4/7/2013Time StartTime StopEngine Load (kW)1,463 1,482 1,514 2,052 2,038 2,008 2,504 2,507 2,503Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (lb/hr)1.70 1.70 1.70 1.87 2.02 1.91 2.30 2.30 2.40Average TGO (VOC) Mass Emission Rate as Propane, (g/kW-hr)0.51 0.52 0.50 0.41 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.43Average TGO (VOC) Concentration as Propane (ppmvw)38.2 39.9 38.5 34.9 36.8 35.8 34.7 34.9 35.9Average CO Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)3.23 3.35 3.23 3.61 4.01 3.83 4.63 4.26 4.69Average CO Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)1.00 1.02 0.97 0.80 0.89 0.86 0.84 0.77 0.85Average CO Concentration (ppmvd)126.3 133.3 126.1 115.7 125.2 121.7 119.5 110.7 119.9Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (lb/hr)19.77 19.61 19.98 25.89 26.55 25.84 29.01 28.44 28.59Average NOxMass Emission Rate, (g/kW-hr)6.13 6.00 5.99 5.72 5.91 5.84 5.25 5.15 5.18Average NOxConcentration (ppmvd)704.2 712.7 713.1 751.4 752.7 751.4 678.7 675.4 671.8Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr)2,427 2,421 2,474 3,020 3,072 3,013 3,745 3,665 3,738Average CO2Mass Emission Rate (g/kW-hr)752.0 741.0 741.0 667.0 684.0 681.0 678.0 663.0 677.0Average CO2Concentration (%-dry)6.05 6.14 6.15 6.17 6.13 6.18 6.18 6.14 6.19Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (acfm)Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (scfm)6,356 6,236 6,351 7,810 7,993 7,787 9,678 9,527 9,632Stack Gas Average Flow Rate (dscfm)5,847 5,737 5,843 7,185 7,354 7,164 8,904 8,765 8,861Stack Gas Average Velocity (fpm)Stack Gas Average Static Pressure (in-H2O)Stack Gas Average Temperature (°F)737 748 750 758 765 768 745 745 745Table 10 - Engine 8 Stack Test ResultsDraft Compliance Test Field Data V7_wjb_DVEngine 8

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX B : EMISSION CALCULATIONSBHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Emissions Summary - DD1 & Support VesselsTable 1 - Annual Emissions Summary (tons/year) [1]PMPM10PM2.5NOXSO2H2SO4CO VOC PbCO2e1,3- Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Formaldehyde Toluene Xylene Total PAH Naphthalene CumeneEthylbenzeneMethylisobutylketoneCr Cr(VI) Co Mn NiTotal VOCHAPstons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tonstonsEU-001 Engine 1 / #9RC00360 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-002 Engine 2 / #9RC00361 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-003 Engine 3 / #9RC00362 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-004 Engine 4 / #9RC00363 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-005 Engine 5 / #9RC00364 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-006 Engine 6 / #9RC00365 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-007 Engine 7 / #9RC00366 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-02EU-008 Engine 8 / #9RC00367 4.91 6.75 6.62 125.88 0.09 0.003 26.89 8.37 0.002 11,257.06 - 1.46E-03 4.56E-04 4.49E-02 4.56E-03 1.62E-02 1.12E-02 1.23E-02 7.52E-03 - - - - - - - - 9.10E-0239.29 54.03 52.95 1007.02 0.70 0.02 215.09 66.99 1.34E-02 90,056.47 0.00E+00 1.17E-02 3.64E-03 3.59E-01 3.65E-02 1.30E-01 8.93E-02 9.81E-02 6.01E-02 - - - - - - - - 7.28E-01EU-009 Mud and Cement Mixing: Dust Collectors 1.08 1.08 1.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-010 Mud Degassing Operation - - - - - - - 19.39 - 982.67 - - - - - - - - - - - ------ -EU-011 E Generator 0.05 0.03 0.03 1.60 0.001 2.21E-05 0.37 0.04 1.36E-05 77.84 - 1.18E-05 3.69E-06 3.63E-04 3.69E-05 1.32E-04 9.03E-05 9.92E-05 6.09E-05 - - - - - - - - 7.37E-04EU-012 Cementing Unit - Engine 1 0.18 0.10 0.10 4.16 0.003 8.53E-05 1.42 0.17 5.24E-05 300.33 4.55E-05 1.42E-05 1.40E-03 1.42E-04 5.07E-04 3.49E-04 3.83E-04 2.35E-04 - - - - - - - - 2.84E-03EU-013 Cementing Unit - Engine 2 0.18 0.10 0.10 4.16 0.003 8.53E-05 1.42 0.17 5.24E-05 300.33 - 4.55E-05 1.42E-05 1.40E-03 1.42E-04 5.07E-04 3.49E-04 3.83E-04 2.35E-04 - - - - - - - - 2.84E-03EU-014 Cementing Nitrogen Pump Engine 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.0003 8.10E-06 0.46 0.05 4.97E-06 28.27 6.71E-06 1.32E-04 1.59E-05 1.60E-04 2.02E-047.01E-05 4.89E-05 2.88E-05 1.45E-05 - - - - - - - - 6.64E-04EU-015 Cementing BatchMixer Engine 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.81 0.0008 2.48E-05 0.43 0.19 1.52E-05 86.55 2.05E-05 4.03E-04 4.86E-05 4.90E-04 6.20E-04 2.15E-04 1.50E-04 8.82E-05 4.45E-05 - - - - - - - - 2.03E-030.41 0.25 0.25 9.50 0.01 2.03E-04 3.73 0.57 1.25E-04 715.48 2.72E-05 6.25E-04 9.29E-05 3.45E-03 1.11E-03 1.30E-03 8.96E-04 8.83E-04 5.29E-04 - - - - -- - - 8.38E-03EU-016 Wireline Unit Engine 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.001 3.72E-05 0.65 0.28 2.28E-05 129.83 3.08E-05 6.04E-04 7.28E-05 7.35E-04 9.29E-04 3.22E-04 2.24E-04 1.32E-04 6.68E-05 - - - - - - - - 3.05E-03EU-017 Wireline Unit Engine Alternative # 2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.001 3.72E-05 0.65 0.28 2.28E-05 129.83 3.08E-05 6.04E-04 7.28E-05 7.35E-04 9.29E-04 3.22E-04 2.24E-04 1.32E-04 6.68E-05 - - - - - - - - 3.05E-03EU-019Wireline Unit - Power Plant GSU-WGenerator0.30 0.30 0.30 4.22 0.001 4.49E-05 0.91 0.34 2.76E-05 156.95 3.72E-05 7.30E-04 8.81E-05 8.88E-04 1.12E-03 3.89E-04 2.71E-04 1.60E-04 8.07E-05 - - - -- - - - 3.69E-03EU-020 Wireline Unit - Hydraulic Generator DHPS 0.23 0.23 0.23 3.22 0.001 3.44E-05 0.69 0.26 2.11E-05 120.02 2.85E-05 5.58E-04 6.73E-05 6.79E-04 8.59E-04 2.98E-04 2.07E-04 1.22E-04 6.17E-05 - - - - - - - - 2.82E-030.60 0.60 0.60 8.92 0.005 1.54E-04 2.90 1.17 9.44E-05 536.63 1.27E-04 2.50E-03 3.01E-04 3.04E-03 3.84E-03 1.33E-03 9.28E-04 5.47E-04 2.76E-04 - - - -- - - - 1.26E-02EU-021 Fast Rescue Craft (FRC) 3.91E-03 3.91E-03 3.91E-03 5.50E-02 1.88E-05 5.87E-07 0.01 4.46E-03 3.60E-07 2.05 4.86E-07 9.53E-06 1.15E-06 1.16E-05 1.47E-05 5.08E-06 3.54E-06 2.09E-06 1.05E-06 - - - - - - - - 4.81E-05EU-022 Lifeboat 1 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 4.26E-02 1.45E-05 4.54E-07 9.19E-03 3.46E-03 2.79E-07 1.59 3.76E-07 7.38E-06 8.90E-07 8.98E-06 1.14E-05 3.94E-06 2.74E-06 1.62E-06 8.16E-07 - - - - - - - - 3.73E-05EU-023 Lifeboat 2 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 4.26E-02 1.45E-05 4.54E-07 9.19E-03 3.46E-03 2.79E-07 1.59 3.76E-07 7.38E-06 8.90E-07 8.98E-06 1.14E-05 3.94E-06 2.74E-06 1.62E-06 8.16E-07 - - - - - - - - 3.73E-05EU-024 Lifeboat 3 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 4.26E-02 1.45E-05 4.54E-07 9.19E-03 3.46E-03 2.79E-07 1.59 3.76E-07 7.38E-06 8.90E-07 8.98E-06 1.14E-05 3.94E-06 2.74E-06 1.62E-06 8.16E-07 - - - - - - - - 3.73E-05EU-025 Lifeboat 4 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 3.03E-03 4.26E-02 1.45E-05 4.54E-07 9.19E-03 3.46E-03 2.79E-07 1.59 3.76E-07 7.38E-06 8.90E-07 8.98E-06 1.14E-05 3.94E-06 2.74E-06 1.62E-06 8.16E-07 - - - - - - - - 3.73E-051.21E-02 1.21E-02 1.21E-02 1.71E-01 5.82E-05 1.82E-06 3.67E-02 1.38E-02 1.12E-06 6.35 1.51E-06 2.95E-05 3.56E-06 3.59E-05 4.54E-05 1.57E-05 1.10E-05 6.47E-06 3.26E-06 - - - - - - - - 1.49E-04EU-026Fuel - Tank - 005(F.O. TK 1S)- - - - - - - 5.34E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-027Fuel - Tank - 006(F.O. TK 2S)- - - - - - - 5.34E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-028Fuel - Tank - 007(F.O. TK 1P)- - - - - - - 5.34E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-029Fuel - Tank - 008(F.O. TK 2P)- - - - - - - 5.34E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-030Fuel - Tank - 009(F.O. DayTK 1S)- - - - - - - 2.61E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-031Fuel - Tank - 010(F.O. DayTK 2S)- - - - - - - 2.24E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-032Fuel - Tank - 011(F.O. SettlingTK 1S)- - - - - - - 3.62E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-033 Base Oil Tank - - - - - - - 2.13E-01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-034 Emergency Gen Tank - - - - - - - 1.03E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-035 FRC Tank - - - - - - - 3.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-036 Lifeboat 1 Tank - - - - - - - 3.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-037 Lifeboat 2 Tank - - - - - - - 3.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-038 Lifeboat 3 Tank - - - - - - - 3.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-039 Lifeboat 4 Tank - - - - - - - 3.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-040 Cementing Engine 1 tank - - - - - - - 1.55E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-041 Cementing Engine 2 tank - - - - - - - 9.50E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-042 Batch Mixer Engine F. Tank - - - - - - - 3.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-043 Wireline Unit Tank 1 - - - - - - - 9.50E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-044 Wireline Unit Tank 2 - - - - - - - 8.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-045 GSU-W Tank 1 - - - - - - - 8.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-046 DHPS-EA Tank 1 - - - - - - - 8.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-047 POSU-CA Tank - - - - - - - 5.00E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-078 Helifuel Tank 1 - - - - - - - 1.45E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-079 Helifuel Tank 2 - - - - - - - 1.45E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-080 Helifuel Tank 3 - - - - - - - 1.45E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-081 Helifuel Tank 4 - - - - - - - 1.45E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 0.44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lifeboats - TOTALCementing Engines - TOTAL [1]DD1 Storage Tanks - TOTALNSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e)Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)Wireline Engines - TOTAL [2]Emission Unit ID Emission UnitDD1Power Plant Engines - TOTALPage 1 of 12BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Annual Emissions Summary5/2/2013BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Emissions Summary - DD1 & Support VesselsTable 1 - Annual Emissions Summary (tons/year) [1]PMPM10PM2.5NOXSO2H2SO4CO VOC PbCO2e1,3- Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Formaldehyde Toluene Xylene Total PAH Naphthalene CumeneEthylbenzeneMethylisobutylketoneCr Cr(VI) Co Mn NiTotal VOCHAPstons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tonstonsNSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e)Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)Emission Unit ID Emission UnitEU-082 Flaring - - - 3.24E-02 - - 1.76E-01 6.66E-02 - 6.47E+01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00E+00EU-083 Welding 2.30E-02 2.30E-02 2.30E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.40E-06 9.00E-07 9.00E-07 9.27E-04 3.60E-06 0.00E+00EU-084 Painting 1.96E+00 1.96E+00 1.96E+00 - - - - 4.79E+00 - - - - - - - 1.01E+00 3.91E+00 - 1.09E-01 1.08E-01 8.85E-01 1.01E+00 - - - - - 7.03E+00EU-085 through EU-087 Engines 1.11E-01 1.11E-01 1.11E-01 3.54E+00 3.77E-03 1.18E-04 1.94E+00 6.67E+00 6.82E-05 3.85E+02 9.20E-05 1.80E-03 2.18E-04 2.20E-03 2.78E-03 9.62E-04 6.71E-04 3.95E-04 2.00E-04 - - - - - - - - 9.31E-0343.54 58.10 57.02 1,030.85 0.72 0.02 224.25 100.15 0.01 92,827.17 0.0002 0.02 0.004 0.37 0.04 1.14 4.01 0.100.17 0.11 0.88 1.01 5.40E-06 9.00E-07 9.00E-07 9.27E-04 3.60E-06 7.79EU-048 Work Boats 9.70 5.58 5.42 246.82 0.15 4.57E-03 76.01 8.90 2.80E-03 16,080.92 6.08E-06 2.55E-03 7.75E-04 7.51E-02 7.80E-03 2.72E-02 1.87E-02 2.05E-02 1.26E-02 - - - - - - - - 1.53E-01EU-049 Fast Crew Boats 1.41 0.87 0.85 31.94 0.02 6.19E-04 10.38 1.33 3.80E-04 2,180.77 1.81E-05 6.73E-04 1.42E-04 1.03E-02 1.54E-03 3.75E-03 2.57E-03 2.76E-03 1.68E-03 - - - - - - - - 2.17E-02EU-050 Fast Skipper Storage tank - - - - - - - 2.74E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-051 Fast Skipper Day tank - - - - - - - 3.28E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 6.02E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-052 FUEL OIL #2-P - - - - - - - 3.77E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-053 FUEL OIL #2-S - - - - - - - 3.69E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-054 FUEL OIL #3-C - - - - - - - 8.95E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-055 FUEL OIL #3DB-P - - - - - - - 3.48E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-056 FUEL OIL #3DB-S - - - - - - - 3.48E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-057 FUEL OIL #4-C - - - - - - - 7.12E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-058 FUEL OIL #4DB-P - - - - - - - 3.90E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-059 FUEL OIL #4DB-S - - - - - - - 3.90E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-060 FUEL OIL #5-C - - - - - - - 6.95E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-061 FUEL OIL #5-P - - - - - - - 4.59E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-062 FUEL OIL #5-S - - - - - - - 4.59E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-063 FUEL OIL #6-C - - - - - - - 6.67E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-064 FUEL OIL #6-P - - - - - - - 4.05E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-065 FUEL OIL #6-S - - - - - - - 4.05E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-066 FUEL OIL #7-P - - - - - - - 3.21E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-067 FUEL OIL #7-S - - - - - - - 3.21E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-068 FUEL OIL DAY-P - - - - - - - 8.46E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-069 FUEL OIL DAY-S - - - - - - - 1.07E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-070 AUXILARY CAT OIL-P - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-071 CPP-STERN-P - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-072 GEAR OIL-S - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-073 MAIN ENGINE CAT OIL-S - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-074 SPARE #3-P - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-075 STEERING OIL-P - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ -EU-076 CRANE - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-077 WINDLASS - - - - - - - 5.00E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -9.47E-02- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ----- -11.11 6.45 6.27 278.76 0.175.19E-03 86.39 10.33 3.18E-03 18,261.69 2.41E-05 3.23E-03 9.18E-04 8.53E-02 9.34E-03 3.09E-02 2.13E-02 2.33E-02 1.42E-02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74E-0154.66 64.56 63.29 1309.61 0.880.03 310.64 110.48 0.02 111,088.86 2.73E-04 1.99E-02 5.18E-03 4.53E-01 5.37E-02 1.17E+00 4.03E+00 1.23E-01 1.84E-01 1.08E-01 8.85E-01 1.01E+00 5.40E-06 9.00E-07 9.00E-07 9.27E-04 3.60E-06 7.97E+00[1] Although the emissions for the Cementing Units are presented on a unit-by-unit basis, all Cementing Units are to be permitted together under an emissions cap to allow flexibility of operation for the units.[2] Although the emissions for the Wireline Units are presented on a unit-by-unit basis, all Wireline Units are to be permitted together under an emissions cap to allow flexibility of operation for the units.TOTAL - DD1Support VesselsTOTAL - Support VesselsTOTAL - DD1 and Support VesselsAllie (Work Boat) Storage Tanks - TOTALFast Skipper (Crew Boat) Storage Tanks - TOTALPage 2 of 12BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Annual Emissions Summary5/2/2013BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Emissions Summary - DD1 & Support VesselsTable 2 - Maximum Hourly Emissions Summary (lbs/hr) [1]PMPM10PM2.5NOXSO2H2SO4CO VOC PbCO2e1,3- Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Formaldehyde Toluene Xylene Total PAH Naphthalene CumeneEthylbenzeneMethyl isobutylketoneCr Cr(VI) Co Mn Ni Total VOC HAPslbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hrlbs/hrEU-001 Engine 1 / 1063155 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-002 Engine 2 / 1063153 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-003 Engine 3 / 1063154 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-004 Engine 4 / 1063152 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-005 Engine 5 / 1063149 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-006 Engine 6 / 1063151 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-007 Engine 7 / 1063147 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-02EU-008 Engine 8 / 1063148 3.03 4.17 4.08 77.66 0.05 0.002 16.59 5.17 0.001 6,944.93 - 8.99E-04 2.81E-04 2.77E-02 2.81E-03 1.00E-02 6.88E-03 7.56E-03 4.64E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.61E-0215.15 20.83 20.42 388.30 0.27 0.01 82.94 25.83 0.01 34724.65 - 4.49E-03 1.41E-03 1.38E-01 1.41E-02 5.01E-02 3.44E-02 3.78E-02 2.32E-02 - - - -- - - - 2.81E-01EU-009 Mud and Cement Mixing: Dust Collectors 0.25 0.25 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-010 Mud Degassing Operation - - - - - - - 4.43 - 224.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -EU-011 E Generator 1.56 0.89 0.87 53.50 0.02 7.37E-04 12.26 1.43 4.52E-04 2,594.67 3.93E-04 1.23E-04 1.21E-02 1.23E-03 4.38E-03 3.01E-03 3.31E-032.03E-03 - - - - - - - - 2.46E-02EU-012 Cementing Unit - Engine 1 0.60 0.34 0.33 13.87 0.009 2.84E-04 4.73 0.55 1.75E-04 1,001.08 - 1.52E-04 4.74E-05 4.67E-03 4.75E-04 1.69E-03 1.16E-03 1.28E-03 7.83E-04 - - - - - - - - 9.48E-03EU-013 Cementing Unit - Engine 2 0.60 0.34 0.33 13.87 0.009 2.84E-04 4.73 0.55 1.75E-04 1,001.08 - 1.52E-04 4.74E-05 4.67E-03 4.75E-04 1.69E-03 1.16E-03 1.28E-03 7.83E-04 - - - - - - - - 9.48E-03EU-014 Cementing Nitrogen Pump Engine 0.43 0.43 0.43 7.41 0.005 1.62E-04 9.18 1.05 9.95E-05 565.48 1.34E-04 2.63E-03 3.17E-04 3.20E-03 4.05E-031.40E-03 9.78E-04 5.76E-04 2.91E-04 - - - - - - - - 1.33E-02EU-015 Cementing Batch Mixer Engine 0.08 0.08 0.08 2.71 0.003 8.26E-05 1.44 0.63 5.08E-05 288.51 6.84E-05 1.34E-03 1.62E-04 1.63E-03 2.07E-03 7.16E-04 4.99E-04 2.94E-04 1.48E-04 - - - - - - - - 6.78E-031.72 1.21 1.19 37.86 0.03 8.13E-04 20.08 2.78 4.99E-04 2,856.17 2.03E-04 4.28E-03 5.74E-04 1.42E-02 7.06E-03 5.50E-03 3.80E-03 3.42E-03 2.00E-03 -- - - - - - - 3.90E-02EU-016 Wireline Unit Engine 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.97 0.003 9.91E-05 1.73 0.75 6.09E-05 346.22 8.21E-05 1.61E-03 1.94E-04 1.96E-03 2.48E-03 8.59E-04 5.99E-04 3.53E-04 1.78E-04 - - - - - - - - 8.13E-03EU-017 Wireline Unit Engine Alternative # 2 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.97 0.003 9.91E-05 1.73 0.75 6.09E-05 346.22 8.21E-05 1.61E-03 1.94E-04 1.96E-03 2.48E-03 8.59E-04 5.99E-04 3.53E-04 1.78E-04 - - - - - - - - 8.13E-03EU-019Wireline Unit - Power Plant GSU-WGenerator0.35 0.35 0.35 4.96 0.002 5.29E-05 1.07 0.40 3.25E-05 184.65 4.38E-05 8.59E-04 1.04E-04 1.04E-03 1.32E-03 4.58E-04 3.19E-04 1.88E-04 9.50E-05 - - - -- - - - 4.34E-03EU-020 Wireline Unit - Hydraulic Generator DHPS 0.35 0.35 0.35 4.96 0.002 5.29E-05 1.07 0.40 3.25E-05 184.65 4.38E-05 8.59E-04 1.04E-04 1.04E-03 1.32E-03 4.58E-04 3.19E-04 1.88E-04 9.50E-05 - - - - - - - - 4.34E-030.90 0.90 0.90 13.87 0.01 3.04E-04 5.59 2.31 1.87E-04 1,061.73 2.52E-04 4.94E-03 5.96E-04 6.01E-03 7.60E-03 2.63E-03 1.84E-03 1.08E-03 5.46E-04 - -- - - - - - 2.49E-02EU-021 Fast Rescue Craft (FRC) 0.31 0.31 0.31 4.40 0.002 4.69E-05 0.95 0.36 2.88E-05 163.88 3.89E-05 7.62E-04 9.19E-05 9.27E-04 1.17E-03 4.07E-04 2.83E-04 1.67E-04 8.43E-05 - - - - - - - - 3.85E-03EU-022 Lifeboat 1 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.41 0.0012 3.64E-05 0.73 0.28 2.23E-05 126.95 3.01E-05 5.91E-04 7.12E-05 7.18E-04 9.09E-04 3.15E-04 2.19E-04 1.29E-04 6.53E-05 - - - - - - - - 2.98E-03EU-023 Lifeboat 2 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.41 0.0012 3.64E-05 0.73 0.28 2.23E-05 126.95 3.01E-05 5.91E-04 7.12E-05 7.18E-04 9.09E-04 3.15E-04 2.19E-04 1.29E-04 6.53E-05 - - - - - - - - 2.98E-03EU-024 Lifeboat 3 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.41 0.0012 3.64E-05 0.73 0.28 2.23E-05 126.95 3.01E-05 5.91E-04 7.12E-05 7.18E-04 9.09E-04 3.15E-04 2.19E-04 1.29E-04 6.53E-05 - - - - - - - - 2.98E-03EU-025 Lifeboat 4 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.41 0.0012 3.64E-05 0.73 0.28 2.23E-05 126.95 3.01E-05 5.91E-04 7.12E-05 7.18E-04 9.09E-04 3.15E-04 2.19E-04 1.29E-04 6.53E-05 - - - - - - - - 2.98E-030.24 0.24 0.24 3.41 1.16E-03 3.64E-05 0.73 0.28 2.23E-05 126.95 3.01E-05 5.91E-04 7.12E-05 7.18E-04 9.09E-04 3.15E-04 2.19E-04 1.29E-04 6.53E-05 -- - - - - - - 2.98E-03EU-026Fuel - Tank - 005(F.O. TK 1S)- - - - - - - 1.22E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-027Fuel - Tank - 006(F.O. TK 2S)- - - - - - - 1.22E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-028Fuel - Tank - 007(F.O. TK 1P)- - - - - - - 1.22E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-029Fuel - Tank - 008(F.O. TK 2P)- - - - - - - 1.22E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-030Fuel - Tank - 009(F.O. DayTK 1S)- - - - - - - 5.95E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-031Fuel - Tank - 010(F.O. DayTK 2S)- - - - - - - 5.11E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-032Fuel - Tank - 011(F.O. SettlingTK 1S)- - - - - - - 8.26E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-033 Base Oil Tank - - - - - - - 4.86E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-034 Emergency Gen Tank - - - - - - - 2.35E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-035 FRC Tank - - - - - - - 6.85E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-036 Lifeboat 1 Tank - - - - - - - 6.85E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-037 Lifeboat 2 Tank - - - - - - - 6.85E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-038 Lifeboat 3 Tank - - - - - - - 6.85E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-039 Lifeboat 4 Tank - - - - - - - 6.85E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-040 Cementing Engine 1 tank - - - - - - - 3.54E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-041 Cementing Engine 2 tank - - - - - - - 2.17E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-042 Batch Mixer Engine F. Tank - - - - - - - 6.85E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-043 Wireline Unit Tank 1 - - - - - - - 2.17E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-044 Wireline Unit Tank 2 - - - - - - - 1.83E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-045 GSU-W Tank 1 - - - - - - - 1.83E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-046 DHPS-EA Tank 1 - - - - - - - 1.83E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-047 POSU-CA Tank - - - - - - - 1.14E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-078 Helifuel Tank 1 - - - - - - - 3.31E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-079 Helifuel Tank 2 - - - - - - - 3.31E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-080 Helifuel Tank 3 - - - - - - - 3.31E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-081 Helifuel Tank 4 - - - - - - - 3.31E-05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 0.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)Emission Unit ID Emission UnitNSR Regulated Air Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e)Power Plant Engines - TOTALDD1Wireline Engines - TOTALCementing Engines - TOTALLifeboats - TOTALDD1 Storage Tanks - TOTALPage 3 of 12BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Hourly Emissions Summary5/2/2013BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Emissions Summary - DD1 & Support VesselsTable 2 - Maximum Hourly Emissions Summary (lbs/hr) [1]PMPM10PM2.5NOXSO2H2SO4CO VOC PbCO2e1,3- Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Formaldehyde Toluene Xylene Total PAH Naphthalene CumeneEthylbenzeneMethyl isobutylketoneCr Cr(VI) Co Mn Ni Total VOC HAPslbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hrlbs/hrHazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)Emission Unit ID Emission UnitNSR Regulated Air Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e)EU-082 Flaring - - - 2.36E-01 - - 1.29E+00 4.87E-01 - 4.73E+02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00E+00EU-083 Welding 7.01E-03 7.01E-03 7.01E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.64E-06 2.74E-07 2.74E-07 2.82E-04 1.10E-06 0.00E+00EU-084 Painting 4.31E+00 4.31E+00 4.31E+00 - - - - 1.05E+01 - - - - - - - 2.21E+00 8.58E+00 - 2.39E-01 2.37E-01 1.94E+00 2.21E+00 - - - - - 1.54E+01EU-085 through EU-087 Engines 4.10E-01 4.10E-01 4.10E-01 1.31E+01 1.40E-02 4.36E-04 7.17E+00 2.47E+01 2.53E-04 1.43E+03 3.41E-04 6.68E-03 8.06E-04 8.13E-03 1.03E-02 3.56E-03 2.48E-03 1.46E-03 7.39E-04 - - - - - - - - 3.45E-0222.55 27.65 27.21 452.66 0.31 0.01 114.38 69.60 0.01 40,254.11 6.12E-04 1.68E-02 2.96E-03 1.64E-01 3.36E-02 2.27E+00 8.62E+00 4.33E-02 2.65E-01 0.24 1.94 2.21 1.64E-06 2.74E-07 2.74E-07 2.82E-04 1.10E-06 15.78EU-048 Work Boats 5.54 3.34 3.25 136.77 0.08 2.49E-03 41.64 5.17 1.53E-03 8,767.75 4.86E-05 2.25E-03 5.21E-04 4.11E-02 5.53E-03 1.50E-02 1.03E-021.11E-02 6.80E-03 - - - - - - - - 8.59E-02EU-049 Fast Crew Boats 3.53 2.18 2.12 79.85 0.05 1.55E-03 25.96 3.31 9.51E-04 5,451.93 4.52E-05 1.68E-03 3.56E-04 2.56E-02 3.86E-03 9.36E-03 6.44E-03 6.90E-03 4.21E-03 - - - - - - - - 5.43E-02EU-050 Fast Skipper Storage tank - - - - - - - 6.26E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-051 Fast Skipper Day tank - - - - - - - 7.49E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1.37E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-052 FUEL OIL #2-P - - - - - - - 8.61E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-053 FUEL OIL #2-S - - - - - - - 8.41E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-054 FUEL OIL #3-C - - - - - - - 2.04E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-055 FUEL OIL #3DB-P - - - - - - - 7.95E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-056 FUEL OIL #3DB-S - - - - - - - 7.95E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-057 FUEL OIL #4-C - - - - - - - 1.62E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-058 FUEL OIL #4DB-P - - - - - - - 8.90E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-059 FUEL OIL #4DB-S - - - - - - - 8.90E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-060 FUEL OIL #5-C - - - - - - - 1.59E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-061 FUEL OIL #5-P - - - - - - - 1.05E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-062 FUEL OIL #5-S - - - - - - - 1.05E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-063 FUEL OIL #6-C - - - - - - - 1.52E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-064 FUEL OIL #6-P - - - - - - - 9.24E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-065 FUEL OIL #6-S - - - - - - - 9.24E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-066 FUEL OIL #7-P - - - - - - - 7.32E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-067 FUEL OIL #7-S - - - - - - - 7.32E-04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-068 FUEL OIL DAY-P - - - - - - - 1.93E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -EU-069 FUEL OIL DAY-S - - - - - - - 2.43E-03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -EU-070 AUXILARY CAT OIL-P - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-071 CPP-STERN-P - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-072 GEAR OIL-S - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-073 MAIN ENGINE CAT OIL-S - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-074 SPARE #3-P - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-075 STEERING OIL-P - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -EU-076 CRANE - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EU-077 WINDLASS - - - - - - - 1.14E-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - -2.16E-02- - - - -- - - - - - - - - ----- -9.07 5.52 5.38 216.62 0.13 4.04E-03 67.61 8.50 2.48E-03 14,219.68 9.38E-05 3.93E-03 8.77E-04 6.67E-02 9.39E-03 2.43E-02 1.67E-02 1.80E-02 1.10E-02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40E-0131.62 33.17 32.59 669.29 0.44 0.01 181.99 78.11 8.50E-03 54,473.79 7.06E-04 2.08E-02 3.84E-03 2.30E-01 4.30E-02 2.30E+00 8.64E+00 6.14E-02 2.76E-01 2.37E-01 1.94E+00 2.21E+00 1.64E-06 2.74E-07 2.74E-07 2.82E-04 1.10E-06 1.59E+01TOTAL - DD1 and Support Vessels(Worst-Case Operating Scenario)Allie (Work Boat) Storage Tanks - TOTALSupport VesselsFast Skipper (Crew Boat) Storage Tanks - TOTALTOTAL- DD1 (Worst-Case Operating Scenario)TOTAL- Support Vessels[1] Represents worst-case hourly operating profile of units that could potentially operate simultaneously to yield highest station-wide hourly emissions. The maximum hourly electricity needed from 8 power plant engines for station keeping and drillingis 17,500 kW. Therefore, a total of 5 engines operating simultaneously at 94.8% load (18,000 kW) is assumed to represent maximum hourly emissions. While it is possible that more than 5 engines may operate simultaneously, the total maximumhourly electricity generated will not exceed 18,000 kW. Wireline and cementing operations will not occur at the same time, therefore worst-case of the two operations is used in the worst-case hourly operating profile. Only 10% of the maximum hourly emissions of the emergency generator are included because in the worst-case hourly operating profile the emergency generators willbe tested without applying a load (idling).Page 4 of 12BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Hourly Emissions Summary5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 1 (serial #9RC00360)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at appr oximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 5 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calcul ations_v6.0 - Engine 1 - #9RC00360

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 2 (serial #9RC00361)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 

# Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. A nnual average load % = 15, 000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were c onducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the subm ittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modify Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 thr ough April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were c onducted at approximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Em issions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM 10 

# /PM 2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and c ondensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM 10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 6 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Engine 2 - #9RC00361

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 3 (serial #9RC00362)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at approximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 7 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Engine 3 - #9RC00362

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 4 (serial #9RC00363)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 

# Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at approximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 8 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calculations_v6.0 - Engine 4 - #9RC00363

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 5 (serial #9RC00364)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at appr oximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 9 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calcul ations_v6.0 - Engine 5 - #9RC00364

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 6 (serial #9RC00365)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 

# Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at appr oximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 10 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calcul ations_v6.0 - Engine 6 - #9RC00365

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 7 (serial #9RC00366)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at appr oximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 11 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calcul ations_v6.0 - Engine 7 - #9RC00366

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Emissions Calculations - DD1

Engine 8 (serial #9RC00367)

Total Engine Rating = 5,096 HP

Total Power Output [1] = 3,800 kW

Total Operating Time = 6,570 hrs/yr

Operating time at: 49% average load [2] = 6,570 hrs/yr

Fuel Type [3]: = Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel



# Maximum

Hourly

Emissions [12] Total Annual Emissions

[13]

(lb/hr) (tons/year)

NSR RegulatedAir Pollutants & Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO 2 

# e)

PM Stack Test [4], [8] 3.62E-01 (g/kw-hr) 3.03 4.91

PM 10 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.97E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.17 6.75

PM 2.5 

# Stack Test [5], [8] 4.87E-01 (g/kw-hr) 4.08 6.62

NO X 

# Stack Test [6] 9.27E+00 (g/kw-hr) 77.66 125.88

SO 2 

# Fuel S Content [7] 1.06E-05 (lb/hp-hr) 0.05 0.09

H 2 

# SO 4 

# Fuel S Content [7] 3.30E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.002 0.003

CO Stack Test [6] 1.98E+00 (g/kw-hr) 16.59 26.89

VOC Stack Test [4] 6.17E-01 (g/kw-hr) 5.17 8.37

Pb EPA [9] 2.03E-07 (lb/hp-hr) 0.001 0.002

CO 2 

# e Stack Test [4] 8.29E+02 (g/kw-hr) 6,944.93 11,257.06



# HAPs

Acetaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 2.52E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 8.99E-04 1.46E-03

Acrolein AP-42 [10], [14] 7.88E-06 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-04 4.56E-04

Benzene AP-42 [10], [14] 7.76E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 2.77E-02 4.49E-02

Formaldehyde AP-42 [10], [14] 7.89E-05 (lb/MMBtu) 2.81E-03 4.56E-03

Toluene AP-42 [10], [14] 2.81E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 1.00E-02 1.62E-02

Xylene AP-42 [10], [14] 1.93E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 6.88E-03 1.12E-02

Total PAH AP-42 [11], [14] 2.12E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 7.56E-03 1.23E-02

Naphthalene AP-42 [11], [14] 1.30E-04 (lb/MMBtu) 4.64E-03 7.52E-03

0.06 0.09 

# Emission Factor Basis Pollutant

Total VOC HAPs 

# Emission Factor

[1] Represents maximum power output of the generator in kilowatt electric.

[2] Represents annual average load for 8 main power plant engines calculated based on an annual average station-wide electrici ty need of 15,000 kW for station

keeping and drilling. Annual average load % = 15,000 kW /(3,800 kW x 8 Units).

[3] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources.

[4] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from compliance stack testing co nducted from March 31, 2013

through April 10, 2013. Three test runs were conducted at low, medium, and high loads each.

[5] PM

10 

# and PM

2.5 

# emission factors are based on a proposed methodology in the submittal to EPA Region IV on April 16, 2013, titled Request to Modi fy Site-Specific

Test Plan for Alternate EPA Method 201A.

[6] Represents proposed BACT limits developed based on "top-down" BACT analysis and using data from stack testing conducted fro m April 22, 2010 through April

26, 2010 by COMM Engineering. Three test runs were conducted at appr oximately 40% and 60% loads each.

[7] BHPB is proposing the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all diesel combustion sources. Therefore, emissions have been ca lculated based on a maximum sulfur

content of 15 ppm in diesel fuel assuming that 98 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO

2 

# and 2 percent of sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to H

2 

# SO

4 

# based on Draft

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-03-008, April 2003

.

[8] The PM limit is based on filterable emissions only and PM

10 

# /PM

2.5 

# limits are based on filterable and condensable emissions.

[9] Lead emission factor obtained from EPA guidance document: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Lead and Le ad Compounds, EPA 454/R-98-

006, May 1998, Section 5.2.2. Emission factor for distillate oil-fired gas turbines was used as a surrogate for distillate oil -fired engines due to lack of emission factors.

An average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr.

[10] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-3, Speciated Organic Compound Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolle d Stationary Diesel Engines

(October 1996).

[11] Emission factors based on AP-42, Chapter 3, Table 3.4-4, PAH Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel Eng ines (October 1996).

[12] For lead, the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr) are calculated based on the appropriate AP-42 and EPA emission factor and the total engine rating of 5,096 HP

(mechanical), as the AP-42 and EPA emission factors are based on brake HP. For PM, PM

10 

# , PM 2.5 

# , NO

X 

# , CO, VOC, and CO

2 

# e the maximum hourly emissions (lbs/hr)

are calculated based on the stack test emission factors and the maximum generator electric output of 3,800 kW based on the engi ne certifications.

[13] Annual emissions are calculated similar to maximum hourly emissions except that annual average load% is applied, and emis sions are based on annual operating

hours.

[14] An average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr was used to convert from lb/MMBtu to lb/hp-hr to calculate emissions.



# Page 12 of 12 BHPB Sake - DD1 Emission Calcul ations_v6.0 - Engine 8 - #9RC00367

5/2/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX C: RBLC SEARCH RESULTSRBLCID FACILITY_NAMEPERMIT_NUM PERMIT_ISSUANCE_DATEPROCESS_NAME PRIMARY_FUEL THROUGHPUTTHROUGHPUT_UNITCONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITCA‐0988 PACIFIC	BELL1629002/01/2003	 ACT IC	ENGINESDIESEL	FUEL2935 HP0.1 G/B‐HP‐HCO‐0055LAMAR	LIGHT	&	POWERPOWER	PLANT05PR002702/03/2006	 ACTFUGITIVE	PARTICULATEMATTER	EMISSIONS	SOURCESWATER	WASH	DOWN,	DAILYINSPECTION/CLEANING/COVERING	OFTRANSPORT	VEHICLES,	WATERING0CO‐0055LAMAR	LIGHT	&	POWERPOWER	PLANT05PR002702/03/2006	 ACTDIESEL	ENGINES	FORSWITCHING,	LOCOMOTIVE&	FIRE	PUMPDIESEL 1500 HP LOW	SULFUR	FUEL	‐	%0.05	BY	WEIGHT 0.016 LB/MMBTUFL‐0324PALM	BEACH	RENEWABLEENERGY	PARKPSD‐FL‐413 12/23/2010	 ACTAsh	Handling	System	andBuilding0 FabricFilter5%OPACITYFL‐0324PALM	BEACH	RENEWABLEENERGY	PARKPSD‐FL‐41312/23/2010	 ACT 250	Kw	Emergency	Generator ULSD0Use	of	inherently	clean	ultra	low	sulfur	distillate(ULSD)	fuel	oil	and	GCP	&	demonstratecompliance	in	accordance	with	the	proceduresgiven	in	40	CFR	60,	Subpart	IIII0.2 G/KW‐H*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Main	Propulsion	Engines Diesel0Use	of	good	combustion	practices	based	on	thecurrent	manufacturer?s	specifications	for	theseengines,	and	additional	enhanced	work	practicestandards	including	an	engine	performancemanagement	system	and	the	Diesel	Engines	withTurbochargers	(DEWT)	measurement	system.0.43 G/KW‐H*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Main	Propulsion	Engines Diesel0Use	of	good	combustion	practices	based	on	thecurrent	manufacturer?s	specifications	for	theseengines,	and	additional	enhanced	work	practicestandards	including	an	engine	performancemanagement	system	and	the	Diesel	Engines	withTurbochargers	(DEWT)	measurement	system.0.24 G/KW‐H*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Main	Propulsion	Engines Diesel0Use	of	good	combustion	practices	based	on	thecurrent	manufacturer?s	specifications	for	theseengines,	and	additional	enhanced	work	practicestandards	including	an	engine	performancemanagement	system	and	the	Diesel	Engines	withTurbochargers	(DEWT)	measurement	system.0.24 G/KW‐H*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Crane	Engines	(units	1	and	2) Diesel0Use	of	certified	EPA	Tier	1	engines	and	goodcombustion	practices	based	on	the	currentmanufacturer?s	specifications	for	this	engine.0.6TONS	PERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Crane	Engines	(units	3	and	4) Diesel0Use	of	good	combustion	practices,	based	on	thecurrent	manufacturer?s	specifications	for	thisengine1.3TONS	PERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Emergency	Engine Diesel 0Use	of	good	combustion	practices,	based	on	thecurrent	manufacturer?s	specifications	for	thisengine0.03TONS	PERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI	‐	HOLY	CROSS	DRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011	 ACT Emergency	Fire	Pump	Engine Diesel 0Use	of	good	combustion	practices,	based	on	thecurrent	manufacturer?s	specifications	for	thisengine0.002TONS	PERYEAR*FL‐0329 SHELL	OFFSHORE	INC. OCS‐EPA‐R4006 11/28/2011	 ACT Source‐Wide	Limits Diesel 09.9 T/YRLA‐0194 SABINE	PASS	LNG	TERMINAL PSD‐LA‐70311/24/2004	 ACTFIREWATER	PUMP	DIESELENGINES	1‐3DIESEL660 HP	EACH GOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICES1.24 LB/HLA‐0194 SABINE	PASS	LNG	TERMINAL PSD‐LA‐70311/24/2004	 ACTSTANDBY	GENERATOR	DIESELENGINES	1‐2DIESEL2220 HP	EACH COMPLYING	WITH	40	CFR	60	SUBPART	IIII0LA‐0204 PLAQUEMINE	PVC	PLANT PSD‐LA‐709(M‐1) 02/27/2009	 ACTLOADING	HOPPERS	(P‐25,	P‐26,P‐27)GOOD	DESIGN	AND	MAINTENANCE0.01 GR/SCFLA‐0204 PLAQUEMINE	PVC	PLANT PSD‐LA‐709(M‐1) 02/27/2009	 ACT SMALL	EMERGENCY	ENGINES DIESELGOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICES	AND	GASEOUSFUEL	BURNING0.31 LB/MMBTULA‐0204 PLAQUEMINE	PVC	PLANT PSD‐LA‐709(M‐1) 02/27/2009	 ACT LARGE	EMERGENCY	ENGINES DIESELGOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICES	AND	GASEOUSFUEL	BURNING0.1 LB/MMBTULA‐0204 PLAQUEMINE	PVC	PLANT PSD‐LA‐709(M‐1) 02/27/2009	 ACT ROAD	‐	FUGITIVE	DUSTPAVINGS	ROADS	AS	MUCH	AS	PRACTICABLE0.22 LB/HLA‐0229SHINTECH	PLAQUEMINEPLANT	2PSD‐LA‐73107/10/2008	 ACTEQT115,	116,	121,	129	‐EMERGENCY	IC	ENGINESMAINTAIN	WRITTEN	OPERATING	ANDMAINTENANCE	PROCEDURES;	PROPERLYTRAINED	OPERATING	PERSONNEL;MAINTAINING	APPROPRIATE	FUEL‐TO	AIRRATIO;	AND	PROPER	DESIGN,	FUEL	HANDLING,SIZING,	AND	COMBUSTION	AIR	AND	FUELDISTRIBUTION0.0022 LB/HP‐HDIESELFIREDENGINES(>500HP)‐PM/PM10/PM2.5RBLCID FACILITY_NAMEPERMIT_NUM PERMIT_ISSUANCE_DATEPROCESS_NAME PRIMARY_FUEL THROUGHPUTTHROUGHPUT_UNITCONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITDIESELFIREDENGINES(>500HP)‐PM/PM10/PM2.5LA‐0231LAKE	CHARLES	GASIFICATIONFACILITYPSD‐LA‐74206/22/2009	 ACTFILTER	VACUUM	PUMPDISCHARGES(2)GOOD	DESIGN	AND	PROPER	OPERATION0.01 LB/HLA‐0231LAKE	CHARLES	GASIFICATIONFACILITYPSD‐LA‐74206/22/2009	 ACTASU	MOLECULAR	SIEVEREGENERATION(2)GOOD	DESIGN	AND	PROPER	OPERATION0.1 LB/HLA‐0231LAKE	CHARLES	GASIFICATIONFACILITYPSD‐LA‐74206/22/2009	 ACT FIRE	WATER	DIESEL	PUMPS	(3) DIESEL575 HP	EACH COMPLY	WITH	40	CFR	60	SUBPART	IIII0.08 LB/HLA‐0231LAKE	CHARLES	GASIFICATIONFACILITYPSD‐LA‐74206/22/2009	 ACTEMERGENCY	DIESEL	POWERGENERATOR	ENGINES(2)DIESEL1341 HP	EACH COMPLY	WITH	40	CFR	60	SUBPART	IIII0.06 LB/HLA‐0231LAKE	CHARLES	GASIFICATIONFACILITYPSD‐LA‐74206/22/2009	 ACT ROD	MILL	AIR	EDUCTORS	(4)GOOD	DESIGN	AND	PROPER	OPERATION0.02 LB/HLA‐0231LAKE	CHARLES	GASIFICATIONFACILITYPSD‐LA‐74206/22/2009	 ACTASU	MOLECULAR	SIEVEREGENERATIONGOOD	DESIGN	AND	PROPER	OPERATION0LA‐0251 FLOPAM	INC.	FACILITYPSD‐LA‐747(M1) 04/26/2011	 ACT Powder	Plant	Solid	Handling0Dust	Collectors0.002 GR/DSCFLA‐0251 FLOPAM	INC.	FACILITY PSD‐LA‐747(M1) 04/26/2011	 ACTLarge	Generator	Engines	(17units)Diesel00.01 LB/HNV‐0047 NELLIS	AIR	FORCE	BASE 11402/26/2008	 ACTBOILERS/HEATERS	‐	DIESEL	OIL‐FIREDDIESEL	OIL GOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICE 0.019 LB/MMBTUNV‐0047 NELLIS	AIR	FORCE	BASE 114 02/26/2008	 ACTLARGE	INTERNAL	COMBUSTIONENGINES	(>500	HP)DIESEL	OIL TURBOCHARGER	AND	AFTERCOOLER 0.084 G/B‐HP‐HNV‐0047 NELLIS	AIR	FORCE	BASE 114 02/26/2008	 ACTSMALL	INTERNAL	COMBUSTIONENGINES	(<=	500	HP)DIESEL	OIL TURBOCHARGER	AND	AFTERCOOLER 0.14 G/B‐HP‐HNV‐0049HARRAH'S	OPERATINGCOMPANY,	INC.257 08/20/2009	 ACTLARGE	INTERNAL	COMBUSTIONENGINES	(>600	HP)	‐	UNITHA13DIESEL	OIL 1232 HPTHE	UNIT	IS	EQUIPPED	WITH	ATURBOCHARGER.0.0007 LB/HP‐HNV‐0049HARRAH'S	OPERATINGCOMPANY,	INC.257 08/20/2009	 ACTSMALL	INTERNAL	COMBUSTIONENGINE	(<600	HP)	‐	UNITFL12DIESEL	OIL 536 HPTHE	UNIT	IS	EQUIPPED	WITH	ATURBOCHARGER.0.0022 LB/HP‐HOH‐0317 OHIO	RIVER	CLEAN	FUELS,	LLC 02‐22896 11/20/2008	 ACTCOAL	AND	BIOMASS	RECEIVINGBUILDINGBAGHOUSE	AND	DUST	COLLECTOR.		TOTALLYENCLOSED	COAL	AND	BIOMASS	UNLOADINGAND	CONVEYORS	FROM	BUILDING,	INCLUDINGALL	TRANSFER	POINTS.0.12 LB/HOH‐0317 OHIO	RIVER	CLEAN	FUELS,	LLC 02‐22896 11/20/2008	 ACT EMERGENCY	GENERATOR DIESEL	FUEL	OIL 2922 HPGOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICES	AND	GOODENGINE	DESIGN0.87 LB/HOH‐0345DP&L	J.M.	STUARTGENERATING	STATIONP0106503 08/16/2011	 ACTCrusher/screener	with	300	HP&	110	HP	diesel	enginesdiesel 0use	of	water	spray	nozzles	and	dust	suppressionsystem,	minimizing	drop	height	into	feeder0.24 LB/HOH‐0345DP&L	J.M.	STUARTGENERATING	STATIONP0106503 08/16/2011	 ACTCrusher/screener	with	300	HP&	110	HP	diesel	enginesdiesel 0 Tier	III	CARB	Certified	Diesel	Engines0.11 LB/HOH‐0345DP&L	J.M.	STUARTGENERATING	STATIONP010650308/16/2011	 ACTCrusher/screener	with	300	HP&	110	HP	diesel	enginesdiesel0Tier	III	CARB	Certified	Diesel	Engines0.11 LB/HOH‐0345DP&L	J.M.	STUARTGENERATING	STATIONP010650308/16/2011	 ACTCrusher/screener	with	300	HP&	110	HP	diesel	enginesdiesel0Tier	III	CARB	certified	diesel	engines0.11 LB/HOH‐0345DP&L	J.M.	STUARTGENERATING	STATIONP010650308/16/2011	 ACT Paved	Roadways0watering,	use	of	reduced	speed,	goodhousekeeping110.96 T/YROK‐0091CARDINAL	FG	CO./	CARDINALGLASS	PLANT2002‐487‐C	PSD 03/18/2003	 ACTIC	ENGINES,	EMERGENCYGENERATORS(2)DIESEL2000 KWENGINE	DESIGN0.0444 LB/MMBTUOK‐0118 HUGO	GENERATING	STA 97‐058‐C	M‐2	PSD 02/09/2007	 ACTWASTEWATER	(BRINE)	SPRAYDRYERGOOD	COMBUSTION	CONTROL0.2 LB/HOK‐0118 HUGO	GENERATING	STA 97‐058‐C	M‐2	PSD 02/09/2007	 ACTEMERGENCY	DIESEL	INTERNALCOMBUSTION	ENGINESUSE	OF	LOW	SULFUR	NO.2	FUEL	OILCOMBINED	WITH	GOOD	COMBUSTIONPRACTICES	AND	LIMITED	ANNUAL	OPERATION0OK‐0118 HUGO	GENERATING	STA 97‐058‐C	M‐2	PSD 02/09/2007	 ACT MATERIAL	HANDLINGFABRIC	FILTER	BAGHOUSE0.01 GR/DSCFOK‐0118 HUGO	GENERATING	STA 97‐058‐C	M‐2	PSD 02/09/2007	 ACTCOAL‐FIRED	STEAM	EGUBOILER(HU‐UNIT	2)750 MWFABRIC	FILTER	BAGHOUSE0.015 LB/MMBTU*PA‐0287WELLING	COMPRESSORSTATION63‐0095809/27/2011	 ACTJOHN	DEERE	DIESEL	ENGINE(197	BHP)Diesel00.13 G/BHP‐HRTX‐0522VIRDIS	LANDFILL	GAS‐TO‐ENERGY	FACILITYPSD‐TX972,973;N‐32,58,31;4427809/20/2005	 ACT ENGINES	(4)0.71 LB/HVA‐0276INGENCO	‐	CHARLES	CITYPLANT5199806/20/2003	 ACT IC	ENGINES,	(48)FUEL	OIL550 HPGOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICES0.2 LB/MMBTURBLCID FACILITY_NAMEPERMIT_NUM PERMIT_ISSUANCE_DATEPROCESS_NAME PRIMARY_FUEL THROUGHPUTTHROUGHPUT_UNITCONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITDIESELFIREDENGINES(>500HP)‐PM/PM10/PM2.5VA‐0276INGENCO	‐	CHARLES	CITYPLANT51998 06/20/2003	 ACT IC	ENGINES,	(48) FUEL	OIL 550 HP GOOD	COMBUSTION	PRACTICES. 0.2 LB/MMBTURBLCID FACILITY_NAMEPERMIT_NUMPERMIT_ISSUANCE_DATE PROCESS_NAMEPRIMARY_FUELTHROUGHPUT THROUGHPUT_UNIT CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITAR‐0094JOHNW.TURKJR.POWERPLANT2123‐AOP‐R011/05/2008 ACTFIREPUMPENGINEGOODCOMBUSTION6.4 G/KW‐HCA‐0988PACIFICBELL16290 02/01/2003 ACTICENGINESDIESELFUEL2935 HP1 G/B‐HP‐H*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R400710/27/2011 ACTMainPropulsionEngines Diesel0Useofgoodcombustionpracticesbasedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsfortheseengines,andadditionalenhancedworkpracticestandardsincludinganengineperformancemanagementsystemandtheDieselEngineswithTurbochargers(DEWT)measurementsystem.0.39 G/KW‐H*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R400710/27/2011 ACTCraneEngines(units1and2) Diesel0UseofcertifiedEPATier1enginesandgoodcombustionpracticesbasedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine.1.3 TONSPERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R400710/27/2011 ACTCraneEngines(units3and4) Diesel0Useofgoodcombustionpractices,basedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine1.5 TONSPERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R400710/27/2011 ACTEmergencyEngineDiesel0Useofgoodcombustionpractices,basedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine0.03 TONSPERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R400710/27/2011 ACTEmergencyFirePumpEngine Diesel0Useofgoodcombustionpractices,basedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine0.002 TONSPERYEARGA‐0140PLANT(PLANTMITCHELL)4911‐095‐0002‐V‐02‐3 12/03/2010 ACTEngine,Dieseldiesel1050 bhpUseofultra‐lowsulfurdieselfuelonly.3000 HIA‐0084ADMPOLYMERSPROJECTNUMBER06‐203 11/30/2006 ACTFIREPUMPENGINEDIESELFUEL460 HPGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES3 G/B‐HP‐HIA‐0084ADMPOLYMERSPROJECTNUMBER06‐203 11/30/2006 ACTEMERGENCYGENERATOR DIESELFUEL74.3 GAL/HGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES4.8 GAL/B‐HP‐HIA‐0095AMERICAS,INC.PROJECT08‐12609/19/2008 ACTEMERGENCYGENERATOR DIESEL700 KW0.2 G/KW‐HIA‐0095AMERICAS,INC.PROJECT08‐12609/19/2008 ACTFIREPUMPENGINEDIESEL575 HP0.1 G/KW‐HID‐0018LANGLEYGULCHPOWERPLANTP‐2009.009206/25/2010 ACTENGINEDIESEL750 KW,GOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES(GCP)6.4 G/KW‐HID‐0018LANGLEYGULCHPOWERPLANTP‐2009.009206/25/2010 ACTFIREPUMPENGINEDIESEL235 KW,GOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES(GCP)4 G/KW‐HLA‐0194SABINEPASSLNGTERMINALPSD‐LA‐70311/24/2004 ACTENGINES1‐3 DIESEL660 HPEACHGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES0.07 LB/HLA‐0194SABINEPASSLNGTERMINALPSD‐LA‐70311/24/2004 ACTENGINES1‐2 DIESEL2220 HPEACHCOMPLYINGWITH40CFR60SUBPARTIIII0LA‐0219TERMINALPSD‐LA‐71408/15/2007 ACTFIREWATERPUMPDIESELENGINE DIESEL660 HPGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICESANDGOODENGINEDESIGN0.04 LB/HLA‐0219TERMINALPSD‐LA‐71408/15/2007 ACTFIREWATERPUMPDIESELENGINE DIESEL525 HPGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICESANDGOODENGINEDESIGN0.09 LB/HLA‐0219TERMINALPSD‐LA‐71408/15/2007 ACTNOS.1&2 DIESEL2168 HPEACHGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICESANDGOODENGINEDESIGN1.67 LB/HMD‐0040CPVSTCHARLESCPCNCASENO.9129 11/12/2008 ACTEMERGENCYGENERATOR DIESEL4.8 G/HP‐HMN‐0053FAIRBAULTENERGYPARK13100071‐00107/15/2004 ACTICENGINE,LARGE,FUELOIL(1) DIESEL670 HPGOODCOMBUSTION.0.1 LB/MMBTUMN‐0054MANKATOENERGYCENTER01300098‐00112/04/2003 ACT,LARGEDIESELFUEL1850 HPGOODCOMBUSTION0.12 G/B‐HP‐HNV‐0047NELLISAIRFORCEBASE114 02/26/2008 ACTENGINES(>500HP)DIESELOILTURBOCHARGERANDAFTERCOOLER0.2 G/B‐HP‐HNV‐0047NELLISAIRFORCEBASE114 02/26/2008 ACTENGINES(<=500HP) DIESELOILTURBOCHARGERANDAFTERCOOLER0.14 G/B‐HP‐HNV‐0049,INC.257 08/20/2009 ACTENGINES(>600HP)‐UNITDIESELOIL1232 HPTHEUNITISEQUIPPEDWITHATURBOCHARGER.0.0007 LB/HP‐HNV‐0049,INC.257 08/20/2009 ACTENGINE(<600HP)‐UNITFL12 DIESELOIL536 HPTHEUNITISEQUIPPEDWITHATURBOCHARGER.0.0025 LB/HP‐HNV‐0050MGMMIRAGE825 11/30/2009 ACTGENERATORS‐UNITSCC009DIESELOIL3622 HPTURBOCHARGERANDGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES0.0003 LB/HP‐HNV‐0050MGMMIRAGE825 11/30/2009 ACTUNITSLX024ANDLX025ATDIESELOIL2206 HPTURBOCHARGERANDGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES0.0003 LB/HP‐HOH‐0254COUNTYLLC06‐0679208/14/2003 ACTGENERATORDIESEL600 KWLOWSULFURFUEL,COMBUSTIONCONTROL1.76 LB/HOH‐0317OHIORIVERCLEANFUELS,LLC02‐2289611/20/2008 ACTEMERGENCYGENERATOR DIESELFUELOIL2922 HPGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICESANDGOODENGINEDESIGN1.39 LB/HOK‐0090,STEPHENSENERGY2001‐157‐CM‐1PSD 03/21/2003 ACT,,DIESELDIESEL749 BHPBACTISGOODENGINEDESIGN1.7 LB/HOK‐0091/PLANT2002‐487‐CPSD 03/18/2003 ACT,GENERATORS(2) DIESEL2000 KW(<500H/YR)2.17 LB/HSC‐0113PYRAMAXCERAMICS,LLC0160‐002302/08/2012 ACTFIREPUMPDIESEL500 HP,OPERATIONLIMITEDTO100HOURSPERYEARFORMAINTENANCEAND4 GR/KW‐HSC‐0113PYRAMAXCERAMICS,LLC0160‐002302/08/2012 ACTTHRU8 DIESEL757 HPPURCHASEENGINESCERTIFIEDTOCOMPLYWITHNSPS,SUBPARTIIII.4 GR/KW‐HTX‐0465SALTCREEKGASPLANTP795M201/31/2003 ACTHP3105 HPLEANCOMBUSTION10.94 LB/HTX‐0465SALTCREEKGASPLANTP795M201/31/2003 ACTCOOPER‐BESSEMERENGINE2400 HPLEANCOMBUSTION6.35 LB/HTX‐0465SALTCREEKGASPLANTP795M201/31/2003 ACTCLARKENGINE(2)2000 HPLEANCOMBUSTION1.32 LB/HTX‐0465SALTCREEKGASPLANTP795M201/31/2003 ACTINGERSOLL‐RANDENGINE440 HPLEANCOMBUSTION0.48 LB/HTX‐0465SALTCREEKGASPLANTP795M201/31/2003 ACTHP1330 HPLEANCOMBUSTION1.76 LB/HTX‐0501TEXSTARGASPROCESSFACILITYPSD‐TX55M3AND6051 07/11/2006 ACTENGINESTACKWITHCATALYTIC875 HP2.7 LB/HVA‐0276INGENCO‐CHARLESCITYPLANT51998 06/20/2003 ACTICENGINES,(48)FUELOIL550 HPGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES.0.4 LB/MMBTUVA‐0285INGENCO‐CHESTERPLANT52037 01/06/2004 ACTICENGINE,DIESEL,(48)OIL350 KWGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES0.4 LB/MMBTUWI‐0207ACEETHANOL‐STANLEY03‐DCF‐18401/21/2004 ACT,SET,B701850 BHPLIMITEDOPERATION,DESIGN0.12 G/HP‐HWI‐0228WPS‐WESTONPLANT04‐RV‐24810/19/2004 ACT(ENGINE)DIESELFUELOIL460 HP,()DIESELFUELOIL1.14 LB/HWV‐0023MAIDSVILLER14‐002403/02/2004 ACTEMERGENCYGENERATOR DIESEL1801 HPGOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES1.21 LB/HDIESELFIREDENGINES(>500HP)‐VOCRBLCID FACILITY_NAMEPERMIT_NUM PERMIT_ISSUANCE_DATEPROCESS_NAMEPRIMARY_FUEL THROUGHPUT THROUGHPUT_UNIT CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNIT*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011 ACTMainPropulsionEngines Diesel0Useofgoodcombustionpracticesbasedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsfortheseengines,andadditionalenhancedworkpracticestandardsincludinganengineperformancemanagementsystemandtheDieselEngineswithTurbochargers(DEWT)measurementsystem.700 G/KW‐H*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011 ACTCraneEngines(units1and2)Diesel0UseofcertifiedEPATier1enginesandgoodcombustionpracticesbasedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine.722 TONSPERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011 ACTCraneEngines(units3and4)Diesel0Useofgoodcombustionpractices,basedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine687 TONSPERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011 ACTEmergencyEngine Diesel0Useofgoodcombustionpractices,basedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine14.6 TONSPERYEAR*FL‐0328ENI‐HOLYCROSSDRILLINGPROJECTOCS‐EPA‐R4007 10/27/2011 ACTEmergencyFirePumpEngineDiesel0Useofgoodcombustionpractices,basedonthecurrentmanufacturer?sspecificationsforthisengine2.4 TONSPERYEARMD‐0040CPVSTCHARLESCPCNCASENO.9129 11/12/2008 ACTINTERNALCOMBUSTIONENGINE‐EMERGENCYFIREWATERPUMPDIESEL300 HP3 G/HP‐H*MI‐0402SUMPTERPOWERPLANT81‐1111/17/2011 ACTDieselfuel‐firedcombustionengine(RICE)Diesel732 HPGoodcombustionpractices716.6LB/HDIESELFIREDENGINES(>500HP)‐GHG

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX D : MODELING INPUT PARAMETERS25.01 0.701 29.81 6571Stack parameters were based on the proposed stack parameters of the main engines, which are the highest emitting emissionsource on the proposed drillship. Stack gas exit velocity and stack gas temperature were taken as the average of the valuesobserved during a stack test conducted on the stacks for the 8 main engines.BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Drillship Stack ParametersStack Height(m)Stack Inside Diameter(m)Stack Gas Exit Velocity(m/sec)Stack Gas Temperature(K)P Billiton Petroleum Inc.s I Area Modeling Analysis1 of 13BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0 - Class I Source Input Parameters5/1/2013Reference latitude:40 degReference longitude:97 deg (based on + Western Hemisphere)Standard parallel #1:33 degStandard parallel #2:45 degLatitude (deg)(North)Longitude (deg)(West)LCC CoordinatesX (km)LCC CoordinatesY (km)For Breton NWR 28.50 87.22 963.67 -1225.88For St. Marks NWR andBradwell Bay Wilderness28.27 86.68 1019.87 -1245.42Class I AreaDistance (km)2For Breton NWR 214For St. Marks NWR 290For Bradwell Bay Wilderness 2922Represents the distance to the closest receptor on each Class I area. Coordinates for receptors on the Class I areas were obtained from the National ParkService (NPS) Air Resources Division (ARD) website at - http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/index.htmBHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.LCC Reference Parameters¥¥Based on the model design used by Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) for Regional Haze Rule modeling -Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), December 22, 2005,revised August 31,2006.Worksheet for Converting Latitude and Longitude to Lambert Conformal Projection CoordinatesClass I AreaWorst-case MODU Location11Represents the worst-case MODU location within the 49 lease block drilling area with respect to each Class I area within 300 Km.BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Class I Area Modeling AnalysisPage 2 of 13BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Coordinate Conversion (LCC)5/1/2013Source LocationLCC XLCC YBHPB MODU Location 963.67 -1225.88Computational Domain Setup - STEP 1LCC XLCC YNorthernmost Point -1068.61Southernmost Point -1225.88Westernmost Point 777.71Easternmost Point 963.67Computational Domain Setup - STEP 2 (based on +/- 50 km)LCC XLCC YSW 727.71 -1275.88NW 727.71 -1018.61NE 1013.67 -1018.61SE 1013.67 -1275.88Computational Domain Setup - STEP 3 (rounded w/ 4 km spacing)LCC XLCC YSW 725.995 -1278.0NW 725.995 -1018.0NE 1013.995 -1018.0SE 1013.995 -1278.0Distance Span 288 260Grid Spacing 4 4Number of Cells 72 65VISTAS Domain 2 (Meteorological Domain) SW cornerLCC XLCC Y(Fixed)Meteorological Grid Origin Coordinates 721.995 -1598.0Computational Grid SettingsCells XCells Y(Enter these grid settings into CALPUFF).SW 1 80NE 73 145Grid Spacing 4 4Number of Cells (Check) 72 65(Extends domain to 50 km further beyond the source and receptorsfor conservatism).BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Breton NWR - Computational Domain Grid Setup(Used Max/ Min of Class I area receptor coordinates and sourcecoordinates to ensure the domain included the source as well as allreceptors).(Domain endpoint coordinates moved further out to coincide withthe grid point locations of the meteorological domain (at gridspacing of 4 Km)BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Class I Area Modeling AnalysisPage 3 of 13BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Breton - Computational Domain5/1/2013Source LocationLCC XLCC YBHPB MODU Location 1019.87 -1245.42Computational Domain Setup - STEP 1LCC XLCC YNorthernmost Point -1001.70Southernmost Point -1245.42Westernmost Point 1019.87Easternmost Point 1256.44Computational Domain Setup - STEP 2 (based on +/- 50 km)LCC XLCC YSW 969.87 -1295.42NW 969.87 -951.70NE 1306.44 -951.70SE 1306.44 -1295.42Computational Domain Setup - STEP 3 (rounded w/ 4 km spacing)LCC XLCC YSW 965.995 -1298.0NW 965.995 -950.0NE 1309.995 -950.0SE 1309.995 -1298.0Distance Span 344 348Grid Spacing 4 4Number of Cells 86 87VISTAS Domain 2 (Meteorological Domain) SW cornerLCC XLCC Y(Fixed)Meteorological Grid Origin Coordinates 721.995 -1598.0Computational Grid SettingsCells XCells Y(Enter these grid settings into CALPUFF).SW 61 75NE 147 162Grid Spacing 4 4Number of Cells (Check) 86 87(Domain endpoint coordinates moved further out to coincide withthe grid point locations of the meteorological domain (at gridspacing of 4 Km)BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.St. Marks NWR and Bradwell Bay Wilderness - Computational Domain Grid Setup(Used Max/ Min of Class I area receptor coordinates and sourcecoordinates to ensure the domain included the source as well as allreceptors).(Extends domain to 50 km further beyond the source and receptorsfor conservatism).BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.Class I Area Modeling AnalysisPage 4 of 13BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-St Mark & BrBay - Comput Domain5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg)

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg)

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km)

Bret1 29.621 89.004 777.710 -1118.013 0.0 0.0 214.98

Bret2 29.637 88.979 779.971 -1115.939 0.0 0.0 214.08

Bret3 29.646 88.971 780.697 -1114.937 0.0 0.0 213.98

Bret4 29.654 88.963 781.423 -1113.936 0.0 0.0 213.88

Bret5 29.721 88.913 785.607 -1106.067 0.0 0.0 214.62

Bret6 29.762 88.871 789.227 -1101.058 0.0 0.0 214.50

Bret7 29.787 88.863 789.783 -1098.197 0.0 0.0 215.73

Bret8 29.804 88.846 791.229 -1096.193 1.0 0.0 215.76

Bret9 29.812 88.846 791.146 -1095.264 1.0 0.0 216.39

Bret10 29.829 88.838 791.785 -1093.333 1.0 0.0 217.05

Bret11 29.837 88.838 791.701 -1092.404 1.0 0.0 217.69

Bret12 29.854 88.829 792.340 -1090.472 1.0 0.0

Bret13 29.862 88.829 792.256 -1089.543 1.0 0.0 219.02

Bret14 29.871 88.829 792.172 -1088.614 1.0 0.0 219.67

Bret15 29.879 88.829 792.088 -1087.685 1.0 0.0 220.31

Bret16 29.887 88.829 792.005 -1086.756 0.0 0.0 220.96

Bret17 29.896 88.829 791.921 -1085.827 0.0 0.0 221.61

Bret18 29.912 88.829 791.753 -1083.968 0.0 0.0 222.92

Bret19 29.912 88.821 792.559 -1083.896 1.0 0.0 222.35

Bret20 29.921 88.821 792.475 -1082.967 1.0 0.0 223.01

Bret21 29.929 88.829 791.586 -1082.110 0.0 0.0 224.24

Bret22 29.929 88.821 792.391 -1082.038 1.0 0.0 223.67

Bret23 29.937 88.829 791.502 -1081.181 0.0 0.0 224.90

Bret24 29.937 88.821 792.307 -1081.109 1.0 0.0 224.33

Bret25 29.946 88.829 791.418 -1080.252 1.0 0.0 225.56

Bret26 29.954 88.829 791.335 -1079.323 1.0 0.0 226.23

Bret27 29.962 88.838 790.446 -1078.467 0.0 0.0 227.46

Bret28 29.962 88.829 791.251 -1078.394 1.0 0.0 226.89

Bret29 29.971 88.838 790.362 -1077.538 0.0 0.0 228.12

Bret30 29.971 88.829 791.167 -1077.465 1.0 0.0 227.56

Bret31 29.979 88.838 790.279 -1076.609 0.0 0.0 228.79

Bret32 29.987 88.838 790.195 -1075.680 0.0 0.0 229.46

Bret33 29.996 88.838 790.111 -1074.751 1.0 0.0 230.14

Bret34 30.004 88.846 789.223 -1073.894 0.0 0.0 231.37

Bret35 30.012 88.846 789.140 -1072.966 0.0 0.0 232.04

Bret36 30.021 88.854 788.252 -1072.109 0.0 0.0 233.27

Bret37 30.029 88.854 788.168 -1071.180 1.0 0.0 233.95

Bret38 30.037 88.863 787.281 -1070.324 0.0 0.0 235.18

Bret39 30.046 88.871 786.393 -1069.467 0.0 0.0 236.41

Bret40 30.054 88.879 785.506 -1068.610 0.0 0.0 237.65 

# Breton National Wildlife Refuge - Receptor Information

1 

# Lat/ Long coordinates and elevation for receptors on the Class I area were obtained from the National Park Service (NPS) Air R esources Division (ARD) website at

- http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/index.htm 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 5 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Breton Receptors

5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg),

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg),

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km)

Stm1 29.979 84.454 1212.440 -1028.300 1.0 0.0 290.21

Stm2 29.979 84.438 1214.040 -1028.077 1.0 0.0 291.44

Stm3 29.987 84.454 1212.312 -1027.376 1.0 0.0 290.82

Stm4 29.987 84.446 1213.112 -1027.265 1.0 0.0 291.43

Stm5 29.996 84.454 1212.183 -1026.452 1.0 0.0 291.43

Stm6 29.996 84.446 1212.983 -1026.341 1.0 0.0 292.04

Stm7 30.004 84.471 1210.455 -1025.751 1.0 0.0 290.82

Stm8 30.004 84.463 1211.255 -1025.640 1.0 0.0 291.43

Stm9 30.004 84.454 1212.055 -1025.529 1.0 0.0 292.04

Stm10 30.004 84.446 1212.855 -1025.417 1.0 0.0 292.65

Stm11 30.012 84.463 1211.127 -1024.716 1.0 0.0 292.04

Stm12 30.079 84.179 1237.268 -1013.511 1.0 0.0

Stm13 30.079 84.171 1238.067 -1013.398 1.0 0.0 318.50

Stm14 30.079 84.163 1238.866 -1013.284 1.0 0.0 319.13

Stm15 30.079 84.154 1239.665 -1013.171 0.0 0.0 319.76

Stm16 30.079 83.979 1256.438 -1010.767 1.0 0.0 333.20

Stm17 30.087 84.179 1237.137 -1012.588 0.0 0.0 318.45

Stm18 30.087 84.171 1237.936 -1012.475 1.0 0.0 319.08

Stm19 30.087 84.154 1239.533 -1012.248 1.0 0.0 320.34

Stm20 30.087 84.146 1240.332 -1012.134 1.0 0.0 320.97

Stm21 30.087 83.979 1256.305 -1009.845 1.0 0.0 333.76

Stm22 30.096 84.171 1237.805 -1011.552 1.0 0.0 319.67

Stm23 30.096 84.146 1240.201 -1011.211 1.0 0.0 321.55

Stm24 30.096 84.138 1240.999 -1011.097 1.0 0.0 322.18

Stm25 30.096 84.129 1241.798 -1010.983 1.0 0.0 322.82

Stm26 30.096 84.113 1243.395 -1010.755 1.0 0.0 324.08

Stm27 30.096 84.104 1244.194 -1010.641 1.0 0.0 324.72

Stm28 30.096 84.088 1245.791 -1010.413 0.0 0.0 325.99

Stm29 30.096 84.079 1246.589 -1010.299 0.0 0.0 326.62

Stm30 30.096 83.996 1254.575 -1009.152 1.0 0.0 333.03

Stm31 30.096 83.979 1256.171 -1008.922 1.0 0.0 334.32

Stm32 30.104 84.196 1235.278 -1010.969 0.0 0.0 318.38

Stm33 30.104 84.188 1236.076 -1010.855 1.0 0.0 319.00

Stm34 30.104 84.179 1236.875 -1010.742 1.0 0.0 319.63

Stm35 30.104 84.171 1237.673 -1010.629 1.0 0.0 320.25

Stm36 30.104 84.163 1238.472 -1010.515 1.0 0.0 320.88

Stm37 30.104 84.146 1240.069 -1010.288 1.0 0.0 322.14

Stm38 30.104 84.138 1240.868 -1010.174 1.0 0.0 322.77

Stm39 30.104 84.129 1241.666 -1010.060 1.0 0.0 323.40

Stm40 30.104 84.121 1242.465 -1009.946 1.0 0.0 324.03

Stm41 30.104 84.113 1243.263 -1009.832 1.0 0.0 324.66

Stm42 30.104 84.096 1244.860 -1009.604 1.0 0.0 325.93

Stm43 30.104 84.088 1245.659 -1009.490 1.0 0.0 326.56

Stm44 30.104 84.079 1246.457 -1009.376 1.0 0.0 327.19

Stm45 30.104 84.071 1247.256 -1009.261 1.0 0.0 327.83 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge - Receptor Information

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 6 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-St. Marks Receptors

5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg),

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg),

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km) 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge - Receptor Information

Stm46 30.104 84.063 1248.054 -1009.147 1.0 0.0 328.47

Stm47 30.104 84.054 1248.853 -1009.032 0.0 0.0 329.11

Stm48 30.104 84.046 1249.651 -1008.918 0.0 0.0 329.74

Stm49 30.104 84.038 1250.450 -1008.803 0.0 0.0 330.38

Stm50 30.104 84.029 1251.248 -1008.689 0.0 0.0 331.02

Stm51 30.104 84.021 1252.046 -1008.574 0.0 0.0 331.66

Stm52 30.104 84.013 1252.845 -1008.459 1.0 0.0 332.30

Stm53 30.104 84.004 1253.643 -1008.344 1.0 0.0 332.95

Stm54 30.104 83.996 1254.442 -1008.229 1.0 0.0 333.59

Stm55 30.104 83.988 1255.240 -1008.114 1.0 0.0 334.23

Stm56 30.112 84.196 1235.147 -1010.046 1.0 0.0 318.97

Stm57 30.112 84.188 1235.945 -1009.932 1.0 0.0 319.59

Stm58 30.112 84.179 1236.744 -1009.819 1.0 0.0 320.22

Stm59 30.112 84.171 1237.542 -1009.705 1.0 0.0 320.84

Stm60 30.112 84.163 1238.341 -1009.592 1.0 0.0 321.47

Stm61 30.112 84.138 1240.736 -1009.251 1.0 0.0 323.35

Stm62 30.112 84.129 1241.535 -1009.137 2.0 0.0 323.98

Stm63 30.112 84.063 1247.922 -1008.224 2.0 0.0 329.04

Stm64 30.112 84.054 1248.720 -1008.110 1.0 0.0 329.68

Stm65 30.112 84.046 1249.519 -1007.995 1.0 0.0 330.31

Stm66 30.112 84.038 1250.317 -1007.880 1.0 0.0 330.95

Stm67 30.112 84.029 1251.115 -1007.766 1.0 0.0 331.59

Stm68 30.112 84.021 1251.914 -1007.651 1.0 0.0 332.23

Stm69 30.112 84.013 1252.712 -1007.536 1.0 0.0 332.87

Stm70 30.112 84.004 1253.510 -1007.421 1.0 0.0 333.51

Stm71 30.112 83.996 1254.309 -1007.306 1.0 0.0 334.15

Stm72 30.112 83.988 1255.107 -1007.191 1.0 0.0 334.79

Stm73 30.121 84.196 1235.016 -1009.122 1.0 0.0 319.57

Stm74 30.121 84.188 1235.814 -1009.009 2.0 0.0 320.19

Stm75 30.121 84.179 1236.613 -1008.896 3.0 0.0 320.81

Stm76 30.121 84.171 1237.411 -1008.782 2.0 0.0 321.43

Stm77 30.121 84.163 1238.209 -1008.669 1.0 0.0 322.06

Stm78 30.121 84.154 1239.008 -1008.555 1.0 0.0 322.68

Stm79 30.121 84.021 1251.781 -1006.728 2.0 0.0 332.80

Stm80 30.121 84.013 1252.579 -1006.613 3.0 0.0 333.44

Stm81 30.121 84.004 1253.377 -1006.498 3.0 0.0 334.08

Stm82 30.121 83.996 1254.176 -1006.383 2.0 0.0 334.72

Stm83 30.121 83.988 1254.974 -1006.268 2.0 0.0 335.36

Stm84 30.121 83.979 1255.772 -1006.153 3.0 0.0 336.00

Stm85 30.129 84.204 1234.086 -1008.313 1.0 0.0 319.54

Stm86 30.129 84.196 1234.885 -1008.199 1.0 0.0 320.16

Stm87 30.129 84.188 1235.683 -1008.086 2.0 0.0 320.78

Stm88 30.129 84.179 1236.481 -1007.973 2.0 0.0 321.40

Stm89 30.129 84.013 1252.446 -1005.690 3.0 0.0 334.01

Stm90 30.129 84.004 1253.245 -1005.576 2.0 0.0 334.64

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 7 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-St. Marks Receptors

5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg),

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg),

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km) 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge - Receptor Information

Stm91 30.129 83.996 1254.043 -1005.461 3.0 0.0 335.28

Stm92 30.129 83.988 1254.841 -1005.346 3.0 0.0 335.92

Stm93 30.129 83.979 1255.639 -1005.230 3.0 0.0 336.56

Stm94 30.137 84.204 1233.955 -1007.389 1.0 0.0 320.14

Stm95 30.137 84.196 1234.754 -1007.276 1.0 0.0 320.76

Stm96 30.137 83.996 1253.910 -1004.538 3.0 0.0 335.85

Stm97 30.137 83.988 1254.708 -1004.423 3.0 0.0 336.49

Stm98 30.137 83.979 1255.506 -1004.308 3.0 0.0 337.13

Stm99 30.146 84.204 1233.825 -1006.466 1.0 0.0 320.74

Stm100 30.146 84.196 1234.623 -1006.353 1.0 0.0 321.36

Stm101 30.154 84.196 1234.492 -1005.430 1.0 0.0 321.96

1 

# Lat/ Long coordinates and elevation for r eceptors on the Class I area were obtained fr om the National Park Service (NPS) Air R esources Division (ARD) website at -

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ai r/maps/Receptors/index.htm

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 8 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-St. Marks Receptors

5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg),

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg),

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km)

Bbay1 30.113 84.571 1199.202 -1015.068 14.0 0.0 291.92

Bbay2 30.121 84.579 1198.276 -1014.254 14.0 0.0 292.00

Bbay3 30.121 84.571 1199.075 -1014.145 15.0 0.0 292.58

Bbay4 30.121 84.563 1199.873 -1014.035 14.0 0.0 293.15

Bbay5 30.121 84.546 1201.471 -1013.814 15.0 0.0 294.31

Bbay6 30.129 84.596 1196.551 -1013.550 16.0 0.0 291.51

Bbay7 30.129 84.588 1197.350 -1013.441 15.0 0.0 292.08

Bbay8 30.129 84.579 1198.149 -1013.331 15.0 0.0 292.65

Bbay9 30.129 84.571 1198.947 -1013.221 15.0 0.0 293.23

Bbay10 30.129 84.563 1199.746 -1013.111 15.0 0.0 293.80

Bbay11 30.129 84.554 1200.545 -1013.001 17.0 0.0 294.38

Bbay12 30.129 84.546 1201.344 -1012.891 16.0 0.0

Bbay13 30.138 84.604 1195.625 -1012.736 18.0 0.0 291.60

Bbay14 30.138 84.596 1196.424 -1012.627 17.0 0.0 292.17

Bbay15 30.138 84.588 1197.223 -1012.517 17.0 0.0 292.74

Bbay16 30.138 84.579 1198.022 -1012.407 17.0 0.0 293.31

Bbay17 30.138 84.571 1198.820 -1012.297 17.0 0.0 293.88

Bbay18 30.138 84.563 1199.619 -1012.187 17.0 0.0 294.46

Bbay19 30.138 84.554 1200.418 -1012.077 18.0 0.0 295.03

Bbay20 30.138 84.546 1201.217 -1011.967 17.0 0.0 295.61

Bbay21 30.146 84.604 1195.498 -1011.813 17.0 0.0 292.26

Bbay22 30.146 84.596 1196.297 -1011.703 17.0 0.0 292.83

Bbay23 30.146 84.588 1197.096 -1011.593 18.0 0.0 293.40

Bbay24 30.146 84.579 1197.895 -1011.484 18.0 0.0 293.97

Bbay25 30.146 84.571 1198.693 -1011.374 17.0 0.0 294.54

Bbay26 30.146 84.563 1199.492 -1011.264 17.0 0.0 295.11

Bbay27 30.146 84.554 1200.291 -1011.154 15.0 0.0 295.69

Bbay28 30.154 84.613 1194.573 -1010.999 18.0 0.0 292.36

Bbay29 30.154 84.604 1195.372 -1010.889 17.0 0.0 292.92

Bbay30 30.154 84.596 1196.170 -1010.780 17.0 0.0 293.49

Bbay31 30.154 84.588 1196.969 -1010.670 17.0 0.0 294.06

Bbay32 30.154 84.579 1197.768 -1010.560 17.0 0.0 294.63

Bbay33 30.154 84.571 1198.566 -1010.450 18.0 0.0 295.20

Bbay34 30.154 84.563 1199.365 -1010.340 16.0 0.0 295.77

Bbay35 30.154 84.554 1200.163 -1010.230 15.0 0.0 296.34

Bbay36 30.154 84.546 1200.962 -1010.120 15.0 0.0 296.91

Bbay37 30.154 84.538 1201.760 -1010.010 15.0 0.0 297.49

Bbay38 30.154 84.529 1202.559 -1009.900 14.0 0.0 298.07

Bbay39 30.163 84.604 1195.245 -1009.966 17.0 0.0 293.59

Bbay40 30.163 84.596 1196.043 -1009.856 17.0 0.0 294.15

Bbay41 30.163 84.588 1196.842 -1009.746 18.0 0.0 294.72

Bbay42 30.163 84.579 1197.641 -1009.636 17.0 0.0 295.29

Bbay43 30.163 84.571 1198.439 -1009.527 17.0 0.0 295.86

Bbay44 30.163 84.563 1199.238 -1009.417 17.0 0.0 296.43

Bbay45 30.163 84.554 1200.036 -1009.307 17.0 0.0 297.00

Bbay46 30.163 84.546 1200.834 -1009.197 16.0 0.0 297.57

Bbay47 30.163 84.538 1201.633 -1009.086 15.0 0.0 298.14

Bbay48 30.163 84.529 1202.431 -1008.976 15.0 0.0 298.72

Bbay49 30.163 84.521 1203.230 -1008.866 12.0 0.0 299.29

Bbay50 30.171 84.613 1194.320 -1009.152 17.0 0.0 293.69

Bbay51 30.171 84.604 1195.118 -1009.042 18.0 0.0 294.25

Bbay52 30.171 84.596 1195.917 -1008.932 17.0 0.0 294.82 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Bradwell Bay Wilderness - Receptor Information

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 9 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Bradwell Bay Receptors

5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg),

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg),

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km) 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Bradwell Bay Wilderness - Receptor Information

Bbay53 30.171 84.588 1196.715 -1008.823 18.0 0.0 295.38

Bbay54 30.171 84.579 1197.513 -1008.713 17.0 0.0 295.95

Bbay55 30.171 84.571 1198.312 -1008.603 17.0 0.0 296.52

Bbay56 30.171 84.563 1199.110 -1008.493 17.0 0.0 297.08

Bbay57 30.171 84.554 1199.909 -1008.383 18.0 0.0 297.65

Bbay58 30.171 84.546 1200.707 -1008.273 17.0 0.0 298.23

Bbay59 30.171 84.538 1201.505 -1008.163 17.0 0.0 298.80

Bbay60 30.171 84.529 1202.304 -1008.053 15.0 0.0 299.37

Bbay61 30.171 84.521 1203.102 -1007.942 14.0 0.0 299.95

Bbay62 30.171 84.513 1203.901 -1007.832 14.0 0.0 300.52

Bbay63 30.171 84.504 1204.699 -1007.722 12.0 0.0 301.10

Bbay64 30.179 84.621 1193.395 -1008.337 17.0 0.0 293.80

Bbay65 30.179 84.613 1194.193 -1008.228 17.0 0.0 294.36

Bbay66 30.179 84.604 1194.991 -1008.118 17.0 0.0 294.92

Bbay67 30.179 84.596 1195.790 -1008.009 18.0 0.0 295.48

Bbay68 30.179 84.588 1196.588 -1007.899 17.0 0.0 296.05

Bbay69 30.179 84.579 1197.386 -1007.789 17.0 0.0 296.61

Bbay70 30.179 84.571 1198.185 -1007.680 18.0 0.0 297.18

Bbay71 30.179 84.563 1198.983 -1007.570 17.0 0.0 297.74

Bbay72 30.179 84.554 1199.781 -1007.460 17.0 0.0 298.31

Bbay73 30.179 84.546 1200.580 -1007.350 17.0 0.0 298.88

Bbay74 30.179 84.538 1201.378 -1007.239 17.0 0.0 299.45

Bbay75 30.179 84.529 1202.176 -1007.129 17.0 0.0 300.03

Bbay76 30.179 84.521 1202.975 -1007.019 15.0 0.0 300.60

Bbay77 30.179 84.513 1203.773 -1006.909 14.0 0.0 301.17

Bbay78 30.179 84.504 1204.571 -1006.798 12.0 0.0 301.75

Bbay79 30.188 84.621 1193.268 -1007.414 15.0 0.0 294.47

Bbay80 30.188 84.613 1194.066 -1007.304 16.0 0.0 295.03

Bbay81 30.188 84.604 1194.865 -1007.195 18.0 0.0 295.59

Bbay82 30.188 84.596 1195.663 -1007.085 17.0 0.0 296.15

Bbay83 30.188 84.588 1196.461 -1006.976 17.0 0.0 296.71

Bbay84 30.188 84.579 1197.259 -1006.866 18.0 0.0 297.28

Bbay85 30.188 84.571 1198.058 -1006.756 17.0 0.0 297.84

Bbay86 30.188 84.563 1198.856 -1006.646 17.0 0.0 298.41

Bbay87 30.188 84.554 1199.654 -1006.536 17.0 0.0 298.97

Bbay88 30.188 84.546 1200.452 -1006.426 17.0 0.0 299.54

Bbay89 30.188 84.538 1201.251 -1006.316 17.0 0.0 300.11

Bbay90 30.188 84.529 1202.049 -1006.206 17.0 0.0 300.68

Bbay91 30.188 84.521 1202.847 -1006.096 16.0 0.0 301.25

Bbay92 30.188 84.513 1203.645 -1005.985 15.0 0.0 301.83

Bbay93 30.188 84.504 1204.443 -1005.875 14.0 0.0 302.40

Bbay94 30.196 84.621 1193.141 -1006.490 21.0 0.0 295.14

Bbay95 30.196 84.613 1193.940 -1006.381 18.0 0.0 295.70

Bbay96 30.196 84.604 1194.738 -1006.271 16.0 0.0 296.26

Bbay97 30.196 84.596 1195.536 -1006.162 17.0 0.0 296.82

Bbay98 30.196 84.588 1196.334 -1006.052 18.0 0.0 297.38

Bbay99 30.196 84.579 1197.132 -1005.942 17.0 0.0 297.94

Bbay100 30.196 84.571 1197.931 -1005.833 17.0 0.0 298.51

Bbay101 30.196 84.563 1198.729 -1005.723 18.0 0.0 299.07

Bbay102 30.196 84.554 1199.527 -1005.613 17.0 0.0 299.64

Bbay103 30.196 84.546 1200.325 -1005.503 17.0 0.0 300.20

Bbay104 30.196 84.538 1201.123 -1005.393 17.0 0.0 300.77

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 10 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Bradwell Bay Receptors

5/1/2013

# Receptor Id. Latitude (deg),

(North) 1 

# Longitude (deg),

(West) 1 

# LCC Coordinates

X (km) LCC Coordinates

Y (km) Elevation 1



# (meters) Height

(meters) Distance from the

BHPB MODU (km) 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Bradwell Bay Wilderness - Receptor Information

Bbay105 30.196 84.529 1201.921 -1005.282 16.0 0.0 301.34

Bbay106 30.196 84.521 1202.719 -1005.172 15.0 0.0 301.91

Bbay107 30.196 84.513 1203.517 -1005.062 14.0 0.0 302.48

Bbay108 30.204 84.613 1193.813 -1005.457 23.0 0.0 296.37

Bbay109 30.204 84.604 1194.611 -1005.348 22.0 0.0 296.93

Bbay110 30.204 84.596 1195.409 -1005.238 19.0 0.0 297.49

Bbay111 30.204 84.588 1196.207 -1005.129 17.0 0.0 298.05

Bbay112 30.204 84.579 1197.005 -1005.019 17.0 0.0 298.61

Bbay113 30.204 84.571 1197.804 -1004.909 17.0 0.0 299.17

Bbay114 30.204 84.563 1198.602 -1004.799 17.0 0.0 299.74

Bbay115 30.204 84.554 1199.400 -1004.689 17.0 0.0 300.30

Bbay116 30.204 84.546 1200.198 -1004.579 17.0 0.0 300.87

Bbay117 30.204 84.538 1200.996 -1004.469 16.0 0.0 301.43

Bbay118 30.204 84.529 1201.794 -1004.359 15.0 0.0 302.00

Bbay119 30.204 84.521 1202.592 -1004.249 15.0 0.0 302.57

Bbay120 30.213 84.588 1196.080 -1004.205 22.0 0.0 298.72

Bbay121 30.213 84.579 1196.878 -1004.096 21.0 0.0 299.28

Bbay122 30.213 84.571 1197.676 -1003.986 19.0 0.0 299.84

Bbay123 30.213 84.563 1198.474 -1003.876 18.0 0.0 300.40

Bbay124 30.213 84.554 1199.272 -1003.766 18.0 0.0 300.96

Bbay125 30.213 84.546 1200.070 -1003.656 17.0 0.0 301.53

Bbay126 30.213 84.538 1200.868 -1003.546 15.0 0.0 302.09

Bbay127 30.213 84.529 1201.666 -1003.436 15.0 0.0 302.66

Bbay128 30.221 84.563 1198.347 -1002.952 22.0 0.0 301.07

Bbay129 30.221 84.554 1199.145 -1002.843 19.0 0.0 301.63

Bbay130 30.221 84.546 1199.943 -1002.733 17.0 0.0 302.19

Bbay131 30.221 84.538 1200.741 -1002.622 15.0 0.0 302.76

Bbay132 30.229 84.538 1200.613 -1001.699 15.0 0.0 303.42

1 

# Lat/ Long coordinates and elevation for receptors on the Class I area were obtained from the National Park Service (NPS) Air R esources Division (ARD) website at -

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/index.htm

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 11 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Bradwell Bay Receptors

5/1/2013

# Emissions Speciation Percentage

(% of Total PM10) Actual Emissions

(Max. lb/hr) Reference

Total PM10 (TPM10) 100% 38.62 1

Condensable portion of TPM10 (CPM) 13.4% 5.19 2

Organic portion of CPM (SOA) 13.4% 5.19 3

Inorganic portion of CPM 0.0% 0.00 3

Filterable portion of TPM10 (FPM10) 86.6% 33.43 2

Coarse Filterable (PMC) 3.0% 1.15 4

Fine Filterable (PMF) 83.6% 32.28 2

Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.0% 0.00 5

5. Elemental Carbon has been assumed to be 0% due to lack of representative data or emission factors. 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Particulate Emissions Speciation

1. Total PM10 (TPM10) emissions from the MODU was calculated as the sum total of TPM10 emissions from all

emission sources on the MODU, which primarily comprise of diesel-fired engines. TPM10 emissions for the

individual emission sources on the MODU were calculated as the sum of filterable PM10 (FPM10) emissions and

condensable particulate emissions (CPM).

2. AP-42, Table 3.4-2 Particulate and Particle-sizing Emission Factors for Large Uncontrolled Stationary Diesel

Engines was used to speciate TPM10 into FPM10 and CPM. Filterable particulate < 3 um was used as a surrogate

for PMF/ Filterable PM2.5.

3. No representative data or emission factors were available for determining inorganic (SO 4 

# and NO 3 

# ) condensable

emissions. Per AP-42, Table 3.4-1 Gaseous Emission Factors for Large Stationary Diesel and All Stationary DualFuel Engines , footnote d, all sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to SO 2 

# . Therefore, inorganic condensable

emissions from the MODU were assumed to be zero. Based on guidance provided in Procedure for Speciation of

Emissions for VISTAS BART Modeling, July 18, 2006, 100% of non-H 2 

# SO4 condensable mass was assumed to be

organic condensables (SOA).

4. The percentage of Coarse filterable (PMC) in TPM10 was calculated as the difference between the percentages of

FPM10 and Fine Filterable (PMF).

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 12 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-PM Speciation (Engine #3)

5/1/2013

# Species Dry Deposition Phase

(Gas/ Particle) 1 

# Wet Deposition

Modeled? (Yes/ No) 2 

# Geometric Mass

Mean Diameter 3



# (microns) Geometric Standard

Deviation 3



# (microns)

SO 2 

# Gas Yes N/A N/A

SO 4 

# Particle Yes 0.48 2.0

NO

x 

# Gas No N/A N/A

HNO 3 

# Gas Yes N/A N/A

NO 3 

# Particle Yes 0.48 2.0

SOA Particle Yes 0.48 2.0

PMC Particle Yes 6.5 0.0

PMF Particle Yes 1.75 0.0 

# BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Deposition Analysis - Input Parameters

2 

# Both wet and dry fluxes have been estimated for all pollutant species except NOx, in accordance with the FLAG Phase I

report. Both dry and wet deposition were disabled for NO

X 

# and PM 10 

# Significance Analysis.

3 

# The average particle diameter for each speciated particulate (PM) category has been taken as the geometric mass mean

diameter for that category. Geometric standard deviation has been assumed to be zero for all PM categories. Default

CALPUFF values have been used for SOA, SO 4 

# , and NO 3 

# particles. 1 

# Gas phase deposition has been analyzed for SO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , and HNO 3 

# , and particle phase deposition for SO 4 

# , NO 3 

# , and PM

categories, in accordance with the U.S. Forest Service – Air Quality Program, National Park Service – Air Resources

Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Air Quality Branch, Phase I Report of the Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality

Related Values Workgroup (FLAG), December 2000. (FLAG Phase I report).

BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.

Class I Area Modeling Analysis Page 13 of 13 BHP Class I Modeling Inputs_April 2013 v2.0-Deposition

5/1/2013

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# APPENDIX E: MODEL FILES ON DVD

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants



# LIST OF CLASS I PSD INCREMENT MODELING FILES ON DVD

The DVD included with this appendix contains all of the input and output data files used to generate the

results from the Class I PSD Increment analysis presented in this report. The following section provides

a description of the contents of each folder included in the attached DVD.



# Breton NWR Files

1. CALPUFF Input and Output Files

BHPBret01vJ.cpi

– Input file for year 2001.

bhpbret01vj .c pl

– Output file for year 2001.

BHPBret02vE.cpi

– Input file for year 2002.

bhpbret02ve.l st

– Output file for year 2002.

BHPBret03vE.cpi

– Input file for year 2003.

bhpbret03ve.l st

– Output file for year 2003.



# 2. POSTUTIL Input and Output Files

Bret1pmJ.inp

– Input file for 2001 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . bret1pmj.lst

– Output file for 2001 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . Bret2pmE.inp

– Input file for 2002 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . bret2pme.lst

– Output file for 2002 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . Bret3pmE.inp

– Input file for 2003 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . bret3pme.lst

– Output file for 2003 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# .



# 3. CALPOST Input and Output File

Bret1PMJ.inp

– Input file for 2001 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

BRET1PMJ.lst

– Output file for 2001 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

Bret2PME.inp

– Input file for 2002 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

BRET2PME.lst

– Output file for 2002 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

Bret3PME.inp

– Input file for 2003 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

BRET3PME.lst

– Output file for 2003 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

Bret1PMFJ.inp

– Input file for 2001 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

BRET1PMFJ.lst

– Output file for 2001 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

Bret2PMFE.inp

– Input file for 2002 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

BRET2PMFE .l st

– Output file for 2002 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

Bret3PMFE.inp

– Input file for 2003 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

BRET3PMFE.lst

– Output file for 2003 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.



# St. Marks NWR and Bradwell bay Wilderness Files

1. CALPUFF Input and Output Files

BHPStmBbay01vE.cpi

– Input file for year 2001.

bhpstmbbay01ve .c pl

– Output file for year 2001.

BHPStmBbay02vC.cpi

– Input file for year 2002.

bhpstmbbay02vc .c pl

– Output file for year 2002.

# BHP Billiton Petroleum, Inc. | OCS-EPA-R4008-M1

– Modification Application

Trinity Consultants 

# BHPStmBbay03vC.cpi

– Input file for year 2003.

bhpstmbbay03vc .c pl

– Output file for year 2003.



# 2. POSTUTIL Input and Output Files

StmBbay1pmE.inp

– Input file for 2001 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . stmbbay1pme.lst

– Output file for 2001 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . St mBbay2pmC.inp

– Input file for 2002 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . stmbbay2pmc.lst

– Output file for 2002 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . StmBbay3pmC.inp

– Input file for 2003 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# . stmbbay3pmc.lst

– Output file for 2003 to combine speciated PM components into PM 10



# .



# 3. CALPOST Input and Output Files

StmBbay1PME.inp

– Input file for 2001 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

STMBBAY1PME.lst

– Output file for 2001 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

StmBbay2PMC.inp

– Input file for 2002 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

STMBBAY2PMC.lst

– Output file for 2002 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

StmBbay3PMC.inp

– Input file for 2003 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

STMBBAY3PMC.lst

– Output file for 2003 to calculate PM 10 

# concentration.

StmBbay1PMFE.inp

– Input file for 2001 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

STMBBAY1PMFE.lst

– Output file for 2001 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

StmBbay2PMFC.inp

– Input file for 2002 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

STMBBAY2PMFC.lst

– Output file for 2002 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

StmBbay3PMFC.inp

– Input file for 2003 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.

STMBBAY3PMFC.lst

– Output file for 2003 to calculate PM 2.5 

# concentration.



# OZONE Files

ozone_2001_sum156_v2.csv - Hourly ozone data for 2001 from station SUM156.

ozone_2002_sum156_v2.csv - Hourly ozone data for 2002 from station SUM156.

ozone_2003_sum156_v2.csv - Hourly ozone data for 2003 from station SUM156.