URS 40942312

URS Corporation 

P.O. Box 201088 

Austin, TX 78720-1088 

9400 Amberglen Boulevard 

Austin, TX 78729

Source Test Report 

for the 

Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit 

VOLUME 1 

Prepared for: 

Chevron Product Company 

91-480 Malakole Street 

Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 

Prepared by: 

URS Corporation 

9400 Amberglen Boulevard (78729) 

P.O. Box 201088 

Austin, TX 78720-1088 

September 14, 2011 
Source Test Report for the FCCU ii 40942312 

Disclaimer 

This report is intended for the sole use of Chevron Global Downstream. The scope of services 

performed for this work may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other users, and any use or 

re-use of this document or of the findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented herein is at 

the sole risk of said user. This report is for Chevron Global Downstream use only and is not to be 

distributed to third parties outside the Chevron Global Downstream organization.

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU iii 40942312 

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1-1

 1.1 Test Objectives................................................................................................... 1-2 

 1.2 Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 1-3 

 

2.0 Source Description. ...................................................................................................... 2-1 

 2.1 FCCU ................................................................................................................ 2-1 

 2.2 Process Operations ............................................................................................. 2-1 

3.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures ......................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1 Sampling Locations ........................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.2 Volumetric Flow Rate, Dry Gas Molecular Weight and Moisture 

 Concentration by U.S. EPA Methods 2, 3A and 4............................................. 3-4 

 3.3 SO2 Concentration by Certified FCCU CEMS .................................................. 3-6 

 3.4 NOX Concentration by Certified FCCU CEMS ................................................. 3-6 

 3.5 CO Concentration by Certified FCCU CEMS ................................................... 3-6 

 

 3.6 Methane, Ethane and VOC HAP Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 18 ...... 3-6 

 3.7 PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 23 ................ 3-8 

 3.8 THC Concentration by U.S. EPA Method 25A ................................................. 3-8 

 3.9 HCl, Cl2 and HF Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 26A ............................. 3-8 

 3.10 Total Filterable PM and Other Metals Concentrations by U.S. EPA 

 Methods 5 and 29 ............................................................................................... 3-8 

 

 3.11 PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON Concentrations by U.S. EPA 

 Methods 201A and 202 ...................................................................................... 3-9 

 3.12 Methanol Concentration by U.S. EPA Method 308 .......................................... 3-9 

 3.13 Selected Aldehydes, NH3 and HCN Concentrations by U.S. EPA 

 Method 320 ........................................................................................................ 3-10 

 3.14 Speciated Hg Concentrations by ASTM D6784-02........................................... 3-10 

 3.15 SVOC HAPs Concentrations by SW-846 Method 0010 ................................... 3-11 

 

 3.16 Cr6+ Concentration by SW-846 Method 0061 ................................................... 3-11 

 

4.0 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1 ICR Group A Results and Calculations ............................................................. 4-1 

 4.2 ICR Group B Results and Calculations ............................................................. 4-14 

 4.3 ICR Group D Results and Calculations ............................................................. 4-19 

 4.4 ICR Group E Results and Calculations .............................................................. 4-24 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU iv 40942312 

Table of Contents (continued)

Page

5.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control............................................................................ 5-1 

 5.1 Isokinetic Sample Collection ............................................................................. 5-4 

 5.2 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON Emissions ............................................................. 5-5 

 5.3 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 Speciated Hg Emissions ..................................................................................... 5-6 

 5.4 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 Cr6+ Emissions ................................................................................................... 5-7 

 5.5 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 Total PM and Other Metals Emissions .............................................................. 5-7 

 

 5.6 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 HCl, Cl2 and HF Emissions ............................................................................... 5-8 

 5.7 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs Emissions .............................................................. 5-9 

 5.8 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of 

 SVOC HAPs Emissions ..................................................................................... 5-10 

 5.9 Non-Isokinetic Sample Collection ..................................................................... 5-11 

 5.10 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for VOC HAPs Emissions 

 (Bag Samples) .................................................................................................... 5-11 

 

 5.11 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for VOC HAPs Emissions 

 (Sorbent Samples) .............................................................................................. 5-12 

 5.12 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Methanol Emissions .................................. 5-13 

 5.13 Analysis of Stack Gas for O2, CO2, and THC Emissions .................................. 5-14 

 5.14 Analysis of Stack Gas for Methane and Ethane Emissions ............................... 5-15 

 5.15 Analysis of Stack Gas for Aldehydes, NH3, and HCN Emissions..................... 5-15 
Source Test Report for the FCCU v 40942312 

List of Appendices

VOLUME 2 

APPENDIX A FCCU Process Data 

APPENDIX B URS Sampling Data Sheets 

APPENDIX C URS CEMS Raw Data 

APPENDIX D FCCU CEMS Raw Data 

APPENDIX E FCCU CEMS Certification Data 

APPENDIX F URS GC/FID Raw Data 

APPENDIX G Report for VOC HAP and Methanol Analysis 

VOLUME 3 

APPENDIX H Report for PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs Analysis 

APPENDIX I Report for HCl, Cl2 and HF and PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON Analysis 

APPENDIX J Report for Total Filterable PM and Other Metals Analysis 

APPENDIX K URS FTIR Raw Data 

APPENDIX L Report for Speciated Hg Analysis 

APPENDIX M Report for SVOC HAP Analysis 

VOLUME 4 

APPENDIX N URS Data Quality Assessments 

APPENDIX O URS Sampling Equipment Calibration Documentation 

APPENDIX P URS Sample Logbook and Chain-of-Custody Forms 

APPENDIX Q Correspondence from U.S. EPA 

APPENDIX R Correspondence from Federal Express 
Source Test Report for the FCCU vi 40942312 

List of Tables 

1-1 Source Test Information ................................................................................................ 1-2 

1-2 Summary of ICR Group A Emission Results ................................................................ 1-5 

1-3 Summary of ICR Group B Emission Results ................................................................ 1-7 

1-4 Summary of ICR Group D Emission Results ................................................................ 1-9 

1-5 Summary of ICR Group E Emission Results ................................................................. 1-9 

1-6 Summary of FCCU Exhaust Gas Sampling Times ........................................................ 1-10 

2-1 Summary of Process Operations – 30-Day Daily Averages .......................................... 2-3 

2-2 Summary of Process Operations – ICR Test Run Averages .......................................... 2-4 

2-3 Summary of Process Operations – Soot-Blowing Events .............................................. 2-5 

3-1 FCCU Exhaust Stack Isokinetic Traverse Points for Ports A-E .................................... 3-4 

3-2 Summary of Isokinetic Sampling ................................................................................... 3-5 

3-3 Summary of Method 18 Bag Sampling ......................................................................... 3-7 

3-4 Summary of Method 18 Sorbent Sampling ................................................................... 3-7 

3-5 Summary of Method 308 Methanol Sampling ............................................................... 3-10 

4-1 THC Emissions Results ................................................................................................. 4-1

4-2 Methane Emissions Results ........................................................................................... 4-2 

4-3 Ethane Emissions Results .............................................................................................. 4-2

4-4 CO Emissions Results .................................................................................................... 4-3 

4-5 Selected Aldehydes Emissions Results .......................................................................... 4-3 

4-6 VOC HAPs Emissions Results (FTIR) .......................................................................... 4-4 

4-7 VOC HAPs Analytical Results (Bag Samples) ............................................................. 4-5 

4-8 VOC HAPs Emissions Results (Bag Samples) .............................................................. 4-6 

4-9 VOC HAPs Analytical Results (Sorbent Samples) ....................................................... 4-7 

4-10 VOC HAPs Emissions Results (Sorbent Samples) ........................................................ 4-8 

4-11 VOC HAPs Analytical Results (Methanol) ................................................................... 4-10 

4-12 VOC HAPs Emissions Results (Methanol) ................................................................... 4-10 

4-13 SVOC HAPs Emission Results ...................................................................................... 4-11 

4-14 PCDDs/PCDFs Emissions Results ................................................................................ 4-15 

4-15 PCBs Emissions Results ................................................................................................ 4-18 

4-16 SO2 and NOX Emissions Results ................................................................................... 4-19 

4-17 NH3 Emissions Results .................................................................................................. 4-19 

4-18 PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON Emissions Results ............................................................ 4-20 

4-19 Total Filterable PM Emissions Results .......................................................................... 4-20 

4-20 Other Metals Analytical Results .................................................................................... 4-21 

4-21 Other Metals Emissions Results .................................................................................... 4-22 

4-22 Speciated Hg Analytical Results .................................................................................... 4-23 

4-23 Speciated Hg Emissions Results .................................................................................... 4-23 

4-24 HCN Emissions Results ................................................................................................. 4-24 

4-25 HCl and Cl2 Emissions Results ...................................................................................... 4-25 

4-26 HF Emissions Results .................................................................................................... 4-25 

5-1 VOC HAPs Results Quality Evaluation ........................................................................ 5-3 
Source Test Report for the FCCU vii 40942312 

List of Figures

Page 

3-1 FCCU Exhaust Stack ..................................................................................................... 3-2 

3-2 FCCU Exhaust Stack Sampling Ports A and B ............................................................. 3-2 

3-3 FCCU Exhaust Stack Sampling Ports C and E .............................................................. 3-3 

3-4 FCCU Exhaust Stack Isokinetic Traverse Points for Ports A-E .................................... 3-3 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-1 40942312 

1.0 Executive Summary 

Chevron Products Company (Chevron) operates a petroleum refinery in Kapolei, Hawaii. The 

Chevron Hawaii Refinery is a highly automated petroleum refinery with the capacity to convert 

approximately 57,000 barrels of a mix of crude oils per calendar day (bbl/cd) into finished 

products. The Chevron Hawaii Refinery currently operates under Covered Source Permit No. 

0088-01-C, dated June 28, 2006. The Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) is one of several 

manufacturing processes operating under this permit. 

The Chevron Hawaii Refinery received a Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 Request for 

Information (Section 114 Request) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) on April 4, 2011 (dated March 31, 2011). The Section 114 Request describes the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) program conducted by the U.S. EPA Office of Air and 

Radiation (OAR) to assist the U.S. EPA Administrator in rule development pursuant to CAA 

Sections 111 and 112 with respect to petroleum refineries. One requirement of the Section 114 

Request is that Chevron conduct emissions testing of the FCCU according to Component 4, Part 

VIII, of the ICR, “Test Procedures, Methods and Reporting Requirements for the Information 

Collection Request for Petroleum Refineries” (‘Component 4’), and report emissions and 

relevant process data to U.S. EPA by August 31, 2011. 

Chevron engaged URS Corporation (URS) to conduct a Source Test for measuring the emissions 

of target compounds from the FCCU for Component 4 of the ICR. The Source Test was 

conducted on the FCCU stack from June 22, 2011 to June 30, 2011. Table 1-1 presents a 

summary of Source Test information. This “Source Test Report for the Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Unit” (‘Report’) presents the results of the Source Test, relevant FCCU process data, and 

describes the sampling and analytical methodologies used to measure each target compound. On 

August 25, 2011, Chevron informed the U.S. EPA that due to delays in receiving sample 

analyses from the contracted laboratory, completion of the final FCCU Source Test Report was 

significantly delayed. Chevron agreed to submit the final test report by September 15, 2011. 

Section 1.0 presents an executive summary of the Source Test as well as a summary of average 

emission results. Section 2.0 presents relevant FCCU process data recorded during the Source 

Test and for a 30-day period that included that Source Test. A general discussion of the 

sampling and analytical procedures used during the Source Test is included in Section 3.0. 

Section 4.0 presents detailed emissions results. Section 5.0 discusses the quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) objectives and compliance with the requirements of the ICR. 

The appendices provide raw data, including chain-of-custody forms, sampling logs, laboratory 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-2 40942312 

reports, process data, sampling equipment calibration forms, and continuous emissions monitors 

(CEMs) data. 

Table 1-1. Source Test Information 

Facility Name Chevron Hawaii Refinery 

Contact Person(s) Verle Heyer 

Telephone Number 808-682-2394 

Facility Address 91-480 Malakole Street 

Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Types of Process Sampled FCCU Exhaust Stack Gas Stream 

Person Responsible for Conducting Source Test Chris Weber 

Telephone Number 512-419-5369 

Testing Company Name URS Corporation 

URS Address 9400 Amberglen Boulevard 

Austin, Texas 78729 

Person(s) Conducting Source Test Chris Weber 

Brian Bernard 

George Lipinski 

Meggen DeLollis 

Nathan Reichardt 

Brian Bernard 

Steven Hall 

Carl Galloway 

Modified US EPA Reference Methods Performed US EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 23, 25A, 26A, 29, 

201A, 202, 308 and 320 

ASTM D6784-02 

SW-846 Methods 0010 and 0061 

Dates of Source Test June 22 through June 30, 2011 

1.1 Source Test Objectives 

The Source Test was designed to meet the objectives of Component 4 of the ICR. The following 

target compounds were measured from the FCCU exhaust stack during normal process 

operations: 

 Speciated volatile organic compound (VOC) hazardous air pollutant (HAP); 

 Speciated semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) hazardous air pollutant (HAP); 

 Selected aldehydes; 

 Total hydrocarbons (THC); 

 Methane and ethane; 

 Carbon monoxide (CO); 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-3 40942312 

 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans1

(PCDDs/PCDFs); 

 Polychlorinated biphenyls2 (PCBs); 

 Speciated mercury (Hg0

 and Hg2+); 

 Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+)

3

; 

 Other selected metals (Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Pb, Mn, Ni, and Se); 

 Total filterable particulate matter (PM); 

 Filterable particulate matter ≤2.5 μm (PM2.5-FILT); 

 Condensable particulate matter ≤2.5 μm (PM2.5-CON); 

 Ammonia (NH3); 

 Oxides of nitrogen (NOX); 

 Sulfur dioxide (SO2); 

 Hydrogen chloride (HCl); 

 Chlorine (Cl2); 

 Hydrogen fluoride (HF); and 

 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN). 

Oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and moisture (H2O) concentrations and FCCU exhaust gas 

flow rate were also measured to develop target compound mass emission rates.

1.2 Summary of Results 

Some target compounds must be measured simultaneously and are listed in Component 4 of the 

ICR as a specific Group (e.g., ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘D,’ or ‘E’). U.S. EPA allows limited exceptions for 

simultaneous sampling of target compounds within a particular Group when existing sampling 

port design or stack diameter constraints interfere, and these limited exceptions applied to the 

Source Test of the FCCU (see Section 5.0 for details). Triplicate valid test runs were performed 

for each target compound. Average emissions results are presented in this section for each of the 

target compounds as follows: 

 

1

 Seven PCDD and ten PCDF congeners, all 2,3,7,8-substituted, are speciated according to Component 4 of the 

ICR. In addition, total tetra- through octa-chlorinated and other tetra- through octa-chlorinated (i.e., total minus 

2,3,7,8-substituted) congeners are reported. 

2

 The 12 “dioxin-like” PCB congeners designated as toxic by the World Health Organization are speciated according 

to Component 4 of the ICR. 

3

 The samples collected for Cr6+ were lost by the subcontracted hazardous materials shipper (Federal Express) 

during transit between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and the subcontracted analytical laboratory located in Durham, 

North Carolina (Enthalpy). See Appendix R for details. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-4 40942312 

 Table 1-2 presents a summary of the results for ICR Group A (i.e., ‘A1,’ ‘A2,’ and 

‘A3’); 

 Table 1-3 presents a summary of the results for ICR Group B; 

 Table 1-4 presents a summary of the results for ICR Group D (‘D1,’ ‘D2,’ ‘D3,’ and 

‘D4’); 

 Table 1-5 presents a summary of these results for ICR Group E; and 

 Table 1-6 presents a chronology of FCCU exhaust gas sampling. 

Some in-stack concentrations and mass emission rates are presented using a “<” before the 

numerical value to identify that at least one of the analytical values used in calculations is less 

than the applicable method detection limit. In addition, individual analytical results may be 

qualified as ‘BDL’ (below detection level), ‘DLL’ (detection level limited), or ‘ADL’ (above 

detection level) according to Appendix A of Component 4 of the ICR, if applicable. For 

measurements conducted using instrumental test methods or certified FCCU CEMS (i.e., for O2, 

CO2, SO2, NOX, CO or THC), gaseous concentrations are reported as measured and may include 

negative values due to normal and acceptable levels of system or analyzer bias. All calculations 

were performed prior to rounding, and are presented using at least two significant figures. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-5 40942312 

Table 1-2. Summary of ICR Group A Emissions Results 

Target Compound Sampling Method Concentration

Units 

Average 

Concentration 

Mass Emission 

Rate Units 

Average Mass 

Emission Rate 

VOC HAPs 

Acetone 

U.S.EPA 

Method 18 

μg/dscm <2,400 lb/hr <0.43 

Acetonitrile μg/dscm R1 lb/hr R1 

Acrolein μg/dscm <3,100 lb/hr <0.55 

Acrylonitrile μg/dscm <59 lb/hr <0.011 

Benzene μg/dscm <2,900 lb/hr <0.51 

1,3-Butadiene2 μg/dscm <210 lb/hr <0.038 

Carbon Disulfide μg/dscm <800 lb/hr <0.14 

Chlorobenzene μg/dscm <62 lb/hr <0.011 

Cumene μg/dscm <61 lb/hr <0.011 

1,2-Dibromoethane μg/dscm <7,700 lb/hr <1.4 

Ethylbenzene μg/dscm <64 lb/hr <0.011 

Hexane μg/dscm <2,600 lb/hr <0.46 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone μg/dscm <50 lb/hr <0.0089 

Methyl t-Butyl Ether μg/dscm <44 lb/hr <0.0078 

Methylene Chloride μg/dscm <7,800 lb/hr <1.4 

Nitrobenzene μg/dscm <71 lb/hr <0.013 

2-Nitropropane μg/dscm <63 lb/hr <0.011 

Pentane μg/dscm <4,500 lb/hr <0.81 

Styrene2 μg/dscm <930 lb/hr <0.17 

Tetrachloroethene μg/dscm <13,000 lb/hr <2.3 

Trichloroethene μg/dscm <4,500 lb/hr <0.81 

Toluene μg/dscm <5,000 lb/hr <0.89 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane μg/dscm <39 lb/hr <0.0070 

o-Xylene μg/dscm <59 lb/hr <0.010 

m/p-Xylene μg/dscm <58 lb/hr <0.010 

Methanol3 U.S. EPA 

Method 308 μg/dscm <156 lb/hr <0.028 

Aldehydes 

Formaldehyde 

U.S. EPA 

Method 320 

μg/dscm <110 lb/hr <0.020 

Acetaldehyde μg/dscm <950 lb/hr <0.17 

Propanal μg/dscm <990 lb/hr <0.18 

1

 R = Data rejected during URS quality review. See Section 5.0 for more details. 

2

 Reported results for 1,3-butadiene and styrene were determined using Method 320 (FTIR). For more details, see Section 5.0. 

3

 Reported results for Methanol were determined using Method 308. Additional methanol results were determined using Method 

320 (FTIR). For more details, see Table 4-6.
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-6 40942312 

Table 1-2. Summary of ICR Group A Emission Results (Continued) 

Target Compound Sampling Method Concentration 

Units 

Average 

Concentration 

Mass Emission 

Rate Units 

Average Mass 

Emission Rate 

SVOC HAPsa 

Acenaphthene 

SW-846 

Method 0010 

μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Acenaphthylene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Aniline μg/dscm <3.0 lb/hr <5.2E-04 

Anthracene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Benzidine μg/dscm R2 lb/hr R2

Benz[a]anthracene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Benzo[a]pyrene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Benzo[e]pyrene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Biphenyl μg/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.1E-04 

Chrysene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Dibenzofuran μg/dscm <0.81 lb/hr <1.4E-04 

Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine μg/dscm R2 lb/hr R2

Dimethylaminobenzene μg/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.1E-04 

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine μg/dscm R2 lb/hr R2

α,α-Dimethylphenethylamine μg/dscm R2 lb/hr R2

2,4-Dimethylphenol μg/dscm <0.86 lb/hr <1.5E-04 

Fluoranthene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Fluorene μg/dscm 0.0191 lb/hr 3.41E-06 

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Isophorone μg/dscm <0.88 lb/hr <1.6E-04 

3-Methylcholanthrene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

2-Methylnaphthalene μg/dscm 0.0392 lb/hr 6.98E-06 

2-Methylphenol μg/dscm <0.80 lb/hr <1.4E-04 

3/4-Methylphenol μg/dscm <0.69 lb/hr <1.2E-04 

Naphthalene μg/dscm 0.560 lb/hr 9.98E-05 

Perylene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

Phenanthrene μg/dscm 0.0142 lb/hr 2.53E-06 

Phenol μg/dscm 6.25 lb/hr 1.12E-03 

1,4-Phenylenediamine μg/dscm R2 lb/hr R2

Pyrene μg/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 

o-Toluidine μg/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.1E-04 

Methane U.S. EPA 

Method 18 

ppmvd <0.686 lb/hr <0.0815 

Ethane ppmvd <2.11 lb/hr <0.470 

THC U.S. EPA 

Method 25A 

ppmvd at 7% O2, 

as propane 

3.88 lb/hr 1.41 

CO FCCU CEMS ppmvd 60.7 lb/hr 12.6 

O2 U.S. EPA 

Method 3A 

%, dry 5.52 N/A N/A 

CO2 %, dry 13.2 N/A N/A 

1

 Method 0010 analytical results biased low because samples were not kept cold during shipment to the laboratory. For more 

details, see Section 5.0. 

2

 R = Data rejected during URS quality review. See Section 5.0 for more details. 

N/A Not applicable
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-7 40942312 

Table 1-3. Summary of ICR Group B Emission Results 

Target Compound Sampling Method Concentration

Units 

Average 

Concentration 

Mass Emission 

Rate Units 

Average Mass 

Emission Rate 

PCDDs/PCDFs 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

U.S. EPA 

Method 23 

pg/dscm <3.9 lb/hr <6.8E-10 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD pg/dscm <1.8 lb/hr <3.1E-10 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD pg/dscm <1.9 lb/hr <3.3E-10 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD pg/dscm <2.3 lb/hr <4.0E-10 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD pg/dscm <1.9 lb/hr <3.3E-10 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD pg/dscm <2.5 lb/hr <4.3E-10 

OCDD pg/dscm 10.6 lb/hr 1.88E-09 

Total TCDD pg/dscm <4.0 lb/hr <6.9E-10 

Total PeCDD pg/dscm 2.54 lb/hr 4.41E-10 

Total HxCDD pg/dscm 16.3 lb/hr 2.84E-09 

Total HpCDD pg/dscm <2.5 lb/hr <4.3E-10 

Total Dioxins pg/dscm 35.8 lb/hr 6.29E-09 

Other TCDD pg/dscm 0.0484 lb/hr 8.90E-12 

Other PeCDD pg/dscm 0.838 lb/hr 1.45E-10 

Other HxCDD pg/dscm 10.2 lb/hr 1.77E-09 

Other HpCDD pg/dscm 0 lb/hr 0 

2,3,7,8-TCDF pg/dscm <2.5 lb/hr <4.3E-10 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF pg/dscm <1.6 lb/hr <2.8E-10 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF pg/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.2E-10 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF pg/dscm <1.6 lb/hr <2.8E-10 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF pg/dscm <1.1 lb/hr <2.0E-10 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF pg/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.1E-10 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF pg/dscm <1.0 lb/hr <1.8E-10 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF pg/dscm 7.75 lb/hr 1.39E-09 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF pg/dscm <2.5 lb/hr <4.5E-10 

OCDF pg/dscm 22.6 lb/hr 4.06E-09 

Total TCDF pg/dscm <2.5 lb/hr <4.3E-10 

Total PeCDF pg/dscm <4.5 lb/hr <7.9E-10 

Total HxCDF pg/dscm <4.4 lb/hr <7.9E-10 

Total HpCDF pg/dscm 12.5 lb/hr 2.23E-09 

Total Furans pg/dscm 46.4 lb/hr 8.29E-09 

Other TCDF pg/dscm 0 lb/hr 0 

Other PeCDF pg/dscm 1.93 lb/hr 3.38E-10 

Other HxCDF pg/dscm 1.72 lb/hr 3.15E-10 

Other HpCDF pg/dscm 2.46 lb/hr 4.44E-10 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-8 40942312 

Table 1-3. Summary of ICR Group B Emission Results (Continued) 

Target Compound Sampling Method Concentration

Units 

Average 

Concentration 

Mass Emission 

Rate Units 

Average Mass 

Emission Rate 

PCBs 

3,3',4,4'-TCB (#77) 

U.S. EPA 

Method 23 

pg/dscm 5.10 lb/hr 9.10E-10 

3,4,4',5-TCB (#81) pg/dscm <1.8 lb/hr <3.1E-10 

2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB (#105) pg/dscm 20.0 lb/hr 3.57E-09 

2,3,4,4',5-PeCB (#114) pg/dscm <1.6 lb/hr <2.8E-10 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#118) pg/dscm 57.0 lb/hr 1.02E-08 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#123) pg/dscm <2.6 lb/hr <4.7E-10 

3,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#126) pg/dscm <1.7 lb/hr <3.0E-10 

2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB (#156) pg/dscm <3.2 lb/hr <5.7E-10 

2,3,4',4,4',5'-HxCB (#157) pg/dscm <3.2 lb/hr <5.7E-10 

2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#167) pg/dscm <1.9 lb/hr <3.3E-10 

3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#169) pg/dscm <1.9 lb/hr <3.4E-10 

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB (#189) pg/dscm <1.7 lb/hr <3.0E-10 

O2 U.S. EPA 

Method 3A 

%, dry 5.26 N/A N/A 

CO2 %, dry 13.5 N/A N/A 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-9 40942312 

Table 1-4. Summary of ICR Group D Emission Results 

Target Compound Sampling Method Concentration

Units 

Average 

Concentration 

Mass Emission 

Rate Units 

Average Mass 

Emission Rate 

Other Metals 

Antimony (Sb) 

U.S. EPA 

Method 29 

mg/dscm 0.000472 lb/hr 0.0000844 

Arsenic (As) mg/dscm <0.0038 lb/hr <0.00068 

Beryllium (Be) mg/dscm <0.000028 lb/hr <0.0000050 

Cadmium (Cd) mg/dscm <0.000025 lb/hr <0.0000044 

Chromium (Cr) mg/dscm 0.00228 lb/hr 0.000407 

Cobalt (Co) mg/dscm 0.00603 lb/hr 0.00108 

Lead (Pb) mg/dscm 0.000837 lb/hr 0.000150 

Manganese (Mn) mg/dscm 0.00553 lb/hr 0.000988 

Nickel (Ni) mg/dscm 0.0914 lb/hr 0.0163 

Selenium (Se) mg/dscm <0.0021 lb/hr <0.00038 

PM U.S. EPA Method 5 gr/dscf 0.0109 lb/hr 4.45 

PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-CON U.S. EPA 

Methods 201A/202 gr/dscf 0.00977 lb/hr 4.10 

NH3 U.S. EPA Method 320 ppmvd 0.944 lb/hr 0.120 

Speciated Mercury 

Oxidized Mercury (Hg2+) ASTM D6784-02 μg/dscm <0.087 lb/hr <0.000015 

Elemental Mercury (Hg0) μg/dscm <0.17 lb/hr <0.000030 

Cr6+ 1 SW-846 Method 0061 μg/dscm N/A lb/hr N/A 

NOX FCCU CEMS ppmvd 49.6 lb/hr 16.7 

SO2 FCCU CEMS ppmvd 14.5 lb/hr 6.80 

O2 U.S. EPA 

Method 3A 

%, dry 5.38 N/A N/A 

CO2 %, dry 13.4 N/A N/A 

1

 The samples collected for Cr6+ were lost by the subcontracted hazardous materials shipper (Federal Express) during transit 

between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and the subcontracted analytical laboratory located in Durham, North Carolina (Enthalpy). 

Table 1-5. Summary of ICR Group E Emission Results 

Target 

Compound Sampling Method ConcentrationUnits 

Average 

Concentration 

Mass Emission 

Rate Units 

Average Mass 

Emission Rate 

HCl 

U.S. EPA 

Method 26A 

mg/dscm 0.334 lb/hr 0.0575 

Cl2 mg/dscm <0.017 lb/hr <0.0029 

HF mg/dscm 0.0864 lb/hr 0.0149 

HCN U.S. EPA 

Method 320 μg/dscm 31,100 lb/hr 5.36 

O2 U.S. EPA 

Method 3A 

%, dry 5.18 N/A N/A 

CO2 %, dry 13.6 N/A N/A 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-10 40942312 

Table 1-6. Summary of FCCU Exhaust Gas Sampling Times 

Condition Run Parameter Date Time 

(hh:mm) 

E 

1 

HCl, Cl2, HF 

22-Jun-11 

13:04 - 16:00 

HCN 13:50 - 16:10 

O2, CO2 13:04 - 16:36 

2 

HCl, Cl2, HF 

22-Jun-11 

16:53 - 19:02 

HCN 16:56 - 19:06 

O2, CO2 16:53 - 19:02 

3 

HCl, Cl2, HF 

23-Jun-11 

09:55 - 12:05 

HCN 10:01 - 11:21 

O2, CO2 09:42 - 13:06 

B 

1 

PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 

22-Jun-11 

13:06 - 16:36 

O2, CO2 13:04 - 16:36 

3 

PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 

23-Jun-11 

09:42 - 13:06 

O2, CO2 09:42 - 13:06 

8 

PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 

27-Jun-11 

10:10 - 13:38 

O2, CO2 09:20 - 13:40 

D1/D2/D4 

5 

PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON 

24-Jun-11 

09:32 - 13:24 

Hg0, Hg2+ 10:25 - 12:45 

Total PM, Other Metals 09:34 - 13:31 

NH3 09:51 - 11:40 

NOx, SO2, O2, CO2 09:32 - 13:31 

6 

PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON 

24-Jun-11 

16:00 - 19:33 

Hg0, Hg2+ 15:30 - 17:45 

Total PM, Other Metals 15:20 - 19:42 

NH3 15:27 - 18:32 

NOx, SO2, O2, CO2 15:20 - 19:42 

7 

PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON 

26-Jun-11 

09:10 - 09:36, 

09:55 - 12:01, 

16:32 - 17:40 

Hg0, Hg2+ 10:15 - 12:02, 

16:32 - 17:00 

Total PM, Other Metals 

09:10 - 09:36, 

09:55 - 12:01, 

16:32 - 17:38 

NH3 10:35 - 12:00 

NOx, SO2, O2, CO2

09:10 - 09:36, 

09:55 - 12:01, 

16:32 - 17:40 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 1-11 40942312 

Table 1-6. Summary of FCCU Exhaust Gas Sampling Times (Continued) 

Condition 

Overall 

Run 

Number 

Parameter Date Time 

A1/A2/A3 

8 

VOC HAP - Sorbent Sample 

27-Jun-11 

11:46 - 13:26 

VOC HAP - Bag Sample 10:05-11:05, 

12:21-13:21 

Methanol 11:46 - 13:26 

VOC HAP - FTIR 12:12-14:12 

Methane, Ethane 11:10-13:33 

SVOC HAP 09:20-13:40 

Aldehydes 12:12-14:12 

THC, CO, O2, CO2 09:20-13:40 

9 

VOC HAP - Sorbent Sample 

28-Jun-11 

12:05 - 14:05 

VOC HAP - Bag Sample 11:33-12:33, 

12:48-14:08 

Methanol 12:05 - 14:04 

VOC HAP - FTIR 11:59-13:59 

Methane, Ethane 12:36-18:17 

SVOC HAP 10:58-15:22 

Aldehydes 11:59-13:59 

THC, CO, O2, CO2 10:58-16:20 

11 

VOC HAP - Sorbent Sample 

29-Jun-11 

10:00 - 11:40 

VOC HAP - Bag Sample 09:12-10:12, 

10:28-11:28 

Methanol 10:00 - 11:40 

VOC HAP - FTIR 09:25-11:55 

Methane, Ethane 10:18-16:01 

SVOC HAP 09:15-13:21 

Aldehydes 09:25-11:55 

THC, CO, O2, CO2 09:15-15:47 

D3/D4 

9 

Cr6+

28-Jun-11 

12:32-16:20 

NOx, SO2, O2, CO2 10:58-16:20 

11 

Cr6+

29-Jun-11 

12:18-15:47 

NOx, SO2, O2, CO2 09:15-15:47 

12 

Cr6+

30-Jun-11 

08:47-12:08 

NOx, SO2, O2, CO2 08:47-12:08 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 2-1 40942312 

2.0 Source Description 

2.1 FCCU 

The FCCU located at the Chevron Hawaii Refinery converts gas oils into lighter products, such 

as gasoline. Gas oil is introduced into a fluidized bed reactor (at approximately 1000°F) with a 

catalyst. The catalyst promotes the conversion of the gas oil into lighter fractions that are then 

removed from the reactor for further processing. The spent catalyst is then transferred to the 

complete regenerator where it is heated to approximately 1260°F. The regenerator serves to 

burn-off the carbon deposited on the catalyst in the reactor and separate most of the catalyst from 

the flue gas. The catalyst material is then re-circulated to the reactor. Heat in the flue gas stream 

is recovered as 150 psig steam in the flue gas located between the regenerator and the 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The FCCU feed is not hydrotreated. 

Exhaust gases from the regenerator are routed to an ESP for additional PM collection. Ammonia 

is introduced at the inlet to the ESP to enhance PM collection. The flue gas from the ESP then 

exits through the exhaust stack. CO, O2, NOX and SO2 continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS) are installed on the exhaust stack and meet the requirements of applicable U.S. EPA 

Performance Specifications and the CEMS accuracy and ongoing QA/QC requirements of 40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart J. 

2.2 Process Operations 

Per Component 4 of the ICR, the FCCU was operated during normal and representative 

conditions during the Source Test. The ESP and all other air pollution control devices (APCD) 

were also operated in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and requirements during the 

Source Test. 

Most target compounds were sampled during routine soot-blowing events (i.e., “nut-blasting”) 

that occurred on the flue gas cooler, and applicable emission results are identified in Section 3.0 

Per U.S. EPA’s instructions detailed in a FAQ website associated with Component 4 of the ICR, 

every effort should be made to schedule emissions sampling such that it coincides with all 

normal operating events; however, in the context of the ICR program, it is not necessary to 

change facility operations in order to capture all events if doing so ‘would be detrimental to the 

process or cause undue burden.’4

 The soot-blowing events on the FCCU occurred once every 8-

12 hours for approximately 20 minutes during normal operations. The Source Test was designed 

such that one soot-blowing event occurred during one out of three test runs performed for most 

target compounds. Manipulating scheduled emissions sampling times or process operations to 

include soot-blowing events during one out of three test runs for all target compounds was 

 

4

 RTI International. (n.d.). Petroleum Refineries Information Collection Request. In Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQ). Retrieved August 17, 2011, from https://refineryicr.rti.org/FAQ.aspx
Source Test Report for the FCCU 2-2 40942312 

considered to cause ‘undue burden’ to both Chevron and the URS testing personnel. The effect 

of soot-blowing on applicable emission rates measured during the Source Test was negligible, 

and emissions data collected during soot-blowing events were not weighted based on the 

frequency of the soot-blowing events during normal operation of the FCCU. 

The following operating parameters were recorded as daily averages during a 30-day period that 

includes the Source Test, and as test run averages during the Source Test: 

 

 FCCU reactor feed rate (bbl/cd); 

 Catalyst recirculation rate (tons/minute); 

 Catalyst inventory (tons); 

 Fresh catalyst feed rate (tons/minute); 

 Coke burn rate (lbs/hour); 

 Oxygen concentration of exhaust gas (% dry)5

; 

 Exhaust gas temperature at the ESP outlet (°F); 

 Ammonia injection rate (lbs/hour); 

 Average ESP voltage (volts); and 

 ESP spark rate (sparks/minute). 

Table 2-1 presents the 30-day daily averages of the operating parameters. Table 2-2 presents the 

process operating data averages for each test run. Table 2-3 presents the times and durations of 

the routine soot-blowing events that were performed on the ESP during the applicable test runs. 

Raw FCCU operating data is included in Appendix A. 

 

5

 Oxygen concentrations measured by the certified FCCU CEMS are presented in Table 2-1 and Appendix C only. 

Oxygen concentrations measured during the Source Test using U.S. EPA Method 3A are presented with target 

compound emissions results in applicable tables in Sections 1.0 and 3.0. No emissions results were corrected to a 

reference concentration of oxygen per Component 4 of the ICR. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 2-3 

Table 2-1. Summary of Process Operations – 30-Day Daily Averages 

Date 

Reactor Feed 

Rate 

(bbl/d) 

Catalyst 

Recirculation Rate

(tons/min) 

Catalyst 

Inventory

(tons) 

Fresh Catalyst 

Feed Rate 

(tons/min) 

Coke Burn 

Rate 

(lbs/hr) 

Exhaust 

Stack 

O2

(%, dry) 

ESP Outlet 

Temperature

(°F) 

Ammonia 

Inject Rate 

(lbs/hr) 

A

V

10-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,296 4.22 502 CBI 11-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,253 4.27 502 CBI 12-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,300 4.21 502 CBI 13-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,340 4.22 503 CBI 14-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 14,867 4.41 503 CBI 15-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 14,598 4.48 505 CBI 16-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 14,637 4.64 506 CBI 17-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,253 4.63 502 CBI 18-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,576 4.76 502 CBI 19-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,541 4.82 502 CBI 20-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 14,690 5.05 502 CBI 21-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 13,868 5.47 502 CBI 22-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 12,624 6.59 499 CBI 23-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 12,720 6.84 502 CBI 24-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 12,544 6.96 502 CBI 25-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 12,459 6.89 502 CBI 26-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 12,904 7.07 503 CBI 27-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 14,558 5.40 501 CBI 28-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 11,862 5.37 505 CBI 29-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 11,149 5.48 500 CBI 30-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 11,151 5.57 502 CBI 

1-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 11,151 5.51 500 CBI 2-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 11,156 5.49 500 CBI 3-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 11,165 5.48 504 CBI 4-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 16,325 5.45 502 CBI 5-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 16,485 5.41 502 CBI 6-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 14,079 5.38 500 CBI 7-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,886 5.34 500 CBI 8-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 16,490 5.32 503 CBI 9-Jul-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 16,483 5.30 503 CBI 

CBI = Confidential Business Information
Source Test Report for the FCCU 2-4 

Table 2-2. Summary of Process Operations – ICR Test Run Averages 

Operating Parameter Units Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 

Reactor Feed Rate 

bbl/d CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI 

bbl/hr CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI 

Catalyst Recirculation Rate tons/min CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Catalyst Inventory tons CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Fresh Catalyst Feed Rate tons/min CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Coke Burn Rate lbs/hr 12,562 12,347 12,941 12,175 12,586 12,601 14,192 O2 Concentration %, dry 6.78 6.71 6.83 7.12 6.85 7.04 5.49 Temperature at ESP Outlet °F 498 499 501 507 501 505 499 Ammonia Injection Rate lbs/hr CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Average ESP Voltage volts CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Average ESP Spark Rate sparks/min CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI 

CBI = Confidential Business Information
Source Test Report for the FCCU 2-5 

Table 2-3. Summary of Process Operations – Soot-Blowing Events 

Overall 

Run 

Number 

Date Condition 

Parameters 

Measured 

During 

Soot-Blow 

Overall Run 

Time 

(hh:min) 

Approximate 

Soot-Blow 

Time 

(hh:mm) 

3 23-Jun-11 B/E 

HCl, Cl2, HF, HCN, 

PCDDs/PCDFs, PCBs 

O2, CO2

09:42-13:06 09:44-10:04 

5 24-Jun-11 D1/D2/D4 

PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON, 

Total PM, Other Metals, 

NOX, SO2, O2, CO2

09:32-13:31 13:09-13:29 

6 24-Jun-11 D1/D2/D4 

PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON, 

Total PM, Other Metals, 

NH3, NOX, SO2, O2, CO2

15:20-19:42 18:45-19:05 

11 29-Jun-11 A1/A2/A3/D3/D4 

Methane, Ethane, THC, 

SVOC HAP, CO, 

NOX, SO2, O2, CO2

09:15-16:01 12:43-13:03 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-1 40942312 

3.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 

The Source Test of the FCCU exhaust stack was conducted in accordance with Component 4 of 

the ICR. Complete descriptions of the Source Test sampling and analytical methodologies are 

presented in the “Source Test Plan for the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit” (‘Plan’), submitted to 

Chevron on June 8, 2011. Any deviations from those methodologies encountered during the 

Source Test are described in this section. 

3.1 Sampling Locations 

Chevron installed five (5) sampling ports on the FCCU exhaust stack that were used to perform 

the Source Test according to Component 4 of the ICR. The exhaust stack is approximately 150 

feet high (with a sampling platform approximately 70 feet above grade) and has a diameter of 56 

inches (see Figure 3-1). There are two (2) orthogonal sampling ports (Port C and Port D) with 

diameters of four (4) inches on a single measurement plane, and three (3) orthogonal sampling 

ports (Port A, Port B and Port E) with diameters of four (4) inches on a second measurement 

plane. Ports C and D are shown in Figure 3-2 and Ports A and B are shown in Figure 3-3. Port 

E is not shown. The existing sampling ports allowed simultaneous sampling for all target 

compounds within each individual Group (i.e., A, B, D and E). 

Each sampling port is located in compliance with U.S. EPA Method 1, “Sample and Velocity 

Traverses for Stationary Sources,” and is greater than or equal to two (2) but less than five (5) 

stack diameters downstream from a constriction in the stack and greater than two (2) stack 

diameters from the outlet of the stack. Figure 3-4 and Table 3-1 present the location of the 24 

traverse points used for isokinetic sampling during the Source Test. A cyclonic flow check of 

the FCCU exhaust stack was performed prior to testing and passed applicable method criteria. 

Data sheets documenting the sample point locations are included in Appendix B. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-2 40942312 

Figure 3-1. FCCU Exhaust Stack 

Figure 3-2. FCCU Exhaust Stack Sampling Ports C and D 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-3 40942312 

Figure 3-3. FCCU Exhaust Stack Sampling Ports A and B 

Figure 3-4. FCCU Exhaust Stack Traverse Points for Ports A-E 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-4 40942312 

Table 3-1. FCCU Exhaust Stack Isokinetic Traverse Points for Ports A-E 

Stack Diameter - 56.0 inches 

Point Percentage of 

Diameter

Distance from 

Wall (inches)

1 2.10 1.18 

2 6.70 3.75 

3 11.8 6.61 

4 17.7 9.91 

5 25.0 14.0 

6 35.6 19.9 

7 64.4 36.1 

8 75.0 42.0 

9 82.3 46.1 

10 88.2 49.4 

11 93.3 52.2 

12 97.9 54.8 

3.2 Volumetric Flow Rate, Dry Gas Molecular Weight and Moisture 

Concentration by U.S. EPA Methods 2, 3A and 4 

Concurrent with the performance of the isokinetic sampling trains during the Source Test for 

ICR Groups A, B, D and E, measurements were made to determine stack gas flow rate by U.S. 

EPA Method 2, “Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Flow Rate from Stationary Sources 

(Type-S Pitot Tube),” dry gas molecular weight by U.S. EPA Method 3A, “Determination of 

Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental 

Analyzer Procedure),” and moisture concentration by U.S. EPA Method 4, “Determination of 

Moisture Content in Stack Gases.” Table 3-2 presents a summary of data collected for FCCU 

exhaust stack temperature, velocity, moisture concentration, O2 and CO2 concentrations, and 

volumetric flow rates. Also included in Table 3-2 are dry gas sample volumes and isokinetic 

sampling rates associated with each isokinetic sampling train performed in ICR Groups A, B, D 

and E. Appendix C presents the calibrations, bias checks, and raw data for the O2 and CO2 

CEMs. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-5 

Table 3-2. Summary of Isokinetic Sampling 

Condition Overall Run Analytical Parameter 

Average 

Stack 

Temperature 

(°F) 

Velocity 

(ft/sec) 

Flue Gas 

Moisture 

(%) 

O2

(vol %, 

dry) 

CO2 

(vol %, 

dry) 

Avg Flow 

Rate 

(acfm) 

Avg Flow 

Rate 

(scfm) 

Avg Flow 

Rate 

(dscfm) 

E 

1 HCl, Cl2, and HF 482.6 93.94 8.51 5.18 13.68 89,608 50,093 45,832 

2 HCl, Cl2, and HF 484.2 94.68 8.27 5.15 13.65 90,335 50,412 46,243 3 HCl, Cl2, and HF 486.1 94.29 8.68 5.21 13.54 90,012 50,298 45,932 

B 

1 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 485.4 99.90 7.62 5.18 13.68 95,331 53,134 49,086 

3 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 486.7 93.80 7.88 5.21 13.54 89,508 49,984 46,046 8 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 483.2 95.51 7.40 5.38 13.35 91,139 51,002 47,228 

D1/D2/D4 

5 

PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-

CON 489.4 98.82 7.07 5.39 13.40 94,298 52,474 48,767 

Hg0 and Hg2+ 487.0 94.96 8.01 5.39 13.40 90,615 50,555 46,507 

Total PM/Other 

Metals 477.2 96.44 7.85 5.39 13.40 92,033 51,880 47,806 

6 

PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-

CON 486.0 100.92 7.30 5.16 13.60 96,307 53,788 49,864 

Hg0 and Hg2+ 482.3 94.23 8.20 5.16 13.60 89,915 50,413 46,280 

Total PM/Other 

Metals 477.1 96.19 8.14 5.16 13.60 91,789 51,752 47,538 

7 

PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-

CON 489.0 97.46 6.95 5.59 13.21 93,004 51,745 48,147 

Hg0 and Hg2+ 485.5 95.27 8.18 5.59 13.21 90,914 50,770 46,616 

Total PM/Other 

Metals 479.7 96.98 8.21 5.59 13.21 92,547 52,033 47,760 

A 

8 SVOC HAP 473.6 95.27 7.50 5.38 13.35 90,910 51,393 47,540 

9 SVOC HAP 487.1 96.41 7.92 5.72 13.06 92,000 51,204 47,149 

11 SVOC HAP 487.0 96.46 5.87 5.47 13.31 92,047 51,150 48,146 

D3/D4 

9 Cr6+ 489.6 97.69 9.31 5.72 13.06 93,221 51,745 46,927 

11 Cr6+ 486.4 98.83 13.20 5.47 13.31 94,310 52,441 45,521 12 Cr6+ 493.4 97.95 10.56 5.65 13.15 93,467 51,725 46,262 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-6 40942312 

3.3 SO2 Concentrations by Certified FCCU CEMS 

A SO2 continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is installed on the FCCU exhaust stack 

and meets the requirements of applicable U.S. EPA Performance Specifications and the CEMS 

accuracy and ongoing QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart J. Per Component 4 of the 

ICR, data from the FCCU SO2 CEMS is used to report hourly averages from 30 days of data in 

lieu of performing U.S. EPA Method 6C, “Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from 

Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure),” during the Source Test. A portion of 

this FCCU SO2 CEMS data is correlated with emissions sampling conducted for ICR Group D 

target compounds. Appendix D presents applicable FCCU SO2 CEMS data. Appendix E 

presents the results of the most recent accuracy certification of the FCCU SO2 CEMS. No 

deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 

3.4 NOX Concentrations by Certified FCCU CEMS 

A NOX continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is installed on the FCCU exhaust stack 

and meets the requirements of applicable U.S. EPA Performance Specifications and the CEMS 

accuracy and ongoing QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart J. Per Component 4 of the 

ICR, data from the FCCU NOX CEMS is used to report hourly averages from 30 days of data in 

lieu of performing U.S. EPA Method 7E, “Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from 

Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzers Procedure),” during the Source Test. A portion of 

this FCCU NOX CEMS data is correlated with emissions sampling conducted for ICR Group D 

target compounds. Appendix D presents applicable FCCU NOX CEMS data. Appendix E 

presents the results of the most recent accuracy certification of the FCCU NOX CEMS. No 

deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 

3.5 CO Concentrations by Certified FCCU CEMS 

A CO continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is installed on the FCCU exhaust stack 

and meets the requirements of applicable U.S. EPA Performance Specifications and the CEMS 

accuracy and ongoing QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart J. Per Component 4 of the 

ICR, data from the FCCU CO CEMS is used to report hourly averages from 30 days of data in 

lieu of performing U.S. EPA Method 10, “Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from 

Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure),” during the Source Test. A portion of 

this FCCU CO CEMS data is correlated with emissions sampling conducted for ICR Group A 

target compounds. Appendix D presents applicable FCCU CO CEMS data. Appendix E 

presents the results of the most recent accuracy certification of the FCCU CO CEMS. No 

deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 

3.6 Methane, Ethane and VOC HAP Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 18 

Due to the wide range of boiling points of the VOC HAPs to be measured as part of the ICR 

program, multiple sampling strategies were employed during the Source Test. A combination of 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-7 40942312 

two separate sampling techniques was utilized to collect selected VOC HAP emissions data per 

U.S. EPA Method 18, “Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 

Chromatography,” during the Source Test for ICR Group A: bag sampling and sorbent sampling. 

In addition, direct interface sampling with in-line analysis by a gas chromatograph (GC) 

equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) was performed to measure methane and ethane 

emissions. U.S. EPA Method 18 is a performance-based sampling and analytical method that 

allows for some flexibility in sampling and analytical techniques provided that certain QA/QC 

criteria for instrument calibration and sample recovery criteria are achieved. As a precautionary 

measure, VOC HAP compounds were also monitored using U.S. EPA Method 320. Section 3.13 

presents further detail. Table 3-3 and 3-4 present summaries of bag and sorbent sample 

collection, respectively. Field sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. URS GC/FID 

operating and calibration data are presented in Appendix F. The full analytical report for VOC 

HAPs is presented in Appendix G. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source 

Test. 

Table 3-3. Summary of Method 18 Bag Sampling 

Condition Overall 

Run Bag ID Date Time 

Sample 

Volume 

(dsL) 

A1 

8 

A 

6/27/2011 

10:05 - 11:05 6.446 

B 12:21 - 13:21 6.285 

9 

A 

6/28/2011 

11:33 - 12:33 5.817 

B 12:48-13:05, 

13:25-14:08 5.846 

11 

A 

6/29/2011 

09:12 - 10:12 5.454 

B 10:28 - 11:28 4.706 

Table 3-4. Summary of Method 18 Sorbent Sampling

Condition Overall 

Run Sorbent Type Date Time 

Sample 

Volume 

(dsL) 

A1 

8 

Spiked XAD 

6/27/2011 

11:46 - 13:26 94.164 

Unspiked XAD 11:46 - 13:26 91.016 

9 

Spiked XAD 

6/28/2011 

12:05 - 14:05 92.906 

Unspiked XAD 12:05 - 14:05 91.984 

11 

Spiked XAD 

6/29/2011 

10:00 - 11:40 99.724 

Unspiked XAD 10:00 - 11:40 90.857 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-8 40942312 

3.7 PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 23 

FCCU exhaust gas samples were collected for the determination of PCDDs/PCDFs and selected 

PCBs emissions using U.S. EPA Method 23, “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-pdioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Municipal Waste Combustors,” during the 

Source Test for ICR Group B. Sample gas was collected isokinetically, filtered, and passed 

through a sorbent module. The sorbent module consisted of a water-cooled condenser followed 

by the water-jacketed XAD-2 resin trap. Following the resin trap, the sample gas passed through 

a series of impingers. The sampling train was also recovered for the determination of PCBs. 

Samples were analyzed by high resolution GC/MS according to U.S. EPA Method 23. Field 

sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical report for PCDDs/PCDFs 

and PCBs is presented in Appendix H. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source 

Test. 

3.8 THC Concentration by U.S. EPA Method 25A 

U.S. EPA Method 25A, “Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame 

Ionization Analyzer,” was performed to measure THC concentrations in the FCCU exhaust stack 

gas stream during the Source Test for ICR Group A (A3). Gas was withdrawn from the duct and 

routed to a portable Thermo 51i-HT CEM for analysis. The THC CEMS was calibrated with 

certified gas standards of propane. Calibrations, hourly drift checks, and raw data from the URS 

CEMs data acquisition system can be found in Appendix C. No deviations from the Plan

occurred during the Source Test. 

3.9 HCl, Cl2 and HF Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 26A 

The FCCU exhaust stack gas stream was sampled for determination of HCl, Cl2, and HF 

emissions using U.S. EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen 

Emissions from Stationary Sources (Isokinetic Method).” According to this method, sampled gas 

was collected isokinetically, filtered, and bubbled through a series of impingers. The gas first 

contacted a solution of sulfuric acid, which removed the HCl and HF, and then contacted a 

solution of sodium hydroxide, which removed the Cl2. The impingers were weighed, and the 

solutions were recovered and subsequently analyzed using ion chromatography (IC). Field 

sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical report for HCl, Cl2 and 

HF is presented in Appendix I. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 

3.10 Total Filterable PM and Other Metals Concentrations by U.S. EPA Methods 

5 and 29 

The FCCU exhaust stack gas stream was sampled for determination of total filterable PM and 

other selected metals emissions using a sampling train meeting the requirements of both U.S. 

EPA Methods 5, “Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources,” and 

29, “Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources,” during the Source Test for 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-9 40942312 

ICR Group D (D1). Gas was withdrawn from the duct isokinetically, and the PM was filtered 

from the gas sample. The PM was determined in the rinse of the probe and nozzle, and on the 

filter, gravimetrically for determination of total filterable PM. The nitric acid probe and nozzle 

rinse, the filter, and the nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide impingers were analyzed for antimony, 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, nickel, manganese and selenium, by 

inductively coupled plasma (ICP/MS) by SW-846 Method 6020. Field sampling data sheets are 

presented in Appendix B. The full analytical reports for total filterable PM and other metals are 

presented in Appendices J and K, respectively. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the 

Source Test. 

3.11 PM2.5–FILT and PM2.5-CON Concentrations by U.S. EPA Methods 201A and 

202 

The FCCU exhaust stack gas stream was sampled for determination of PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-

CON concentrations using a sampling train meeting the requirements of both U.S. EPA Methods 

201A, “Determination of PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary Sources (Constant 

Sampling Rate Procedure),” and 202, “Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions 

from Stationary Sources,” during the Source Test for ICR Group D (D1). Gas was withdrawn 

from the exhaust stack isokinetically through an in-stack filter, removing all filterable particulate 

less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. The PM2.5-FILT concentration was 

determined gravimetrically from the rinse of the nozzle and front-half of the in-stack filter 

holder, and on the tared filter. PM2.5-CON was determined in the back-half impingers and midtrain filter. The impinger rinses and filter were desiccated and condensable PM2.5 was 

determined gravimetrically. Field sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The full 

analytical report for PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON is presented in Appendix I. The following 

deviation from the Plan occurred during the Source Test: 

 The Plan states that U.S. EPA Methods 201A/202 sampling trains would collect ≥2 

m3

 dry gas sample volume over the course of each sampling run. This dry gas 

volume requirement was specified in Component 4 of the ICR. During the first two 

sampling runs (Runs 5 and 6), this objective was not met. However, dwell-time 

adjustments were made between each run to rectify the problem, and the dry gas 

sample volume criterion was met in the third run (Run 7). See Section 5.0 for details 

on the impact of this deviation on the Source Test QA/QC objectives. 

3.12 Methanol Concentration by U.S. EPA Method 308 

U.S. EPA Method 308, “Procedure for Determination of Methanol Emissions from Stationary 

Sources,” was used to measure methanol (a VOC HAP) concentrations in the FCCU exhaust 

stack gas stream during the Source Test for ICR Group A. Sample gas was extracted at a 

constant rate and routed to a chilled condensate trap and sorbent tube. Both the condensate and 

sorbent fractions were analyzed for methanol by GC/FID. As a precautionary measure, methanol 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-10 40942312 

was also monitored using U.S. EPA Method 320. Section 3.13 presents further detail. Table 3-5 

presents a summary of methanol sample collection. Field sampling data sheets are presented in 

Appendix B. The full analytical report for methanol is presented in Appendix G. The following 

deviation from the Plan occurred during the Source Test: 

 The Plan states that U.S. EPA Method 308 sampling trains would be performed 

according the Component 4 of the ICR. Component 4 of the ICR allows U.S. EPA 

Method 308 for the measurement of methanol provided that sample results are above 

applicable method detection limits (MDLs). Sample results for methanol were below 

MDLs during Runs 8, 9 and 11. See Section 5.0 for details on the impact of this 

deviation on the Source Test QA/QC objectives. 

Table 3-5. Summary of Method 308 Methanol Sampling

Condition Overall 

Run Sorbent Type Date Time 

Sample 

Volume 

(dsL) 

A1 

8 Silica Gel 6/27/2011 11:46 - 13:26 96.109 

9 Silica Gel 6/28/2011 12:05 - 14:04 95.348 

11 Silica Gel 6/29/2011 10:00 - 11:40 98.619 

3.13 Selected Aldehydes, NH3 and HCN Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 320 

U.S. EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by 

Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,” was performed to quantify 

selected aldehydes (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and propanal), NH3, and HCN concentrations 

in the FCCU exhaust stack gas stream during the Source Test for ICR Groups A (A1), D (D1), 

and E, respectively. Additionally, the exhaust stack gas stream was monitored for several VOC 

HAP compounds in the event that U.S. EPA Method 18 QA/QC criteria were not achieved. 

These samples were extracted continuously from the FCCU exhaust stack gas stream at a 

constant rate and routed to an MKS Instruments Model 2030 Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 

spectrometer for analysis. U.S. EPA Method 320 is a “self-validating” method, and sample 

results are valid provided that the quality assurance criteria defined in the method are met during 

the validation procedures and quality assurance (QA) spikes. All FTIR quality assurance data is 

presented in Appendix K. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 

3.14 Speciated Hg Concentration by ASTM D6784-02 

Samples of the FCCU exhaust stack gas stream were collected isokinetically for the 

determination of speciated mercury emissions according ASTM Method D6784-02, “Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-11 40942312 

from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),” during the Source Test for ICR 

Group D (D2). The nitric acid probe and nozzle rinse, the filter, and the potassium chloride were 

analyzed for oxidized mercury by cold vapor atomic adsorption (CVAA). The nitric 

acid/hydrogen peroxide impingers and acidified potassium permanganate impingers were 

analyzed for elemental mercury by CVAA. Field sampling data sheets are presented in 

Appendix B. The full analytical report for speciated Hg is presented in Appendix L. No 

deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test. 

3.15 SVOC HAPs Concentrations by SW-846 Method 0010 

FCCU exhaust stack gas samples were collected for the determination of SVOC HAP emissions 

using SW-846 Method 0010, “Modified Method 5 Sampling Train,” during the Source Test for 

ICR Group A (A2). Sample gas was collected isokinetically, filtered, and passed through a 

sorbent module. The sorbent module consisted of a water-cooled condenser followed by the 

water-jacketed XAD-2 resin trap. Following the resin trap, the sample gas passed through a 

series of impingers. Samples were analyzed by GC/MS according to SW-846 Method 8270C. 

Field sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical report for SVOC 

HAPs is presented in Appendix M. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source 

Test. 

3.16 Cr6+ Concentration by SW-846 Method 0061 

Samples of the FCCU exhaust stack gas stream were collected isokinetically for the 

determination of Cr6+ emissions according to SW-846 Method 0061, “Determination of 

Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Stationary Sources,” during the Source Test for ICR 

Group D (D3). Field sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The following 

deviation from the Plan occurred during the Source Test: 

 The samples collected for Cr6+ were lost by the subcontracted hazardous materials 

shipper (Federal Express) during transit between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and 

the subcontracted analytical laboratory located in Durham, North Carolina 

(Enthalpy). No emissions results for Cr6+ are available for the Source Test. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-1 40942312 

4.0 Results and Calculations 

This section presents detailed analytical results from the Source Test of the FCCU exhaust stack. 

Some in-stack concentrations and mass emission rates are presented using a “<” before the 

numerical value to identify that at least one of the analytical values used in calculations is less 

than the applicable method detection limit. In addition, individual analytical results may be 

qualified as ‘BDL’ (below detection level), ‘DLL’ (detection level limited), or ‘ADL’ (above 

detection level) according to Appendix A of Component 4 of the ICR, if applicable. For 

measurements conducted using instrumental test methods or certified FCCU CEMS (i.e., for O2, 

CO2, SO2, NOX, CO or THC), gaseous concentrations are reported as measured and may include 

negative values due to normal and acceptable levels of system or analyzer bias. All calculations 

were performed prior to rounding, and are presented using at least two significant figures. 

4.1 ICR Group A Results and Calculations 

This section presents detailed analytical results from the Source Test for ICR Group A target 

compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stack. Results for THC, methane, ethane, CO, 

aldehydes, VOC HAPs and SVOC HAPs are presented in measurement units according to 

Component 4 of the ICR. 

In addition to the results for methanol according to U.S. EPA Method 308 (presented in Table 

4-11), methanol was monitored using FTIR, according to U.S. EPA Method 320 (presented in 

Table 4-6). The FTIR sampling during Group A testing agreed with the U.S. EPA Method 308 

results, in that no methanol was observed by either method. During testing for other groups, a 

small but detectable amount of methanol was observed using U.S. EPA Method 320. 

Table 4-1. THC Emission Results 

 Condition A3 

 Run 8 Run 9 Run 111

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 09:20-13:40 10:58-16:20 09:15-15:47 

 Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Moisture (%) 7.50 7.92 5.87 

THC Uncorrected Concentration (ppmvw) 

THC (as propane) 5.64 2.69 3.64 

THC Moisture-Corrected Concentration (ppmvd) 

THC (as propane) 6.10 2.92 3.87 

THC Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) 

THC (as propane) 1.99 0.947 1.28 

Average THC (as propane) 1.41 

1

 THC was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-2 40942312 

Table 4-2. Methane Emissions Results 

 Condition A3 

 Run 8 Run 9 Run 111

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 11:10-13:33 12:36-18:17 10:18-16:01 

Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Moisture (%) 7.50 7.92 5.87 

Methane Uncorrected Concentration (ppmvw) 

Methane <0.629 <0.629 <0.653 

Methane Moisture-Corrected Concentration (ppmvd) 

Methane <0.680 <0.683 <0.693 

Average Methane <0.686 

Methane Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) 

Methane <0.0807 <0.0804 <0.0833 

Average Methane <0.0815 

1

 Methane was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

Table 4-3. Ethane Emissions Results 

Condition A3 

 Run 8 Run 9 Run 111

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 11:10-13:33 12:36-18:17 10:18-16:01 

Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Moisture (%) 7.50 7.92 5.87 

Ethane Uncorrected Concentration (ppmvw) 

Ethane <1.96 <1.96 <1.96 

Ethane Moisture-Corrected Concentration (ppmvd) 

Ethane <2.12 <2.13 <2.08 

Average Ethane <2.11 

Ethane Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) 

Ethane <0.472 <0.470 <0.470 

Average Ethane <0.470 

1

 Ethane was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-3 40942312 

Table 4-4. CO Emissions Results 

Condition A3 

 Run 8 Run 9 Run 111

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 09:20-13:40 10:58-16:20 09:15-15:47 

Stack Volumetric Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

CO (ppmvd) 51.5 64.0 66.5 

Average CO (ppmvd) 60.7 

CO (lbs/hr) 10.7 13.3 13.9 

Average CO (lbs/hr) 12.6 

1

 CO was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

Table 4-5. Selected Aldehydes Emissions Results 

 Cond A1 Run 8 Cond A1 Run 9 Cond A1 Run 111 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 12:12-14:12 11:59-13:59 09:25-11:55 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Moisture (%) 7.50 7.92 5.87 

Stack Gas Wet Concentration (ppmvw) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

Formaldehyde 0.0967 <0.074 <0.074 

Acetaldehyde <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 

Propanal <0.38 <0.38 <0.38 

Stack Gas Dry Concentration (ppmvd) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

Formaldehyde 0.105 ADL <0.080 BDL <0.079 BDL 

Acetaldehyde <0.52 BDL <0.52 BDL <0.51 BDL 

Propanal <0.41 BDL <0.41 BDL <0.40 BDL 

Stack Gas Concentration (μg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Formaldehyde 131 ADL <100 BDL <98 BDL <110 

Acetaldehyde <950 BDL <960 BDL <940 BDL 947 

Propanal <990 BDL <1,000 BDL <980 BDL 989 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Formaldehyde 0.0233 ADL <0.0177 BDL <0.0177 BDL <0.020 

Acetaldehyde <0.169 BDL <0.169 BDL <0.169 BDL 0.169 

Propanal <0.177 BDL <0.176 BDL <0.176 BDL 0.176 

1

 Selected aldehydes were not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-4 40942312 

Table 4-6. VOC HAPs Analytical Results (FTIR) 

 Cond A1 Run 8 Cond A1 Run 9 Cond A1 Run 11 Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

 

Time 12:12-14:12 11:59-13:59 09:25-11:55 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Moisture (%) 7.50 7.92 5.87 

Stack Gas Wet Concentration (ppmvw) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

1,3-Butadiene <0.089 <0.097 <0.076 

Styrene <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 

Methanol <0.092 <0.092 <0.092 

Stack Gas Dry Concentration (ppmvd) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

1,3-Butadiene <0.096 BDL <0.11 BDL <0.081 BDL 

Styrene <0.22 BDL <0.22 BDL <0.21 BDL 

Methanol <0.099 BDL <0.100 BDL <0.098 BDL 

Stack Gas Concentration (μg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

1,3-Butadiene <220 BDL <240 BDL <180 BDL <210 

Styrene <940 BDL <940 BDL <920 BDL <930 

Methanol <130 BDL <130 BDL <130 BDL <130 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

1,3-Butadiene <0.0386 BDL <0.0419 BDL <0.0328 BDL <0.038 

Styrene <0.167 BDL <0.166 BDL <0.166 BDL <0.17 

Methanol <0.0236 BDL <0.0236 BDL <0.0235 BDL <0.024 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-5 40942312 

Table 4-7. VOC HAPs Analytical Results (Bag Samples) 

 

Volume 

Collected 

(dsL) 

Bag 

(ppm) Flag Bag 

(μg) Flag Condensate 

(μg) Flag Totals 

(μg) 

Condition A1 Run 8 6.285 

Acetone 

 

<0.383 <5.83 <7.60 <13.4 

Acrolein <0.296 <4.35 <12.8 <17.1 

Benzene <0.241 <4.93 <11.0 <15.9 

1,3-Butadiene2 <0.509 <7.21 <12.9 <20.1 

Carbon Disulfide <0.00886 <0.177 <4.27 <4.45 

1,2-Dibromoethane <0.257 <12.6 <29.8 <42.4 

Hexane <0.229 <5.17 <9.22 <14.4 

Methylene Chloride <0.930 <20.7 <22.3 <43.0 

Pentane <0.257 <4.86 <20.2 <25.1 

Tetrachloroethene <0.291 <12.6 <59.2 <71.8 

Trichloroethene <0.367 <12.6 <12.5 <25.1 

Toluene <0.248 <5.98 <21.5 <27.5 

Condition A1 Run 9 5.846 

Acetone 

 

<0.383 <5.42 <7.60 <13.0 

Acrolein <0.296 <4.04 <12.8 <16.8 

Benzene <0.241 <4.58 <11.0 <15.6 

1,3-Butadiene2 <0.509 <6.71 <12.9 <19.6 

Carbon Disulfide <0.00886 <0.164 <4.27 <4.43 

1,2-Dibromoethane <0.257 <11.8 <29.8 <41.6 

Hexane <0.229 <4.81 <9.22 <14.0 

Methylene Chloride <0.930 <19.2 <22.3 <41.5 

Pentane <0.257 <4.52 <20.2 <24.7 

Tetrachloroethene <0.291 <11.8 <59.2 <71.0 

Trichloroethene <0.367 <11.7 <12.5 <24.2 

Toluene <0.248 <5.56 <21.5 <27.1 

Condition A1 Run 111 4.706 

Acetone 

 

<0.383 <4.36 <7.60 <12.0 

Acrolein <0.296 <3.26 <12.8 <16.1 

Benzene <0.241 <3.69 <11.0 <14.7 

1,3-Butadiene2 <0.509 <5.40 <12.9 <18.3 

Carbon Disulfide <0.00886 <0.132 <4.27 <4.40 

1,2-Dibromoethane <0.257 <9.47 <29.8 <39.3 

Hexane <0.229 <3.87 <9.22 <13.1 

Methylene Chloride <0.930 <15.5 <22.3 <37.8 

Pentane <0.257 <3.64 <20.2 <23.8 

Tetrachloroethene <0.291 <9.46 <59.2 <68.7 

Trichloroethene <0.367 <9.46 <12.5 <22.0 

Toluene <0.248 <4.48 <21.5 <26.0 

1

 VOC HAPs were not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

2

 Laboratory spikes for 1,3-butadiene resulted in low spike recoveries. For more details, see Section 5.0. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-6 40942312 

Table 4-8. VOC HAPs Emissions Results (Bag Samples) 

 Cond A1 Run 8 Cond A1 Run 9 Cond A1 Run 111 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 11:46 - 13:26 12:05 - 14:05 10:00 - 11:40 

Volume Collected (dsL) 6.285 5.846 4.706 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Mass Found (μg) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

 

Acetone <13.4 BDL <13.0 BDL <12.0 BDL 

Acrolein <17.1 BDL <16.8 BDL <16.1 BDL 

Benzene <15.9 BDL <15.6 BDL <14.7 BDL 

1,3-Butadiene2 <20.1 BDL <19.6 BDL <18.3 BDL 

Carbon Disulfide <4.45 BDL <4.43 BDL <4.40 BDL 

1,2-Dibromoethane <42.4 BDL <41.6 BDL <39.3 BDL 

Hexane <14.4 BDL <14.0 BDL <13.1 BDL 

Methylene Chloride <43.0 BDL <41.5 BDL <37.8 BDL 

Pentane <25.1 BDL <24.7 BDL <23.8 BDL 

Tetrachloroethene <71.8 BDL <71.0 BDL <68.7 BDL 

Trichloroethene <25.1 BDL <24.2 BDL <22.0 BDL 

Toluene <27.5 BDL <27.1 BDL <26.0 BDL 

Stack Gas Concentration (ug/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Acetone <2,100 BDL <2,200 BDL <2,500 BDL <2,300 

Acrolein <2,700 BDL <2,900 BDL <3,400 BDL <3,000 

Benzene <2,500 BDL <2,700 BDL <3,100 BDL <2,800 

1,3-Butadiene2 <3,200 BDL <3,400 BDL <3,900 BDL <3,500 

Carbon Disulfide <710 BDL <760 BDL <940 BDL <800 

1,2-Dibromoethane <6,800 BDL <7,100 BDL <8,300 BDL <7,400 

Hexane <2,300 BDL <2,400 BDL <2,800 BDL <2,500 

Methylene Chloride <6,800 BDL <7,100 BDL <8,000 BDL <7,300 

Pentane <4,000 BDL <4,200 BDL <5,100 BDL <4,400 

Tetrachloroethene <11,000 BDL <12,000 BDL <15,000 BDL <13,000 

Trichloroethene <4,000 BDL <4,100 BDL <4,700 BDL <4,300 

Toluene <4,400 BDL <4,600 BDL <5,500 BDL <4,800 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Acetone <0.38 BDL <0.39 BDL <0.46 BDL <0.41 

Acrolein <0.49 BDL <0.51 BDL <0.62 BDL <0.54 

Benzene <0.45 BDL <0.47 BDL <0.56 BDL <0.50 

1,3-Butadiene2 <0.57 BDL <0.59 BDL <0.70 BDL <0.62 

Carbon Disulfide <0.13 BDL <0.13 BDL <0.17 BDL <0.14 

1,2-Dibromoethane <1.2 BDL <1.3 BDL <1.5 BDL <1.3 

Hexane <0.41 BDL <0.42 BDL <0.50 BDL <0.44 

Methylene Chloride <1.2 BDL <1.3 BDL <1.4 BDL <1.3 

Pentane <0.71 BDL <0.75 BDL <0.91 BDL <0.79 

Tetrachloroethene <2.0 BDL <2.1 BDL <2.6 BDL <2.3 

Trichloroethene <0.71 BDL <0.73 BDL <0.84 BDL <0.76 

Toluene <0.78 BDL <0.82 BDL <1.00 BDL <0.86 

1

 VOC HAPs were not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

2

 Laboratory spikes for 1,3-butadiene resulted in low spike recoveries. For more details, see Section 5.0. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-7 40942312 

Table 4-9. VOC HAPs Analytical Results (Sorbent Samples) 

 Cond Ext 

(μg) Flag XAD FH 

(μg) Flag XAD BH 

(μg) Flag CT FH 

(μg) Flag CT BH 

(μg) Flag Totals 

(μg) 

Condition A1 Run 8 

Acetonitrile R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

Acrylonitrile <1.27 <1.03 <1.03 <1.03 <1.03 <5.39 

Chlorobenzene <1.34 <1.08 <1.08 <1.08 <1.08 <5.66 

Cumene <1.30 <1.06 <1.06 <1.06 <1.06 <5.54 

Ethylbenzene <1.37 <1.11 <1.11 <1.11 <1.11 <5.81 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <1.07 <0.868 <0.868 <0.868 <0.868 <4.54 

Methyl t-Butyl Ether <0.943 <0.764 <0.764 <0.764 <0.764 <4.00 

Nitrobenzene <1.53 <1.24 <1.24 <1.24 <1.24 <6.49 

2-Nitropropane <1.36 <1.10 <1.10 <1.10 <1.10 <5.76 

Styrene2 <10.4 <8.45 <8.45 <8.45 <8.45 <44.2 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <0.846 <0.685 <0.685 <0.685 <0.685 <3.59 

o-Xylene <1.27 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <5.35 

m/p-Xylene <1.26 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <5.34 

Condition A1 Run 9 

Acetonitrile R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

Acrylonitrile <1.27 <1.03 <1.03 <1.03 <1.03 <5.39 

Chlorobenzene <1.34 <1.08 <1.08 <1.08 <1.08 <5.66 

Cumene <1.30 <1.06 <1.06 <1.06 <1.06 <5.54 

Ethylbenzene <1.37 <1.11 <1.11 <1.11 <1.11 <5.81 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <1.07 <0.868 <0.868 <0.868 <0.868 <4.54 

Methyl t-Butyl Ether <0.943 <0.764 <0.764 <0.764 <0.764 <4.00 

Nitrobenzene <1.53 <1.24 <1.24 <1.24 <1.24 <6.49 

2-Nitropropane <1.36 <1.10 <1.10 <1.10 <1.10 <5.76 

Styrene2 <10.4 <8.45 <8.45 <8.45 <8.45 <44.2 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <0.846 <0.685 <0.685 <0.685 <0.685 <3.59 

o-Xylene <1.27 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <5.35 

m/p-Xylene <1.26 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <5.34 

Condition A1 Run 113 

Acetonitrile R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

Acrylonitrile <1.26 <1.03 <1.03 <1.03 <1.03 <5.38

Chlorobenzene <1.33 <1.08 <1.08 <1.08 <1.08 <5.65

Cumene <1.30 <1.06 <1.06 <1.06 <1.06 <5.54

Ethylbenzene <1.37 <1.11 <1.11 <1.11 <1.11 <5.81

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <1.07 <0.868 <0.868 <0.868 <0.868 <4.54

Methyl t-Butyl Ether <0.941 <0.764 <0.764 <0.764 <0.764 <4.00

Nitrobenzene <1.53 <1.24 <1.24 <1.24 <1.24 <6.49

2-Nitropropane <1.36 <1.10 <1.10 <1.10 <1.10 <5.76

Styrene2 <10.4 <8.45 <8.45 <8.45 <8.45 <44.2

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <0.844 <0.685 <0.685 <0.685 <0.685 <3.58

o-Xylene <1.26 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <5.34

m/p-Xylene <1.26 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <1.02 <5.34

1

 R = Data rejected during URS quality review. See Section 5.0 for more details. 

2

 Laboratory pre-spikes for styrene resulted in low spike recoveries. For more details, see Section 5.0. 

3

 VOC HAPs were not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-8 40942312 

Table 4-10. VOC HAPs Emissions Results (Sorbent Samples) 

 Cond A1 Run 8 Cond A1 Run 9 Cond A1 Run 111 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 11:46 - 13:26 12:05 - 14:05 10:00 - 11:40 

Volume Collected (dsL) 91.016 91.984 90.857 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Mass Found (μg) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

 

Acetonitrile R2 R2 R2 

Acrylonitrile <5.39 BDL <5.39 BDL <5.38 BDL 

Chlorobenzene <5.66 BDL <5.66 BDL <5.65 BDL 

Cumene <5.54 BDL <5.54 BDL <5.54 BDL 

Ethylbenzene <5.81 BDL <5.81 BDL <5.81 BDL 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <4.54 BDL <4.54 BDL <4.54 BDL 

Methyl t-Butyl Ether <4.00 BDL <4.00 BDL <4.00 BDL 

Nitrobenzene <6.49 BDL <6.49 BDL <6.49 BDL 

2-Nitropropane <5.76 BDL <5.76 BDL <5.76 BDL 

Styrene3 <44.2 BDL <44.2 BDL <44.2 BDL 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <3.59 BDL <3.59 BDL <3.58 BDL 

o-Xylene <5.35 BDL <5.35 BDL <5.34 BDL 

m/p-Xylene <5.34 BDL <5.34 BDL <5.34 BDL 

Stack Gas Concentration 

(ug/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Acetonitrile R2 R2 R2 R2

Acrylonitrile <59 BDL <59 BDL <59 BDL <59 

Chlorobenzene <62 BDL <62 BDL <62 BDL <62 

Cumene <61 BDL <60 BDL <61 BDL <61 

Ethylbenzene <64 BDL <63 BDL <64 BDL <64 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <50 BDL <49 BDL <50 BDL <50 

Methyl t-Butyl Ether <44 BDL <43 BDL <44 BDL <44 

Nitrobenzene <71 BDL <71 BDL <71 BDL <71 

2-Nitropropane <63 BDL <63 BDL <63 BDL <63 

Styrene3 <490 BDL <480 BDL <490 BDL <480 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <39 BDL <39 BDL <39 BDL <39 

o-Xylene <59 BDL <58 BDL <59 BDL <59 

m/p-Xylene <59 BDL <58 BDL <59 BDL <58 

1

 VOC HAPs were not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 2 R = Data rejected during URS quality review. See Section 5.0 for more details. 

3

 Laboratory pre-spikes for styrene resulted in low spike recoveries. For more details, see Section 5.0. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-9 40942312 

Table 4-10. VOC HAPs Emissions Results (Sorbent Samples) (Continued) 

 Cond A1 Run 8 Cond A1 Run 9 Cond A1 Run 111 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 11:46 - 13:26 12:05 - 14:05 10:00 - 11:40 

Volume Collected (dsL) 91.016 91.984 90.857 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Acetonitrile R2 R2 R2 R2

Acrylonitrile <0.011 BDL <0.010 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 

Chlorobenzene <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 

Cumene <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 

Ethylbenzene <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.011 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <0.0089 BDL <0.0087 BDL <0.0090 BDL <0.0089 

Methyl t-Butyl Ether <0.0078 BDL <0.0077 BDL <0.0079 BDL <0.0078 

Nitrobenzene <0.013 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.013 BDL <0.013 

2-Nitropropane <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.011 

Styrene <0.086 BDL <0.085 BDL <0.088 BDL <0.086 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <0.0070 BDL <0.0069 BDL <0.0071 BDL <0.0070 

o-Xylene <0.010 BDL <0.010 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.010 

p-Xylene <0.010 BDL <0.010 BDL <0.011 BDL <0.010 

1

 VOC HAPs were not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 2 R = Data rejected during URS quality review. See Section 5.0 for more details. 

3

 Laboratory pre-spikes for styrene resulted in low spike recoveries. For more details, see Section 5.0. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-10 40942312 

Table 4-11. VOC HAPs Analytical Results (Methanol) 

 Cond A 

(μg) Flag Cond B 

(μg) Flag SG-FH 

(μg) Flag SG-BH 

(μg) Flag Totals 

(μg) 

Condition A1 Run 8 

Methanol <6.76 <6.78 <0.790 <0.790 <15.1 

Condition A1 Run 9 

Methanol <6.67 <6.76 <0.790 <0.790 <15.0 

Condition A1 Run 11 

Methanol <6.64 <6.76 <0.790 <0.790 <15.0 

Table 4-12. VOC HAPs Emission Results (Methanol) 

 Cond A1 Run 8 Cond A1 Run 9 Cond A1 Run 111 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 11:46 - 13:26 12:05 - 14:04 10:00 - 11:40 

Volume Collected (dsL) 96.109 95.348 98.619 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Mass Found (μg) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

Methanol <15.1 <15.0 <15.0 

Stack Gas Concentration (μg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Methanol <157 BDL <157 BDL <152 BDL <156 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Methanol <0.028 BDL <0.028 BDL <0.027 BDL <0.028 

1

 Methanol was not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-11 40942312 

Table 4-13. SVOC HAP Emissions Results1 

 Cond A2 Run 8 Cond A2 Run 9 Cond A2 Run 112 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 09:20-13:40 10:58-15:22 09:15-13:21 

Volume (dscf) 150.215 149.742 150.947 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Mass Found (ug) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

Acenaphthene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Acenaphthylene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Aniline <3.47 30.8 <3.47 

Anthracene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Benzidine R3 R3 R3 

Benz[a]anthracene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Benzo[a]pyrene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Benzo[e]pyrene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Biphenyl <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 

Chrysene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Dibenzofuran <3.44 <3.44 <3.44 

Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine R3 R3 R3 

Dimethylaminobenzene <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine R3 R3 R3 

α,α-Dimethylphenethylamine R3 R3 R3 

2,4-Dimethylphenol <3.64 <3.64 <3.64 

Fluoranthene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Fluorene 0.0695 0.0745 0.100 

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Isophorone <3.74 <3.74 <3.74 

3-Methylcholanthrene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

2-Methylnaphthalene 0.209 0.155 0.136 

2-Methylphenol <3.39 <3.39 <3.39 

3/4-Methylphenol <2.95 <2.95 <2.95 

Naphthalene 2.68 2.58 1.89 

Perylene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Phenanthrene 0.0671 0.0624 0.0514 

Phenol 22.6 J 26.3 30.9 

1,4-Phenylenediamine R3 R3 R3 

Pyrene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

o-Toluidine <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-12 40942312 

Table 4-13. SVOC HAP Emissions Results (Continued)1

 Cond A2 Run 8 Cond A2 Run 9 Cond A2 Run 11 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 09:20-13:40 10:58-15:22 09:15-13:21 

Volume (dscf) 150.215 149.742 150.947 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Stack Gas Concentration (ug/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Acenaphthene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Acenaphthylene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Aniline <0.82 BDL 7.26 ADL <0.81 BDL <3.0 

Anthracene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Benzidine R3 R3 R3 R3

Benz[a]anthracene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Benzo[a]pyrene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Benzo[e]pyrene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Biphenyl <1.2 BDL <1.2 BDL <1.2 BDL <1.2 

Chrysene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Dibenzofuran <0.81 BDL <0.81 BDL <0.80 BDL <0.81 

Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine R3 R3 R3 R3

Dimethylaminobenzene <1.2 BDL <1.2 BDL <1.2 BDL <1.2 

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine R3 R3 R3 R3

α,α-Dimethylphenethylamine R3 R3 R3 R3

2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.86 BDL <0.86 BDL <0.85 BDL <0.86 

Fluoranthene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Fluorene 0.0163 ADL 0.0176 ADL 0.0234 ADL 0.0191 

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Isophorone <0.88 BDL <0.88 BDL <0.87 BDL <0.88 

3-Methylcholanthrene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0491 ADL 0.0366 ADL 0.0318 ADL 0.0392 

2-Methylphenol <0.80 BDL <0.80 BDL <0.79 BDL <0.80 

3/4-Methylphenol <0.69 BDL <0.70 BDL <0.69 BDL <0.69 

Naphthalene 0.630 ADL 0.608 ADL 0.442 ADL 0.560 

Perylene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

Phenanthrene 0.0158 ADL 0.0147 ADL 0.0120 ADL 0.0142 

Phenol 5.31 ADL 6.20 ADL 7.23 ADL 6.25 

1,4-Phenylenediamine R3 R3 R3 R3

Pyrene <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 BDL <0.012 

o-Toluidine <1.2 BDL <1.2 BDL <1.2 BDL <1.2 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-13 40942312 

Table 4-13. SVOC HAP Emissions Results (Continued)1

 Cond A2 Run 8 Cond A2 Run 9 Cond A2 Run 112 

Average 

Date 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 

Time 09:20-13:40 10:58-15:22 09:15-13:21 

Volume (dscf) 150.215 149.742 150.947 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,540 47,149 48,146 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Acenaphthene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Acenaphthylene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Aniline <1.5E-04 BDL 1.28E-03 ADL <1.5E-04 BDL <5.2E-04 

Anthracene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Benzidine R3 R3 R3 R3

Benz[a]anthracene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Benzo[a]pyrene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Benzo[e]pyrene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Biphenyl <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 

Chrysene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Dibenzofuran <1.4E-04 BDL <1.4E-04 BDL <1.5E-04 BDL <1.4E-04 

Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine R3 R3 BDL R3 BDL <2.1E-04 

Dimethylaminobenzene <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine R3 R3 R3 R3

α,α-Dimethylphenethylamine R3 R3 R3 R3

2,4-Dimethylphenol <1.5E-04 BDL <1.5E-04 BDL <1.5E-04 BDL <1.5E-04 

Fluoranthene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Fluorene 2.91E-06 ADL 3.10E-06 ADL 4.22E-06 ADL 3.41E-06 

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Isophorone <1.6E-04 BDL <1.6E-04 BDL <1.6E-04 BDL <1.6E-04 

3-Methylcholanthrene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

2-Methylnaphthalene 8.75E-06 ADL 6.46E-06 ADL 5.74E-06 ADL 6.98E-06 

2-Methylphenol <1.4E-04 BDL <1.4E-04 BDL <1.4E-04 BDL <1.4E-04 

3/4-Methylphenol <1.2E-04 BDL <1.2E-04 BDL <1.2E-04 BDL <1.2E-04 

Naphthalene 1.12E-04 ADL 1.07E-04 ADL 7.97E-05 ADL 9.98E-05 

Perylene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

Phenanthrene 2.81E-06 ADL 2.60E-06 ADL 2.17E-06 ADL 2.53E-06 

Phenol 9.46E-04 ADL 1.10E-03 ADL 1.30E-03 ADL 1.12E-03 

1,4-Phenylenediamine R3 R3 R3 R3

Pyrene <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 BDL <2.1E-06 

o-Toluidine <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 BDL <2.1E-04 

1 Analytical results biased low because samples were stored above 4°C upon arrival at analytical laboratory. For more details, see Section 5.0. 

2 Methanol was not measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

3

 R = Data rejected during URS quality review. See Section 5.0 for more details. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-14 40942312 

4.2 ICR Group B Results and Calculations 

This section presents detailed analytical results from the Source Test for ICR Group B target 

compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stack. Results for PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs are 

presented in measurement units according to Component 4 of the ICR. Seven PCDD and ten 

PCDF congeners, all 2,3,7,8-substituted, are speciated. In addition, total tetra- through octachlorinated and other tetra- through octa-chlorinated (i.e., total minus 2,3,7,8-substituted) 

congeners are reported. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-15 40942312 

Table 4-14. PCDDs/PCDFs Emission Results 

 Cond B Run 1 Cond B Run 31 Cond B Run 8 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 6/27/2011 

Time 13:06-16:36 09:42-13:06 10:10-13:38 

Volume (dscf) 121.596 112.371 117.664 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 49,086 46,046 47,228 

Mass Found (pg) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

2,3,7,8-TCDD <5.9 <27 <5.2 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD <2.8 <12 <2.6 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD <2.7 <13 <2.9 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD <2.7 17 EMPC|J <2.8 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD <2.7 <13 <2.8 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 5.6 EMPC|J <15 <3.4 

OCDD 47 J 45 J 13 EMPC|J 

Total TCDD 6.4 J <27 <5.2 

Total PeCDD 2.1 EMPC|J 20 EMPC|J 2.4 EMPC|J 

Total HxCDD 18 EMPC|J 120 EMPC|J 20 EMPC|J 

Total HpCDD 5.6 EMPC|J <15 <3.4 

Total Dioxins 79.1 ADL 227 DLL 44.0 DLL 

Other TCDD 0.500 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 

Other PeCDD 0 DLL 8.00 DLL 0 DLL 

Other HxCDD 9.90 DLL 77.0 DLL 11.5 DLL 

Other HpCDD 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 

2,3,7,8-TCDF <3.7 <17 <3.3 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF <2.1 <11 <2.3 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF <2.2 7.5 EMPC|J <2.4 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.3 J <7.5 <1.8 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.9 EMPC|J <6.7 <1.6 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF <1.5 <8.1 <2 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF <1.3 <7.1 <1.7 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 42 J 30 EMPC|J 5.4 EMPC|J 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 9.2 EMPC|J <13 <2.7 

OCDF 140 J 68 EMPC|J 19 J 

Total TCDF <3.7 <17 <3.3 

Total PeCDF 9.6 EMPC|J 32 EMPC|J <2.3 

Total HxCDF 27 EMPC|J <7.3 9.8 EMPC|J 

Total HpCDF 68 EMPC|J 51 EMPC|J 5.4 EMPC|J 

Total Furans 248 DLL 175 DLL 39.8 DLL 

Other TCDF 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 

Other PeCDF 5.30 DLL 13.5 DLL 0 DLL 

Other HxCDF 15.0 DLL 0 DLL 2.70 DLL 

Other HpCDF 16.8 ADL 8.00 DLL 0 DLL 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-16 40942312 

Table 4-14. PCDDs/PCDFs Emissions Results (Continued) 

 Cond B Run 1 Cond B Run 31 Cond B Run 8 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 6/27/2011 

Time 13:06-16:36 09:42-13:06 10:10-13:38 

Volume (dscf) 121.596 112.371 117.664 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 49,086 46,046 47,228 

Stack Gas Concentration 

(pg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

2,3,7,8-TCDD <1.7 BDL <8.5 BDL <1.6 BDL <3.9 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD <0.81 BDL <3.8 BDL <0.78 BDL <1.8 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD <0.78 BDL <4.1 BDL <0.87 BDL <1.9 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD <0.78 BDL 5.34 DLL <0.84 BDL <2.3 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD <0.78 BDL <4.1 BDL <0.84 BDL <1.9 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.63 DLL <4.7 BDL <1.0 BDL <2.5 

OCDD 13.7 ADL 14.1 ADL 3.90 DLL 10.6 

Total TCDD 1.86 ADL <8.5 BDL <1.6 BDL <4.0 

Total PeCDD 0.610 DLL 6.29 DLL 0.720 DLL 2.54 

Total HxCDD 5.23 DLL 37.7 DLL 6.00 DLL 16.3 

Total HpCDD 1.63 DLL <4.7 BDL <1.0 BDL <2.5 

Total Dioxins 23.0 ADL 71.3 DLL 13.2 DLL 0 

Other TCDD 0.145 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 0.0484 

Other PeCDD 0 DLL 2.51 DLL 0 DLL 0.838 

Other HxCDD 2.88 DLL 24.2 DLL 3.45 DLL 10.2 

Other HpCDD 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 

2,3,7,8-TCDF <1.1 BDL <5.3 BDL <0.99 BDL <2.5 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF <0.61 BDL <3.5 BDL <0.69 BDL <1.6 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF <0.64 BDL 2.36 DLL <0.72 BDL <1.2 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.83 ADL <2.4 BDL <0.54 BDL <1.6 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.842 DLL <2.1 BDL <0.48 BDL <1.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF <0.44 BDL <2.5 BDL <0.60 BDL <1.2 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF <0.38 BDL <2.2 BDL <0.51 BDL <1.0 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 12.2 ADL 9.43 DLL 1.62 DLL 7.75 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.67 DLL <4.1 BDL <0.81 BDL <2.5 

OCDF 40.7 ADL 21.4 DLL 5.70 ADL 22.6 

Total TCDF <1.1 BDL <5.3 BDL <0.99 BDL <2.5 

Total PeCDF 2.79 DLL 10.1 DLL <0.69 BDL <4.5 

Total HxCDF 7.84 DLL <2.3 BDL 2.94 DLL <4.4 

Total HpCDF 19.7 DLL 16.0 DLL 1.62 DLL 12.5 

Total Furans 72.1 DLL 55.1 DLL 11.9 DLL 0 

Other TCDF 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 

Other PeCDF 1.54 DLL 4.24 DLL 0 DLL 1.93 

Other HxCDF 4.36 DLL 0 DLL 0.810 DLL 1.72 

Other HpCDF 4.88 ADL 2.51 DLL 0 DLL 2.46 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-17 40942312 

Table 4-14. PCDDs/PCDFs Emissions Results (Continued) 

 Cond B Run 1 Cond B Run 31 Cond B Run 8 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 6/27/2011 

Time 13:06-16:36 09:42-13:06 10:10-13:38 

Volume (dscf) 121.596 112.371 117.664 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 49,086 46,046 47,228 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

2,3,7,8-TCDD <3.2E-10 BDL <1.5E-09 BDL <2.8E-10 BDL <6.8E-10 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD <1.5E-10 BDL <6.5E-10 BDL <1.4E-10 BDL <3.1E-10 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD <1.4E-10 BDL <7.0E-10 BDL <1.5E-10 BDL <3.3E-10 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD <1.4E-10 BDL 9.21E-10 DLL <1.5E-10 BDL <4.0E-10 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD <1.4E-10 BDL <7.0E-10 BDL <1.5E-10 BDL <3.3E-10 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.99E-10 DLL <8.1E-10 BDL <1.8E-10 BDL <4.3E-10 

OCDD 2.51E-09 ADL 2.44E-09 ADL 6.90E-10 DLL 1.88E-09 

Total TCDD 3.42E-10 ADL <1.5E-09 BDL <2.8E-10 BDL <6.9E-10 

Total PeCDD 1.12E-10 DLL 1.08E-09 DLL 1.27E-10 DLL 4.41E-10 

Total HxCDD 9.61E-10 DLL 6.50E-09 DLL 1.06E-09 DLL 2.84E-09 

Total HpCDD 2.99E-10 DLL <8.1E-10 BDL <1.8E-10 BDL <4.3E-10 

Total Dioxins 4.22E-09 ADL 1.23E-08 DLL 2.34E-09 DLL 6.29E-09 

Other TCDD 2.67E-11 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 8.90E-12 

Other PeCDD 0 DLL 4.34E-10 DLL 0 DLL 1.45E-10 

Other HxCDD 5.29E-10 DLL 4.17E-09 DLL 6.11E-10 DLL 1.77E-09 

Other HpCDD 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 

2,3,7,8-TCDF <2.0E-10 BDL <9.2E-10 BDL <1.8E-10 BDL <4.3E-10 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF <1.1E-10 BDL <6.0E-10 BDL <1.2E-10 BDL <2.8E-10 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF <1.2E-10 BDL 4.07E-10 DLL <1.3E-10 BDL <2.2E-10 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 3.36E-10 ADL <4.1E-10 BDL <9.6E-11 BDL <2.8E-10 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.55E-10 DLL <3.6E-10 BDL <8.5E-11 BDL <2.0E-10 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF <8.0E-11 BDL <4.4E-10 BDL <1.1E-10 BDL <2.1E-10 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF <6.9E-11 BDL <3.8E-10 BDL <9.0E-11 BDL <1.8E-10 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.24E-09 ADL 1.63E-09 DLL 2.87E-10 DLL 1.39E-09 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 4.91E-10 DLL <7.0E-10 BDL <1.4E-10 BDL <4.5E-10 

OCDF 7.48E-09 ADL 3.69E-09 DLL 1.01E-09 ADL 4.06E-09 

Total TCDF <2.0E-10 BDL <9.2E-10 BDL <1.8E-10 BDL <4.3E-10 

Total PeCDF 5.13E-10 DLL 1.73E-09 DLL <1.2E-10 BDL <7.9E-10 

Total HxCDF 1.44E-09 DLL <4.0E-10 BDL 5.20E-10 DLL <7.9E-10 

Total HpCDF 3.63E-09 DLL 2.76E-09 DLL 2.87E-10 DLL 2.23E-09 

Total Furans 1.33E-08 DLL 9.50E-09 DLL 2.11E-09 DLL 8.29E-09 

Other TCDF 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 DLL 0 

Other PeCDF 2.83E-10 DLL 7.32E-10 DLL 0 DLL 3.38E-10 

Other HxCDF 8.01E-10 DLL 0 DLL 1.43E-10 DLL 3.15E-10 

Other HpCDF 8.97E-10 ADL 4.34E-10 DLL 0 DLL 4.44E-10 

1

 PCDDs/PCDFs were measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 09:44-10:04 during Run 3. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-18 40942312 

Table 4-15. PCBs Emissions Results 

 Cond B Run 1 Cond B Run 31 Cond B Run 8 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 6/27/2011 

Time 13:06-16:36 09:42-13:06 10:10-13:38 

Volume (dscf) 121.596 112.371 117.664 

Stack Gas Flow Rate 

(dscfm) 49,086 46,046 47,228 

Mass Found (ng) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

3,3',4,4'-TCB (#77) 0.022 B|J 0.015 B|J 0.014 EMPC|B|J 

3,4,4',5-TCB (#81) <0.0062 <0.0047 <0.0067 

2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB (#105) 0.1 EMPC|J 0.067 EMPC|J 0.033 EMPC|J 

2,3,4,4',5-PeCB (#114) <0.0054 <0.0043 <0.0062 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#118) 0.27 0.19 0.11 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#123) 0.014 J <0.005 <0.0071 

3,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#126) <0.0059 <0.0045 <0.0064 

2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB (#156) <0.0099 0.012 EMPC|C|J <0.01 

2,3,4',4,4',5'-HxCB (#157) <0.0099 0.012 EMPC|C|J <0.01 

2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#167) <0.0067 <0.0051 <0.0069 

3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#169) <0.0069 <0.0053 <0.007 

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB (#189) <0.0056 <0.0049 <0.0063 

Stack Gas Concentration 

(pg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

3,3',4,4'-TCB (#77) 6.39 ADL 4.71 ADL 4.20 ADL 5.10 

3,4,4',5-TCB (#81) <1.8 BDL <1.5 BDL <2.0 BDL <1.8 

2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB (#105) 29.0 BDL 21.1 BDL 9.90 BDL 20.0 

2,3,4,4',5-PeCB (#114) <1.6 BDL <1.4 BDL <1.9 BDL <1.6 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#118) 78.4 ADL 59.7 ADL 33.0 ADL 57.0 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#123) 4.07 ADL <1.6 BDL <2.1 BDL <2.6 

3,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#126) <1.7 BDL <1.4 BDL <1.9 BDL <1.7 

2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB (#156) <2.9 BDL 3.77 ADL <3.0 BDL <3.2 

2,3,4',4,4',5'-HxCB (#157) <2.9 BDL 3.77 ADL <3.0 BDL <3.2 

2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#167) <1.9 BDL <1.6 BDL <2.1 BDL <1.9 

3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#169) <2.0 BDL <1.7 BDL <2.1 BDL <1.9 

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB (#189) <1.6 BDL <1.5 BDL <1.9 BDL <1.7 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

3,3',4,4'-TCB (#77) 1.17E-09 ADL 8.13E-10 ADL 7.43E-10 ADL 9.10E-10 

3,4,4',5-TCB (#81) <3.3E-10 BDL <2.5E-10 BDL <3.6E-10 BDL <3.1E-10 

2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB (#105) 5.34E-09 BDL 3.63E-09 BDL 1.75E-09 BDL 3.57E-09 

2,3,4,4',5-PeCB (#114) <2.9E-10 BDL <2.3E-10 BDL <3.3E-10 BDL <2.8E-10 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#118) 1.44E-08 ADL 1.03E-08 ADL 5.84E-09 ADL 1.02E-08 

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#123) 7.48E-10 ADL <2.7E-10 BDL <3.8E-10 BDL <4.7E-10 

3,3',4,4',5-PeCB (#126) <3.2E-10 BDL <2.4E-10 BDL <3.4E-10 BDL <3.0E-10 

2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB (#156) <5.3E-10 BDL 6.50E-10 ADL <5.3E-10 BDL <5.7E-10 

2,3,4',4,4',5'-HxCB (#157) <5.3E-10 BDL 6.50E-10 ADL <5.3E-10 BDL <5.7E-10 

2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#167) <3.6E-10 BDL <2.8E-10 BDL <3.7E-10 BDL <3.3E-10 

3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (#169) <3.7E-10 BDL <2.9E-10 BDL <3.7E-10 BDL <3.4E-10 

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB (#189) <3.0E-10 BDL <2.7E-10 BDL <3.3E-10 BDL <3.0E-10 

1

 PCBs were measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 09:44-10:04 during Run 3. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-19 40942312 

4.3 ICR Group D Results and Calculations 

This section presents detailed analytical results from the Source Test for ICR Group D target 

compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stack. Results for SO2, NOX, NH3, PM2.5-FILT, 

PM2.5-CON, total filterable PM, other metals, speciated Hg are presented in measurement units 

according to Component 4 of the ICR. Cr6+ results were not obtained during the Source Test. 

Table 4-16. SO2 and NOX Emissions Results 

 Condition D1/D2/D4 Condition D3/D4 

 Run 51 Run 61 Run 7 Run 9 Run 111 Run 12 

Date 6/24/2011 6/24/2011 6/26/2011 6/28/2011 6/29/2011 6/30/2011 

Time 09:32-13:31 15:20-19:42 

09:10-09:36, 

09:55-12:01, 

16:32-17:40 

10:58-16:20 09:15-15:47 08:47-12:08 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,806 47,538 47,760 46,927 45,521 46,262 

NOx (ppmvd) 41.9 42.4 38.5 62.1 57.9 54.5 

Average NOx (ppmvd) 40.9 58.2 

6-Run Average NOx (ppmvd) 49.6 

NOx (lb/hr) 14.4 14.5 13.2 20.9 18.9 18.1 

Average NOx (lb/hr) 14.0 19.3 

6-Run Average NOx (lb/hr) 16.7 

SO2 (ppmvd) 15.9 16.6 14.5 12.3 13.6 14.0 

Average SO2 (ppmvd) 15.7 13.3 

6-Run Average SO2 (ppmvd) 14.5 

SO2 (lb/hr) 7.60 7.88 6.91 5.76 6.18 6.47 

Average SO2 (lb/hr) 7.46 6.13 

6-Run Average SO2 (lb/hr) 6.80 

1

 NOX and SO2 were measured during the soot-blow events that occurred from 13:09-13:29 during Run 5, from 18:45-19:05 during Run 6, and 

from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11. 

Table 4-17. NH3 Emissions Results 

 Cond D1 Run 5 Cond D1 Run 61 Cond D1 Run 7 

Average 

Date 6/24/2011 6/24/2011 6/26/2011 

Time 09:51-11:40 15:27-18:32 10:35-12:00 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,806 47,538 47,760 

Moisture (%) 7.85 8.14 8.21 

Stack Gas Wet Concentration (ppmvw) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

NH3 0.856 0.833 0.915 

Stack Gas Dry Concentration (ppmvd) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

NH3 0.929 ADL 0.907 ADL 0.997 ADL 0.944 

Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

NH3 0.118 ADL 0.114 ADL 0.126 ADL 0.120 

 1 NH3 was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 18:45-19:05 during Run 6. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-20 40942312 

Table 4-18. PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON Emissions Results 

 Cond D1 Run 51 Cond D1 Run 61 Cond D1 Run 7 

Average 

Date 6/24/2011 6/24/2011 6/26/2011 

Time 09:32-13:24 16:00-19:33 

09:10-09:36, 

09:55-12:01, 

16:32-17:40 

Volume Collected (dscf) 62.304 67.929 75.787 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 48,767 49,864 48,147 

Mass Found (mg) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

PM2.5-FILT 25.5 25.2 25.7 

PM2.5-CON (Organic) 1.4 0.3 1.2 

PM2.5-CON (Inorganic) 8.1 19.8 24.0 

PM2.5 -FILT + PM2.5-CON 35.0 45.3 50.9 

Stack Gas Concentration (gr/dscf) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

PM2.5-FILT 0.00632 ADL 0.00572 ADL 0.00523 ADL 0.00576 

PM2.5-CON (Organic) 0.000347 ADL 0.0000681 ADL 0.000244 ADL 0.000220 

PM2.5-CON (Inorganic) 0.00201 ADL 0.00450 ADL 0.00489 ADL 0.00380 

PM2.5 -FILT + PM2.5-CON 0.00867 ADL 0.0103 ADL 0.0104 ADL 0.00977 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

PM2.5-FILT 2.64 ADL 2.45 ADL 2.16 ADL 2.42 

PM2.5-CON (Organic) 0.145 ADL 0.0291 ADL 0.101 ADL 0.0916 

PM2.5-CON (Inorganic) 0.839 ADL 1.92 ADL 2.02 ADL 1.59 

PM2.5 -FILT + PM2.5-CON 3.62 ADL 4.40 ADL 4.28 ADL 4.10 

1

 PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON were measured during the soot-blow events that occurred from 13:09-13:29 during Run 5 

and from 18:45-19:05 during Run 6. 

Table 4-19. Total Filterable PM Emissions Results 

 Cond D1 Run 51 Cond D1 Run 61 Cond D1 Run 7 

Average 

Date 6/24/2011 6/24/2011 6/26/2011 

Time 09:34-13:31 15:20-19:42 

09:10-09:36, 

09:55-12:01, 

16:32-17:38 

Volume Collected (dscf) 124.198 122.073 124.461 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,806 47,538 47,760 

Mass Found (g) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 Filterable PM - PNR 0.0146 0.0213 0.0150 

Filterable PM - Filter 0.0825 0.0669 0.0611 

Total Filterable PM 0.0971 0.0882 0.0761 

Stack Gas Concentration (gr/dscf) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Total Filterable PM 0.0121 ADL 0.0111 ADL 0.00943 ADL 0.0109 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Total Filterable PM 4.94 ADL 4.54 ADL 3.86 ADL 4.45 

1

 Total Filterable PM was measured during the soot-blow events that occurred from 13:09-13:29 during Run 5 and from 

18:45-19:05 during Run 6. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-21 40942312 

Table 4-20. Other Metals Analytical Results 

 Front-Half Fraction 

(μg) Flag Back-Half Fraction 

(μg) Flag Total 

 (μg) 

Condition D1 Run 51 

Antimony 1.8 J 0.02 B 1.82 

Arsenic 14.4 0.23 B 14.6 

Beryllium 0.1 B <0.012 <0.112 

Cadmium 0.11 B <0.011 <0.121 

Chromium 7.7 1.3 9.00 

Cobalt 22.9 0.04 B 22.9 

Lead 2.9 J 0.69 J 3.59 

Manganese 13.9 4.5 18.4 

Nickel 365 0.98 366 

Selenium 0.92 5.4 6.32 

Condition D1 Run 61 

Antimony 1.5 J 0.032 B 1.53 

Arsenic 13.1 <0.075 <13.2 

Beryllium 0.082 B <0.012 <0.0940 

Cadmium 0.058 B 0.022 B 0.0800 

Chromium 6.6 1.2 7.80 

Cobalt 20 0.039 B 20.0 

Lead 2.2 J 0.41 J 2.61 

Manganese 13.9 7.5 21.4 

Nickel 325 1.2 326 

Selenium <0.26 8 <8.26 

Condition D1 Run 7 

Antimony 1.6 J 0.006 B 1.61 

Arsenic 12 <0.075 <12.1 

Beryllium 0.076 B <0.012 <0.0880 

Cadmium 0.047 B <0.011 <0.0580 

Chromium 6.5 0.63 7.13 

Cobalt 20.3 0.043 B 20.3 

Lead 2.3 J 0.29 J 2.59 

Manganese 17.4 0.8 18.2 

Nickel 266 0.95 267 

Selenium 1.7 5.9 7.60 

1

 Other metals were measured during the soot-blow events that occurred from 13:09-13:29 during Run 5 and from 18:45-

19:05 during Run 6. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-22 40942312 

Table 4-21. Other Metals Emissions Results 

 Cond D1 Run 51 Cond D1 Run 61 Cond D1 Run 7 

Average 

Date 6/24/2011 6/24/2011 6/26/2011 

Time 09:34-13:31 15:20-19:42 

09:10-09:36, 

09:55-12:01, 

16:32-17:38 

Volume Collected (dscf) 124.198 122.073 124.461 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 47,806 47,538 47,760 

Mass Found (μg) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

 

Antimony (Sb) 1.82 ADL 1.53 ADL 1.61 ADL 

Arsenic (As) 14.6 ADL <13.2 DLL <12.1 DLL 

Beryllium (Be) <0.112 DLL <0.0940 DLL <0.0880 DLL 

Cadmium (Cd) <0.121 DLL 0.0800 ADL <0.0580 DLL 

Chromium (Cr) 9.00 ADL 7.80 ADL 7.13 ADL 

Cobalt (Co) 22.9 ADL 20.0 ADL 20.3 ADL 

Lead (Pb) 3.59 ADL 2.61 ADL 2.59 ADL 

Manganese (Mn) 18.4 ADL 21.4 ADL 18.2 ADL 

Nickel (Ni) 366 ADL 326 ADL 267 ADL 

Selenium (Se) 6.32 ADL <8.26 DLL 7.60 ADL 

Stack Gas Concentration 

(mg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Antimony (Sb) 0.000518 ADL 0.000443 ADL 0.000456 ADL 0.000472 

Arsenic (As) 0.00416 ADL <0.0038 DLL <0.0034 DLL <0.0038 

Beryllium (Be) <0.000032 DLL <0.000027 DLL <0.000025 DLL <0.000028 

Cadmium (Cd) <0.000034 DLL 0.0000231 ADL <0.000016 DLL <0.000025 

Chromium (Cr) 0.00256 ADL 0.00226 ADL 0.00202 ADL 0.00228 

Cobalt (Co) 0.00652 ADL 0.00580 ADL 0.00577 ADL 0.00603 

Lead (Pb) 0.00102 ADL 0.000755 ADL 0.000735 ADL 0.000837 

Manganese (Mn) 0.00523 ADL 0.00619 ADL 0.00516 ADL 0.00553 

Nickel (Ni) 0.104 ADL 0.0944 ADL 0.0757 ADL 0.0914 

Selenium (Se) 0.00180 ADL <0.0024 DLL 0.00216 ADL <0.0021 

Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Antimony (Sb) 0.0000927 ADL 0.0000789 ADL 0.0000815 ADL 0.0000844 

Arsenic (As) 0.000745 ADL <0.00068 DLL <0.00061 DLL <0.00068 

Beryllium (Be) <0.0000057 DLL <0.0000048 DLL <0.0000045 DLL <0.0000050 

Cadmium (Cd) <0.0000062 DLL 0.00000412 ADL <0.0000029 DLL <0.0000044 

Chromium (Cr) 0.000458 ADL 0.000402 ADL 0.000362 ADL 0.000407 

Cobalt (Co) 0.00117 ADL 0.00103 ADL 0.00103 ADL 0.00108 

Lead (Pb) 0.000183 ADL 0.000134 ADL 0.000131 ADL 0.000150 

Manganese (Mn) 0.000937 ADL 0.00110 ADL 0.000924 ADL 0.000988 

Nickel (Ni) 0.0186 ADL 0.0168 ADL 0.0136 ADL 0.0163 

Selenium (Se) 0.000322 ADL <0.00043 DLL 0.000386 ADL <0.00038 

1

 Other metals were measured during the soot-blow events that occurred from 13:09-13:29 during Run 5 and from 18:45-19:05 during Run 

6. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-23 40942312 

Table 4-22. Speciated Hg Analytical Results1 

 

Front-Half 

Fraction 

(μg) 

Flag 

KCl 

Fraction 

(μg) 

Flag 

HNO3/H2O2

Fraction 

(μg) 

Flag 

H2SO4/ 

KMnO4 

Fraction 

(μg) 

Flag Total 

(μg) 

Condition D2 Run 5 

Oxidized Mercury <0.012 0.12 B N/A N/A <0.13 

Elemental Mercury N/A N/A <0.048 0.16 B <0.21 

Condition D2 Run 6 

Oxidized Mercury 0.025 0.12 B N/A N/A 0.145 

Elemental Mercury N/A N/A <0.049 0.36 <0.41 

Condition D2 Run 7 

Oxidized Mercury <0.012 0.25 N/A N/A <0.26 

Elemental Mercury N/A N/A <0.049 0.4 <0.45 

1

 Hg species were not measured during any soot-blow events that occurred during Runs 5-7.

Table 4-23. Speciated Hg Emissions Results1

 Cond D2 Run 5 Cond D2 Run 6 Cond D2 Run 7 

Average 

Date 6/24/2011 6/24/2011 6/26/2011 

Time 10:25-12:45 15:30-17:45 10:15-12:02, 

16:32-17:00 

Volume Collected (dscf) 73.298 72.347 72.593 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 46,507 46,280 46,616 

Mass Found (μg) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

Oxidized Mercury <0.13 DLL 0.145 DLL <0.26 DLL 

Elemental Mercury <0.21 DLL <0.41 DLL <0.45 DLL 

Stack Gas Concentration (μg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Oxidized Mercury <0.064 DLL 0.0708 DLL <0.13 DLL <0.087 

Elemental Mercury <0.10 DLL <0.20 DLL <0.22 DLL <0.17 

Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Oxidized Mercury <0.000011 DLL 0.0000123 DLL <0.000022 DLL <0.000015 

Elemental Mercury <0.000017 DLL <0.000035 DLL <0.000038 DLL <0.000030 

1

 Hg species were not measured during any soot-blow events that occurred during Runs 5-7. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-24 40942312 

4.4 ICR Group E Results and Calculations 

This section presents detailed analytical results from the Source Test for ICR Group E target 

compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stack. Results for HCN, HCl, Cl2 and HF are 

presented in measurement units according to Component 4 of the ICR. 

Table 4-24. HCN Emissions 

 Cond E Run 1 Cond E Run 2 Cond E Run 31 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 

Time 13:50-16:10 16:56-19:06 10:01-11:21 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 45,832 46,243 45,932 

Moisture (%) 8.51 8.27 8.68 

Stack Gas Wet Concentration (ppmvw) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 HCN 25.2 25.3 25.4 

Stack Gas Dry Concentration (ppmvd) Value DL Value DL Value DL 

HCN 27.6 ADL 27.6 ADL 27.9 ADL 

Stack Gas Concentration (μg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

HCN 31,000 ADL 31,000 ADL 31,300 ADL 31,100 

Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

HCN 5.33 ADL 5.37 ADL 5.39 ADL 5.36 

1

 HCN was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 09:44-10:04 during Run 3. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 4-25 40942312 

Table 4-25. HCl and Cl2 Emissions Results 

 Cond E Run 1 Cond E Run 2 Cond E Run 31 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 

Time 13:04-16:00 16:53-19:02 09:55-12:05 

Volume (dscf) 78.437 77.111 75.459 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 45,832 46,243 45,932 

Mass Found (μg) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

Hydrogen Chloride 779 J 733 J 672 J 

Chlorine <31.0 <36.0 <43.5 

Stack Gas Concentration (mg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Hydrogen Chloride 0.351 ADL 0.336 ADL 0.314 ADL 0.334 

Chlorine <0.014 BDL <0.016 BDL <0.020 BDL <0.017 

Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Hydrogen Chloride 0.0602 ADL 0.0582 ADL 0.0541 ADL 0.0575 

Chlorine <0.00240 BDL <0.00286 BDL <0.00350 BDL <0.0029 

1

 HCl and Cl2 were measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 09:44-10:04 during Run 3. 

Table 4-26. HF Emissions Results 

 Cond E Run 1 Cond E Run 2 Cond E Run 31 

Average 

Date 6/22/2011 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 

Time 13:04-16:00 16:53-19:02 09:55-12:05 

Volume (dscf) 78.437 77.111 75.459 

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 45,832 46,243 45,932 

Mass Found (μg) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag 

 

Hydrogen Fluoride 169 J 181 J 214 J 

Stack Gas Concentration (mg/dscm) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Hydrogen Fluoride 0.0761 ADL 0.0829 ADL 0.100 ADL 0.0864 

Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value 

Hydrogen Fluoride 0.0131 ADL 0.0144 ADL 0.0172 ADL 0.0149 

1

 HF was measured during the soot-blow event that occurred from 09:44-10:04 during Run 3. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-1 40942312 

5.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

A project-specific quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) effort was developed and 

implemented for the Source Test of the FCCU exhaust stack. This QA/QC effort was 

documented in the Plan and was tailored to meet the specific needs of this test effort. 

The results of the QA/QC activities demonstrate that the quality of project measurement 

data is well-documented and that the data are reliable, defensible, and meet project 

objectives.

The primary objectives of the QA/QC effort were to control, assess, and document data quality. 

To accomplish these objectives, the QA/QC approach consisted of the following key elements: 

 Definition of data quality objectives that reflect the overall technical objectives of the 

measurement program described in Component 4 of the ICR; 

 Design of a sampling, analytical, QA/QC and data analysis system to meet those 

objectives; 

 Evaluation of the performance of the measurement system; and 

 Initiation of corrective action when measurement system performance does not meet 

the specifications. 

These QA procedures include sampling and analytical procedures, along with specified 

calibration requirements, QC checks, data reduction and validation procedures, and sample 

tracking. A review of analysis results for QA/QC samples and assessment of overall data quality 

is presented in this section. Detailed data quality assessments are presented in Appendix N and 

sampling equipment calibration documentation is presented in Appendix O to this report. 

Appendix P presents the sample logbook and copies of sample chain-of-custody forms. 

Appendix Q presents relevant project correspondence from U.S. EPA, and Appendix R presents 

correspondence from Federal Express detailing the loss of the samples collected for the 

determination of hexavalent chromium. 

The sections below present detailed discussions of the QA/QC activities associated with 

sampling and analysis. Although several minor issues are identified and discussed in the 

following sections, it should be recognized that the overall conclusion of the QA/QC assessment 

is that the results meet the criteria of the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-2 40942312 

Some deviations from the Plan were identified as part of the overall quality assessment effort. 

These are discussed below in detail, along with conclusions about implications of the issue with 

respect to the usability of the data. In brief, these issues are: 

 The Plan states that U.S. EPA Methods 201A/202 sampling trains would collect ≥2 

m3 (70.6 cf) dry gas sample volume over the course of each sampling run. During the 

first two sampling runs (Runs 5 and 6), this objective was not met. However, dwelltime adjustments were made between each run to rectify the problem, and this dry gas 

sample volume criterion was met in the third run (Run 7). 

 The Plan states that U.S. EPA Method 308 sampling trains would be performed 

according the Component 4 of the ICR. Component 4 of the ICR allows U.S. EPA 

Method 308 for the measurement of methanol provided that sample results are above 

applicable method detection limits (MDLs). Sample results for methanol were below 

MDLs during Runs 8, 9 and 11. 

 The samples collected for Cr6+ were lost by the subcontracted hazardous materials 

shipper (Federal Express) during transit between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and 

the subcontracted analytical laboratory located in Durham, North Carolina 

(Enthalpy). 

 In all three runs of EPA Method 18 by sorbent, the breakthrough across the whole 

train for acetonitrile exceeded 25%. Further, LCS recovery for acetonitrile was low, 

as was field spike recovery. Acetonitrile results by this method are rejected. 

 Field spike recoveries for styrene were low (10.7%). Results for styrene were 

developed by an alternate methodology, FTIR. The FTIR results met all method 

specifications and are presented in the report summary for styrene. 

In the course of reviewing these data and the data quality associated with the measurements, as 

listed above, issues were identified with three specific target compounds: 1,3-butadiene, 

acetonitrile and styrene. Because multiple measurement techniques could be and were utilized 

for these analytes, it is possible to compare the results and quality indicators for these multiple 

techniques and to select the result to be reported and used in further reporting. These 

measurement approaches are compared and contrasted in Table 5-1. The conclusion of this 

comparison is also presented in Table 5-1. 

 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-3 40942312 

Table 5-1. VOC HAPs Results Quality Evaluation 

Analyte Sampling/Analysis 

Method Quality Review Course of Action 

Acetonitrile Method 18 – Bag 

Samples 

Not spiked. 

Laboratory Check samples showed recovery from 22 to 

61%. 

None detected. MDL reported at 1 ppm 

Do not report a result for 

acetonitrile. 

Method 18 – Sorbent 

Samples 

Spiked in the field, recovery efficiency calculated at 

28.4% 

None detected; MDL sum is 22.8 μg/sample. This 

equates to 0.15 ppm, using masses corrected for the 

recovery efficiency, and an average volume of 90 liters. 

Analyte breakthrough is significant. No acetonitrile is 

found in the condensate or on the XAD-4 sorbent. All 

acetonitrile found was on the charcoal, with about 30-

35% on back half of the charcoal trap. 

Aqueous LCS Recovery is about 0%. 

No XAD LCS was performed 

FTIR Validation does not meet method specification. 

Spike recovery near zero 

None detected at a DL of 2.4 ppm 

1,3-Butadiene Method 18 – Bag 

Samples 

Spiked in laboratory with 1,3-butadiene; 55% recovery 

LCS Recoveries are good. 

None detected; MDL reported as 0.5 ppm 

Use FTIR result, ND at 0.09 

ppm 

Method 18 – Sorbent 

Samples 

Not reported 

FTIR Validation meets method specification 

Spike recovery between 105 and 120%. 

Nothing observed; detection limit of 0.09 ppm. 

Styrene Method 18 – Bag 

Samples 

Not reported Use FTIR result, ND at 0.2 

ppm 

Method 18 – Sorbent 

Samples 

Sorbent pre-spiked with styrene. 11% of spiked styrene 

found by analytical method. 

Not detected; MDL sum is 44 μg, this equates to 0.11 

ppm, using masses corrected for the 11% recovery and 

an average volume of 90 liters. 

No analyte breakthrough is observed. 

LCS recoveries are good. 

FTIR Validation meets method specification 

Spike recovery between 85 and 95%. 

Nothing observed; detection limit of 0.2 ppm. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-4 40942312 

5.1 Isokinetic Sample Collection 

Isokinetic sampling trains were used for the collection of samples for the determination of PM2.5-

FILT and PM2.5-CON emissions according to U.S. EPA Methods 201A and 202; HCl, Cl2, and 

HF emissions according to U.S. EPA Method 26A; Speciated Hg (i.e., Hg0

 and Hg2+) emissions 

according to ASTM D6784-02; Cr6+ emissions according to SW-846 Method 0061; Total 

filterable PM and other metals emissions according to U.S. EPA Methods 5 and 29; PCDDs, 

PCDFs, and PCBs emissions according to U.S. EPA Method 23; and SVOC HAPs emissions 

according to SW-846 Method 0010. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with the collection of these samples 

included: 

 Ensuring that the sampling points met method specifications for cyclonic flow; 

 Ensuring that sampling points were properly identified and marked; 

 Collection of the specified volumes of stack gas over the specified duration; 

 Collection of stack gas within 90-110% of isokinetic; 

 Measurement of stack gas velocity before and after the run agreed within 10%; 

 Maintaining the probe, filter and (on applicable trains) heated transfer line at the 

specified temperatures; 

 Maintaining the impinger exit and (on applicable trains) the condenser exit at the 

specified temperature; 

 Performing sampling train leak checks before sample collection, at port changes, and 

after sample collection; 

 Performing pitot tube leak checks before and after sample collection; and 

 Recording all data on pre-printed data sheets. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that sampling was performed according to the 

methods and the Source Test Plan, with the issues discussed below. See the detailed data quality 

assessment in Appendix N. Sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. Calibration 

documentation for all field equipment is presented in Appendix O. Issues identified during the 

QA/QC review follow: 

 Two runs performed using U.S. EPA Methods 201A/202 fell short of the dry gas 

sample volume specification in the Plan. Per Component 4 of the ICR, the U.S. EPA 

Methods 201A/202 sampling train must collect ≥2 cubic meters (70.6 cf). 1.81 and 

1.97 cubic meters (63.9 and 69.7 cf) were collected during Runs 5 and 6. The slight 

shortfall for dry gas sample volume for two U.S. EPA Methods M201A/M202 

sampling trains is not significant. This deviation was resolved on the subsequent Run 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-5 40942312 

7. The dry gas sample volume collected gives sufficient sensitivity to interpret these 

data, as all PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON results were above applicable method 

detection limits. No qualifiers are required for these data based on this finding. 

 The sample durations presented in the Plan were estimates to accomplish the 

collection of dry gas volumes required in Component 4 of the ICR. The dry gas 

sample volume targets were met during sampling for most of the target compounds 

(see discussion of U.S. EPA Method 201A/202 sampling train volumes above) and 

the shortfalls in sample duration have no impact on the usability of these data. 

5.2 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of PM2.5-FILT and 

PM2.5-CON Emissions 

Samples of stack gas for determination of PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON emissions were collected 

according to U.S. EPA Methods 201A and 202 and Component 4 of the ICR. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included: 

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks; 

 Collection and analysis of field blanks; 

 Repeatability of sequential weighings; and 

 Daily balance calibration. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified in the course of this assessment: 

 All samples were prepared and analyzed within 27 days of sampling. The Plan

specifies analysis within 14 days as a project-specific objective to facilitate the 

complete reporting of Source Test results within the schedule demanded by U.S. EPA 

for the ICR. U.S. EPA Methods 201A and 202 include no specification for holding 

time. The analysis of these samples outside the holding time specified in the Plan has 

no impact on the usability of these results. No data are flagged based on this finding. 

 Field blank results for PM2.5-FILT are well below actual results. Field blank results 

for PM2.5-CON are significant and on the same order as the field results. The results 

for PM2.5-FILT and PM2.5-CON presented in the report are not corrected for field 

blanks. These may have a positive bias for PM2.5-CON, but represent a conservative 

estimate of emissions. No data are flagged based on blank results. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-6 40942312 

5.3 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of Speciated Hg 

Emissions 

Samples for determination of speciated Hg (i.e., elemental and oxidized) emissions in stack gas 

were collected according to ASTM D6784-02. The filters, impinger solutions and rinses were 

analyzed for Hg by CVAA according to ASTM D6784-02. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks; 

 Collection and analysis of field blanks; 

 Preparation and analysis of media check samples; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory control samples and laboratory check sample 

duplicates; and 

 Preparation and analysis of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified in the course of this assessment: 

 All samples were originally analyzed within 22 days of sample collection. 

Permanganate fractions were re-analyzed between 55 and 60 days after sample 

collection. The Plan specifies analysis within 14 days as a project-specific objective 

to facilitate the complete reporting of Source Test results within the schedule 

demanded by U.S. EPA for the ICR. ASTM D6784-02 specifies analysis within 45 

days. As the applicable method specifies analysis of samples within 45 days of 

sample collection, the analysis of the samples outside the test plan specification of 14 

days has no impact on the interpretation of results. The four samples analyzed 

between 55 and 60 days were re-analyzed based on problematic MS/MSD results (see 

below). As these samples were kept in laboratory conditions and under very acidic 

conditions, there is no reason to suspect any loss of mercury. No data are flagged 

based on holding time. 

 Initially, MS/MSD results for the permanganate fraction were below both the Plan

and laboratory specifications. The permanganate samples were re-prepared and 

analyzed with acceptable MS recoveries. The MS/MSD results for the initial analysis 

of the permanganate fraction have recoveries (43 and 51%) well outside the 

acceptance criteria (80-120%). These samples were re-analyzed at a higher dilution 

to mitigate the sample matrix effects. The more diluted analyses provided analytical 

results within method specification for MS recovery, and these data are reported in 

the body of the report. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-7 40942312 

5.4 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of Cr6+ Emissions 

Stack gas samples for the determination of Cr6+ emissions were lost during shipment between the 

Chevron Hawaii Refinery and the analytical laboratory located in Durham, North Carolina. See 

Appendix R for correspondence from Federal Express acknowledging the loss of the package 

containing the stack gas samples. 

5.5 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of Total Filterable PM and 

Other Metals Emissions 

Samples for determination of total filterable PM and other metals emissions in stack gas were 

collected according to U.S. EPA Methods 5 and 29. Total filterable PM was determined 

gravimetrically from the acetone probe rinses and filters. The filters, impinger solutions and 

rinses were analyzed for metals by ICAP/MS, according to SW-846 Method 6020. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks; 

 Collection and analysis of field blanks; 

 Preparation and analysis of media check samples; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory control samples and laboratory check sample 

duplicates; and 

 Preparation and analysis of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessments in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified in the course of the data quality assessment: 

 

 All samples were analyzed within 25 days of sample collection. The Plan specifies 

analysis within 14 days as a project-specific objective to facilitate the complete 

reporting of Source Test results within the schedule demanded by U.S. EPA for the 

ICR. The analysis of these samples outside the holding time of 14 days has no impact 

on the data. The applicable method-specified holding time for these analyses is 6 

months. No qualifiers are required for these data based on this finding. 

 Lead (Pb) was found in laboratory blanks near the applicable method detection limit. 

Field blank results show detectable levels of most target analytes. The levels of target 

analytes found in the field and laboratory blanks are well below the levels found in 

the field samples. As such, these blank levels are insignificant and negligible. No 

qualifiers are required for these data based on blank results. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-8 40942312 

 All MS/MSD results met the Plan criteria. One MS recovery (nickel in the front- half 

sample fraction) was outside the laboratory specifications (i.e., 77% recovery while 

acceptable recovery is 86-110%). The nickel recovery outside laboratory criteria is 

attributed to the low spike level compared to the native level. This has no impact on 

the results. No qualifiers are required for these data based on MS/MSD results. 

5.6 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of HCl, Cl2 and HF 

Emissions 

Samples of stack gas for determination of HCl, Cl2 and HF emissions were collected according 

to U.S. EPA Method 26A. These samples were analyzed using ion chromatography, according 

to U.S. EPA Method 26A. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks; 

 Collection and analysis of field blanks; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory control samples; 

 Preparation and analysis of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples; and 

 Preparation and analysis of all samples in duplicate. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified during the assessment: 

 All samples were prepared and analyzed within 20 days of sample collection. The Plan

specifies analysis within 14 days as a project-specific objective to facilitate the complete 

reporting of Source Test results within the schedule demanded by U.S. EPA for the ICR. 

Although the samples were analyzed outside the plan-specified holding time of 14 days, 

they were analyzed within the 4-week window allowed by U.S. EPA Method 26A. No 

qualifiers are required for these data based on this finding. 

 Fluoride was detected in the field blank and in one reagent blank at levels below the 

levels in the field samples. The results for fluoride in the blank samples indicate that the 

field results may have a positive bias. As the data are not corrected, the emissions 

estimates are conservative. No qualifiers are required for these data based on the blank 

results. 

 All samples were analyzed in duplicate. 15 of 17 samples had duplicates meeting the 

method specification of 5% difference from the mean. The two outliers were results near 

the detection limit with 5.4 and 8.1% difference from the mean. Although two samples 

had precision outside method acceptance, these results are near the detection limit. At 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-9 40942312 

these levels, the results carry a “J” flag, and are expected to have increased imprecision. 

No qualifiers are required for these data based on these results. 

5.7 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of PCDDs, PCDFs, and 

PCBs Emissions 

Samples for determination of the PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs emissions were collected according 

to the methodology described in U.S. EPA Method 23. The filters, sorbent tubes, and rinses 

from these samples were prepared for analysis and the resulting extracts analyzed for PCDDs, 

PCDFs, and PCBs by high-resolution GC/MS, according to U.S. EPA Methods 23 

(PCDD/PCDF) and SW-846 Method 1668 (PCB). 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks; 

 Preparation and analysis of media check samples; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory check samples; and 

 Addition of surrogate compounds to each sample. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified as part of this assessment: 

 All samples were prepared within 14 days of sample collection, and analyzed within 8 

days of extraction. The Plan specifies analysis within 14 days as a project-specific 

objective to facilitate the complete reporting of Source Test results within the schedule 

demanded by U.S. EPA for the ICR. U.S. EPA Method 23 specifies that samples be 

extracted within 30 days of collection and analyzed within 45 days of extraction. As the 

holding times met the applicable method specification, no qualifiers are required for these 

data, nor are these data invalidated based on this finding. 

 The impinger catch samples from Runs 1 and 3 were received at 27°C. These fractions 

are not included in the sample preparation for PCDDs/PCDFs, and this finding has no 

impact whatsoever on the PCDDs/PCDFs data. These fractions are included in the 

sample preparation for PCBs. No PCBs are anticipated to be found in the water fraction, 

and therefore the results are considered to be usable. Further, U.S. EPA Method 23 has 

no specification for the analysis of the impinger fractions, and therefore the results which 

include the impinger fractions represent a conservative estimate of PCBs emissions. No 

qualifiers are required for these data based on this finding. 

 Results for the field blank show 4 PCDDs/PCDFs and 3 PCBs compounds detected at 

levels similar to the field samples. This indicates a potential positive bias in the field 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-10 40942312 

samples, which is conservative relative to the determination of emission rate. No 

qualifiers are required for these data based on field blank results. 

 

5.8 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Determination of Speciated SVOC HAPs 

Emissions 

Samples for determination of the SVOC HAPs emissions were collected according to the 

methodology described in SW-846 Method 0010. The filters, sorbent tubes, and rinses from 

these samples were prepared for analysis and the resulting extracts analyzed for SVOCs by 

GC/MS, according to SW-846 Method 8270C. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks; 

 Preparation and analysis of media check samples; 

 Preparation and analysis of laboratory check samples; and 

 Addition of surrogate compounds to each sample. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified in the course of this assessment: 

 All samples were received intact and at approximately 22°C. SW-846 specifies 

sample storage at 4°C. As all samples were received at ambient temperature and not 

at the specified temperature, these results can be considered biased low. All results 

are flagged as biased low due to this issue. 

 All samples were extracted within 14 days of sampling. All samples were analyzed 

within 18 days of extraction. The Plan specifies analysis within 14 days as a projectspecific objective to facilitate the complete reporting of Source Test results within the 

schedule demanded by U.S. EPA for the ICR. Although samples were analyzed 

outside the holding time specified in the Plan, they were analyzed within the 

specifications of SW-846. No qualifiers are required for these data based on holding 

time. 

 Only three compounds were detected in the field blank, reagent blank or laboratory 

blank. These three compounds are naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and 

phenanthrene. In all three cases, the results for the blanks are similar to the results for 

the field samples. The detection of three compounds in the blank samples at levels 

near the field samples suggests that the results for these analytes may be positively 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-11 40942312 

biased. As this is conservative relative to an estimate of emissions, no qualifiers are 

required for these data based on blank results. 

 The following five compounds showed little or no recovery in the LCS: 

a,a-dimethylphenethylamine, 1,4-Phenylenediamine, Benzidine, 3,3-

Dimethylbenzidine, and 3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine. The lack of LCS recovery for the 

five analytes demonstrates that these compounds cannot be recovered by the sample 

preparation and analysis methodology. Accordingly, data for these five compounds 

are rejected, and is not presented in the body of this report. 

5.9 Non-isokinetic Sample Collection 

Non-isokinetic sampling trains were used for the collection of samples for the determination of 

VOC HAPs by bag sampling according to U.S. EPA Method 18, VOC HAPs by sorbent 

sampling according to U.S. EPA Method 18, and methanol according to U.S. EPA Method 308. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with the collection of these samples 

included: 

 Collection of the specified volumes of stack gas over the specified duration; 

 Performing sampling train leak checks before and after sample collection (as 

applicable); and 

 Recording all data on pre-printed data sheets. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that sampling was performed according to the 

methods and the Source Test Plan. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. 

There were no issues identified in the course of the data quality assessment. 

 

5.10 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for VOC HAPs Emissions (Bag Samples) 

Samples for determination of speciated VOC HAPs emissions were collected according to the 

bag sampling methodology of U.S. EPA Method 18. The bag samples and condensates from 

these trains were analyzed for a subset of speciated VOC HAPs by GC/FID (or GC/FPD for 

carbon disulfide) according to U.S. EPA Method 18 and Component 4 of the ICR. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Use of calibration standards of known and acceptable quality; 

 Multi-point instrument calibration; and 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-12 40942312 

 Performance of a recovery study. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. There were no issues 

identified in the course of the data quality assessment. 

 All bag samples prepared and analyzed within 64 hours of sample collection. The 

test plan specifies analysis within 24 hours. Although the samples were analyzed 

outside the time specified in the test plan, the spiked samples were analyzed at a 

holding time longer than the samples, as specified in EPA Method 18. No qualifiers 

are required for these data based on holding time. 

 Recovery of 1,3-butadiene from spiked samples was measured at 55%. This is 

outside the acceptance criteria of 70-130%. The low recovery of 1,3-butadiene 

indicated increased uncertainty in these results. However, since the results are 

corrected for the low recovery, there may not be a bias in the data. As noted above, 

1,3-butadiene results presented in the summary report are those from FTIR, as the 

FTIR measurement met the quality specifications for that method. 

 The test plan specifies the use of flex film bags for sample collection. Tedlar bags 

were used instead, based on laboratory recommendation about the sturdiness of flexfilm bags. As recoveries are acceptable, no data are flagged based on this 

observation. 

5.11 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for VOC HAPs Emissions (Sorbent 

Samples) 

Samples for determination of speciated VOC HAPs emissions were collected according to the 

sorbent sampling methodology of U.S. EPA Method 18. The sorbent and condensate samples 

from these trains were analyzed for a subset of speciated VOC HAPs by GC/FID according to 

U.S. EPA Method 18 and Component 4 of the ICR. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Use of calibration standards of known and acceptable quality; 

 Multi-point instrument calibration; and 

 Performance of a recovery study. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. There following issues 

were identified in the course of the data quality assessment: 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-13 40942312 

 All samples received intact. Different packages received at 3°C, 10°C and 19°C. 

Test plan specifies 4°C. Although some of the samples arrived at temperatures 

outside the specification, there is no indication of sample degradation. Except as 

noted, spike recoveries met method specification, and results from all runs were 

similar. No qualifiers are required for these data based on preservation. 

 All samples analyzed within 22 days of sample collection. Test plan specifies 

analysis within 14 days of sample collection. Although the samples were analyzed 

outside the time specification in the test plan, they were analyzed within the time 

allowed by EPA Method 18. No qualifiers are required for these data based on 

holding time. 

 In all three runs, the breakthrough across the whole train for acetonitrile exceeded 

25%. The consistent breakthrough of approximately 35% or more of the acetonitrile 

found in the sampling train suggests that there may be significant loss of acetonitrile 

from the sampling train. This is consistent with the low spike recovery and low LCS 

recoveries. 

 Eleven of thirteen target analytes had spike recoveries within 70-130%. The outliers 

are acetonitrile (28.4%) and styrene (10.7%). The spike recoveries outside 

acceptance criteria for acetonitrile and styrene indicate that these data may be 

questionable. As discussed in the body of the report, results for styrene were 

developed by an alternate methodology, FTIR. The FTIR results met all method 

specifications and are presented in the summary for styrene. The low spike recovery 

for acetonitrile, combined with the results for LCS recovery and breakthrough 

suggests that there may be significant loss of acetonitrile in results for field samples. 

 Every analysis was performed in triplicate. 594 of 615 triplicate analyses had 

differences from the mean result that did not exceed 5%. every case, these outliers 

were associated with analyses between the method detection limit (MDL) and the 

lowest calibration standard. 

 Recovery of the following analytes from LCS failed to meet the laboratory 

specification: Acetonitrile, aqueous LCS, 0% recovery; Acrylonitrile, aqueous LCS, 

15-20% recovery; 2-Nitropropane, aqueous LCS, 65-70% recovery. The extremely 

low LCS recovery for acetonitrile suggests that there may be significant loss of 

acetonitrile in results for field samples. The low recoveries for acrylonitrile and 2-

nitropropane in LCS samples suggest that there may be losses in field samples. 

However, recovery of field spikes for both of these species are acceptable. Data for 

2-nitropropane and acrylonitrile are not qualified based on LCS recovery. 

 Results for acetonitrile are rejected, based on low LCS recovery, low field spike 

recovery and breakthrough. 

5.12 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Methanol Emissions 

Sorbent and condensate samples for determination of methanol emissions were collected and 

analyzed by GC/FID according to U.S. EPA Method 308. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-14 40942312 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation; 

 Preparation and analysis of samples within specified holding times; 

 Use of calibration standards of known and acceptable quality; 

 Multi-point instrument calibration; and 

 Performance of a recovery study. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. The following issues were 

identified in the course of this assessment: 

 All samples analyzed within 17 days of sample collection. Test plan specifies 

analysis within 14 days of sample collection. Although the samples were analyzed 

outside the time specification in the test plan, there is no specification in Method 308. 

No qualifiers are required for these data based on holding time. 

 Component 4 of the ICR allows U.S. EPA Method 308 for the measurement of 

methanol provided that sample results are above applicable method detection limits 

(MDLs). However, sample results for methanol were below MDLs during Runs 8, 9 

and 11. In addition to the results for methanol according to U.S. EPA Method 308 

(presented in Table 4-11), methanol was monitored using FTIR, according to U.S. 

EPA Method 320. The FTIR sampling during Group A testing agreed with the U.S. 

EPA Method 308 results, in that no methanol was observed by either method. During 

testing for other groups, a small but detectable amount of methanol was observed 

using U.S. EPA Method 320. 

5.13 Monitoring of Stack Gas for O2, CO2, and THC Emissions 

The stack gas was monitored for O2 and CO2 according to U.S. EPA Method 3A and THC 

according to U.S. EPA Method 25A. Each method employs the use of continuous emissions 

monitors (CEMs). 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with CEMs include: 

 Use of calibration gas standards of known and acceptable quality; 

 Performance of calibration error tests; 

 Performance of system bias checks (U.S. EPA Method 3A only); and 

 Performance of system drift checks. 
Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-15 40942312 

Copies of certification of calibration gas standards are presented in Appendix O. Calibration 

error checks, bias checks, drift checks, and raw data for CEMs monitoring is presented in 

Appendix C. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. There were no issues 

identified in the course of the data quality assessment. 

5.14 Analysis of Stack Gas for Methane and Ethane Emissions 

Samples for determination of methane and ethane emissions were extracted from the stack and 

routed directly to a GC/FID for semi-continuous analysis according to the direct interface 

methodology of U.S. EPA Method 18. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with these analyses included:

 Use of calibration standards of known and acceptable quality; 

 Initial Multi-point instrument calibration; 

 Post-test calibration check and 

 Performance of a recovery study. 

Review of these QA/QC activities indicates that these data meet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC 

guidelines. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix N. There were no issues 

identified in the course of the data quality assessment. 

5.15 Monitoring of Stack Gas for Aldehydes, NH3, and HCN Emissions 

The stack gas was monitored for selected aldehydes (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and propanal), 

NH3, and HCN emissions using an FTIR spectrometer according to U.S. EPA Method 320. 

Quality assurance and quality control activities associated with FTIR include: 

 Use of calibration gas standards of known and acceptable quality; and 

 Performance of validations for each compound being monitored. 

Copies of certification of calibration gas standards are presented in Appendix O. Validation and 

run raw data is presented in Appendix K. See the detailed data quality assessment in Appendix 

N. There were no issues identified in the course of the data quality assessment.