## 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 Ch evron 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, conc lusions, or recommendations presented herein is at the sole risk of said user. This report is for Chevron Global Downstream us e only and is not to be distributed to third parties outside th e 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 Ga s Molecular Weight and Moisture Concentration by U.S. EPA Methods 2, 3A and 4............................................. 3-4 3.3 SO 2 

# Concentration by Certified FCCU CEMS .................................................. 3-6 3.4 NO X 

# 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, Cl 2 

# and HF Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 26A ............................. 3-8 3.10 Total Filterable PM and Other Me tals Concentrations by U.S. EPA Methods 5 and 29 ............................................................................................... 3-8

3.11 PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -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, NH 3 

# 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 Cr 6+ 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -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 Cr 6+ 

# 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, Cl 2 

# 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 Sa mples for VOC HAPs Emissions (Bag Samples) .................................................................................................... 5-11
5.11 Analysis of Stack Gas Sa mples for VOC HAPs Emissions (Sorbent Samples) .............................................................................................. 5-12 5.12 Analysis of Stack Gas Sample s for Methanol Emissions .................................. 5-13 5.13 Analysis of Stack Gas for O 2 

# , CO 2 

# , 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, NH 3 

# , 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 HA P and Methanol Analysis

VOLUME 3
APPENDIX H Report for PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs Analysis APPENDIX I Report for HCl, Cl 2 

# 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 Equipm ent 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 Exhaus t 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 Tr averse 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 SO 2 

# and NO X 

# Emissions Results ................................................................................... 4-19 4-17 NH 3 

# Emissions Results .................................................................................................. 4-19 4-18 PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON Emissions Results ............................................................ 4-20 4-19 Total Filterable PM Emissions Results .......................................................................... 4-20 4-20 Other Metals Anal ytical 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 Cl 2 

# 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 Tr averse 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 pe troleum refinery in Kapolei, Hawaii. The Chevron Hawaii Refinery is a highly automated pe troleum refinery with the capacity to convert approximately 57,000 barrels of a mix of crude o ils per calendar day (bbl/cd) into finished products. The Chevron Hawaii Refinery curren tly 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 ope rating under this permit.

The Chevron Hawaii Refinery received a Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 Request for Information (Section 114 Request) from the Un ited 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 Admini strator in rule development pursuant to CAA Sections 111 and 112 with respect to petroleum re fineries. 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 Reportin g 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 conduc t 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. Ta ble 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 Te st, relevant FCCU process data, and describes the sampling and analy tical methodologies used to m easure each target compound. On August 25, 2011, Chevron informed the U.S. EPA that due to delays in receiving sample analyses from the contracted labora tory, completion of the final FCCU Source Test Report was significantly delayed. Chevron agreed to s ubmit 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 presen ts 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 re sults. 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 calibratio n 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 dibenzofurans 1 

# (PCDDs/PCDFs);

 Polychlorinated biphenyls 2 

# (PCBs);

 Speciated mercury (Hg 0 

# and Hg 2+ 

# );

 Hexavalent chromium (Cr 6+ 

# ) 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 μ m (PM 2.5 

# -FILT);

 Condensable particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μ m (PM 2.5 

# -CON);

 Ammonia (NH 3 

# );

 Oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

# );

 Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

# );

 Hydrogen chloride (HCl);

 Chlorine (Cl 2 

# );

 Hydrogen fluoride (HF); and

 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN).

Oxygen (O 2 

# ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ) and moisture (H 2 

# O) concentrations and FCCU exhaust gas flow rate were also measured to de velop target compound mass emission rates.
1.2 Summary of Results Some target compounds must be measur ed 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 with in a particular Group when existing sampling port design or stack diameter c onstraints interfere, and these limited exceptions applied to the Source Test of the FCCU (see Section 5.0 for detail s). 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 Cr 6+ 

## were lost by the subcontracted hazard ous materials shipper (Federal Express) during transit between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and the subcontracted analytical labo ratory 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 resu lts 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 emissi on rates are presented us ing a “<” before the numerical value to identify that at least one of the analytical values used in calculations is less than the applicable method dete ction limit. In addi tion, individual analytical results may be qualified as ‘BDL’ (below det ection level), ‘DLL’ (detection level limited), or ‘ADL’ (above detection level) accord ing to Appendix A of Component 4 of the ICR, if applicable. For measurements conducted using in strumental test methods or cer tified FCCU CEMS (i.e., for O 2 

# , CO 2 

# , SO 2 

# , NO X 

# , CO or THC), gaseous concentrations ar e 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 presen ted using at least tw o 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 μ g/dscm <2,400 lb/hr <0.43 Acetonitrile μ g/dscm R 1 lb/hr R 1 Acrolein μ g/dscm <3,100 lb/hr <0.55 Acrylonitrile μ g/dscm <59 lb/hr <0.011 Benzene μ g/dscm <2,900 lb/hr <0.51 1,3-Butadiene 2 μ g/dscm <210 lb/hr <0.038 Carbon Disulfide μ g/dscm <800 lb/hr <0.14 Chlorobenzene μ g/dscm <62 lb/hr <0.011 Cumene μ g/dscm <61 lb/hr <0.011 1,2-Dibromoethane μ g/dscm <7,700 lb/hr <1.4 Ethylbenzene μ g/dscm <64 lb/hr <0.011 Hexane μ g/dscm <2,600 lb/hr <0.46 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone μ g/dscm <50 lb/hr <0.0089 Methyl t-Butyl Ether μ g/dscm <44 lb/hr <0.0078 Methylene Chloride μ g/dscm <7,800 lb/hr <1.4 Nitrobenzene μ g/dscm <71 lb/hr <0.013 2-Nitropropane μ g/dscm <63 lb/hr <0.011 Pentane μ g/dscm <4,500 lb/hr <0.81 Styrene 2 μ g/dscm <930 lb/hr <0.17 Tetrachloroethene μ g/dscm <13,000 lb/hr <2.3 Trichloroethene μ g/dscm <4,500 lb/hr <0.81 Toluene μ g/dscm <5,000 lb/hr <0.89 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane μ g/dscm <39 lb/hr <0.0070 o-Xylene μ g/dscm <59 lb/hr <0.010 m/p-Xylene μ g/dscm <58 lb/hr <0.010

Methanol 3 U.S. EPA Method 308 μ g/dscm <156 lb/hr <0.028
Aldehydes

Formaldehyde U.S. EPA Method 320 μ g/dscm <110 lb/hr <0.020 Acetaldehyde μ g/dscm <950 lb/hr <0.17 Propanal μ g/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 styr ene were determined using Method 320 (FTIR) . For more details, see Section 5.0.

3 

### Reported results for Methanol were determined using Method 3 08. 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 HAPs a

Acenaphthene

SW-846 Method 0010 μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Acenaphthylene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Aniline μ g/dscm <3.0 lb/hr <5.2E-04 Anthracene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Benzidine μ g/dscm R 2 lb/hr R 2 Benz[a]anthracene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Benzo[b]fluoranthene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Benzo[k]fluoranthene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Benzo[a]pyrene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Benzo[e]pyrene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Biphenyl μ g/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.1E-04 Chrysene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Dibenzofuran μ g/dscm <0.81 lb/hr <1.4E-04 Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine μ g/dscm R 2 lb/hr R 2 Dimethylaminobenzene μ g/dscm <1.2 lb/hr <2.1E-04 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine μ g/dscm R 2 lb/hr R 2

α , α -Dimethylphenethylamine μ g/dscm R 2 lb/hr R 2 2,4-Dimethylphenol μ g/dscm <0.86 lb/hr <1.5E-04 Fluoranthene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Fluorene μ g/dscm 0.0191 lb/hr 3.41E-06 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Isophorone μ g/dscm <0.88 lb/hr <1.6E-04 3-Methylcholanthrene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 2-Methylnaphthalene μ g/dscm 0.0392 lb/hr 6.98E-06 2-Methylphenol μ g/dscm <0.80 lb/hr <1.4E-04 3/4-Methylphenol μ g/dscm <0.69 lb/hr <1.2E-04 Naphthalene μ g/dscm 0.560 lb/hr 9.98E-05 Perylene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 Phenanthrene μ g/dscm 0.0142 lb/hr 2.53E-06 Phenol μ g/dscm 6.25 lb/hr 1.12E-03 1,4-Phenylenediamine μ g/dscm R 2 lb/hr R 2 Pyrene μ g/dscm <0.012 lb/hr <2.1E-06 o-Toluidine μ g/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% O 2 , as propane 3.88 lb/hr 1.41

CO FCCU CEMS ppmvd 60.7 lb/hr 12.6 O 2 U.S. EPA Method 3A %, dry 5.52 N/A N/A
CO 2 %, 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
O 2 U.S. EPA Method 3A %, dry 5.26 N/A N/A
CO 2 %, 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

PM 2.5 -FILT/PM 2.5 -CON U.S. EPA Methods 201A/202 gr/dscf 0.00977 lb/hr 4.10

NH 3 U.S. EPA Method 320 ppmvd 0.944 lb/hr 0.120 Speciated Mercury

Oxidized Mercury (Hg 2+ ) ASTM D6784-02 μ g/dscm <0.087 lb/hr <0.000015 Elemental Mercury (Hg 0 ) μ g/dscm <0.17 lb/hr <0.000030
Cr 6+ 1 SW-846 Method 0061 μ g/dscm N/A lb/hr N/A
NO X FCCU CEMS ppmvd 49.6 lb/hr 16.7
SO 2 FCCU CEMS ppmvd 14.5 lb/hr 6.80
O 2 U.S. EPA Method 3A %, dry 5.38 N/A N/A
CO 2 %, dry 13.4 N/A N/A

1 

### The samples collected for Cr 6+ 

### were lost by the subcontracted hazardous materi als shipper (Federal Express) during transit between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and the subcontracted analyt ical laboratory located in Durham, North Carolina (Enthalpy).



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

Target Compound Sampling Method Concentration Units Average Concentration Mass Emission Rate Units Average Mass Emission Rate
HCl U.S. EPA Method 26A mg/dscm 0.334 lb/hr 0.0575 Cl 2 mg/dscm <0.017 lb/hr <0.0029 HF mg/dscm 0.0864 lb/hr 0.0149

HCN U.S. EPA Method 320 μ g/dscm 31,100 lb/hr 5.36

O 2 U.S. EPA Method 3A %, dry 5.18 N/A N/A
CO 2 %, 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, Cl 2 , HF 22-Jun-11 13:04 - 16:00
HCN 13:50 - 16:10 O 2 , CO 2 13:04 - 16:36

2 HCl, Cl 2 , HF 22-Jun-11 16:53 - 19:02 HCN 16:56 - 19:06 O 2 , CO 2 16:53 - 19:02

3 HCl, Cl 2 , HF
23-Jun-11 09:55 - 12:05
HCN 10:01 - 11:21
O 2 , CO 2 09:42 - 13:06

B 1 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 22-Jun-11 13:06 - 16:36
O 2 , CO 2 13:04 - 16:36

3 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 23-Jun-11 09:42 - 13:06
O 2 , CO 2 09:42 - 13:06

8 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 27-Jun-11 10:10 - 13:38
O 2 , CO 2 09:20 - 13:40

D1/D2/D4 5 PM 2.5 -FILT, PM 2.5 -CON

24-Jun-11 09:32 - 13:24 Hg 0 , Hg 2+ 10:25 - 12:45 Total PM, Other Metals 09:34 - 13:31

NH 3 09:51 - 11:40
NO x , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 09:32 - 13:31

6 PM 2.5 -FILT, PM 2.5 -CON

24-Jun-11 16:00 - 19:33 Hg 0 , Hg 2+ 15:30 - 17:45 Total PM, Other Metals 15:20 - 19:42
NH 3 15:27 - 18:32
NO x , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 15:20 - 19:42

7 PM 2.5 -FILT, PM 2.5 -CON

26-Jun-11 09:10 - 09:36, 09:55 - 12:01, 16:32 - 17:40

Hg 0 , Hg 2+ 10:15 - 12:02, 16:32 - 17:00

Total PM, Other Metals 09:10 - 09:36, 09:55 - 12:01, 16:32 - 17:38

NH 3 10:35 - 12:00

NO x , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 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, O 2 , CO 2 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, O 2 , CO 2 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, O 2 , CO 2 09:15-15:47

D3/D4 9 Cr 6+ 28-Jun-11 12:32-16:20
NO x , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 10:58-16:20

11 Cr 6+ 29-Jun-11 12:18-15:47
NO x , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 09:15-15:47

12 Cr 6+ 30-Jun-11 08:47-12:08
NO x , SO 2 , O 2 , CO 2 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 Chevr on Hawaii Refinery converts gas o ils into lighter products, such as gasoline. Gas oil is introduced into a flui dized bed reactor (at approximately 1000°F) with a catalyst. The catalyst promotes th e 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 approxima tely 1260°F. The regenerator serves to burn-off the carbon deposited on the cat alyst in the reactor and separa te most of the catalyst from the flue gas. The catalyst material is then re-circu lated 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 inle t to the ESP to enhance PM collecti on. The flue gas from the ESP then exits through the exhaust stack. CO, O 2 

# , NO X 

# and SO 2 

# 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 accu racy 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 operate d during normal and representative conditions during the Source Test. The ESP and all other air pollution c ontrol devices (APCD) were also operated in accordance with manufact urer’s specifications a nd requirements during the Source Test.

Most target compounds were sampled during rou tine soot-blowing events (i.e., “nut-blasting”) that occurred on the flue gas cooler, and applicable emission results are id entified 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 emissi ons 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 al l 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 norm al 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 emissi ons sampling times or process operations to include soot-blowing even ts during one out of three test runs for al l 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 burde n’ to both Chevron and the URS testing personnel. The effect of soot-blowing on applicable em ission rates measured during th e Source Test was negligible, and emissions data collected during soot-blo wing 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 r un averages during the Source Test:

 FCCU reactor feed rate (bbl/cd);

 Catalyst recirculati on 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 perfor med 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 40942312Table 2-1. Summary of Process Operations – 30-Day Daily AveragesDateReactor FeedRate(bbl/d)CatalystRecirculation Rate(tons/min)CatalystInventory(tons)Fresh CatalystFeed Rate(tons/min)Coke BurnRate(lbs/hr)ExhaustStackO2(%, dry)ESP OutletTemperature(°F)AmmoniaInject Rate(lbs/hr)AverageESPVoltage(V)AverageESPSpark Rate(sparks/min)10-Jun-11 CBI CBI CBI CBI 15,296 4.22 502 CBI CBI CBI11-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI15,253 4.27 502 CBICBICBI12-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI15,300 4.21 502 CBICBICBI13-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI15,340 4.22 503 CBICBICBI14-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI14,867 4.41 503 CBICBICBI15-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI14,598 4.48 505 CBICBICBI16-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI14,637 4.64 506 CBICBICBI17-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI15,253 4.63 502 CBICBICBI18-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI15,576 4.76 502 CBICBICBI19-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI15,541 4.82 502 CBICBICBI20-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI14,690 5.05 502 CBICBICBI21-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI13,868 5.47 502 CBICBICBI22-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI12,624 6.59 499 CBICBICBI23-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI12,720 6.84 502 CBICBICBI24-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI12,544 6.96 502 CBICBICBI25-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI12,459 6.89 502 CBICBICBI26-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI12,904 7.07 503 CBICBICBI27-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI14,558 5.40 501 CBICBICBI28-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI11,862 5.37 505 CBICBICBI29-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI11,149 5.48 500 CBICBICBI30-Jun-11 CBICBICBICBI11,151 5.57 502 CBICBICBI1-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI11,151 5.51 500 CBICBICBI2-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI11,156 5.49 500 CBICBICBI3-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI11,165 5.48 504 CBICBICBI4-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI16,325 5.45 502 CBICBICBI5-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI16,485 5.41 502 CBICBICBI6-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI14,079 5.38 500 CBICBICBI7-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI15,886 5.34 500 CBICBICBI8-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI16,490 5.32 503 CBICBICBI9-Jul-11 CBICBICBICBI16,483 5.30 503 CBICBICBICBI = Confidential Business InformationSource Test Report for the FCCU 2-4 40942312Table 2-2. Summary of Process Operations– ICR Test Run AveragesOperating Parameter Units Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run 11 Run 12Reactor Feed Ratebbl/d CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBIbbl/hr CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICatalyst Recirculation Rate tons/min CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICatalyst Inventory tons CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBIFresh Catalyst Feed Rate tons/min CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICoke Burn Rate lbs/hr 12,562 12,347 12,941 12,175 12,586 12,601 14,192 11,144 11,151 11,152O2Concentration %, dry 6.78 6.71 6.83 7.12 6.85 7.04 5.49 5.53 5.55 5.60Temperature at ESP Outlet°F 498 499 501 507 501 505 499 505 502 505Ammonia Injection Rate lbs/hr CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBIAverage ESP Voltage volts CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBIAverage ESP Spark Rate sparks/min CBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBICBI = Confidential Business InformationSource Test Report for the FCCU 2-5 40942312Table 2-3. Summary of Process Operations– Soot-Blowing EventsOverallRunNumberDate ConditionParametersMeasuredDuringSoot-BlowOverall RunTime(hh:min)ApproximateSoot-BlowTime(hh:mm)3 23-Jun-11 B/EHCl, Cl2, HF, HCN,PCDDs/PCDFs, PCBsO2, CO209:42-13:06 09:44-10:045 24-Jun-11 D1/D2/D4PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON,Total PM, Other Metals,NOX, SO2, O2, CO209:32-13:31 13:09-13:296 24-Jun-11 D1/D2/D4PM2.5-FILT, PM2.5-CON,Total PM, Other Metals,NH3, NOX, SO2, O2, CO215:20-19:42 18:45-19:0511 29-Jun-11 A1/A2/A3/D3/D4Methane, Ethane, THC,SVOC HAP, CO,NOX, SO2, O2, CO209:15-16:01 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 Sour ce Test sampling and anal ytical methodologies are presented in the “ Source Test Plan for the Fluid Ca talytic Cracking Unit” (‘Plan’), submitted to Chevron on June 8, 2011. Any deviations from those methodologies en countered during the Source Test are descri bed in this section.
3.1 Sampling Locations Chevron installed five (5) sampli ng 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) or thogonal sampling ports (Port C and Port D) with diameters of four (4) inches on a single meas urement plane, and three (3) orthogonal sampling ports (Port A, Port B and Port E) with diamet ers of four (4) inches on a second measurement plane. Ports C and D are shown in Figure 3-2 and Ports A and B ar e 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 dur ing the Source Test. A cyclonic flow check of the FCCU exhaust stack was performed prior to testing and passed appli cable method criteria. Data sheets documenting the sample point lo cations 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 Isokin etic 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 Ga s 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, measur ements 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 Em issions 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 summar y of data collected for FCCU exhaust stack temperature, velocity, moisture concentration, O 2 

# and CO 2 

# concentrations, and volumetric flow rates. Also included in Tabl e 3-2 are dry gas sample volumes and isokinetic sampling rates associated with each isokinetic sampling train pe rformed in ICR Groups A, B, D and E. Appendix C presents the calibrati ons, bias checks, and raw data for the O 2 

# and CO 2 

# CEMs. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test.Source Test Report for the FCCU3-5 40942312Table 3-2. Summary of Isokinetic SamplingConditionOverallRunAnalyticalParameterAverageStackTemperature(°F)Velocity(ft/sec)Flue GasMoisture(%)O2(vol %,dry)CO2(vol %,dry)Avg FlowRate(acfm)Avg FlowRate(scfm)Avg FlowRate(dscfm)Volumeat Meter(dscf)IsokineticSamplingRate (%)E1 HCl, Cl2, and HF 482.6 93.94 8.51 5.18 13.68 89,608 50,093 45,832 78.437 103.972 HCl, Cl2, and HF 484.2 94.68 8.27 5.15 13.65 90,335 50,412 46,243 77.111 101.303 HCl, Cl2, and HF 486.1 94.29 8.68 5.21 13.54 90,012 50,298 45,932 75.459 99.80B1 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 485.4 99.90 7.62 5.18 13.68 95,331 53,134 49,086 121.596 99.963 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 486.7 93.80 7.88 5.21 13.54 89,508 49,984 46,046 112.371 98.488 PCDDs/PCDFs/PCBs 483.2 95.51 7.40 5.38 13.35 91,139 51,002 47,228 117.664 98.50D1/D2/D45PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-CON489.4 98.82 7.07 5.39 13.40 94,298 52,474 48,767 62.304 99.53Hg0and Hg2+487.0 94.96 8.01 5.39 13.40 90,615 50,555 46,507 73.298 98.69Total PM/OtherMetals477.2 96.44 7.85 5.39 13.40 92,033 51,880 47,806 124.198 99.636PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-CON486.0 100.92 7.30 5.16 13.60 96,307 53,788 49,864 67.929 99.39Hg0and Hg2+482.3 94.23 8.20 5.16 13.60 89,915 50,413 46,280 72.347 98.88Total PM/OtherMetals477.1 96.19 8.14 5.16 13.60 91,789 51,752 47,538 122.073 99.487PM2.5-FILT/PM2.5-CON489.0 97.46 6.95 5.59 13.21 93,004 51,745 48,147 75.787 104.56Hg0and Hg2+485.5 95.27 8.18 5.59 13.21 90,914 50,770 46,616 72.593 98.50Total PM/OtherMetals479.7 96.98 8.21 5.59 13.21 92,547 52,033 47,760 124.461 100.95A8 SVOC HAP 473.6 95.27 7.50 5.38 13.35 90,910 51,393 47,540 150.215 98.929 SVOC HAP 487.1 96.41 7.92 5.72 13.06 92,000 51,204 47,149 149.742 99.4311 SVOC HAP 487.0 96.46 5.87 5.47 13.31 92,047 51,150 48,146 150.947 100.18D3/D49 Cr6+489.6 97.69 9.31 5.72 13.06 93,221 51,745 46,927 119.007 99.7411 Cr6+486.4 98.83 13.20 5.47 13.31 94,310 52,441 45,521 119.260 103.5812 Cr6+493.4 97.95 10.56 5.65 13.15 93,467 51,725 46,262 116.917 99.91

# Source Test Report for the FCCU 3-6 40942312 3.3 SO 2 

# Concentrations by Certified FCCU CEMS A SO 2 

# 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 requirement s of 40 CFR 60, Subpart J. Per Component 4 of the ICR, data from the FCCU SO 2 

# CEMS is used to report hourly av erages 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 SO 2 

# CEMS data is correlated with emi ssions sampling conducted for ICR Group D target compounds. Appendix D presents applicable FCCU SO 2 

# CEMS data. Appendix E presents the results of the most recent accuracy certification of the FCCU SO 2 

# CEMS. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test.

3.4 NO X 

# Concentrations by Certified FCCU CEMS A NO X 

# 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 requirement s of 40 CFR 60, Subpart J. Per Component 4 of the ICR, data from the FCCU NO X 

# CEMS is used to report hourly aver ages from 30 days of data in lieu of performing U.S. EPA Method 7E, “ Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrum ental Analyzers Procedure) ,” during the Source Test. A portion of this FCCU NO X 

# CEMS data is correlated with emi ssions sampling conducted for ICR Group D target compounds. Appendix D pr esents applicable FCCU NO X 

# CEMS data. Appendix E presents the results of the most recent accuracy certification of the FCCU NO X 

# 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 (CEM S) 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 requirement s 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 wi th emissions sampling conducted for ICR Group A target compounds. Appendix D presents appl icable FCCU CO CEMS data. Appendix E presents the results of the most recent accura cy certification of the FCCU CO CEMS. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test.

3.6 Methane, Ethane an d 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 performan ce-based sampling and analytical method that allows for some flexibility in sampling and anal ytical techniques provided that certain QA/QC criteria for instrument calibration and sample r ecovery criteria are achieved. As a precautionary measure, VOC HAP compounds were also monito red using U.S. EPA Method 320. Section 3.13 presents further detail. Tabl e 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 A ppendix F. The full anal ytical 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 Concen trations 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 Dibenzofur ans from Municipal Waste Combustors, ” during the Source Test for ICR Group B. Sample gas wa s collected isokinetical ly, filtered, and passed through a sorbent module. The sorbent module c onsisted of a water-cooled condenser followed by the water-jacketed XAD-2 resin trap. Followi ng the resin trap, the sa mple gas passed through a series of impingers. The sampling train was al so 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 Appendi x 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 concen trations 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, Cl 2 

# and HF Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 26A The FCCU exhaust stack gas stream was sampled for determination of HCl, Cl 2 

# , 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 Cl 2 

# . The impingers were weighed, and the solutions were recovered and subsequently an alyzed using ion chroma tography (IC). Field sampling data sheets are presented in Appendi x B. The full analytical report for HCl, Cl 2 

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

3.10 Total Filterable PM and Other Meta ls Concentrations by U.S. EPA Methods 5 and 29 The FCCU exhaust stack gas stre am was sampled for determination of total filterable PM and other selected metals emissions using a sampli ng train meeting the requirements of both U.S. EPA Methods 5, “ Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources ,” and 29, “ Determination of Metals Emis sions 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 (IC P/MS) by SW-846 Method 6020. Fi eld sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical repor ts for total filterable PM and other metals are presented in Appendices J and K, resp ectively. No deviations from the Plan occurred during the Source Test.

3.11 PM 2.5 

# –FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON Concentrations by U.S. EPA Methods 201A and 202 The FCCU exhaust stack gas stream was sampled for determination of PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# - CON concentrations using a sampling train meeti ng the requirements of both U.S. EPA Methods 201A, “ Determination of PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# 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-s tack filter, removing all filterable particulate less than or equal to 2.5 micr ometers in diameter. The PM 2.5 

# -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. PM 2.5 

# -CON was determined in the back-half impingers and midtrain filter. The impinger rinses and filter were desiccated and condensable PM 2.5 

# was determined gravimetrically. Field sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical report for PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -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

m 3 

# 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 objec tive 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 thir d run (Run 7). See S ection 5.0 for details on the impact of this deviation on the Source Test QA/QC objectives.

3.12 Methanol Concentrati on by U.S. EPA Method 308 U.S. EPA Method 308, “ Procedure for Determination of Me thanol 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 ga s 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. Se ction 3.13 presents furt her detail. Table 3-5 presents a summary of methanol sample collecti on. Field sampling data sh eets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical report for meth anol 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 sa mpling 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 Sec tion 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, NH 3 

# and HCN Concentrations by U.S. EPA Method 320 U.S. EPA Method 320, “ Measurement of Vapor Phase Or ganic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy ,” was performed to quantify selected aldehydes (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and propanal), NH 3 

# , 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 st ack gas stream was monitored for several VOC HAP compounds in the event that U.S. EPA Me thod 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 Instrume nts 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 assura nce criteria defined in the method are met during the validation procedures and quali ty 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 Concen tration 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, Partic le-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 sh eets are presented in Appendix B. The full analytical report for speci ated 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 consiste d 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 A ppendix 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 Cr 6+ 

# Concentration by SW-846 Method 0061 Samples of the FCCU exhaust stack gas stream were collected isokinetically for the determination of Cr 6+ 

# emissions according to SW-846 Method 0061, “ Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissi ons 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 Cr 6+ 

# were lost by the subcontra cted hazardous materials shipper (Federal Express) during transit between the Ch evron Hawaii Refinery and the subcontracted analytical laboratory located in Durham, North Carolina (Enthalpy). No emissions results for Cr 6+ 

# 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 emissi on rates are presented us ing a “<” before the numerical value to identify that at least one of the analytical values used in calculations is less than the applicable method dete ction limit. In addi tion, individual analytical results may be qualified as ‘BDL’ (below det ection level), ‘DLL’ (detection level limited), or ‘ADL’ (above detection level) accord ing 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 O 2 

# , CO 2 

# , SO 2 

# , NO X 

# , CO or 

# THC ) 

# , gaseous concentrations are repor ted 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 presen ted using at least two significant figures.
4.1 ICR Group A Results and Calculations This section presents detailed analytical resu lts from the Source Test for ICR Group A target compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stac k. 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 accordin g to U.S. EPA Method 308 (presented in Table 4-11), methanol was monitored using FTIR, accord ing to U.S. EPA Method 320 (presented in Table 4-6). The FTIR sampli ng during Group A testing agreed with the U.S. EPA Method 308 results, in that no methanol was observed by ei ther 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 11 1
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 11 1
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 11 1
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 11 1
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 even t 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 11 1

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 ( μ g/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 ( μ g/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 ( μ g) Flag Condensate ( μ g) Flag Totals ( μ g)

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-Butadiene 2 <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-Butadiene 2 <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 11 1 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-Butadiene 2 <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 11 1

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 ( μ g) 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-Butadiene 2 <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 BD L <24.2 BDL <22.0 BDL
Toluene <27.5 BDL <27.1 BDL <26.0 BDL Stack Gas Concentration (ug/dscm) Va lue 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-Butadiene 2 <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-Butadiene 2 <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

( μ g) Flag XAD FH ( μ g) Flag XAD BH ( μ g) Flag CT FH ( μ g) Flag CT BH ( μ g) Flag Totals ( μ g) Condition A1 Run 8 Acetonitrile R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 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 Styrene 2 <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 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 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 Styrene 2 <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 11 3
Acetonitrile R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 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 Styrene 2 

## <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 sp ike 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 11 1

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 ( μ g) Value DL Value DL Value DL
Acetonitrile R 2 R 2 R 2 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 Styrene 3 <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 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 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 Styrene 3 <490 BDL <480 BD L <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 revi ew. See Section 5.0 for more details.

3 Laboratory pre-spikes for styrene resulted in low sp ike 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 11 1

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 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 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 BD L <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 revi ew. See Section 5.0 for more details.

3 Laboratory pre-spikes for styrene resulted in low sp ike 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

( μ g) Flag Cond B ( μ g) Flag SG-FH ( μ g) Flag SG-BH ( μ g) Flag Totals ( μ g) 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 11 1

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 ( μ g) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag

Methanol <15.1 <15.0 <15.0
Stack Gas Concentration ( μ g/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 Results 1

Cond A2 Run 8 Cond A2 Run 9 Cond A2 Run 11 2

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 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 Dimethylaminobenzene <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracen e <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine R 3 R 3 R 3

α , α -Dimethylphenethylamine R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 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) Va lue 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3

α , α -Dimethylphenethylamine R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 11 2

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 <2.1 E-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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 BDL R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3

α , α -Dimethylphenethylamine R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 R 3 R 3 R 3 R 3 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 sample s were stored above 4°C upon arrival at analytical laboratory. For more details, s ee 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 S ource Test for ICR Group B target compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stac k. 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-substi tuted, 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 3 1 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 3 1 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 3 1 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 3 1 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 resu lts from the Source Test for ICR Group D target compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stack. Results for SO 2 

# , NO X 

# , NH 3 

# , PM 2.5 

# -FILT, PM 2.5 

# -CON, total filterable PM, other metals, speciated Hg are presented in measurement units according to Component 4 of the ICR. Cr 6+ 

# results were not obtained during the Source Test.

Table 4-16. SO 2 

## and NO X 

## Emissions Results

Condition D1/D2/D4 Condition D3/D4

Run 5 1 Run 6 1 Run 7 Run 9 Run 11 1 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

NO x (ppmvd) 41.9 42.4 38.5 62.1 57.9 54.5 Average NO x (ppmvd) 40.9 58.2 6-Run Average NOx (ppmvd) 49.6
NO x (lb/hr) 14.4 14.5 13.2 20.9 18.9 18.1 Average NO x (lb/hr) 14.0 19.3 6-Run Average NO x (lb/hr) 16.7

SO 2 (ppmvd) 15.9 16.6 14.5 12.3 13.6 14.0 Average SO 2 (ppmvd) 15.7 13.3 6-Run Average SO 2 (ppmvd) 14.5
SO 2 (lb/hr) 7.60 7.88 6.91 5.76 6.18 6.47 Average SO 2 (lb/hr) 7.46 6.13 6-Run Average SO 2 (lb/hr) 6.80

1 NO X and SO 2 were measured during the soot-blow even ts that occurred from 13:09-13:29 during R un 5, from 18:45-19:05 during Run 6, and from 12:43-13:03 during Run 11.



## Table 4-17. NH 3 

## Emissions Results

Cond D1 Run 5 Cond D1 Run 6 1 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

N H 3 0.856 0.833 0.915 Stack Gas Dry Concentration (ppmvd) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value

N H 3 0.929 ADL 0.907 ADL 0.997 ADL 0.944 Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Valu e DL Value DL Value DL Value

N H 3 0.118 ADL 0.114 ADL 0.126 ADL 0.120

1 NH 3 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. PM 2.5 

## -FILT and PM 2.5 

## -CON Emissions Results

Cond D1 Run 5 1 Cond D1 Run 6 1 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

PM 2.5 -FILT 25.5 25.2 25.7

PM 2.5 -CON (Organic) 1.4 0.3 1.2
PM 2.5 -CON (Inorganic) 8.1 19.8 24.0

PM 2.5 -FILT + PM 2.5 -CON 35.0 45.3 50.9 Stack Gas Concentration (gr/dscf) Va lue DL Value DL Value DL Value

PM 2.5 -FILT 0.00632 ADL 0.00572 ADL 0.00523 ADL 0.00576
PM 2.5 -CON (Organic) 0.000347 ADL 0.0000681 ADL 0.000244 ADL 0.000220
PM 2.5 -CON (Inorganic) 0.00201 ADL 0.00450 ADL 0.00489 ADL 0.00380
PM 2.5 -FILT + PM 2.5 -CON 0.00867 ADL 0.0103 ADL 0.0104 ADL 0.00977 Mass Emission Rate (lb/hr) Value DL Value DL Value DL Value

PM 2.5 -FILT 2.64 ADL 2.45 ADL 2.16 ADL 2.42
PM 2.5 -CON (Organic) 0.145 ADL 0.0291 ADL 0.101 ADL 0.0916
PM 2.5 -CON (Inorganic) 0.839 ADL 1.92 ADL 2.02 ADL 1.59
PM 2.5 -FILT + PM 2.5 -CON 3.62 ADL 4.40 ADL 4.28 ADL 4.10

1 PM 2.5 -FILT and PM 2.5 -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 5 1 Cond D1 Run 6 1 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) Va lue 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 ev ents that occurred from 13: 09-13:29 during Ru n 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 ( μ g) Flag Back-Half Fraction ( μ g) Flag Total ( μ g)

Condition D1 Run 5 1 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 6 1 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 5 1 Cond D1 Run 6 1 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 ( μ g) 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 <0.00000 48 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 th at 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 Results 1

Front-Half Fraction

( μ g) Flag KCl Fraction

( μ g) Flag HNO 3 /H 2 O 2 Fraction

( μ g) Flag H 2 SO 4 / KMnO 4 Fraction

( μ g) Flag Total ( μ g)

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 Results 1

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 ( μ g) 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 ( μ g/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) Valu e 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 resu lts from the Source Test for ICR Group E target compound emissions from the FCCU exhaust stack. Results for HCN, HCl, Cl 2 

# 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 3 1

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 ( μ g/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) Valu e 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 Cl 2 

## Emissions Results

Cond E Run 1 Cond E Run 2 Cond E Run 3 1

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 ( μ g) 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) Va lue 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) Valu e 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 Cl 2 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 3 1

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 ( μ g) Value Flag Value Flag Value Flag Hydrogen Fluoride 169 J 181 J 214 J
Stack Gas Concentration (mg/dscm) Va lue DL Value DL Value DL Value Hydrogen Fluoride 0.0761 ADL 0.0829 ADL 0.100 ADL 0.0864
Mass Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Valu e 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 demonstr ate 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 appro ach consisted of the following key elements:

 Definition of data quality obj ectives that reflect the overa ll 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 measur ement system performance does not meet the specifications.

These QA procedures include sampling and an alytical procedures, along with specified calibration requirements, QC checks, data redu ction 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 copi es of sample chain-of-custody forms. Appendix Q presents relevant project correspond ence from U.S. EPA, and Appendix R presents correspondence from Federal Expr ess detailing the loss of th e 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 c onclusions 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

m 3 

# (70.6 cf) dry gas sample volume over the co urse 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 sa mpling trains would be performed according the Component 4 of the ICR. Co mponent 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 Cr 6+ 

# were lost by the subcontracted hazardous materials shipper (Federal Express) during transit between the Ch evron 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 rec overy 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, FT IR. 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 associ ated 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 re ported and used in further reporting. These measurement approaches are compared and contra sted in Table 5-1. Th e 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 th e 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 PM 2.5 

# - FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON emissions according to U.S. EP A Methods 201A and 202; HCl, Cl 2 

# , and HF emissions according to U.S. EPA Method 26A; Speciated Hg (i.e., Hg 0 

# and Hg 2+ 

# ) emissions according to ASTM D6784-02; Cr 6+ 

# 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 S VOC HAPs emissions according to SW-846 Method 0010.

Quality assurance and quality control activities a ssociated with the collection of these samples included:

 Ensuring that the sampling points met me thod 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 with in 90-110% of isokinetic;

 Measurement of stack gas velocity before and after the run agreed within 10%;

 Maintaining the probe, filter and (on applicab le trains) heated transfer line at the specified temperatures;

 Maintaining the impinger exit and (on app licable 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 befo re and after sample collection; and

 Recording all data on pr e-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 sheet s are presented in A ppendix 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 Me thods 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 give s sufficient sensitivity to interpret these data, as all PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON results were above applicable method detection limits. No qualifiers are requi red 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 sa mpling 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 im pact on the usability of these data.

5.2 Analysis of Stack Gas Sa mples for Determination of PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON Emissions Samples of stack gas fo r determination of PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON emissions were collected according to U.S. EPA Methods 201A and 202 and Component 4 of the ICR.

Quality assurance and quality control activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality assess ment 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 pr oject-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 a nd 202 include no speci fication for holding time. The analysis of these samples out side the holding time specified in the Plan has no impact on the usability of these results. No data are flagged ba sed on this finding.

 Field blank results for PM 2.5 

# -FILT are well below actual re sults. Field blank results for PM 2.5 

# -CON are significant and on the same or der as the field results. The results for PM 2.5 

# -FILT and PM 2.5 

# -CON presented in the report are not corrected for field blanks. These may have a positive bias for PM 2.5 

# -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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality assess ment 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. AS TM 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 sample s 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 ba sed 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 perma nganate samples were re-prepared and analyzed with acceptable MS recoveries. The MS/MSD results for the initial analysis of the permanganate fraction have r ecoveries (43 and 51%) well outside the acceptance criteria (80-120%). These sample s were re-analyzed at a higher dilution to mitigate the sample matrix effects. Th e more diluted analyses provided analytical results within method specification for MS recovery, and these da ta 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 Cr 6+ 

# Emissions Stack gas samples for the determination of Cr 6+ 

# emissions were lost during shipment between the Chevron Hawaii Refinery and the analytical labora tory located in Durham, North Carolina. See Appendix R for correspondence from Federal E xpress acknowledging the loss of the package containing the stack gas samples.
5.5 Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Dete rmination 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 a nd 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet 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-sp ecific objective to facilitate the complete reporting of Source Test results within th e schedule demanded by U.S. EPA for the ICR. The analysis of these samples outsi de the holding time of 14 days has no impact on the data. The applicable method-specifi ed holding time for these analyses is 6 months. No qualifiers are required fo r these data based on this finding.

 Lead (Pb) was found in laboratory blanks n ear the applicable me thod detection limit. Field blank results show detectab le levels of most target anal ytes. 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 le vels 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 ba sed on MS/MSD results.

5.6 Analysis of Stack Gas Samp les for Determination of HCl, Cl 2 

# and HF Emissions Samples of stack gas for determination of HCl, Cl 2 

# 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality assess ment 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-s pecific objective to facilitate the complete reporting of Source Test result s within the schedule demanded by U.S. EPA for the ICR. Although the samples were analyz ed outside the plan-specified holding time of 14 days, they were analyzed within the 4-week wi ndow allowed by U.S. EPA Method 26A. No qualifiers are required for thes e data based on this finding.

 Fluoride was detected in the field blank and in one reagen t blank at levels below the levels in the field samples. The results for fluoride in the blank sa mples indicate that the field results may have a positive bias. As the data are not corrected, the emissions estimates are conservative. No qualifiers ar e 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 w ith 5.4 and 8.1% difference from the mean. Although two samples had precision outside method ac ceptance, these results are n ear the detection limit. At

# Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-9 40942312 these levels, the results carry a “J” flag, and ar e 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality assess ment in Appendix N. The following issues were identified as part of this assessment:

 All samples were prepared within 14 days of sample collection, a nd 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 anal yzed within 45 days of extraction. As the holding times met the applicable method specifi cation, no qualifiers are required for these data, nor are these data invalid ated 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 preparati on 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 impinge r fractions, and therefore the results which include the impinger fractions represent a cons ervative estimate of PCBs emissions. No qualifiers are required for these data based on this finding.

 Results for the field blank show 4 PC DDs/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 tube s, 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality assess ment 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 lo w 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 with in 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 da ta based on holding time.

 Only three compounds were detected in th e field blank, reagent blank or laboratory blank. These three compounds are naph thalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and phenanthrene. In all three cases, the results for the bla nks are similar to the results for the field samples. The detection of thr ee compounds in the blank samples at levels near the field samples suggests that the re sults 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 ba sed on blank results.

 The following five compounds showed litt le or no recovery in the LCS: a,a-dimethylphenethylamine, 1,4-Ph enylenediamine, Benzidine, 3,3- Dimethylbenzidine, and 3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine. The lack of LCS recovery for the five analytes demonstrates that these co mpounds cannot be recovered by the sample preparation and analysis methodology. Accordingly, data for these five compounds are rejected, and is not presente d 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 a ssociated 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 pr e-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 cour se 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed da ta quality assessment in Appendi x N. There were no issues identified in the course of th e data quality assessment.

 All bag samples prepared and analyzed w ithin 64 hours of sample collection. The test plan specifies analys is within 24 hours. Although the samples were analyzed outside the time specified in the test pla n, 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 sa mples 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 re sults. 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 summ ary 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 r ecommendation about the sturdiness of flexfilm bags. As recoveries are acceptabl e, 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality asse ssment 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 p ackages 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 indi cation of sample degradation. Except as noted, spike recoveries met method specification, and results from all runs were similar. No qualifiers are required fo r these data based on preservation.

 All samples analyzed within 22 days of sample collection. Test plan specifies analysis within 14 days of sample collec tion. 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 break through across the whole train for acetonitrile exceeded 25%. The consistent breakthrough of approxi mately 35% or more of the acetonitrile found in the sampling train suggests that ther e may be significant lo ss of acetonitrile from the sampling train. This is consiste nt with the low spike recovery and low LCS recoveries.

 Eleven of thirteen target analytes had sp ike recoveries within 70-130%. The outliers are acetonitrile (28.4%) and styrene ( 10.7%). The spike recoveries outside acceptance criteria for acetonitrile and styr ene indicate that these data may be questionable. As discussed in the body of the report, results for styrene were developed by an alternate methodology, FT IR. The FTIR results met all method specifications and are presented in the summ ary 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 ac etonitrile in results for field samples.

 Every analysis was performed in tripli cate. 594 of 615 trip licate analyses had differences from the mean result that di d 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 fr om LCS failed to meet the laboratory specification: Acetonitrile, aqueous LCS, 0% recovery; Acrylonitrile, aqueous LCS, 15-20% recovery; 2-Nitropropa ne, aqueous LCS, 65-70% re covery. The extremely low LCS recovery for acetonitrile suggests that there may be significant loss of acetonitrile in results for field samples. The low recoveries fo r 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, base d on low LCS recovery, low field spike recovery and breakthrough.

5.12 Analysis of Stack Gas Samp les for Methanol Emissions Sorbent and condensate samples for determinati on 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 activitie s associated with these analyses included:

 Sample handling and preservation;

 Preparation and analysis of samp les 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed data quality assess ment 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 collec tion. Although the samples were analyzed outside the time specification in the test pl an, there is no specifi cation 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 me thanol were below MDLs during Runs 8, 9 and 11. In addition to the results for me thanol according to U.S. EPA Method 308 (presented in Table 4-11), methanol wa s 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 th at no methanol was observed by either method. During testing for other groups, a small but dete ctable amount of methanol was observed using U.S. EPA Method 320.

5.13 Monitoring of Stack Gas for O 2 

# , CO 2 

# , and THC Emissions The stack gas was monitored for O 2 

# and CO 2 

# according to U.S. EPA Method 3A and THC according to U.S. EPA Method 25A. Each met hod employs the use of continuous emissions monitors (CEMs).

Quality assurance and quality control ac tivities associated with CEMs include:

 Use of calibration gas standards of known and acceptable quality;

 Performance of calibra tion error tests;

 Performance of system bias chec ks (U.S. EPA Method 3A only); and

 Performance of syst em drift checks.

# Source Test Report for the FCCU 5-15 40942312 Copies of certification of calibration gas stan dards 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 th e 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 activitie s 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 activitie s indicates that these data m eet the ICR Component 4 QA/QC guidelines. See the detailed da ta quality assessment in Appendi x N. There were no issues identified in the course of th e data quality assessment.
5.15 Monitoring of Stack Gas for Aldehydes, NH 3 

# , and HCN Emissions The stack gas was monitored for selected alde hydes (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and propanal), NH 3 

# , and HCN emissions using an FTIR spect rometer according to U.S. EPA Method 320.

Quality assurance and quality control activ ities 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 calibra tion 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 qu ality assessment.