Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation



# UPDATED MACT FLOOR ANALYSIS FOR PM AND TSM
HYBRID SUSPENSION/GR ATE BOILER SUBCATEGORY

Submitted To: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for: Florida Sugar Industry
Prepared By: Golder Associates Inc.

6026 NW 1st Place Gainesville, FL 32607 USA

July 2011 113

-87508 MACT FLOOR ANALYSIS

### July 2011 ES

- 1 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reconsidering the Na tional E mission Standards for
H azardous A ir Pollutants for M ajor Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Final Boiler Rule) that were published in the Federal Register (Vol. 76, No. 54, pgs. 15608 to 15702) on March 21, 2011. EPA has requested the public to submit any additional information concerning the Final Boiler Rule by July 15, 2011. Accordingly, the Florida Sugar Industry (FSI), working together with sugarcane processors in Texas and Hawaii, respectfully sub mits this report (Updated Report) to EPA concerning the bagasse

-fired, hybrid suspension grate (HSG) boilers that are regulated
under the Final Boiler Rule.

This Updated Report supplements and refines portions of the analyses presented in the FSI’s 2010 MACT floor analysis for bagasse boilers

. This Updated Report focuses on HSG bagasse boilers only
, and does not address fuel cell type bagasse fired boilers. This Updated Report presents MACT floor analyses that are based on a methodology similar to that used by EPA when EPA set the MACT floors in the Final Boiler Rule. This Updated Report also includes additional emissions test data that were obtained during the past year. In addition, this Updated Report presents a slightly modified methodology
for establishing the MACT floor for HSG boilers. This modified methodology is being submitted for EPA’s consideration because the FSI believes the modified methodology is a better technique for establishing
the MACT floor in certain cases.

Table ES

- 1 presents a summary of the MACT floor emission limits recommended by the FSI for particulate matter (PM) and total selected metals (TSM) for existing HSG boilers. As shown in Table ES

1, the MACT floor PM emission limit for HSG boilers should be different than the PM limit contained in the
Final Boiler Rule. The PM and TSM limits for HSG boilers should be based on the emissions data from boilers in the HSG subcategory only; the PM and TSM limits for HSG boilers should not be based on the
emissions data from all of the boilers in the solid fuel category.

The FSI strongly believes that in cases where adequate data are available for individual boilers, the average emissions rate should be used to rank the units, and to determine the top 12 percent or top 5 best perfo rming units. The average emissions rate is by far the best indicator of the actual performance of a source, especially the long

-term performance, which in turn is the best indicator of annual HAP
emissions. Accordingly, the average emissions rate was use d to determine the MACT floor for PM emissions from existing HSG boilers.

Table ES

-2 presents a summary of the MACT floor emission limits recommended by the FSI for new sources in the HSG boiler subcategory. It should be noted that with regard to PM, t he top

- ranked source (Rio Grande Valley No. 6) only has emissions data for three test runs. The FSI respectfully suggests that three test runs do not provide an adequate database on which to establish a MACT floor. Therefore, the FSI recommends using the top

- ranked source with adequate test data, which is U. S. Sugar’s Clewiston

### July 2011 ES

- 1 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### Boiler No. 8. This Clewiston boiler is the second

- ranked source by source average and it has much more emissions test data, which help account for variability. Accordingly, Tabl e ES

-2 identifies the PM emission limit that would be established for new HSG sources by using the data for the Clewiston boiler.

The FSI also supports the use of the 99.9

- percent upper prediction limit (UPL) when setting the MACT floor for all pollutants emitted by new sources. Since the MACT floor for new sources is based on the emissions data from only one source, the emissions database for new sources is much more limited than the database used to set the MACT floor for existing units. Consequently, the database used to set the MACT floor for new units is not likely to account for variability in operations and emissions. For these reasons, the 99.9

- percent UPL is needed to properly account for such variability.

All of these issues are discussed in more detail in the following report.

### July 2011 113-87508

Pollutant Basis

PM 0.039 lb/MMBtu 0.32 lb/MMBtu 99% UPL - Source Average

TSM

-- 4.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 99% UPL - Includes fuel variability

HCL 0.035 lb/MMBtu NA Final Boiler Rule
Hg 4.6E-06 lb/MMBtu NA Final Boiler Rule

CO 3,500 ppmvd @ 3% O 2 NA Final Boiler Rule

D/F 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 % O 2 NA Final Boiler Rule

Pollutant Basis

PM 0.0011 lb/MMBtu 0.022 lb/MMBtu 99.9% UPL - Top source with sufficient data

TSM

-- 4.4E-04 lb/MMBtu Existing source MACT

HCL 0.0022 lb/MMBtu NA Final Boiler Rule

Hg 3.5E-06 lb/MMBtu NA Final Boiler Rule

CO 1,500 ppmvd @ 3% O 2 NA Final Boiler Rule

D/F 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 % O 2 NA Final Boiler Rule



### TABLE ES-2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED NEW SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS

HYBRID SUSPENSION GRATE BAGASSE BOILERS

FSI Reconsideration Limit EPA Final MACT Limit (March 2011) 

### TABLE ES-1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED EXISTING SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS

HYBRID SUSPENSION GRATE BAGASSE BOILERS

FSI Reconsideration Limit EPA Final MACT Limit (March 2011)

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Final\Tables\Table_ES-1 & ES-2.xlsx

### July 2011 1 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

# Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ ES

- 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BAC KGROUND INFORMATION

................................ ................................ . 1 2.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4 2.1 Data Screening and Selection

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 2.2 Source Ranking and MACT Pool

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 2.3 Data Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 7
2.4 MACT Floor Calculation Methodology

................................ ................................ .......................... 8 2.4.1 Upper Prediction Limit

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8
2.4.2 Fuel Analysis Variability

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 3.0 MACT FLOOR RESULTS F OR EXISTING SOURCES

................................ ................................ .. 11 3.1 Particulate Matter

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 3.2 Total Selected Metals

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 3.2.1 MACT Floor Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15 3.2.2 Fuel Variability

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 16 3.3 Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 4.0 MACT FLOOR FOR N EW SOURCES

................................ ................................ ............................ 19



## Tables
Table ES

- 1 Summary of Proposed Existing Source M ACT Floor Limits , Hybrid Suspension

Grate Bagasse Boilers Table ES

-2 Summary of Proposed New Source M ACT Floor Limits , Hybrid Suspension

Grate Bagasse Boilers Table 3

- 1 Summary of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits, Hybrid Suspension Grate

Bagasse Boilers Table 4

- 1 Summary of New Source MACT Floor Limits, Hybrid Suspension Grate Bagasse Boilers

### July 2011 2 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## List of Appendices Appendix A PM Data Appendix B TSM Data Appendix C Bagasse Metals Analysis Appendix D Lognormal Distribution Statistical Equations

### July 2011 1 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFOR MATION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for the source category of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Industrial Boilers). On June 4, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule,
Na tional E

mission Standards for H azardous A ir Pollutants for M ajor Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Proposed Boiler Rule), in the Federal Register (75 F.R. 107, pgs. 320 06 to 32073). On March 21, 2011, EPA published its final rule, Na tional E mission Standards for
H azardous A ir Pollutants for M ajor Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Final Boiler Rule), in the Federal Register (76 F.R. 54, pgs. 15608 to 15702).

The Final Boiler Rule was developed in accordance with S ection 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), which require s the establishment of NESHAPs for certain existing and new major s ources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) . The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable in practice. This level of control is known as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Th e minimum level of control allowed for a NESHAP is termed the “MACT floor.” The MACT floor for existing sources is the average emission limitation achieved by the
best

- performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories or subcategories with 30 or mo re sources, or the average emission limitation achieved by the best

- performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. The MACT floor for new sources is the emission limitation achieved in practice by the best controlled simi lar source.

The Florida Sugar Industry (FSI) 1 

### , working in cooperation with sugarcane processors in Texas and Hawaii, requested EPA to create a separate subcategory for bagasse boilers in the NESHAPs for Industrial Boilers. In support of this request, the FSI provided EPA with a May 2009 report entit led Bagasse Boilers Should be Regulated in a Separate Subcategory under the Boiler MACT Rules Because
T hey a re a Unique Class of Boilers (Golder, 2009). In July 2010, the FSI submitted an updated and revised report (Golder
, 2010) to EPA concerning the Pro posed Boiler Rule.

To further support the FSI’s request for a separate subcategory, in June 2009 the FSI provided EPA with an analysis entitled MACT Floor Analysis f or Bagasse

- Fired Boilers . The FSI’s analysis determined the
MACT floor emission limits for bagasse boilers, based on the methodologies developed by EPA for the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI). 73 F.R. 231, pgs. 7296 2 to 73003 (December 1, 2008). EPA had previously recommended this methodology as the appropriate

1 The Florida Sugar Industry (FSI) is comprised of sugarcane processors located in south Florida. These processors harvest sugarcane to produce raw and/or refined sugar. The FSI operates industrial boilers fired primarily by bagasse, which is a co

- product of the sugarcane processing operations. Very limited amounts of fossil fuel may also be burned in the FSI ’ s boilers. The FSI also is coordinating the submittal of this report with sugarcane processors located in Hawaii and Texas.

### July 2011 2 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### methodology for developing MACT floor emission limits for the Industrial Boiler rule. However, the
method used to calculate the MACT floor limits for the HM IWI rule was subsequently modified, and the MACT floor calculations in the Proposed Boiler Rule (published on June 4, 2010) followed the revised methodology.

The FSI then submitted a revised MACT floor analysis entitled MACT Floor Analysis f or Bagasse Boil

er Subcategory to EPA in August 2010. The MACT floor analysis in that document was based on the methodology used in the Proposed Boiler Rule, as well as alternative methodologies that were proposed by the FSI.

On March 21, 2011, EPA published the Final Boiler Rule in the Federal Register. On the same day, EPA announced in the Federal Register that EPA would reconsider certain aspects of the rule. In a letter notice published on May 18, 2011, EPA stayed the effective date of the Final Boiler Rule until either the reconsideration process or the judicial proceeding concerning the Final Boiler Rule is completed, whichever occurs first. EPA also requested that any additional information concerning the Final Boiler Rule be submitted to EPA by July 15, 2011.

This report updates, supplements, and refines the FSI’s August 2010 MACT floor analysis for bagasse

fired boilers. The analyses in this report (Updated Report) are based on the methodologies used by EPA in the Final Boiler Rule issued on March 21, 2011, except where otherwise noted. This Updated Report also provides additional PM test data from the past year for HSG boilers. In addition, this report presents a slightly modified methodology for determining the MACT floor. This modified methodology is be ing proposed for EPA’s consideration because the FSI believes the modified methodology is a better technique for setting the MACT floor in certain cases.

This Updated Report identifies the emission limits that should be adopted by EPA in the Final Boiler Rule for the emissions of PM from new and existing HSG boilers. This Updated Report also identifies the alternative TSM standard that should be adopted by EPA for HSG boilers

.
This analysis determines the MACT floor emission limits for existing and new HSG bagasse

-fired boilers located at major sources of HAPs. Historical emissions data for each of the FSI mill boilers, Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company’s (HCSC’s) Puunene sugar mill boilers, and the newest boiler at the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc (RGVSG) sugar mill in Texas, were used in the revised MACT floor analysis for HSG bagasse

-fired boilers, as listed below:

 

### U.S. Sugar Corporation (USSC ) Boiler Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8.

 

### Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (SCGCF) B oiler Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8.

 

### Osceola Farms Company (OFC) Bo iler Nos. 2, 3, and 6.

### July 2011 3 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx



###  

### HCSC Puunene Mill Boiler Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Puunene Mill Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 share a common stack and were therefore analyzed as one source.
 

### RGVSG Boiler No. 6.

The FSI is subm itting additional recent PM emissions data as part of this Updated Report.

The sections that follow present the methodology used in the MACT floor analysis for HSG bagasse

-fired
boilers , as well as the results for the individual pollutants analyzed.

### July 2011 4 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 2.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In this Updated Report, the MACT floor emissions limits for bagasse boilers that are located at major sources were determined by using the methodologies presented in the Final Boiler Rule published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 . Additional ly
, the FSI used the supporting technical methodology
that is presented in the January 2011 ERG memorandum entitled “ Revised MACT Floor Analysis (2011) for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants

– Major Source” (ERG Memo). Alternative methods for statistical analysis are also discussed below as potential options for calculating the MACT floor.

The Final Boiler Rule provides emission limits for boile rs based on fuel type and boiler design. For fuel

based HAPs, the ERG Memo states

“Because emissions of fuel

-based HAP (e.g., Hg, acid gases, filterable particulate) depend on the fuel used rather than the design of the combustion chamber, MACT floors
for fuel

-based HAP were based on data from all boilers and process heaters firing a minimum threshold of each fuel group.” (pg.5)

The fuel

- based HAP emission limits in the Final Boiler Rule (PM, HCL, and Hg) are subcategorized by the following fuel types: sol id, liquid, and other process gases. For the remaining combustion

- based (non
fuel

- based) pollutants (i.e., organic HAPs: CO and D/F), the Final Boiler Rule further subcategorizes affected boilers based on boiler design. For solid fuel fired boilers, the Final Boiler Rule subcategorizes CO and D/F emission limits for the following boiler types: pulverized coal, fluidized bed, and stoker/other for units designed to burn coal and other solid fossil fuel; and stoker/sloped grate/other, fluidized bed,
dutch oven/suspension, fuel cells, and HSG for units designed to burn biomass.

HSG boilers burning bagasse boilers exhibit several distinctive design, operating, and emission characteristics. These distinctive features are necessitated by the bagasse fuel. Due to the unique class and type of industrial boiler operated by the sugar industry, a separate subcategory was developed by EPA and that subcategory includes combustion

- based HAP standards.

The methodology used by EPA to determine the MACT standards generall y consists of the following steps :

1. Screen and select data

– Determine appropriate dataset by reviewing emissions data

for appropriate test method; removing data for shutdown boilers or emissions no longer representative of current operation; review submitted data for errors in the database.
2. Rank sources

- for ea ch subcategory from lowest to highest for each pollutant.
3. Identifying the MACT floor pool

- consisting of the best

- performing (lowest emissions) 12 percent of units if the source category has 30 or more sources, or the best

- performing 5 units if the subcategory has fewer than 30 sources.

### July 2011 5 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### 4. Determine the distribution

- of each dataset by conducting small

- sample hypothesis test using the calculated skewness and kurtosis statistics.
5. Determine statistical variability

- Calculate the 99

- percent upper prediction li mit (UPL) based on the test run data for units in the MACT floor pool.
6. Determine fuel analysis variability

– Fuel analysis data for fuel

- based HAPs (HCl and Hg) are analyzed and compared to emissions rates from the corresponding units. Using the calculate d control efficiency, fuel variability factors are calculated and used for coal, biomass, and liquid fuels.
7. Determine load variability

– For combustion

- based emissions, continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data (if available) are analyzed to deter mine variability due to boiler load.
8. Calculate Emissions Limits

– MACT floor emission limits are determined for each pollutant for each subcategory.

With regard to the reconsideration of the Final Boiler Rule, EPA has requested comments on the various
statistical approaches used by EPA to determine the MACT floor. Accordingly, this Updated Report discusses the various methodologies that were used by the FSI to determine the MACT floor for HSG
boilers.



## 2.1 Data Screening and Selection In this Updated Report, t he FSI used updated historical stack test data for PM, including this past year’s compliance test data, for each of the bagasse boilers that were evaluated in the MACT floor analysis for
HSG boilers. The boilers included in this analysis were :

 

### USS C Boiler Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8.
 

### SCGCF Boiler Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8.

 

### O FC Bo iler Nos. 2, 3, and 6.

 

### HCSC Puunene Mill Boiler Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Puunene Mill Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 share a common stack and were therefore analyzed as one source.

 

### RGVSG Boiler No. 6.

The emissions data used for the current analysis are identical to the data previously submitted to EPA during the rulemaking process, but the current analysis also includes additional recent PM data

. All

available data representative of cu rrent operating conditions, ( i.e., data from the last 1 2 years for most
b oilers) were used in the analysis. All data used in this analysis is included in the appendices to this report.



## 2.2 Source Ranking and MACT Pool After the appropriate data were screened and selected for each source, the boilers were then ranked from
lowest to high est emissions, based on the average emissions for each of the subject pollutants for each

### July 2011 6 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### boiler. To develop the MACT pool for the Final Boiler Rule, EPA identified the lowest emission s test average (3

- run test mean) for each pollutant for each boiler. In the preamble to the Final Boiler Rule, EPA stated that it has reasonably determined that the best

- controlled source is the source with the lowest
stack test. EPA selected the lowest stack test as a measure of a best performer because many units had only a single test available, and the comparison of average performance from two or more tests is not directly comparable to a single test. The ERG Memo also states that EPA ranked the emi ssion sources
based on the lowest 3

- run test average, rather than the overall average of all test runs for each boiler.

FSI continues to believe that it is not appropriate to use the lowest 3

- run test average as the basis for ranking and identifying the to p 12 percent. FSI respectfully requests EPA to reconsider this aspect of the methodology used to determine the MACT floor for the Final Boiler Rule . Any boiler can experience a particularly good compliance test, based on a variety of factors that may not be replicated on a normal basis. However, a single compliance test is not indicative of how a boiler performs on a daily basis or over a longer time period, such as a year. EPA stated in the preamble to the Final Boiler Rule that

“However, where units had more than one test available, EPA also considers these other tests to be representative of the unit and relevant to assess run

-to

- run and test

-to

-test variability in the MACT floor UPL calculation.”

76 FR pg. 15627.

FSI believe s that this variability must be taken into account in order to identify the “best

- performing” 12 percent of sources; otherwise, a source may be identified incorrectly as top

- performing.

FSI believes that the average of all emissions tests, representative o f current operation, provides a more appropriate basis for determining the top 12

- percent of the MACT pool for each pollutant. Therefore, for the purposes of this Updated Report, boilers were ranked using the following two scenarios for each pollutant:

 

### By lowest 3

- run average emissions (EPA/ERG method)

 

### By the average of all emissions tests representative of current operation (FSI’s proposed method)

Using the top

- ranked (lowest emission) average values, the “MACT pool” of top performing boilers was establi shed for each pollutant under each scenario . The HSG boiler sub category contains fewer than 30

sources for each pollutant analyzed. T herefore, the top performing 5 sources for each pollutant were chosen for the MACT pool. The results of each method are presented separately for each pollutant in
Sections 3.0 and 4.0.

### July 2011 7 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 2.3 Data Distribution Prior to calculating the MACT floor for HSG boilers, the distribution of the emissions test data for the best performing sources was evaluated using small

- sample hypothesis testing, consistent with the methodology used in the Final Boiler Rule. The small

- sample hypothesis test was performed using the “skewness” (S) and “kurtosis” (K) statistics. The skewness statistic (S) was calculated to characterize the degree of asymmet ry of the distribution of each MACT pool pollutant dataset. Normally distributed data have a skewness of zero. A skewness statistic that is greater or less than zero indicates that the data are asymmetrically distributed with a right or left tail. To co nduct a small sample skewness hypothesis test, the standard error of the skewness statistic (SES) was determined. The SES is given by:

where: N = sample size

If S is greater than two times the SES, the data distribution can be considered non

- no rmal.

Next the kurtosis statistic (K) was calculated to characterize the degree of peakedness or flatness of the distribution of each MACT pool pollutant dataset. Data with a normal distribution will have a K of zero. A K that is greater or less than zero indicates a relatively peaked or flat distribution. To conduct the small sample kurtosis hypothesis test, the standard error K (SEK) was calculated. The SEK is given by:

where: N = sample size

If K is greater than two times the SEK, the data distribution is considered to be non

- normal.

In accordance with the methodology used by EPA for the Final Boiler Rule, the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were applied to the reported emissions test values for the MACT pool for each pollutant. The data set was considered normally distributed if S and K of the MACT pool emissions were less than
twice t he SES and SEK, respectively. If either the S or K were greater than twice the SES or SEK, each hypothesis test was conducted for the natural log transformed data.

The MACT floor limit was calculated using the dataset (reported data or natural

- log transfo rmed data) determined most similar to normal. To be conservative, the reported value dataset was selected as the basis for the MACT floor calculations in the case where both the reported values and the natural

- log transformed reported values had S and K t hat were greater than twice the SES or SEK.

### July 2011 8 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 2.4 MACT Floor Calculation Methodology Several methodologies have been used or proposed to calculate the standards for recent MACT rulemaking efforts. The Final Boiler Rule uses the 99

- percent UPL to set the MACT fl oor for PM, Hg, HCl, and D/F. The proposed MACT floor for the HMIWI NESHAP was calculated using the 99.9

- percent UPL,
but was revised to the 99

- percent UPL in the final HMIWI rule (see July 2, 2009 Memorandum entitled Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI). The proposed MACT floor for the Portland Cement NESHAP was calculated using a modified prediction limit, slightly different than the methodology used in the Proposed Boiler Rule, which accounts for within

- source variance and between

- source variance (see Development of the MACT Floors for the Proposed NESHAP for Portland Cement, April 15, 2009). The MACT floor for the final Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP was calculated by ranking sources based o n the upper 99 th 

### percentiles and using the
99

- percent UPL ( see Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards, September 2005. )

For the purpose of the analyses in this Updated Report, the MACT floor was calculated in a manner consistent with the Proposed and Final Boiler Rule s , by using the 99 percent and 99.9 percent UPL. The following sections discuss each approach.



## 2.4.1 Upper Prediction Limit To account for statistical variability in calculating the MACT floor for each pollutant, EPA used the 99

- percent UPL for the Final Boiler Rule, except for CO, where EPA used the 99.9 percent UPL. According to the ERG Memo, the UPL method used b y EPA represents the statistical likelihood that the mean of three future emission test values from the average source in the best

- performing 12 percent of sources,
will fall at or below the emission limit.

The 99

- percent UPL is calculated , for the datasets determined to be normally distributed, using the following equation:

### July 2011 9 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### where:

= Average of all the best perfor ming MACT pool source test runs

= The individual test run values for each source in the MACT pool

= Standard deviation of all best performing MACT pool source test runs

= Number of total test runs in the best performing MACT pool t( 0.99,n

- 1) = student’s t

- statistic, evaluated at 99 percent confidence calculated using

the following Microsoft Excel equation:

TINV(2*(1

- 0.99),n

- 1)

m = The number of test runs in the compliance average = 3

For log

- normally distributed datasets, a complex set of equations are used to calculate the 99

- percent UPL, based upon a Bhaumik and Gibbons 2004 paper, which calculates “An Upper Prediction Limit for the Arithmetic Mean of a Lognormal Random Variable.” S ee Appendix D for excerpts from the EPA/ERG Memo that presents these equations.

In this Updated Report, t he 99

- percent UPL was used to calculate the MACT floor standards with the appropriate data set for each pollutant

. The MACT floor for each pollutant was determined by rounding up the UPL values less than 100 to one significant figure, UPL values between 100 and 1,000 to two significant figures, and UPL values greater than or equal to 1,000 to three significant figures. This methodology was used to ca lculate the MACT floor for each of the subject pollutants emitted by the HSG
boilers.

Since the proposed 99

- percent confidence interval is applied to all HAPs for which emission limits are proposed, the combined probability of achieving the set of limits d rops to 95 percent. A confidence interval of 95 percent is inappropriately low when facilities are required to demonstrate compliance 100 percent of the time. Therefore, for this analysis, the MACT floor was also calculated for each pollutant using the 9 9.9

- percent UPL.

The 99.9

- percent UPL calculated for HSG boilers was determined in accordance with the methodology presented above using the student’s t

- statistic, evaluated at 99.9 percent confidence. The student’s t

statistic, evaluated at 99.9

- percent confidence was calculated using the following Microsoft Excel equation:

### July 2011 10 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### t(0.999,n

- 1) = TINV(2*(1

- 0.999),n

- 1)



## 2.4.2 Fuel Analysis Variability The UPL and UTL methodologies presented above account for intra

- unit variability within test runs. Since
emissions of fu el

- based HAPs (hydrogen chloride, mercury (Hg), and metals) are dependent on the concentration of the pollutants in the fuel, additional variability was accounted for based on historic fuel analyses.

For the Final Boiler Rule, EPA/ERG accounted for fuel variability in the MACT floor for mercury and HCl. EPA/ERG identified HAP fuel analysis data corresponding to HAP stack test data, and compared the fuel
data to fuel data taken at other time s (i.e., non

- stack test times). A simple ratio was determined, w hich was then applied to the calculated emission limit using the stack test data. To be consistent with the Final Boiler Rule, a similar methodology was used in this Updated Report when calculating the MACT floor for
HSG boilers.

Fuel analysis data for total non

- mercury HAP metals (10 metals total , or TSM ) were standardized to a lb/MMBtu basis using the measured fuel concentration (ppm) for each HAP and the measured heating value for the bagasse fuel (i.e., British thermal units per pound (Btu /lb )). Howe ver, no concurrent fuel analysis data are available for comparison with the actual emissions test data used to calculate the MACT floor. Therefore, the 90 percent confidence level of the fuel content for TSM was compared to the average HAP emission rate for each unit to determine an appropriate correction factor. The fuel variability factor for each unit was then determined using the following equation:

where:

90% Confidence Level Maximum Fuel EF= the 90% confidence level of the fuel analysis data for the unit (lb/MMBtu)
Average Fuel ER = Average fuel content from fuel analysis for the unit (lb/MMBtu)

To calculate the MACT floor emission limit for TSM , the calculated UPL emission limit based on stack test data was multiplied by the maximum fuel variability factor for any unit in the MACT floor pool (top 5 sources).

### July 2011 11 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 3.0 MACT FLOOR RESULTS F OR EXISTING SOURCE S The MACT floor analysis was performed for the HSG bagasse boiler subcategory using each of the statistical analysis methodologies discussed above, as well as additional scenarios. The following scenarios were analyzed:

 

### MACT pool determined by ranking so urces based on the lowest 3

- run average emission rate
 

### MACT pool determined by ranking sources based on the average of all emissions test representative of current operation
 

### MACT floor calculated using the 99

- percent UPL

 

### MACT floor calculated using the 99.9

- percent UPL

The results of each MACT floor analysis scenario and the corresponding calculations are presented in Appendix A. Historical stack testing results used for the MACT floor analysis for each of the bagasse boilers, including updated 20 10

- 201 1 compliance test data, are presented in Appendix C. The following sections summarize the results of the MACT floor analysis for existing HSG bagasse boilers.



## 3.1 Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) emission limits have been promulgated in the Final Boile r Rule as a surrogate for

non
- mercury metallic HAPs. PM emissions data for the last consecutive 11 years of compliance stack testing for each of the bagasse boilers was included in the analysis. The PM emission limits presented in
the Final Boiler Rule a re based on the thermal emission rate (i.e., lb/MMBtu heat input).

For the first statistical methodology used in this Updated Report, the overall average emission rate for each boiler was calculated in units of lb/MMBtu, and the MACT pool was established. The top five performing sources were determined by using the average of all emission tests from each boiler, as presented in the table below:



## Rank by Source Average Boiler MACT Data base

Combustor ID PM Emissions (EPA Method 5) 

## lb/MMBtu 1 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 0.002 3 2 USSC Boiler No. 8 0.009 8 3 USSC Boiler No. 7 0.02 4 4 Puunene Boiler No. 3 0.0 82 5 USSC Boiler No. 4 0.10 1

### July 2011 12 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### Next the data set for the MACT pool were analyzed using the small

- sample hypothesis test. As presented below, the natural log transformed data show the most normal distribution:



## Natural Log PM of PM Parameters (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
Total No. of Sources (CO data) 17 17 No. Sources in MACT Floor 5 5 No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 1 32 1 32 Average of T op 5 (x) 0.054

- 3.5 2 Standard Deviation of T op 5 % (s) 0.049 1.24

Skewness (S) 0.7 0

- 0.3 0 Kurtosis (K)

- 0.4 8

- 1.1 9 SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.2 1 0.2 1 Skewness Test (S>2SES ?) Non

- Normal Normal SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 0.4 3 0.4 3 Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal

T

-statistic (99%) 2.36 3.59 99% UPL 0.12 0. 32

T

-statistic (99.9%) 3.16 4.29 99.9% UPL 0.14 0.37
For each statistical analysis method, the calculated MACT floor for PM was determined by rounding up to two significant figures. For sources ranked by the average of all test runs, the results of the MACT floor analysis are as follows:

 

### 99

- percent UPL = 0.32 lb/MMBtu
 

### 99.9

- percent UPL = 0.37 lb/MMBtu

The statistical analysis and MACT pool were also determined based on ranking boilers by the lowest 3

- run test average for each source. The top five performing sources, determined by using the lowest 3

- run average emission test results, are presented in the table below:

### July 2011 13 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx



## Ranked by Lowest 3

- Run Average Boiler MACT Data base

Combustor ID PM Emissions (EPA Method 5) 

## lb/MMBtu 1 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 0.0023
2 USSC Boiler No. 7 0.0037 3 USSC Boiler No. 8 0.00 39 4 Puunene Boiler No. 3 0.044 5 SCGCF Boiler No 3 0.056

As shown, USSC Boiler No. 4 was replaced by SCGCF Boiler No. 3 in the top 5 performing sources. Otherwise, the MACT source pool remained the same. This data set was then analyzed using the small

sample hypothesis test. As presented below, the natural log transformed data showed the most normal
distribution:



## PM Natural Log of PM Parameters (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) Total No. of Sources (PM data) 17 17 No. Sources in MACT Floor 5 5 No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 1 36 1 36 Average of Top 5 (x) 0.0 70

- 3. 38 Standard Deviation of Top 5 (s) 0.07 1 1. 35

Skewness (S) 1.0 1

- 0.2 1 Kurtosis (K) 0. 14

- 1.2 4 SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.2 1 0.2 1 Skewness Test (S>2SES ?) Non

- Normal Normal SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 0.4 2 0.4 2 Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal

T

-statistic (99%) 2.3 5 3.59 99% UPL 0.17 0. 49

T

-statistic (99.9%) 3.1 5 4.29 99.9% UPL 0.20 0. 56



### For each statistical analysis method, the calculated MACT floor for PM was determined by rounding up to two significant figures. For sources ranked by 3

- run test average, the results of the MACT floor analysis
are as follows:

### July 2011 14 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx



###  

### 99

- percent UPL = 0.49 lb/MMBtu

 

### 99.9

- p ercent UPL = 0.56 lb/MMBtu

Detailed rankings are presented in Appendix A. The stack test data used in the analysis for each boiler are also presented in Appendix A.

For the HSG subcategory, we believe it is appropriate to determine the MACT floor by (a) using the 99

- percent UPL and (b) establishing a source ranking based on the source ’ s average emissions . This approach results in a MACT floor for PM of 0.32 lb/MMBtu. As stated previously, ranking of sources based on the source average is a better indica tor of the top

- performing 12 percent of sources. Although the MACT floor calculated using the lowest 3

- run test average (0.49 lb/MMBtu) is higher than the floor based on ranking by source average, several existing bagasse boilers have permit limits for PM that are lower than 0.49 lb/MMBtu. These permit limits, however, must only be met with a once per year stack test. If PM CEMS are required, the emission limits in the Final Boiler Rule will have to be complied with
on a continuous basis and the PM emiss ion limits will need to be revised to account for the use of CEMS as a compliance method. As noted previously, the FSI strongly objects to the use of PM CEMS because
the PM emission limits in the Final Boiler Rule are not based on CEMS data and thus those emission limits do not adequately account for variability.



## 3.2 Total Selected Metals
The non

- mercury HAP or total selected metals (TSM) identified in the Proposed Boiler Rule include: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, sel enium, cobalt, and antimony. In lieu of setting a numerical emission standard for the non

- mercury metal HAPs, the Final Boiler Rule provides an emission standard for PM under the assumption that the equipment used to control PM will also limit
emissions of non

- mercury HAP metals. TSM emissions are categorized as fuel

- based HAPs because the metals emitted from combustion are contained in the fuel. Fuel analyses show that bagasse has a relatively low concentration of HAP metals. Therefore, the proportion of HAP metals to PM emissions is lower for HSG bagasse

-fired boilers than for boilers firing other types of solid fuel.

Emissions of TSM consisting of eight metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) were previous ly tested for one FSI bagasse boiler. TSM emission testing has also been completed for the Puunene Mill boilers.

The Proposed Boiler Rule included evaluation of two additional metal HAP pollutants: cobalt and antimony. No emissions data from FSI boilers are available for cobalt and antimony. However, one FSI mill and the Hawaiian mill conducted fuel testing to determine the concentration of cobalt and antimony in

### July 2011 15 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### bagasse. The concentrations of these two metals in bagasse are very low, and they only com prised less
than 4 percent of the TSM (10

- metal sum) in the bagasse, based on a total of fifteen (15) separate bagasse samples.

The Final Boiler Rule provides only a PM emission limit, which is intended to act as a surrogate for non

mercury HAP metals. FSI believes that an emission limit for TSM should be provided as an option in the
Final Boiler Rule . Since the FSI’s HSG boilers burn a fuel that is naturally low in non

- Hg metallic HAPs,
the PM emission limits in the Final Boiler Rule are not necessary to control HAPs emitted from those HSG boilers, and the PM emissions limits will severely and unnecessarily burden the FSI. Indeed, virtually all of the FSI’s HSG boilers will need to install an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the Final Boiler Rule, but the installation of this new air pollution control equipment will have little effect on the HAPs emissions from the FSI’s HSG boilers.



## 3.2.1 MACT Floor Analysis For this Updated Report, all of the available data for emissions of HAP metals were analyz ed (4 boilers in total). The HAP metal MACT floor analysis is based on the thermal emission rate in lb/MMBtu, similar to the proposed emission limit for mercury.

The overall average emission rate for each HSG boiler was calculated in units of lb/MMBtu, an d the MACT pool was established. Sources are ranked by the average of all emission tests in the table below:



## TSM MACT Source Pool Ranked by Test Average

Total Selected Metals Rank Boiler MACT Data base (lb/MMBtu)

1 

### Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 1.84E

- 04
2 

### Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 1.84E

- 04
3 

### Puunene Boiler No. 3 2.48E

- 04
4 

### SCGCF Boiler No. 8 2.73E

- 04

Since Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 are part of the MACT pool of best performing sources for TSM emissions, the data for these two boilers are used as if there were two separate sources when calculating the MACT floor, consistent with the approach used by EPA for the Final Boiler Rule. This data set was then analyzed using the small

- sample hypothesis test. As presented below, the reported t est data are the
closest to a normal distribution:

### July 2011 16 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## Natural Log TSM of TSM Parameters (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)

Total No. of Sources (HCl data) 4 4 No. Sources in MACT Floor 4 4 No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 21 21 Average of T op 5 (x) 2. 15 E

- 04

- 8.48E+00 Standard Deviation of T op 5 (s) 1.00 E

- 04 4.68E

- 01

Skewness (S) 0. 41

- 0.53 Kurtosis (K)

- 0. 79

- 0.69 SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0. 5 3 0.63 Skewness Test (S>2SES ?) Normal Normal SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 1. 07 1.26 Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal

T

-statistic (99%) 2. 53 3.48 99% UPL 3. 71 E

-04 4. 67 E

-04

T

-statistic (99.9%) 3. 55 4.29 99.9% UPL 4. 34 E

-04 5.25 E

-04

For each statistical analysis method, the calculated MACT floor for TSM was determined by rounding up to two significant figures. The results of the MACT floor analysis, considering Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 as two sources, are as follows:

 

### 99

- percent UPL = 3.7x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu

 

### 99.9

- percent UPL = 4.3x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu

Since only 4 sources have TSM test data, the MACT floor calculated using the minimum 3

- run test average methodology is identical to that calculated for sources ranked using the overall source average of
all emissions tests.



## 3.2.2 Fuel Variability
The UPL calculations above account for intra

- unit variability within test runs, but do not account for fuel variability. In addition to the MACT floor calculations presented above, FSI has calculated the UPL to

account for fuel variability. Several sets of TSM fuel analysis data are available for eight metals for each
of the FSI mills. T he same fuel analysis data were used for each boiler at its respective mill. Recent fuel analysis data are also available for TS M for ten metals (including antimony and cobalt) from two mill s

.

### July 2011 17 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### These data were used to estimate a percentage of the 10

- metal TSM that is comprised of antimony and cobalt. The above MACT floors were then adjusted further to estimate the 10

- metal TSM MACT floor. Fuel variability factors calculated for TSM are presented in the table below:

Total Selected Metals Emissions (lb/MMBtu) Fuel Analysis

Average 8

- Metals b 

### Fuel

Analysis 8

- Metals Fuel

Variability Factor 90% Confidence Level c


### Boiler MACT Data b ase (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) ( Max / Avg ) d



### Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 1.84E

- 04 1.34 E

- 02 1.42 E

- 0 2 1.06
Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 1.84E

- 04 1.34 E

- 02 1.42 E

- 0 2 1.06
Puunene Boiler No. 3 2.48E

- 04 1.34 E

- 02 1.42 E

- 0 2 1.06
SCGCF Boiler No. 8 2.73E

- 04 1.39 E

- 03 1.71 E

- 0 3 1.2 Maximum 1.2

a 

### Ranked by source average

. b 

### TSM values are based on the maximum of fuel source data. Boiler specific data were not available; therefore, the fuel value for each facility was used for that facility's boilers.

c 

### 90% confidence level of fuel analysis data. See Appendix C

. d 

### Max/Avg = Maximum TSM fuel analysis divided by average fuel analysis.

The maximum of the fuel variability factors is calculated to be 1.2. The calculated 99

- percent UPL
and 99.9

- percent UPL are 3.71x10 -4 

### and 4.34x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu, respectively. Applying the variability factor to the above statistics, as well as adding 4 percent to account for antimony and cobalt, gives the following MACT floor calculations, which account for fuel variability an d a 10

- metal TSM limit:

 

### 99% UPL = 4.4x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu

 

### 99.9% UPL = 5.2x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu

Detailed statistical calculations are presented in Appendix B . The stack test data used in the analysis for each boiler are presented in Appendix B . Detailed fuel variability calculations are presented in Appendix C

.
For the bagasse boiler subcategory, we believe it is appropriate to calculate the MACT floor for TSM by using the 99

- percent UPL, due to the availability of test data. Therefore, the appropriate MACT f loor for
TSM emissions from HSG boilers is 4.4x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu.

### July 2011 18 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 3.3 Summary
Table 3

- 1 presents a summary of the MACT floor emission limits that are recommended by the FSI for existing bagasse

-fired sources in the HSG boiler subcategory. The recommended emissi on limits are based on the analyses described in this Updated Report. The MACT floor emission limits contained in the Final Boiler Rule for the HSG boiler category also are shown in Table 3

- 1. The MACT floor limits recommended by the FSI for the HSG subc ategory are much different than the corresponding emission limits contained in the Final Boiler Rule. The discrepancy between the two sets of emission limits demonstrates the need to establish PM and TSM limits for HSG boilers that are based solely on the
emissions data for such boilers.

The FSI strongly believes that in cases where adequate data is available, the source average should be used to rank the units and to determine the top 12 percent or top 5 sources. The source average is by far
the best in dicator of the performance of a source, especially the long

-term performance, which is the best indicator of HAP emissions. The MACT floor limits presented in Table 3

- 1 for existing HSG boilers are actually lower than or equal to the MACT floor based on t he ranking of the lowest 3

- run average.

### July 2011 19 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

## 4.0 MACT FLOOR FOR NEW S OURCES The MACT floor analysis presented in Section 3.0 determines the MACT emission limits for existing sources. The new source MACT floor is based on the best performing similar unit
, unless the calculated
MACT floor emission limit for the best performing MACT pool source is higher than the existing source
MACT floor emission limit . In this case, the new source floor is capped at the existing source floor level

.
In this Updated Report, the s ame methodology was used to calculate the MACT floor for new sources as was used to calculate the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., 99

- percent UPL and 99.9

- percent UPL) using the top performing source data. The estimated MACT floor limits for new HSG bagasse boilers, calculated for each pollutant, are summarized in Table 4

- 1

. The initial limits based on stack test data are shown, as well as those adjusted for fuel variability.

Given the specific facts concerning HSG boilers, t he FSI believes the MACT floor limit for PM should be
based on the second

- best performing source

. This is the most appropriate method to set the MACT floor
for PM because we only have test data for three test runs conducted on the best performing source (Rio
Grande Boiler No . 6). We do not believe three test runs are an adequate database on which to establish a MACT floor. Therefore, the FSI recommends establishing the MACT floor by using the top

- performing source with adequate test data. This approach will bring a source (USSC Boiler No. 8) with much greater emissions test data into the MACT floor analysis.

The FSI also recommends using the 99.9

- percent UPL for all pollutants when establishing the MACT floor for new units. For new sources, only one source is used to se t the floor; therefore, the emissions data are much more limited than the data used to set the MACT floor for existing sources. The 99.9

- percent UPL is needed to account for variability. Since USSC Boiler No. 8 is one of the newest bagasse boilers, its
p erformance and variability should be representative of the best performing source.

For TSM, the calculated new source MACT floor (5.2x10 -4 

### lb/MMBtu, based on 99.9

- percent UPL) is higher than the MACT floor calculated for existing sources (4.4x10 -4 

### lb/M MBtu). Therefore, with regard to TSM, the MACT floor for new HSG sources should be set at the MACT floor for existing HSG sources..

The MACT floor emission limit for PM for new HSG sources, as set forth in the Final Boiler Rule, is shown
in Table 4

- 1. T he MACT floor calculations for PM and TSM emissions from new HSG sources, as described in this Updated Report, are presented in the appendices

.

### July 2011 20 113

- 87508

Y: \ Projects\2011 \ 113

- 87508 FSI \ MACT Floor Analysis\ Final \ MACT_Floor_Analysis_Rpt.docx 

### Based on the analyses set forth in this Updated Report, the FSI recommends the following MACT floor
emission limits for new sources in the HSG subcategory:
PM

– 0.022 lb/MMBtu TSM

– 4.4E

- 04 lb/MMBtu

Caption Text

## TABLES

### July 2011 113-87508

Pollutant

PM 0.32 lb/MMBtu 0.37 lb/MMBtu 0.039 lb/MMBtu

TSM 3.7E-04 lb/MMBtu 4.3E-04 lb/MMBtu NA TSM- w/fuel variability 4.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 5.2E-04 lb/MMBtu

HCL 0.035 lb/MMBtu

Hg 4.6E-06 lb/MMBtu

CO (30-day rolling average) 1,500 ppmvd @ 3% O 2



### D/F 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 % O 2



### Pollutant

PM 0.49 lb/MMBtu 0.56 lb/MMBtu 0.039 lb/MMBtu

TSM 3.7E-04 lb/MMBtu 4.3E-04 lb/MMBtu NA TSM- w/fuel variability 4.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 5.2E-04 lb/MMBtu

HCL 0.035 lb/MMBtu

Hg 4.6E-06 lb/MMBtu

CO (30-day rolling average) 3,500 ppmvd @ 3% O 2



### D/F 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 % O 2 

### FINAL EPA RULE MARCH 2011 

## TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS

RANKED BY LOWEST 3-RUN TEST AVERAGE HYBRID SUSPENSION GRATE BAGASSE BOILERS

RANKED BY SOURCE AVERAGE

FSI ANALYSIS 99 % UPL FSI ANALYSIS 99.9% UPL

Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit

FINAL EPA RULE MARCH 2011 FSI ANALYSIS 99 % UPL FSI ANALYSIS 99.9% UPL

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Tables\Table_3-1.xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508

Pollutant Unit

PM Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 0.0023 lb/MMBtu 0.0056 lb/MMBtu 0.013 lb/MMBtu 0.0011 lb/MMBtu USSC Boiler No. 8 0.0098 lb/MMBtu 0.018 lb/MMBtu 0.022 lb/MMBtu

TSM Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 & 2 1.84E-04 lb/MMBtu 4.5E-04 lb/MMBtu 6.6E-04 lb/MMBtu NA TSM- w/fuel variability 5.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 7.9E-04 lb/MMBtu NA TSM- existing source MACT 4.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 5.2E-04 lb/MMBtu NA

HCL 0.0022 lb/MMBtu

Hg 3.5E-06 lb/MMBtu

CO 1,500 ppmvd @ 3% O 2

D/F 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 % O 2

Pollutant Unit

PM Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 0.0023 lb/MMBtu 0.0056 lb/MMBtu 0.013 lb/MMBtu 0.0011 lb/MMBtu USSC Boiler No. 8 0.0078 lb/MMBtu 0.018 lb/MMBtu 0.022 lb/MMBtu

TSM Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 & 2 1.84E-04 lb/MMBtu 4.5E-04 lb/MMBtu 6.6E-04 lb/MMBtu NA TSM- w/fuel variability 5.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 7.9E-04 lb/MMBtu TSM- existing source MACT 4.4E-04 lb/MMBtu 5.2E-04 lb/MMBtu

HCL 0.0022 lb/MMBtu

Hg 3.5E-06 lb/MMBtu

CO 1,500 ppmvd @ 3% O 2
D/F 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 % O 2 Limit Limit Limit Average 

### TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF NEW SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS

RANKED BY LOWEST 3-RUN TEST AVERAGE HYBRID SUSPENSION GRATE BAGASSE BOILERS

Best Performing Source FSI ANALYSIS 99 % UPL FSI ANALYSIS 99.9% UPL Average Limit Limit Limit FSI ANALYSIS 99 % UPL FSI ANALYSIS 99.9% UPL

FINAL EPA RULE MARCH 2011 FINAL EPA RULE MARCH 2011 

### RANKED BY SOURCE AVERAGE

Best Performing Source

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Tables\Table_4-1.xlsx

## APPENDIX A

PM DATA

## Table A-1. Individual Runs for PM

Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Excess

Boiler MACT Data Base Boiler Type Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Oxygen Air Moisture Combustor ID Common Date (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) (%) (%)

USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/08/98 148,591 193,433 404.90 39.25 0.097 12.0 135 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/08/98 139,359 209,630 440.00 42.80 0.097 11.4 120 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/08/98 141,780 204,507 430.30 54.89 0.128 10.8 107 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/11/98 130,823 215,342 452.00 52.90 0.117 9.8 87 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/11/98 129,323 209,091 440.20 66.11 0.150 9.8 87 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/11/98 132,706 220,313 463.40 67.26 0.145 9.8 88 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/22/99 132,631 188,955 393.20 61.01 0.155 11.2 115 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/22/99 127,442 191,642 398.70 18.29 0.046 11.4 119 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/22/99 131,395 192,537 399.10 57.71 0.145 11.4 120 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/27/00 134,045 190,722 168,529 347.10 54.13 0.156 12.1 137 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/27/00 134,626 191,880 165,195 339.46 36.95 0.109 12.0 133 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/27/00 134,306 194,236 166,154 341.61 49.32 0.144 12.4 147 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/08/00 116,457 193,151 406.48 78.60 0.193 10.3 97 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/08/00 117,435 198,261 419.26 69.20 0.165 10.6 103 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/08/00 114,205 195,833 413.98 80.96 0.196 11.3 118 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/05/01 122,015 198,000 403.27 58.44 0.145 10.4 99 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/05/01 118,508 201,127 406.46 47.69 0.117 10.4 99 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/05/01 118,063 205,588 416.04 51.10 0.123 10.4 99 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/20/02 139,322 192,329 386.21 63.82 0.165 12.4 146 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/20/02 132,473 197,391 398.69 81.67 0.205 11.4 119 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/20/02 139,170 193,333 412.78 70.70 0.171 12.5 149 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/14/03 147,286 196,709 409.04 49.17 0.120 12.3 143 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/14/03 152,860 197,813 414.76 84.77 0.204 11.6 125 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/14/03 155,202 204,000 412.16 83.72 0.203 12.7 155 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/13/05 161,467 245,339 197,391 429.15 77.96 0.182 11.5 122 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/13/05 164,310 250,264 186,835 401.99 76.50 0.190 11.4 120 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 01/13/05 162,661 244,548 195,652 424.97 81.49 0.192 11.5 122 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 02/07/05 125,427 205,233 172,286 345.05 11.5 122 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 02/07/05 110,315 177,246 180,000 357.52 11.5 122 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 02/07/05 120,350 193,595 134,795 268.74 11.5 122 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/16/05 135,375 215,916 174,000 362.00 120.04 0.332 12.0 135 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/16/05 136,281 216,285 179,143 376.60 61.55 0.164 11.7 127 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 12/16/05 137,233 212,492 177,568 370.90 48.20 0.130 12.5 149 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/28/06 112,707 175,055 165,882 346.50 38.73 0.112 14.0 202 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/28/06 114,320 177,369 171,045 355.40 41.90 0.118 12.0 135 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/28/06 113,491 180,542 165,217 346.20 46.34 0.134 13.0 164 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/09/07 121,286 185,362 187,603 389.70 96.59 0.248 10.7 104 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/09/07 122,440 186,131 182,076 381.28 55.22 0.145 10.7 104 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/09/07 109,477 169,290 183,288 388.14 53.11 0.137 10.2 96 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/19/08 102,643 159,339 173,333 353.22 43.30 0.123 10.5 101 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/19/08 95,508 148,490 178,065 360.16 48.80 0.136 10.4 99 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/19/08 96,863 151,753 178,095 363.42 49.74 0.137 9.0 76 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/10/09 102,500 160,187 189,851 380.86 49.00 0.129 10.5 101 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/10/09 96,338 154,681 192,000 384.16 67.90 0.177 9.6 85 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/10/09 117,834 182,596 173,636 347.17 48.40 0.139 10.5 101 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/16/10 95,713 157,720 183,810 381.60 50.30 0.132 8.7 71 29.40 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/16/10 95,678 158,372 187,385 389.42 36.70 0.094 8.6 70 29.60 USSC Boiler No.1 Suspension 11/16/10 95,060 159,455 187,500 390.03 47.70 0.122 8.2 64 30.40

USSC Boiler No.1 Number of Runs 48 27 48 48 45 45 48 48 3 USSC Boiler No.1 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 47 26 47 47 44 44 47 47 2 USSC Boiler No.1 MEAN 125,735 186,818 187,402 388 59.11 0.150 11.08 115.78 29.80 USSC Boiler No.1 MINIMUM 95,060 148,490 134,795 269 18.29 0.05 8.20 64.50 29.40 USSC Boiler No.1 MAXIMUM 164,310 250,264 220,313 463 120.04 0.33 14.00 202.49 30.40 USSC Boiler No.1 STD DEVIATION 18,576 29,039 15,588 36 18.51 0.046 1.19 26.56 0.53 USSC Boiler No.1 95% CL OF RUNS 162,887 244,896 218,579 460 96.13 0.24 13.47 168.91 30.86 USSC Boiler No.1 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 152,359 230,622 209,745 440 85.75 0.22 12.79 153.86 32.81

USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/12/98 107,485 172,286 363.27 45.54 0.125 9.3 80 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/12/98 106,311 173,824 366.89 48.70 0.133 9.6 85 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/12/98 104,790 175,522 370.29 69.51 0.188 9.1 77 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/13/98 126,475 201,739 425.05 71.72 0.169 10.0 92 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/13/98 122,422 202,059 426.20 71.59 0.168 9.1 77 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/13/98 125,162 202,388 427.04 98.31 0.230 9.7 86 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/15/98 124,105 172,174 363.40 59.59 0.164 9.1 77 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/15/98 123,797 172,941 365.40 58.63 0.160 9.2 79 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/15/98 121,450 180,857 382.10 58.91 0.154 9.1 77 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/18/98 108,806 189,706 399.30 57.26 0.143 9.6 85 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/18/98 107,899 196,765 417.10 48.98 0.117 9.5 83 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/18/98 111,676 198,261 420.70 51.50 0.122 9.7 86 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 03/01/99 109,797 166,465 155,077 326.76 51.69 0.158 10.4 99 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 03/01/99 105,499 166,864 155,077 327.13 59.52 0.182 9.1 77 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 03/01/99 106,963 166,200 159,048 335.27 55.51 0.166 9.1 78 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/13/00 128,839 177,391 367.73 93.60 0.255 10.6 103 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/13/00 134,671 180,000 374.29 87.87 0.235 11.4 120 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/13/00 128,025 182,857 379.29 85.45 0.225 10.8 107 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/28/00 129,165 186,433 160,286 326.48 56.93 0.174 11.5 123 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/28/00 126,221 185,037 155,000 315.46 55.14 0.175 11.7 127 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/28/00 123,360 183,675 154,688 314.89 66.56 0.211 11.4 120 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/12/00 113,638 169,459 364.36 47.53 0.130 11.5 122 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/12/00 108,878 174,167 373.27 60.87 0.163 11.0 111 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/12/00 107,998 163,714 350.31 77.50 0.221 11.2 115 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/12/01 141,555 212,055 435.10 112.59 0.259 11.6 123 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/12/01 125,108 182,535 374.20 73.38 0.196 12.1 137 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/12/01 127,585 195,211 402.99 108.53 0.269 11.1 113 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/02 135,626 173,239 354.58 64.49 0.182 12.1 136 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/02 133,618 174,167 356.64 65.36 0.183 11.4 119 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/02 134,529 189,851 389.05 67.82 0.174 12.1 136 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/03 125,842 183,478 387.50 88.89 0.229 11.1 112 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/03 132,395 190,746 405.69 76.69 0.189 12.2 141 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/03 123,840 192,537 407.36 72.78 0.179 10.8 106 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/04 153,146 235,990 189,565 399.13 88.69 0.222 12.0 135 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/04 150,689 235,118 198,000 417.94 72.18 0.173 13.6 186 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/04 174,817 260,767 197,838 424.12 26.34 0.062 12.1 137 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/14/05 116,370 174,405 183,478 383.20 77.93 0.203 12.7 155 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/14/05 140,607 219,765 170,000 354.50 63.04 0.178 12.8 158 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/14/05 137,722 214,970 177,500 371.40 64.10 0.173 12.3 143 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/21/06 125,586 184,473 161,053 336.70 52.61 0.156 13.5 182 PM Emissions (EPA Method 5)USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/21/06 119,482 177,278 170,137 358.90 66.78 0.186 14.0 202

USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/21/06 119,232 178,147 173,043 367.70 66.81 0.182 14.0 202 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/07/07 107,071 168,489 150,523 315.62 65.59 0.208 10.6 102 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/07/07 112,218 169,029 143,076 295.57 63.13 0.214 13.5 183 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/07/07 114,976 174,983 171,625 355.91 50.44 0.142 11.1 113 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/21/08 103,415 157,785 168,387 350.70 40.44 0.115 10.1 93 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/21/08 102,182 156,468 149,538 310.81 52.74 0.170 11.6 125 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/21/08 104,360 159,672 178,065 368.66 34.47 0.093 10.0 92 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/09 115,730 177,529 176,000 363.11 41.60 0.115 11.7 127 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/09 103,412 155,022 161,818 336.00 33.30 0.099 11.3 118 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/09 110,287 167,148 179,032 370.28 35.80 0.097 12.4 146 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/10 98,822 157,793 200,000 415.56 47.40 0.114 9.9 90 27.60 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/10 101,186 160,478 196,191 407.25 37.30 0.092 10.0 92 27.10 USSC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/10 95,950 153,660 189,375 393.71 46.40 0.118 10.0 92 27.80

USSC Boiler No. 2 Number of Runs 54 27 54 54 54 54 54 54 3 USSC Boiler No. 2 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 53 26 53 53 53 53 53 53 2 USSC Boiler No. 2 MEAN 120,385 181,246 177,840 372 63 0.169 11 116 28 USSC Boiler No. 2 MINIMUM 95,950 153,660 143,076 296 26 0.062 9 77 27 USSC Boiler No. 2 MAXIMUM 174,817 260,767 212,055 435 113 0.269 14 202 28 USSC Boiler No. 2 STD DEVIATION 15,284 27,907 15,935 35 18 0.046 1 33 0 USSC Boiler No. 2 95% CL OF RUNS 150,952 237,060 209,709 441 100 0.261 14 182 28 USSC Boiler No. 2 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 142,132 223,342 200,513 421 89 0.235 13 163 30

USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/09/98 151,029 250,833 545.60 61.07 0.112 9.5 82 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/09/98 152,940 253,750 553.10 71.90 0.130 9.3 79 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/09/98 152,097 247,397 540.00 62.54 0.116 9.9 89 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/05/00 136,759 238,378 509.00 66.45 0.131 10.0 92 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/05/00 136,322 241,644 514.50 64.16 0.125 9.0 76 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/05/00 135,432 236,800 504.80 55.95 0.111 9.3 79 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/17/00 161,372 258,400 558.20 50.40 0.090 9.5 83 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/17/00 160,074 256,667 554.70 60.47 0.109 9.7 86 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/17/00 161,936 262,192 566.90 51.23 0.090 9.7 86 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/23/02 158,108 255,882 549.83 48.91 0.089 11.1 113 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/23/02 151,705 257,647 555.59 32.17 0.058 10.7 105 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/23/02 155,993 260,294 561.30 34.81 0.062 10.8 107 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/10/02 151,332 231,895 253,247 559.02 11.0 110 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/10/02 164,393 238,806 235,714 523.68 11.1 112 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/10/02 168,824 244,518 227,324 493.90 13.1 169 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/18/02 167,367 272,000 600.42 66.32 0.110 10.6 102 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/18/02 164,949 272,000 599.88 57.41 0.096 10.1 93 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/18/02 161,294 274,783 601.71 54.65 0.091 10.1 94 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/19/02 163,340 284,250 627.36 10.4 100 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/03 184,631 265,479 579.88 84.74 0.146 9.6 86 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/03 187,732 264,167 576.87 72.85 0.126 9.4 82 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/03 179,768 260,000 567.11 61.34 0.108 10.3 97 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/24/04 164,581 254,686 267,115 588.49 71.68 0.122 9.7 87 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/24/04 165,619 262,011 259,737 572.19 74.10 0.130 9.4 82 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/24/04 166,378 265,717 254,526 558.23 74.71 0.134 10.0 92 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 02/10/05 156,977 228,241 237,600 515.07 58.57 0.114 10.4 100 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 02/10/05 158,258 233,152 239,178 516.45 59.15 0.115 10.1 93 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 02/10/05 161,994 235,662 230,649 500.51 53.51 0.107 10.9 108 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/13/06 127,859 203,260 229,014 478.30 53.96 0.113 8.7 71 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/13/06 123,326 198,482 244,225 510.40 34.27 0.067 7.8 60 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/13/06 122,129 196,063 236,522 498.00 48.24 0.097 8.2 64 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/01/06 153,199 228,528 242,466 532.08 44.97 0.085 9.8 88 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/01/06 151,842 225,833 245,070 519.67 46.86 0.090 10.5 100 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/01/06 146,862 225,359 255,000 554.18 52.31 0.094 9.7 86 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/01/06 122,830 228,163 245,070 351.60 10.5 100 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/01/06 122,830 228,163 255,000 374.00 9.8 88 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/01/06 122,830 228,163 246,038 371.10 10.7 105 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/14/07 148,008 226,867 271,454 579.59 82.69 0.143 9.1 76 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/14/07 158,968 237,835 271,923 579.23 65.13 0.112 8.9 73 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/14/07 156,081 234,579 265,600 567.96 39.38 0.069 9.1 76 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/08 158,956 242,831 261,961 544.55 68.77 0.126 9.8 88 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/08 155,783 241,570 265,735 554.03 33.99 0.061 10.0 92 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/08 159,113 242,063 264,429 550.78 69.50 0.126 9.8 88 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/08 159,904 238,705 273,409 567.55 52.50 0.092 10.3 97 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/18/09 138,974 220,345 262,059 559.32 31.10 0.056 8.9 74 26.60 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/18/09 137,572 216,245 263,283 558.62 32.00 0.057 9.5 83 26.00 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/18/09 139,114 216,646 260,870 553.65 32.90 0.059 9.0 76 25.40 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/10/10 137,625 213,853 274,054 585.50 68.20 0.116 9.2 79 25.7 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/10/10 141,441 217,407 269,552 574.80 35.60 0.062 9.8 88 25.2 USSC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/10/10 138,567 213,780 267,761 571.90 66.80 0.117 9.2 79 25.1

USSC Boiler No. 4 Number of Runs 50 31 50 50 43 43 50 50 6 USSC Boiler No. 4 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 49 30 49 49 42 42 49 49 5 USSC Boiler No. 4 MEAN 152,100 229,659 255,763 541 56 0.101 10 90 26 USSC Boiler No. 4 MINIMUM 122,129 196,063 227,324 352 31 0.056 8 60 25 USSC Boiler No. 4 MAXIMUM 187,732 265,717 284,250 627 85 0.146 13 169 27 USSC Boiler No. 4 STD DEVIATION 15,727 16,237 13,669 55 15 0.026 1 17 1 USSC Boiler No. 4 95% CL OF RUNS 183,554 262,134 283,100 650 85 0.153 12 123 27 USSC Boiler No. 4 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 174,582 253,784 275,302 619 77 0.138 11 114 27

USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 02/08/99 175,664 358,154 734.90 16.88 0.023 6.40 44 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 02/08/99 177,250 343,636 701.70 11.46 0.016 7.50 56 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 02/08/99 176,423 362,368 741.30 13.51 0.018 7.50 56 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/17/99 134,535 369,429 763.08 7.97 0.010 3.60 21 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/17/99 134,831 357,429 736.74 9.96 0.014 4.80 30 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/17/99 136,090 366,176 755.14 9.30 0.012 4.90 31 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/31/00 295,652 625.71 38.17 0.061 6.14 42 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/31/00 292,615 615.87 107.16 0.174 7.52 56 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/31/00 288,000 606.59 132.84 0.219 5.98 40 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/05/01 179,424 327,500 655.88 9.33 0.014 9.08 77 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/05/01 174,762 326,667 667.68 10.23 0.015 8.98 75 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/06/01 172,827 328,333 675.11 10.40 0.015 8.95 75 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/09/02 130,764 324,545 691.41 6.41 0.009 6.67 47 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/09/02 136,455 331,714 706.88 5.31 0.008 6.43 44 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/09/02 140,707 333,429 708.68 6.87 0.010 6.41 44 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/15/02 148,856 363,659 772.94 13.01 0.017 6.56 46 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/15/02 155,948 343,200 727.96 14.77 0.020 7.65 58 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/15/02 150,966 334,737 709.05 15.52 0.022 7.96 61 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/31/02 164,558 311,596 295,652 625.71 8.50 68 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/31/02 164,409 289,460 292,615 615.87 0.00 0 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/31/02 149,851 290,446 288,000 606.59 0.00 0 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/30/03 144,480 287,753 354,783 744.67 14.53 0.020 6.36 44USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/30/03 148,005 283,321 329,250 688.40 8.13 0.012 6.99 50

USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/30/03 145,898 281,972 338,630 707.48 8.24 0.012 6.58 46 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 02/04/05 165,392 296,331 232,174 494.28 11.57 0.023 10.72 105 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 02/04/05 161,579 296,174 228,000 487.84 6.84 0.014 10.80 107 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 02/04/05 159,426 285,860 223,099 475.52 13.03 0.027 11.28 117 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 05/03/05 6 162,497 305,710 242,727 502.10 10.40 99 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 05/03/05 6 164,363 311,935 227,077 468.00 10.90 109 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 05/04/05 7 153,399 297,739 193,125 401.80 11.20 115 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 05/05/05 6 160,047 305,361 196,000 407.00 11.40 120 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/05/06 184,525 318,378 318,300 659.80 13.47 0.020 9.78 88 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/05/06 178,105 315,125 348,674 721.50 9.96 0.014 8.80 73 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/05/06 173,265 306,013 349,209 720.60 8.77 0.012 8.76 72 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/25/07 185,288 318,417 307,597 637.19 22.05 0.035 10.56 102 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/25/07 174,015 301,630 319,097 658.39 16.91 0.026 9.78 88 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/25/07 175,714 301,314 290,569 599.18 14.46 0.024 10.71 105 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/15/07 9 140,530 228,015 267,761 554.51 10.72 105 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/15/07 9 158,314 260,159 286,479 594.31 10.10 93 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/15/07 9 158,028 259,395 288,750 596.40 10.84 108 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/15/07 9 158,775 264,223 262,500 548.86 10.85 108 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/16/07 9 156,667 260,669 240,952 504.25 11.59 124 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/16/07 9 150,496 242,572 266,769 553.42 11.25 116 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 5/16/07 9 149,182 241,956 234,462 489.39 11.37 119 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/24/08 157,003 289,313 337,192 712.98 3.62 0.005 7.18 52 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/24/08 154,128 285,290 361,014 758.13 3.84 0.005 6.77 48 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 01/24/08 158,129 287,635 344,968 724.38 4.16 0.006 6.84 49 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/04/08 178,899 321,444 347,877 686.70 9.70 0.014 9.50 83 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/04/08 184,297 338,873 352,174 689.90 9.97 0.014 9.16 78 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/04/08 181,705 333,116 370,870 731.80 9.74 0.013 10.00 92 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 12/05/08 183,193 326,584 361,846 705.00 9.83 89 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/20/09 201,024 368,568 345,455 719.78 2.50 0.003 10.30 97 21.70 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/20/09 202,860 372,427 351,692 734.21 3.80 0.005 9.90 90 21.70 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/20/09 204,353 374,421 337,273 702.63 2.40 0.003 10.20 95 21.50 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/04/10 209,959 398,161 362,647 751.80 9.70 0.013 10.20 95 21.90 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/04/10 212,909 397,858 362,769 749.40 7.90 0.011 10.10 93 20.70 USSC Boiler No. 7 Suspension 11/04/10 209,716 389,898 383,077 789.40 10.80 0.014 10.00 92 20.50

USSC Boiler No. 7 Number of Runs 54 39 57 57 42 42 57 57 6 USSC Boiler No. 7 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 53 38 56 56 41 41 56 56 5 USSC Boiler No. 7 MEAN 165,750 306,285 313,831 651 16 0.024 8 74 21 USSC Boiler No. 7 MINIMUM 130,764 228,015 193,125 402 2 0.003 0 0 21 USSC Boiler No. 7 MAXIMUM 212,909 398,161 383,077 789 133 0.219 12 124 22 USSC Boiler No. 7 STD DEVIATION 20,615 41,638 48,985 99 25 0.040 3 31 1 USSC Boiler No. 7 95% CL OF RUNS 206,979 389,561 411,800 848 65 0.105 14 137 23 USSC Boiler No. 7 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 195,082 366,871 383,318 791 51 0.083 12 118 23

USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 03/24/05 236,278 441,324 518,571 982.6 4.23 0.004 6.52 45 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 03/24/05 218,901 416,739 487,595 880.2 2.97 0.003 6.96 50 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 03/25/05 218,815 416,838 496,578 919.1 3.75 0.004 6.53 45 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 03/26/05 205,956 399,189 470,930 921.2 3.12 0.003 6.20 42 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 03/26/05 204,635 400,819 467,580 908.9 6.22 0.007 6.00 41 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 03/26/05 208,161 395,735 466,000 887.6 6.95 0.008 6.34 44 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/10/06 212,504 388,412 522,353 967.6 5.31 34 29.33 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/10/06 208,889 386,258 523,478 970.2 18.67 0.019 4.73 29 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/10/06 222,090 393,669 521,408 967.6 19.42 0.020 5.01 32 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/10/06 211,224 393,180 510,423 949.6 22.82 0.024 4.66 29 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/11/06 214,246 390,322 505,102 910.2 5.56 36 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/11/06 211,032 386,843 530,571 987.3 5.19 33 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/11/06 212,603 391,982 527,647 978.9 5.19 33 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/05/07 237,896 406,875 499,726 919.5 9.65 0.010 7.73 59 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/05/07 236,384 429,330 520,274 960.3 7.86 0.008 7.65 58 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/05/07 229,933 443,786 510,811 948.0 10.10 0.011 7.25 53 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/29-30/07 227,945 448,255 526,093 968.3 6.14 42 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/29-30/07 228,148 434,556 532,977 980.8 5.84 39 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/29-30/07 247,952 467,497 540,786 999.6 7.21 53 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/29-30/07 241,314 469,578 575,771 1,061.9 16.69 0.016 6.70 47 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/29-30/07 247,207 474,721 545,768 1,011.6 11.61 0.011 6.73 47 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/29-30/07 248,621 476,866 575,034 1,063.3 18.43 0.017 6.60 46 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/08 204,011 393,592 561,322 1,037.9 6.06 0.006 5.37 35 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/08 201,698 384,162 536,757 992.3 5.10 0.005 5.66 37 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/08 217,265 408,602 529,901 983.7 13.43 0.014 6.72 47 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/08 220,474 412,447 538,812 1,001.5 6.11 0.006 6.51 45 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/30/09 238,331 441,283 530,642 980.1 7.70 58 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/30/09 242,761 443,818 504,742 922.3 10.40 99 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/30/09 249,681 452,303 531,158 984.3 5.80 38 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/02/09 192,294 412,321 503,514 923.7 9.10 0.010 6.40 44 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/02/09 194,827 412,994 512,958 939.5 7.40 0.008 7.00 50 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/03/09 188,050 404,792 506,957 929.4 4.00 0.004 6.40 44 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/03/09 198,746 408,895 485,625 891.7 6.60 46 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/04/09 271,433 525,283 963.7 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/30/10 172,504 348,242 489,231 895.9 11.70 0.013 6.00 40 27.8 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/30/10 179,001 354,410 510,909 937.6 5.70 0.006 5.90 39 26.3 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 11/30/10 183,195 360,612 493,433 907.3 10.00 0.011 6.00 40 27.2 USSC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/02/10 180,150 344,530 513,636 943.1 5.60 0.006 5.40 44 24.0

USSC Boiler No. 8 Number of Runs 38 37 38 38 26 26 37 37 5 USSC Boiler No. 8 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 37 36 37 37 25 25 36 36 4 USSC Boiler No. 8 MEAN 217,504 411,778 517,115 957 9 0.0098 6 44 27 USSC Boiler No. 8 MINIMUM 172,504 344,530 466,000 880 3 0.003 5 29 24 USSC Boiler No. 8 MAXIMUM 271,433 476,866 575,771 1,063 23 0.024 10 99 29 USSC Boiler No. 8 STD DEVIATION 22,885 34,085 25,566 45 6 0.006 1 12 2 USSC Boiler No. 8 95% CL OF RUNS 263,274 479,948 568,246 1,048 21 0.021 8 68 31 USSC Boiler No. 8 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 250,874 461,590 554,393 1,023 18 0 8 62 32

Notes: lb/hr = pounds per hour. lb/MMBtu = pounds per million British thermal units. lb/ton = pounds per ton. MMBtu/hr = million British thermal units per hour. TPH = tons per hour.

Footnotes: 1 Assumed 3,600 Btu/lb average heat content for wet bagasse, except where noted. 2Based on actual reported data. 3If reported as propane, it was converted to carbon by the following equation:lbs/hr as carbon= lbs/hr as propane x ((3*12.011)/44.09)

where 44.09 is the MW of propane and 12.011 is the MW of carbon. If reported as methane, it was converted to carbon by the following equation: lbs/hr as carbon= lbs/hr as methane x (12.011/16.04) where 16.04 is the MW of methane and 12.011 is the MW of carbon. 4As reported in test report. 5If necessary, converted basis to as carbon.
625% Wood chip / 75% Bagasse
7100% Bagasse 8Wood chip firing at 4,500 Btu/lb. Data corresponding to wood chips was not used in any of the summary calculations. 950% Wood Chip / 50% Bagasse

### Table A-1. Individual Runs - Emission Tests Performed on Suspension-Burner Bagasse Boilers in Florida - Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida

Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Excess Boiler MACT Data Base Boiler Type Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Oxygen Air Moisture Combustor ID Common Date (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) (%) (%)

SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/18/98 65,314 123,478 241.32 39.83 0.165 9.07 76 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/18/98 65,399 116,471 226.38 38.65 0.171 9.07 76 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/18/98 58,801 120,000 232.67 10.58 0.174 7.77 58 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 02/23/99 69,751 102,492 121,765 237.40 26.77 0.113 10.50 99 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 02/23/99 64,669 94,419 121,765 237.62 27.84 0.117 10.27 95 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 02/23/99 70,944 100,755 118,209 230.72 21.47 0.093 10.70 103 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/09/99 56,310 139,412 270.74 42.61 0.157 6.48 44 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/09/99 61,472 141,176 274.47 47.42 0.173 6.65 46 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/09/99 59,761 142,609 276.71 43.79 0.158 6.50 45 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/15/00 73,772 120,000 232.18 31.36 0.135 9.72 86 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/15/00 71,585 121,765 236.19 35.92 0.152 9.61 84 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/15/00 71,101 120,870 234.79 33.38 0.142 9.52 82 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/14/01 65,459 127,059 246.84 32.83 0.133 7.57 56 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/14/01 65,301 115,833 224.78 28.54 0.127 8.36 66 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/14/01 65,000 111,045 215.18 25.64 0.119 8.94 74 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/13/02 63,791 123,409 239.39 17.88 0.075 8.55 68 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/13/02 63,931 123,529 240.12 24.12 0.100 8.20 64 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 11/13/02 66,452 126,957 247.13 26.54 0.107 7.70 58 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/07/04 59,871 95,127 137,600 262.78 24.31 0.092 7.27 53 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/07/04 58,919 96,206 140,833 268.80 22.22 0.083 6.20 42 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/07/04 59,778 104,824 140,597 268.36 28.60 0.107 5.88 39 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/15/04 63,484 109,438 132,537 249.24 27.35 0.110 7.85 59 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/15/04 63,706 113,864 130,541 245.30 29.20 0.119 8.31 65 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/15/04 70,287 119,463 132,353 249.00 29.24 0.117 8.35 66 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/13/06 53,423 88,199 144,000 275.90 23.60 0.086 8.30 65 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/13/06 55,826 92,043 149,000 284.60 24.14 0.085 8.71 70 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/13/06 54,255 89,559 149,000 283.10 20.87 0.074 8.48 67 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/08/06 75,691 113,263 126,000 234.80 22.87 0.097 9.77 86 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/08/06 72,313 109,579 131,471 245.20 26.66 0.109 9.20 78 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/08/06 69,611 109,868 127,941 238.60 26.22 0.110 9.50 82 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/12/07 60,851 95,708 124,811 233.37 23.47 0.101 9.05 75 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/12/07 67,749 102,810 131,865 247.62 25.86 0.104 8.47 67 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/12/07 63,746 101,578 135,652 254.58 25.22 0.103 8.07 62 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/07/09 64,513 100,301 140,000 268.11 34.19 0.128 8.90 73 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/07/09 64,543 102,663 140,426 269.31 39.22 0.146 8.55 68 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/08/09 62,487 98,553 141,882 271.74 32.54 0.120 8.80 72 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 01/08/09 60,301 105,897 135,882 260.20 9.54 83 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/16/09 56,995 100,323 140,211 264.90 15.60 0.059 8.39 66 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/16/09 57,478 99,078 146,866 279.20 19.33 0.069 8.15 63 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/16/09 58,498 100,285 143,143 273.00 25.16 0.092 8.36 66 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/01/10 54,975 91,270 132,162 251.80 15.72 0.062 7.44 55 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/01/10 55,223 92,250 131,461 249.30 17.39 0.070 7.41 54 SCGC Boiler No. 1 Suspension 12/01/10 56,151 92,586 137,647 261.80 18.19 0.069 6.85 48

SCGC Boiler No. 1 Number of Runs 43 28 43 43 42 42 43 43 0 SCGC Boiler No. 1 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 42 27 42 42 41 41 42 42 -1 SCGC Boiler No. 1 MEAN 63,244 100,800 131,610 252 27 0.112 8 68 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 1 MINIMUM 53,423 88,199 111,045 215 11 0.059 6 39 0 SCGC Boiler No. 1 MAXIMUM 75,691 119,463 149,000 285 47 0.174 11 103 0 SCGC Boiler No. 1 STD DEVIATION 5,732 7,896 9,867 18 8 0.032 1 15 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 1 95% CL OF RUNS 74,707 116,592 151,345 288 44 0.176 11 98 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 1 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 71,521 112,661 145,860 278 39 0.158 10 89 #DIV/0!

SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/19/98 65,875 121,739 234.51 55.03 0.235 8.84 72 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/19/98 63,498 136,901 263.72 47.66 0.181 7.51 55 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/19/98 65,441 123,692 238.48 46.13 0.193 8.60 69 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/08/99 67,341 118,783 229.70 50.36 0.219 9.40 81 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/08/99 66,385 116,291 224.70 57.19 0.255 9.80 87 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/08/99 66,206 119,065 229.80 40.91 0.178 8.66 70 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/08/99 64,654 119,304 230.78 57.90 0.251 8.64 70 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/16/00 69,691 118,261 229.68 36.89 0.161 10.08 92 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/16/00 70,127 121,739 237.01 43.63 0.184 9.69 85 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/16/00 70,389 126,000 245.29 43.73 0.178 8.83 72 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/16/01 75,613 121,714 237.30 33.20 0.140 8.95 74 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/16/01 70,137 121,644 237.18 33.45 0.141 9.29 79 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/16/01 74,721 120,870 235.12 32.29 0.137 9.80 87 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/14/02 72,844 124,478 242.19 41.04 0.169 10.15 93 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/14/02 72,651 119,118 232.17 42.90 0.185 10.10 92 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/14/02 74,359 120,896 236.60 40.63 0.172 10.10 92 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/21/04 80,575 125,538 239.94 33.98 0.142 10.36 97 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/21/04 80,607 131,818 223.87 39.20 0.175 9.18 77 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/21/04 72,609 134,769 230.06 32.00 0.139 9.12 76 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/16/04 63,332 95,586 112,105 195.50 26.08 0.134 9.90 89 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/16/04 76,372 113,324 128,919 269.80 23.71 0.088 8.70 70 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/04 72,111 111,673 128,571 253.30 36.11 0.143 8.50 68 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/04 72,111 111,673 128,571 247.79 36.11 0.146 8.54 68 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/04 62,186 104,280 116,842 224.22 31.07 0.139 9.08 76 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/04 76,414 117,326 125,915 241.02 35.36 0.147 9.30 79 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/04 71,191 109,338 130,286 249.24 35.88 0.144 9.06 75 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/27/05 72,664 117,107 133,846 261.40 38.48 0.147 9.79 87 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/27/05 72,357 119,141 139,385 272.20 49.14 0.181 8.56 68 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/27/05 74,303 119,440 141,231 272.70 43.63 0.160 8.41 66 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/17/06 55,850 88,825 145,000 275.60 26.36 0.096 9.05 75 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/17/06 60,485 96,351 141,000 268.10 25.03 0.093 8.99 74 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/17/06 55,840 89,197 149,000 283.10 23.07 0.081 8.25 64 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/17/07 68,734 107,826 140,000 268.75 31.68 0.118 9.51 82 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/17/07 60,423 94,379 143,333 274.92 27.98 0.102 8.96 74 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/17/07 65,933 106,028 146,087 278.57 31.21 0.112 8.77 71 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/20/07 76,291 115,866 133,151 250.42 24.10 0.096 9.67 85 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/20/07 73,922 113,017 129,167 242.29 25.56 0.105 9.95 89 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/20/07 74,885 112,738 118,400 220.64 26.23 0.119 11.20 113 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/14/09 68,866 99,794 134,430 255.81 24.38 0.095 11.28 115 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/14/09 66,543 100,032 131,392 249.43 22.53 0.090 10.71 103 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/14/09 65,049 95,582 130,263 248.04 18.07 0.073 10.89 107 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/09 69,566 109,771 143,284 266.44 33.36 0.125 9.82 87 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/09 70,920 113,071 140,548 261.07 32.25 0.124 10.24 95 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/17/09 72,390 110,638 138,857 257.09 24.27 0.094 10.59 101 SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/03/10 60,777 93,837 137,910 248.60 18.86 0.076 8.81 72 PM Emissions (EPA Method 5)SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/03/10 62,084 96,991 139,130 259.00 17.64 0.068 8.72 71

SCGC Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/03/10 62,459 96,239 138,261 257.30 16.93 0.066 8.81 72

SCGC Boiler No. 2 Number of Runs 47 28 47 47 47 47 47 47 0 SCGC Boiler No. 2 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 46 27 46 46 46 46 46 46 -1 SCGC Boiler No. 2 MEAN 69,102 105,681 129,947 247 34 0.140 9 81 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 2 MINIMUM 55,840 88,825 112,105 196 17 0.066 8 55 0 SCGC Boiler No. 2 MAXIMUM 80,607 119,440 149,000 283 58 0.255 11 115 0 SCGC Boiler No. 2 STD DEVIATION 5,865 9,499 9,510 18 10 0.047 1 13 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 2 95% CL OF RUNS 80,832 124,679 148,966 284 55 0.234 11 108 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 2 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 77,520 119,950 143,596 274 49 0.208 11 100 #DIV/0!

SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/20/98 62,291 95,143 180.58 27.47 0.152 10.10 92 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/20/98 66,663 97,826 185.71 35.39 0.191 9.80 87 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/20/98 57,288 95,217 180.77 46.90 0.259 8.80 72 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/24/98 67,374 104,595 198.56 30.53 0.154 9.53 83 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/24/98 71,967 107,727 204.49 33.33 0.163 8.77 71 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/24/98 70,315 104,776 198.90 32.94 0.166 8.93 74 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/99 73,842 105,600 201.33 48.93 0.243 8.85 72 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/99 56,703 99,000 188.32 50.74 0.269 9.33 79 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/99 74,572 96,923 184.37 39.69 0.216 9.21 78 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/99 75,961 97,912 186.21 48.34 0.260 9.34 80 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/01/99 72,038 93,506 177.46 31.29 0.176 10.76 104 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/01/99 86,351 96,545 182.98 47.44 0.259 10.47 99 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/01/99 79,079 99,600 188.90 34.51 0.183 10.90 107 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/18/01 78,325 100,000 190.30 37.52 0.197 10.74 104 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/18/01 77,687 100,385 190.50 34.40 0.181 11.05 110 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/18/01 82,884 104,143 197.60 35.63 0.180 10.76 104 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/01 78,372 99,333 187.88 19.91 0.106 11.02 110 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/01 82,637 100,000 189.82 22.09 0.116 10.75 104 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/01 75,677 101,471 192.07 22.67 0.118 10.42 98 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/02/02 73,986 112,059 211.36 25.03 0.118 10.07 92 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/02/02 74,798 108,000 203.90 26.02 0.128 9.46 81 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/02/02 76,528 102,985 194.15 24.69 0.127 11.16 113 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/04 74,779 104,211 195.85 20.94 0.107 12.12 135 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/04 70,253 105,672 198.53 24.42 0.123 11.87 129 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/04 65,493 104,545 196.27 21.52 0.110 12.13 136 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/21/05 39,097 62,783 106,452 202.90 19.46 0.096 10.40 97 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/21/05 41,179 65,828 105,000 199.50 16.97 0.085 10.58 101 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/21/05 39,887 63,766 107,000 203.50 18.15 0.089 9.55 83 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/18/06 33,302 52,328 108,000 200.20 10.63 0.053 10.77 105 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/18/06 33,675 52,744 108,000 200.10 10.69 0.053 10.69 103 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/18/06 35,609 56,260 108,000 200.50 12.44 0.062 10.78 105 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/07/06 70,900 108,279 96,923 179.00 21.82 0.122 10.42 98 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/07/06 69,894 107,118 96,857 178.10 23.31 0.131 10.42 98 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/07/06 71,647 109,522 97,500 180.00 27.05 0.150 10.23 94 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/19/07 53,156 83,489 101,667 188.87 26.63 0.141 8.53 68 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/19/07 55,739 89,275 99,740 184.60 25.04 0.136 8.58 69 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/19/07 55,293 87,147 100,000 184.46 18.71 0.101 9.10 76 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/09 7 56,832 88,634 106,479 198.26 41.99 0.212 8.89 73 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/09 57,500 88,306 107,561 200.14 22.19 0.111 8.97 74 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/09 57,484 90,796 107,500 200.11 26.04 0.130 8.72 71 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 01/13/09 55,033 88,844 104,800 194.91 24.91 0.128 8.75 71 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/22/09 53,452 80,783 102,500 186.90 24.80 0.133 9.39 80 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/22/09 52,975 83,268 105,882 193.20 25.98 0.134 9.16 77 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/22/09 52,051 81,483 102,000 186.80 21.06 0.113 9.15 77 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/07/10 52,474 77,826 100,833 185.70 12.99 0.070 10.30 96 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/07/10 53,273 79,472 101,739 187.40 13.66 0.073 10.05 91 SCGC Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/07/10 52,690 79,287 104,118 191.90 16.97 0.088 9.74 86

SCGC Boiler No. 3 Number of Runs 47 22 47 47 47 47 47 47 0 SCGC Boiler No. 3 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 46 21 46 46 46 46 46 46 -1 SCGC Boiler No. 3 MEAN 63,170 80,784 102,462 192 27 0.143 10 92 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 3 MINIMUM 33,302 52,328 93,506 177 11 0.053 9 68 0 SCGC Boiler No. 3 MAXIMUM 86,351 109,522 112,059 211 51 0.269 12 136 0 SCGC Boiler No. 3 STD DEVIATION 14,038 16,522 4,322 8 10 0.056 1 17 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 3 95% CL OF RUNS 91,246 113,828 111,106 209 48 0.255 12 126 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 3 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 83,318 106,385 108,665 204 42 0.223 11 116 #DIV/0!

SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/25/98 136,236 253,235 488.47 88.37 0.181 8.20 64 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/25/98 125,626 253,235 488.10 187.99 0.385 7.99 61 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/25/98 127,392 253,881 490.68 101.27 0.206 8.38 66 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/22/98 107,367 245,422 472.99 70.35 0.149 7.30 53 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/22/98 113,139 251,447 483.50 62.98 0.130 8.00 61 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/22/98 113,084 253,151 486.42 67.69 0.139 7.74 58 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/24/99 140,315 270,789 521.84 75.91 0.145 6.71 47 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/24/99 135,887 256,667 494.99 75.24 0.152 7.26 53 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/24/99 137,998 259,091 500.80 94.39 0.188 10.50 99 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/00 129,828 259,259 501.72 79.68 0.159 7.13 51 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/00 129,813 253,151 489.94 87.52 0.179 7.17 52 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/00 135,891 260,282 503.70 86.00 0.171 7.64 57 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/01 140,709 250,588 483.73 54.54 0.113 7.46 55 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/01 139,232 250,000 483.23 52.86 0.109 7.66 57 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/21/01 141,229 251,642 486.63 53.62 0.110 7.80 59 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/25/02 135,836 261,739 502.97 40.84 0.081 7.55 56 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/25/02 130,169 265,217 511.05 38.74 0.076 7.11 51 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 11/25/02 121,508 265,075 510.97 47.39 0.093 6.81 48 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/14/04 163,039 272,113 512.93 58.60 0.114 7.57 56 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/14/04 156,974 271,538 514.05 67.10 0.131 7.54 56 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/14/04 155,072 274,521 520.43 66.16 0.127 7.34 53 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/13/05 126,038 203,525 265,000 509.40 51.12 0.100 7.35 54 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/13/05 117,857 202,508 265,000 508.70 52.39 0.103 7.94 60 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/13/05 130,959 224,758 270,000 518.30 56.03 0.108 7.06 50 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/07/05 101,811 169,590 262,418 509.94 45.29 0.089 7.31 53 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/07/05 101,639 174,861 268,636 521.10 31.92 0.061 10.06 91 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/05 120,939 199,867 263,514 511.18 34.39 0.067 7.26 53 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/05/07 128,249 217,492 260,000 504.20 51.81 0.103 7.63 57 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/05/07 134,040 228,265 262,000 501.40 58.83 0.117 7.45 55 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 01/05/07 131,102 217,492 256,000 490.90 62.40 0.127 7.71 58 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/04/07 111,706 202,269 261,000 505.70 70.84 0.140 5.70 37 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/04/07 114,335 206,945 275,000 531.00 53.85 0.101 4.85 30 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/04/07 112,448 202,269 263,000 507.50 54.82 0.108 4.66 28 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/09/08 119,890 208,055 279,000 536.40 53.10 0.099 7.34 53 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/09/08 119,074 207,666 286,000 550.90 56.48 0.103 7.10 51 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/09/08 129,646 208,055 290,000 552.50 60.24 0.109 7.21 52 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/09 123,443 215,178 264,000 507.10 46.75 0.092 7.79 59SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/09 125,398 213,497 265,000 509.00 51.90 0.102 7.40 54

SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/08/09 119,828 215,178 274,000 527.40 45.03 0.085 6.57 45 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/14/10 150,849 240,374 257,000 493.50 52.96 0.107 7.23 52 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/14/10 150,167 239,642 256,000 493.00 57.88 0.117 7.15 51 SCGC Boiler No. 4 Suspension 12/14/10 149,757 240,374 256,000 492.80 71.19 0.144 7.13 51

SCGC Boiler No. 4 Number of Runs 42 21 42 42 42 42 42 42 0 SCGC Boiler No. 4 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 41 20 41 41 41 41 41 41 -1 SCGC Boiler No. 4 MEAN 129,417 211,327 262,634 506 64 0.127 7 55 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 4 MINIMUM 101,639 169,590 245,422 473 32 0.061 5 28 0 SCGC Boiler No. 4 MAXIMUM 163,039 240,374 290,000 553 188 0.385 11 99 0 SCGC Boiler No. 4 STD DEVIATION 14,507 18,203 9,708 18 25 0.052 1 12 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 4 95% CL OF RUNS 158,430 247,732 282,050 541 114 0.231 9 78 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 4 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 150,404 239,728 276,678 531 100 0.202 9 72 #DIV/0!

SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/08/94 94,486 184,091 286.98 51.87 0.181 9.64 84 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/08/94 94,540 180,000 281.97 40.16 0.142 9.78 87 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/07/95 77,193 191,667 326.60 24.58 0.075 7.73 58 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/07/95 76,454 195,833 334.08 23.39 0.070 7.56 56 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/07/95 75,575 200,704 341.58 21.60 0.063 7.00 50 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/05/96 82,929 204,930 348.70 52.87 0.152 7.50 55 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/05/96 79,676 200,000 340.10 51.40 0.151 7.60 56 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/05/96 79,218 205,714 350.60 39.22 0.112 7.60 56 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/02/97 86,574 188,028 366.11 32.04 0.088 7.06 50 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/02/97 84,007 195,652 381.91 34.63 0.091 7.69 57 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Traveling Grate 12/02/97 84,602 202,174 395.01 37.78 0.096 6.75 47 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/01/98 78,380 193,478 377.56 37.94 0.100 5.74 37 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/01/98 73,663 195,833 382.20 38.35 0.100 5.34 34 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/01/98 86,665 199,286 389.33 46.73 0.120 4.52 27 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/30/99 99,933 191,667 370.20 43.88 0.119 8.85 72 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/30/99 97,885 197,917 382.16 46.90 0.123 8.17 63 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/30/99 96,860 202,817 391.62 43.90 0.112 8.19 64 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/28/00 106,606 194,400 380.16 58.80 0.155 8.85 72 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/28/00 99,637 197,027 385.31 57.04 0.148 8.47 67 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/28/00 102,422 190,244 372.10 63.31 0.170 8.56 68 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/05/01 105,971 203,077 394.45 36.71 0.093 8.93 74 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/05/01 106,367 190,588 368.74 32.35 0.088 9.20 78 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/05/01 105,938 200,000 387.16 35.04 0.090 8.90 73 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/26/02 103,951 172,703 334.51 33.05 0.099 10.39 97 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/27/02 103,313 186,269 360.58 37.41 0.104 9.59 84 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 11/27/02 100,621 196,765 381.72 46.14 0.121 8.23 64 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/16/04 119,054 188,060 359.32 45.73 0.127 9.96 90 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/16/04 115,545 197,647 378.32 55.10 0.146 9.44 81 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/16/04 115,187 195,224 374.04 51.25 0.137 9.55 83 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/12/05 109,098 177,189 191,000 372.90 63.09 0.169 10.08 92 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/12/05 109,727 179,165 201,000 391.10 51.72 0.132 9.78 87 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/12/05 109,098 178,457 206,000 400.50 59.22 0.148 8.88 73 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/09/05 114,313 177,618 177,568 347.28 27.05 0.078 10.14 93 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/09/05 114,812 179,184 184,225 359.87 19.91 0.055 9.95 89 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/09/05 116,552 180,445 184,167 360.19 19.76 0.055 9.97 90 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/09/07 108,149 167,923 182,000 354.40 21.74 0.061 10.80 105 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/09/07 105,550 164,818 192,000 372.80 35.85 0.096 10.41 98 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 01/09/07 106,209 167,923 177,000 341.60 23.96 0.070 10.60 101 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/06/07 99,772 162,742 190,000 369.30 33.91 0.092 9.38 80 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/06/07 95,485 167,285 192,000 374.90 32.11 0.086 8.31 65 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/06/07 100,535 162,742 179,000 348.80 33.79 0.097 9.66 85 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/11/08 83,091 137,485 183,000 358.30 28.65 0.080 8.15 63 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/11/08 80,369 136,114 186,000 364.50 29.09 0.080 7.55 56 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/11/08 80,974 137,485 187,000 366.60 35.44 0.097 8.22 64 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/10/09 87,746 132,107 182,000 354.10 28.92 0.082 10.00 90 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/10/09 83,316 136,638 184,000 356.80 24.68 0.069 10.00 90 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/10/09 83,120 136,742 186,000 360.60 27.01 0.075 10.00 90 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/16/10 92,289 145,914 173,000 339.20 27.07 0.080 10.00 90 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/16/10 93,308 145,480 171,000 331.40 25.30 0.076 10.12 92 SCGC Boiler No. 5 Suspension 12/16/10 93,854 145,413 170,000 330.50 29.17 0.088 9.86 88

SCGC Boiler No. 5 Number of Runs 50 21 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 SCGC Boiler No. 5 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 49 20 49 49 49 49 49 49 -1 SCGC Boiler No. 5 MEAN 96,012 158,041 190,395 362 38 0.105 9 73 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 5 MINIMUM 73,663 132,107 170,000 282 20 0.055 5 27 0 SCGC Boiler No. 5 MAXIMUM 119,054 180,445 206,000 401 63 0.181 11 105 0 SCGC Boiler No. 5 STD DEVIATION 12,878 17,759 9,460 25 12 0.032 1 18 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 5 95% CL OF RUNS 121,768 193,558 209,315 411 62 0.170 12 110 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 5 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 114,421 185,750 203,918 397 55 0.151 11 100 #DIV/0!

SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/22/98 107,327 242,083 466.82 37.36 0.080 9.50 82 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/22/98 106,138 243,600 470.02 35.81 0.076 9.30 79 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/22/98 101,278 250,833 484.29 32.06 0.066 8.40 66 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/04/98 112,054 243,971 469.04 53.66 0.114 8.87 73 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/04/98 110,893 243,478 469.29 45.59 0.097 9.24 78 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/04/98 112,672 255,652 494.06 56.26 0.114 8.46 67 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 02/24/99 122,911 169,690 240,882 464.51 28.73 0.062 10.21 94 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 02/24/99 109,390 157,285 244,478 471.75 28.00 0.059 9.85 88 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 02/24/99 110,580 162,280 238,000 458.86 30.65 0.067 9.87 88 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/03/99 122,275 250,274 482.71 64.25 0.133 9.56 83 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/03/99 120,377 270,411 521.01 73.01 0.140 8.90 73 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/03/99 119,026 263,239 507.29 69.53 0.137 9.65 84 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/01/00 135,906 255,211 498.56 72.03 0.144 8.63 69 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/01/00 129,093 251,667 486.89 68.93 0.142 8.72 70 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/01/00 136,287 253,913 489.81 69.97 0.143 8.86 72 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/01 147,986 250,588 486.69 64.04 0.132 9.89 88 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/01 144,769 258,529 501.41 66.28 0.132 9.45 81 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/11/01 142,486 261,176 506.68 69.41 0.137 9.24 78 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/12/01 134,997 255,882 495.90 64.68 0.130 9.13 76 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/12/01 140,453 255,882 496.97 67.46 0.136 9.59 83 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/12/01 144,001 257,273 499.25 73.39 0.147 9.47 81 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/17/02 126,124 267,200 518.27 59.86 0.115 8.50 67 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/17/02 121,702 269,600 523.56 48.54 0.093 8.55 68 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/17/02 123,394 256,667 498.68 73.08 0.147 8.65 70 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/13/2004 6 114,061 184,796 249,429 484.00 62.46 0.129 8.05 62 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/13/2004 6 115,849 185,616 250,400 484.80 54.48 0.112 8.29 65 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/13/2004 6 117,531 184,920 249,231 481.60 8.02 61 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/13/2004 6 117,153 186,729 250,154 483.40 33.04 0.068 8.00 61 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/19/05 123,423 191,937 261,136 507.60 50.28 0.099 7.93 60 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/19/05 115,669 185,579 268,000 519.60 42.40 0.082 7.38 54 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/19/05 123,423 191,937 270,000 523.50 46.27 0.088 7.32 53SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/20/06 101,378 161,441 270,000 513.60 39.03 0.076 6.77 47

SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/20/06 97,668 155,534 271,000 519.30 31.68 0.061 6.10 41 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/20/06 101,378 161,441 267,000 509.10 37.93 0.075 6.38 43 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/11/07 101,634 164,590 279,000 532.20 52.81 0.099 7.13 51 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/11/07 105,031 170,731 275,000 526.30 57.88 0.110 7.00 50 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 01/11/07 105,997 164,590 278,000 530.90 62.74 0.118 7.29 53 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/10/07 134,976 213,653 270,000 519.30 53.72 0.103 9.65 84 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/10/07 132,039 209,109 265,000 511.10 63.47 0.124 9.57 83 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/10/07 131,690 213,653 260,000 499.60 64.24 0.129 9.53 82 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/16/08 127,985 205,572 276,000 532.10 58.78 0.110 9.91 89 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/16/08 124,586 201,481 270,000 520.10 62.47 0.120 9.42 81 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/16/08 123,076 205,572 280,000 538.20 60.46 0.112 9.15 77 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/28/09 134,267 200,488 278,000 535.30 55.04 0.103 11.09 111 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/28/09 132,280 202,808 284,000 545.40 51.15 0.094 10.74 104 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/28/09 132,664 201,467 275,000 528.30 41.29 0.078 10.82 105 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/21/10 143,432 215,773 260,000 494.40 50.72 0.103 10.36 97 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/21/10 141,073 209,717 261,000 499.40 50.85 0.102 10.43 98 SCGC Boiler No. 8 Suspension 12/21/10 144,790 214,823 273,000 521.90 55.53 0.106 10.01 90

SCGC Boiler No. 8 Number of Runs 49 28 49 49 48 48 49 49 0 SCGC Boiler No. 8 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 48 27 48 48 47 47 48 48 -1 SCGC Boiler No. 8 MEAN 122,963 188,329 260,629 503 54 0.107 9 75 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 8 MINIMUM 97,668 155,534 238,000 459 28 0.059 6 41 0 SCGC Boiler No. 8 MAXIMUM 147,986 215,773 284,000 545 73 0.147 11 111 0 SCGC Boiler No. 8 STD DEVIATION 13,878 20,129 11,958 22 13 0.026 1 16 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 8 95% CL OF RUNS 150,719 228,588 284,545 547 81 0.160 11 107 #DIV/0! SCGC Boiler No. 8 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 142,827 218,566 277,745 534 73 0 11 98 #DIV/0!

Notes: lb/hr = pounds per hour. lb/MMBtu = pounds per million British thermal units. lb/ton = pounds per ton. MMBtu/hr = million British thermal units per hour. TPH = tons per hour.

Footnotes: 1 Assumed 3,600 Btu/lb average heat content for wet bagasse, except where noted. 2Based on actual reported data. 3If reported as propane, it was converted to carbon by the following equation: lbs/hr as carbon= lbs/hr as propane x ((3*12.011)/44.09) where 44.09 is the MW of propane and 12.011 is the MW of carbon. If reported as methane, it was converted to carbon by the following equation: lbs/hr as carbon= lbs/hr as methane x (12.011/16.04) where 16.04 is the MW of methane and 12.011 is the MW of carbon. 4As reported in test report. 5If necessary, converted basis to as carbon.
6 Firing fuel oil concurrently with bagasse.
7Run 1 was excluded from the averages due to boiler upset during the run. 8Bagasse residue fuel fired during test.

## Table A-1. Individual Runs - Emission Tests Performed on Suspension-Burner Bagasse Boilers in Florida - Osceola Farms Company

Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Excess Boiler MACT Data Base Boiler Type Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Oxygen Air Moisture Combustor ID Common Date (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) (%) (%)

Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/14/99 74,291 128,000 252.2 6.72 47 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/14/99 73,743 126,720 249.7 6.43 44 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/14/99 74,453 131,200 258.4 6.93 48 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 02/19/99 65,339 128,800 252.6 40.58 0.161 5.00 31 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 02/19/99 64,489 122,400 240.0 37.00 0.155 4.95 31 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 02/19/99 64,936 122,400 240.1 33.97 0.142 5.10 32 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/99 83,407 140,000 274.5 44.23 0.158 7.22 52 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/99 82,363 134,400 263.6 51.48 0.195 6.87 49 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/99 82,456 136,800 267.8 44.90 0.168 6.79 48 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/15/00 77,327 129,600 252.4 49.61 0.197 8.45 66 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/15/00 76,582 128,800 250.8 45.93 0.183 7.61 56 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/15/00 76,441 127,200 247.9 36.02 0.137 7.21 51 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/26/01 76,424 140,000 275.6 43.72 0.159 8.01 61 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/26/01 75,972 137,600 270.7 41.10 0.152 8.36 66 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/26/01 75,225 140,000 275.5 46.97 0.171 8.49 68 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/20/02 75,613 124,800 245.0 45.13 0.184 10.16 94 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/20/02 75,849 125,600 247.0 45.18 0.184 9.81 87 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/20/02 74,074 129,600 254.9 46.33 0.185 9.99 91 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/11/03 77,490 118,576 232.9 51.71 0.223 8.10 63 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/11/03 76,191 123,060 241.7 40.81 0.169 8.95 75 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 12/11/03 73,673 123,323 241.8 44.63 0.185 8.70 71 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/30/04-12/01/04 58,635 93,925 114,409 224.5 39.20 0.175 7.94 61 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/30/04-12/01/04 62,100 99,107 115,939 227.2 35.21 0.155 8.07 63 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/30/04-12/01/04 59,697 94,763 114,567 224.2 40.35 0.180 7.78 59 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/10/06 56,496 86,964 128,720 254.0 47.97 0.189 7.99 62 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/10/06 56,956 85,281 126,322 248.7 44.87 0.176 7.29 53 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 01/10/06 59,591 89,652 121,071 238.9 43.74 0.183 7.76 59 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/30/06 75,714 120,035 133,093 263.6 41.73 0.158 7.68 58 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/30/06 72,697 115,645 131,634 260.7 39.24 0.150 8.18 64 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/30/06 70,264 112,047 132,967 263.3 40.10 0.152 7.74 58 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/13/07-11/14/07 62,013 99,466 128,166 254.4 39.53 0.155 6.37 44 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/13/07-11/14/07 63,210 99,207 126,026 249.5 38.43 0.155 6.81 48 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/13/07-11/14/07 62,251 99,963 130,282 258.1 45.38 0.176 6.11 41 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/08-11/19/08 66,071 99,190 130,289 256.8 49.67 0.193 9.74 87 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/08-11/19/08 72,107 107,299 127,099 248.6 47.63 0.191 8.10 63 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/18/08-11/19/08 67,715 100,016 126,774 248.9 42.76 0.171 8.56 69 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/09-11/18/09 61,735 99,123 116,345 227.0 44.53 0.196 5.26 33 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/09-11/18/09 62,024 98,284 115,954 225.9 42.70 0.189 5.89 39 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/17/09-11/18/09 58,481 93,459 119,723 233.6 47.07 0.202 5.93 39 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/10 57,654 89,444 121,268 238.5 44.83 0.188 7.54 56 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/10 58,946 92,358 123,335 240.6 44.31 0.184 6.57 46 Osceola Boiler No. 2 Suspension 11/12/10 59,933 91,610 123,674 242.5 45.54 0.188 6.54 45

Osceola Boiler No. 2 Number of Runs 42 21 42 42 39 39 42 42 0 Osceola Boiler No. 2 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 41 20 41 41 38 38 41 41 -1 Osceola Boiler No. 2 MEAN 69,063 98,421 126,822 249 43 0.175 7 57 #DIV/0! Osceola Boiler No. 2 MINIMUM 56,496 85,281 114,409 224 34 0.137 5 31 0 Osceola Boiler No. 2 MAXIMUM 83,407 120,035 140,000 276 52 0.223 10 94 0 Osceola Boiler No. 2 STD DEVIATION 8,036 9,053 6,798 14 4 0.019 1 16 #DIV/0! Osceola Boiler No. 2 95% CL OF RUNS 85,135 116,528 140,418 277 52 0.212 10 88 #DIV/0! Osceola Boiler No. 2 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 80,689 112,547 136,657 269 50 0.202 9 79 #DIV/0!

Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/98 52,580 126,000 238.3 36.93 0.155 8.20 64 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/98 51,576 136,800 258.8 24.56 0.095 8.00 61 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/98 51,571 131,262 248.3 30.29 0.122 8.00 61 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/19/99 54,846 129,600 253.8 41.38 0.163 5.40 33 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/19/99 50,363 135,000 264.5 43.68 0.165 4.80 28 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/19/99 53,144 136,421 267.5 62.92 0.235 5.00 30 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/10/00 64,819 136,800 266.7 31.19 0.117 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/10/00 64,395 136,800 270.3 25.57 0.095 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/10/00 64,660 142,200 277.3 29.56 0.107 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/21/01 67,187 140,400 276.1 45.81 0.166 6.10 41 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/21/01 66,289 140,400 276.5 45.80 0.166 6.10 40 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/21/01 65,020 140,400 276.1 46.36 0.168 6.70 47 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/02 65,465 131,400 257.6 28.22 0.110 6.10 41 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/02 64,207 129,600 254.0 34.10 0.134 6.70 47 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/02 63,395 131,400 258.1 38.59 0.150 6.70 47 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/03 59,482 117,969 231.9 31.00 0.134 10.80 106 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/03 57,241 127,938 250.7 43.88 0.175 9.90 89 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/20/03 55,609 132,686 261.1 44.54 0.171 8.80 72 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/04 51,186 76,171 112,985 222.6 35.81 0.161 9.50 83 23.00 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/04 50,572 74,446 128,250 251.9 31.67 0.126 9.60 84 22.90 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/22/04 51,535 76,584 112,629 221.1 34.59 0.156 9.00 75 27.90 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/15/05 45,337 71,359 128,949 256.3 46.14 0.180 6.39 44 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/15/05 44,762 71,625 129,971 258.7 41.20 0.159 6.44 44 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 12/15/05 44,474 72,172 137,324 272.3 36.60 0.134 6.66 46 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/08/07 63,451 100,103 131,719 261.5 46.78 0.179 6.72 47 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/08/07 58,682 98,113 133,989 264.9 43.57 0.164 6.33 43 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/08/07 58,072 100,103 132,119 261.2 49.05 0.188 6.19 42 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/08 46,306 76,230 132,024 257.4 33.60 0.131 6.71 47 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/08 50,038 82,767 123,713 240.3 34.84 0.145 6.33 43 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/08 50,618 76,230 125,363 245.7 36.40 0.148 5.88 39 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/09 50,803 84,024 120,681 236.7 28.42 0.120 6.60 46 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/09 50,749 83,700 127,428 248.6 41.41 0.170 5.50 36 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/14/09 50,308 84,024 113,839 222.8 45.12 0.200 5.88 39 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/17/10 56,865 91,592 123,424 240.5 37.05 0.154 6.89 49 27.87 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/17/10 56,102 91,544 128,595 250.9 43.84 0.175 6.17 42 28.67 Osceola Boiler No. 3 Suspension 11/17/10 55,430 91,592 126,548 246.1 43.04 0.175 6.18 42 28.56

Osceola Boiler No. 3 Number of Runs 36 18 36 36 36 36 33 33 6 Osceola Boiler No. 3 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 35 17 35 35 35 35 32 32 5 Osceola Boiler No. 3 MEAN 55,754 83,466 129,795 254 39 0.153 7 51 26 Osceola Boiler No. 3 MINIMUM 44,474 71,359 112,629 221 25 0.095 5 28 23 Osceola Boiler No. 3 MAXIMUM 67,187 100,103 142,200 277 63 0.235 11 106 29 Osceola Boiler No. 3 STD DEVIATION 6,782 9,904 7,567 15 8 0.030 1 18 3 Osceola Boiler No. 3 95% CL OF RUNS 69,319 103,274 144,929 285 55 0.212 10 88 32 Osceola Boiler No. 3 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 65,689 99,320 140,880 276 50 0.196 9 79 33

Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 01/07/99 66,218 155,000 300.1 40.30 0.134 7.90 60 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 01/07/99 65,498 150,000 290.4 39.75 0.137 7.20 52 PM Emissions (EPA Method 5)Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 01/07/99 65,279 155,000 300.0 43.13 0.144 7.50 55

Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/99 68,385 152,500 299.2 39.66 0.133 8.00 61 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/99 70,262 145,000 284.6 40.23 0.141 9.00 75 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/99 64,403 150,000 294.4 39.43 0.134 8.30 65 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/08/00 67,899 165,000 317.1 34.78 0.110 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/08/00 68,459 160,000 326.6 30.64 0.094 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/08/00 68,942 170,000 307.2 23.53 0.077 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/19/01 69,481 167,500 330.5 39.27 0.119 7.80 59 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/19/01 67,893 170,000 334.5 32.35 0.097 8.80 72 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/19/01 67,237 170,000 335.1 33.48 0.100 8.50 68 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/02 69,384 147,500 289.2 37.70 0.130 7.80 59 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/02 68,348 137,500 269.4 34.02 0.126 8.80 72 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/02 68,174 142,500 279.2 35.23 0.126 8.50 68 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/14/03 59,626 147,857 290.6 33.50 0.115 10.10 94 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/14/03 59,319 143,077 281.2 33.54 0.119 10.00 91 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/14/03 60,548 141,429 277.9 37.39 0.135 10.10 92 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/17/04 64,264 100,036 152,143 301.7 43.23 0.143 8.78 72 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/17/04 65,197 100,252 152,143 300.8 42.57 0.142 9.14 77 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/17/04 65,965 103,257 156,923 310.3 44.99 0.145 11.57 122 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 12/13/05 59,657 92,439 141,631 278.8 39.97 0.143 8.75 71 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 12/13/05 64,766 98,894 138,460 271.8 40.02 0.147 9.01 75 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 12/13/05 57,353 89,868 137,508 269.9 28.18 0.104 8.04 62 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/06/07 67,466 106,274 140,900 279.3 39.32 0.141 8.69 70 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/06/07 64,238 101,916 135,051 268.1 38.40 0.143 7.79 59 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/06/07 67,363 107,306 139,894 276.3 41.23 0.149 8.01 61 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/08 56,432 87,592 136,149 263.8 30.25 0.115 7.39 54 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/08 55,927 87,881 154,275 299.4 28.65 0.096 7.50 55 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/12/08 58,279 91,348 133,585 258.8 29.11 0.112 7.14 51 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/20/09 63,650 99,675 137,922 263.5 36.28 0.138 7.88 60 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/20/09 65,803 101,668 147,739 283.1 31.15 0.110 7.98 61 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/20/09 64,005 102,102 135,228 258.0 30.56 0.118 8.02 62 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/23/10 64,630 103,613 161,047 302.4 23.73 0.078 6.29 43 27.37 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/23/10 61,464 100,697 164,948 309.2 21.98 0.071 7.61 57 28.85 Osceola Boiler No.6 Suspension 11/23/10 61,214 100,275 164,626 308.4 27.24 0.088 6.26 42 28.89

Osceola Boiler No.6 Number of Runs 36 18 36 36 36 36 33 33 3 Osceola Boiler No.6 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 35 17 35 35 35 35 32 32 2 Osceola Boiler No.6 MEAN 64,529 98,616 150,001 292 35 0.121 8 67 28 Osceola Boiler No.6 MINIMUM 55,927 87,592 133,585 258 22 0.071 6 42 27 Osceola Boiler No.6 MAXIMUM 70,262 107,306 170,000 335 45 0.149 12 122 29 Osceola Boiler No.6 STD DEVIATION 3,987 6,089 11,327 21 6 0.022 1 16 1 Osceola Boiler No.6 95% CL OF RUNS 72,502 110,794 172,654 334 47 0.165 10 98 30 Osceola Boiler No.6 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 70,369 108,363 166,593 323 44 0.153 10 90 33

Notes: lb/hr = pounds per hour. lb/MMBtu = pounds per million British thermal units. lb/ton = pounds per ton. MMBtu/hr = million British thermal units per hour. TPH = tons per hour.

Footnotes: 1 Assumed 3,600 Btu/lb average heat content for wet bagasse, except where noted. 2Based on actual reported data. 3If reported as propane, it was converted to carbon by the following equation: lbs/hr as carbon= lbs/hr as propane x ((3*12.011)/44.09) where 44.09 is the MW of propane and 12.011 is the MW of carbon. If reported as methane, it was converted to carbon by the following equation: lbs/hr as carbon= lbs/hr as methane x (12.011/16.04) where 16.04 is the MW of methane and 12.011 is the MW of carbon. 4As reported in test report. 5If necessary, converted basis to as carbon.
6 THC reported as dry concentration.

## Table A-1. Individual Runs - Emission Tests Performed on Suspension-Burner Bagasse Boilers in Hawaii - Puunene Mill

Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Excess Boiler MACT Data Base Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Oxygen Air Moisture Combustor ID Common Date (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) (%) (%)

Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 04/17/94 139,629 217,690 561.2 87.96 0.157 8.40 67 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 04/17/94 125,207 195,340 486.7 70.92 0.146 8.50 68 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 04/17/94 135,240 214,538 581.0 91.18 0.157 8.20 64 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 05/19/95 147,240 209,000 404.0 8.72 71 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 05/19/95 158,469 204,000 393.0 9.67 85 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 05/19/95 154,512 202,000 390.0 9.83 88 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 09/13/97 149,359 244,000 485.0 9.39 81 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 09/13/97 137,271 242,000 461.0 9.07 76 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 09/13/97 142,473 240,000 459.0 9.49 82 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 07/15/00 188,613 204,000 433.0 12.02 134 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 07/15/00 175,104 209,000 472.0 11.66 125 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 07/15/00 178,171 211,000 458.0 11.35 117 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 09/23/03 116,192 347.7 31.45 0.075 9.08 76 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 09/23/03 127,658 361.8 34.80 0.076 8.89 73 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 09/23/03 125,525 359.1 33.28 0.072 8.93 74 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 07/25/07 213,000 476.0 33.70 0.071 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 07/25/07 207,000 423.0 38.79 0.092 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 07/25/07 210,000 381.0 38.71 0.102 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 08/19/10 119,174 210,667 389.2 50.37 0.110 9.00 75 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 08/19/10 131,548 210,333 379.9 54.91 0.114 9.50 83 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 08/19/10 117,344 210,750 375.3 57.01 0.128 9.10 76

Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) Number of Runs 18 3 15 21 12 12 18 18 0 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 17 2 14 20 11 11 17 17 -1 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) MEAN 142,707 209,189 215,117 432 52 0.108 9 84 #DIV/0! Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) MINIMUM 116,192 195,340 202,000 348 31 0.071 8 64 0 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) MAXIMUM 188,613 217,690 244,000 581 91 0.157 12 134 0 Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) STD DEVIATION 21,440 12,097 14,256 64 21 0.033 1 20 #DIV/0! Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) 95% CL OF RUNS 185,588 233,383 243,629 561 94 0.174 12 124 #DIV/0! Puunene Boiler 1 and 2 (common stack) UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 177,028 277,979 238,780 532 89 0.166 11 116 #DIV/0!

Puunene Boiler 3 04/18/94 216,943 302,577 691.1 62.20 0.090 10.90 108 Puunene Boiler 3 04/18/94 227,396 292,555 685.7 96.20 0.140 11.50 121 Puunene Boiler 3 04/18/94 216,536 292,345 669.3 58.70 0.088 11.30 116 Puunene Boiler 3 05/22/95 223,825 264,000 471.0 10.84 107 Puunene Boiler 3 05/22/95 217,541 263,000 470.0 10.94 109 Puunene Boiler 3 05/22/95 222,643 264,000 471.0 11.02 110 Puunene Boiler 3 09/11/97 184,013 275,000 568.0 10.25 95 Puunene Boiler 3 09/11/97 184,301 275,000 585.0 9.96 90 Puunene Boiler 3 09/11/97 185,120 274,000 576.0 10.35 97 Puunene Boiler 3 07/12/00 105,954 251,000 420.0 10.59 102 Puunene Boiler 3 07/12/00 111,528 253,000 448.0 10.46 99 Puunene Boiler 3 07/12/00 111,441 252,000 445.0 10.05 92 Puunene Boiler 3 09/25/03 150,909 537.1 55.97 0.104 9.18 78 Puunene Boiler 3 09/25/03 148,221 573.1 67.00 0.117 8.26 65 Puunene Boiler 3 09/25/03 151,961 602.6 42.59 0.080 9.42 81 Puunene Boiler 3 10/07/04 145,908 545.1 48.69 0.089 8.72 71 Puunene Boiler 3 10/07/04 145,458 529.7 51.19 0.090 8.41 67 Puunene Boiler 3 10/07/04 147,143 577.5 59.01 0.098 7.96 61 Puunene Boiler 3 04/11/05 149,634 563.8 45.40 0.068 8.57 69 Puunene Boiler 3 04/11/05 149,591 535.6 60.45 0.091 8.56 69 Puunene Boiler 3 04/11/05 151,488 563.0 49.98 0.072 8.95 74 Puunene Boiler 3 07/16/07 275,000 624.0 20.47 0.03 Puunene Boiler 3 07/16/07 274,000 634.0 46.47 0.07 Puunene Boiler 3 07/16/07 275,000 653.0 58.25 0.09 Puunene Boiler 3 08/23/10 123,581 285,857 586.6 27.42 0.051 7.41 54 Puunene Boiler 3 08/23/10 124,272 283,286 560.4 23.70 0.045 7.75 58 Puunene Boiler 3 08/23/10 123,257 284,875 596.9 26.79 0.052 7.77 59

Puunene Boiler 3 Number of Runs 24 3 15 27 18 18 24 24 0 Puunene Boiler 3 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 23 2 14 26 17 17 23 23 -1 Puunene Boiler 3 MEAN 163,278 295,826 269,935 562 50 0.082 10 85 #DIV/0! Puunene Boiler 3 MINIMUM 105,954 292,345 251,000 420 20 0.033 7 54 0 Puunene Boiler 3 MAXIMUM 227,396 302,577 285,857 691 96 0.140 12 121 0 Puunene Boiler 3 STD DEVIATION 39,870 5,848 11,576 73 18 0.026 1 21 #DIV/0! Puunene Boiler 3 95% CL OF RUNS 243,018 307,521 293,087 709 86 0.134 12 127 #DIV/0! Puunene Boiler 3 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 224,313 329,079 289,150 673 79 0 12 117 #DIV/0! Total PM Emissions (EPA Method 5)

## Table A-1. Individual Runs - Emission Tests Performed on Suspension-Fired Bagasse Boilers - Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc

Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Excess Boiler MACT Data Base Boiler Type Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Oxygen Air Moisture Combustor ID Common Date (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) (%) (%)

Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Suspension 01/13/09 102,035 192,396 581.0 1.19 0.003 6.60 46 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Suspension 01/13/09 101,695 193,483 577.0 0.91 0.002 7.00 50 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Suspension 01/13/09 99,773 191,785 578.0 0.89 0.002 6.80 48

Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Number of Runs 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 n-1 Degrees of Freedom (ν) 2 2 -1 2 2 2 2 2 -1 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 MEAN 101,168 192,555 #DIV/0! 579 1 0.0023 7 48 #DIV/0! Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 MINIMUM 99,773 191,785 0 577 1 0.0020 7 46 0 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 MAXIMUM 102,035 193,483 0 581 1 0.0030 7 50 0 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 STD DEVIATION 1,220 860 #DIV/0! 2 0 0.0006 0 2 #DIV/0! Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 95% CL OF RUNS 103,607 194,275 #DIV/0! 583 1 0.0035 7 52 #DIV/0! Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 UPL (99% CONFIDENCE) 108,104 197,445 #DIV/0! 591 2 0.0056 8 60 #DIV/0! PM Emissions (EPA Method 5)

### July 2011 113-87508

Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Excess Boiler MACT Data Base Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Oxygen Air Rank Combustor ID Common (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) (%) 1 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 101,168 192,555 578.7 1.00 0.0023 6.80 48 2 USSC Boiler No. 8 217,504 411,778 517,115 957.31 9.49 0.0098 6.3 44 3 USSC Boiler No. 7 165,750 306,285 313,831 651.2 15.84 0.024 8.48 74 4 Puunene Boiler No. 3 163,278 295,826 269,935 562.31 50.03 0.082 9.5 85 5 USSC Boiler No. 4 152,100 229,659 255,763 540.62 56.01 0.101 9.85 90 6 SCGCF Boiler No 5 96,012 158,041 190,395 361.6 37.93 0.105 8.77 73 7 SCGCF Boiler No 8 122,963 188,329 260,629 502.52 53.99 0.107 8.91 75 8 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 142,707 209,189 215,117 432.2 51.92 0.108 9.49 84 9 SCGCF Boiler No. 1 63,244 100,800 131,610 251.98 27.44 0.112 8.39 68 16 Osceola Boiler No 6 64,529 98,616 150,001 291.97 35.13 0.121 8.3 67 11 SCGCF Boiler No. 4 129,417 211,327 262,634 505.5 63.73 0.127 7.40 55 12 SCGCF Boiler No 2 69,102 105,681 129,947 247.46 34.32 0.140 9.39 81 13 SCGCF Boiler No 3 63,170 80,784 102,462 192.21 27.32 0.143 9.99 92 14 USSC Boiler No. 1 125,735 186,818 187,402 388.4 59.11 0.150 11.08 116 15 Osceola Boiler No 3 55,754 83,466 129,795 254.08 38.71 0.153 6.98 51 16 USSC Boiler No. 2 120,385 181,246 177,840 372.1 62.89 0.169 11.04 116 17 Oscola Boiler No 2 69,063 98,421 126,822 249.14 43.44 0.175 7.47 57 

### PM Emissions (EPA Method 5) 

## PM Emissions Ranked by Source Average

Table A-2

Hybrid Suspension Grate Boilers

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs A1 A2 A3_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (source average) 7-10-11.xlsxJuly 2011 113-87508

Table A-3. Statistical Data for PM

Normal Non-Normal Top 5 Sources Actual Natural Log Total No. of Sources (PM data) 17 17 No. Sources in MACT Floor 5 5 No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 132 132

0.054 -3.52 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 1.53 Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z) and (√β 1z)

NA 3

NA 715 normalization normalization normalization

NA 39 Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 20.16 0.9922 0.9993 0.9957

NA 7.27 z-value 3.59 4.29 3.79 Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.049 1.24 Skewness (S) 0.70 -0.30 The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum Kurtosis (K) -0.48 -1.19 0.06356 SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.213 0.213 0.00404 Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Non-Normal Normal 3.62 SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 0.426 0.426 0.0205 Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal 0.21 T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 2.36 3.59 Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 99% UPL 0.12 0.32 UPL 3.16E-01 3.66E-01 3.30E-01 T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 3.15 4.29 99.9% UPL 0.14 0.37

Top Performing Source - Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Total No. of Sources (PM data) 1 1 No. Sources in MACT Floor 1 1 No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 3 3

0.0023 -6.079 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 0.055 Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z) and (√β 1z)

NA 3

NA 3.9 normalization normalization normalization

NA 0.010 Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 416.95 0.9908 0.9993 0.9960

NA 0.42 z-value 3.48 4.29 3.79 Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.00058 0.234 Skewness (S) 1.73 1.73 The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum Kurtosis (K) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00235 SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 1.414 1.414 0.00001 Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Normal Normal 0.06 SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 2.828 2.828 0.0190 Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 6.96 3.48 Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 99% UPL 0.0056 0.0039 UPL 3.95E-03 4.32E-03 4.09E-03 T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 22.33 4.29 99.9% UPL 0.013 0.0043 exp ( σ 2 ) - 1 ( σ 2/n) + [σ4/(2(n - 1))] Square root term Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Flatness of z distribution (β2z) Skewness of z distribution (√β1z)

exp (2 μ + σ 2 ) exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) Smallest value in column A that is larger than

Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z)

exp ( σ 2 ) - 1 ( σ 2/n) + [σ4/(2(n - 1))] Square root term Flatness of z distribution (β2z)
Skewness of z distribution (√β1z) Smallest value in column A that is larger than confidence level

exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) exp (2 μ + σ 2 )

https://usvpn.golder.com/vdesk/filemanager/nogzip/download.php3/Tabs A1 A2 A3_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (source average) 7-10-11.xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508



## Table A-4. Emission Test Averages

Heat Input SO2 Emissions PM Emissions Excess

Unit Grate Type Test Number Steam Rate Rate (EPA Method 6) (EPA Method 5) Oxygen Air Date of runs (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) lb/hr lb/MMBtu lb/hr lb/MMBtu (%, dry) %

US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 01/08/98 3 202,523 425.07 45.65 0.107 11.40 120 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 12/11/98 3 214,915 451.87 62.09 0.137 9.77 88 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 12/22/99 3 191,045 397.00 45.67 0.115 11.32 118 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 12/08/00 3 195,748 413.24 4.14 0.010 76.25 0.185 10.73 106 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 12/05/01 3 201,572 408.59 52.41 0.128 10.40 99 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/20/02 3 194,351 399.23 72.06 0.180 12.09 138 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/14/03 3 199,507 411.99 72.55 0.176 12.20 141 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 01/13/05 3 193,293 418.70 78.65 0.188 11.47 121 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 02/07/05 3 162,360 323.77 0.00 0.000 11.50 122 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 12/16/05 3 176,904 369.83 76.60 0.209 12.07 137 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/28/06 3 167,381 349.37 42.32 0.121 13.00 167 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/09/07 3 184,322 386.37 68.31 0.177 10.52 101 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/19/08 3 176,498 358.93 47.28 0.132 9.97 92 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/10/09 3 185,162 370.73 55.10 0.148 10.20 96 US Sugar Boiler 1 Vibrating Grate 11/16/10 3 186,232 387.02 44.90 0.116 8.50 69

Minimum PM 42.32 0.107

US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 01/12/98 3 173,877 366.82 54.58 0.149 9.3 81 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 01/13/98 3 202,062 426.10 80.54 0.189 9.6 85 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 12/15/98 3 175,324 370.30 59.04 0.159 9.1 78 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 12/18/98 3 194,911 412.37 52.58 0.127 9.6 85 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 01/13/00 3 180,083 373.77 88.97 0.238 10.9 110 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 12/12/00 3 169,113 362.65 61.97 0.171 11.2 116 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 12/12/01 3 196,600 404.10 98.17 0.241 11.6 125 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 12/17/02 3 179,086 366.76 65.89 0.180 11.8 131 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/18/03 3 188,920 400.18 79.45 0.199 11.4 120 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/12/04 - 11/17/04 3 195,134 413.73 62.40 0.152 12.6 153 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 12/14/05 3 176,993 369.70 68.36 0.185 12.6 152 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/21/06 3 168,078 354.43 62.07 0.175 13.8 196 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/07/07 3 155,075 322.37 59.72 0.188 11.7 133 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/21/08 3 165,330 343.39 42.55 0.13 10.6 103 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/12/09 3 172,283 356.46 36.90 0.10 11.8 130.1 US Sugar Boiler 2 Vibrating Grate 11/18/10 3 195,189 405.51 43.70 0.11 10.0 91.0

Minimum PM 36.90 0.104

US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/09/98 3 250,660 546.23 65.17 0.119 9.52 84 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 01/05/00 3 238,941 #REF! 0.07 0.000 62.19 0.122 9.43 82 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/17/00 3 259,086 559.93 54.03 0.096 9.63 85 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 01/23/02 3 257,941 555.57 38.63 0.070 10.87 108 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/18/02- 12/19/02 4 275,758 607.34 59.46 0.099 10.31 97 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/21/03 3 263,215 574.62 72.98 0.127 9.80 88 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/24/04 3 260,459 572.97 73.50 0.129 9.73 87 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 02/10/05 3 235,809 510.68 6.07 0.012 57.08 0.112 10.46 100 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 01/13/06 3 236,587 495.57 45.49 0.092 8.22 65 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/01/06 3 247,512 535.31 48.05 0.090 9.98 92 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/14/07 3 269,659 575.59 62.40 0.108 8.99 75 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/08/08 4 266,384 554.23 56.19 0.101 9.98 91 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/18/09 3 262,071 557.20 32.00 0.06 9.13 78 US Sugar Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/10/10 3 270,456 577.40 56.87 0.10 9.40 82

Minimum PM 32.00 0.057

US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 02/08/99 3 354,719 725.97 13.95 0.019 7.13 52 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 12/17/99 3 364,345 751.65 9.08 0.012 4.43 27 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 01/05/01 - 01/06/01 3 327,500 666.22 9.99 0.015 9.00 76 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 01/09/02 3 329,896 702.32 6.20 0.009 6.50 45 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 11/15/02 3 347,199 736.65 14.43 0.020 7.39 55 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 12/30/03 3 340,888 713.52 10.30 0.015 6.64 47 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 02/04/05 3 227,758 485.88 31.84 0.065 10.48 0.021 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 5/3/2005 1 2 234,902 485.05 10.65 104 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 05/04/05 - 05/05/05 2 2 194,562.50 404.40 11.30 118 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 01/05/06 3 338,728 700.63 10.73 0.015 9.11 78 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 01/25/07 3 305,754 631.59 17.81 0.028 10.35 98 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 01/24/08 3 347,725 731.83 28.47 0.039 3.87 0.0053 6.93 50 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 12/04/08 4 358,192 703.35 9.80 0.014 9.62 85 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 11/20/09 3 344,807 718.87 2.90 0.0037 10.13 94 US Sugar Boiler 7 Vibrating Grate 11/04/10 3 369,498 763.53 9.47 0.013 10.10 93

Minimum PM 2.90 0.0037

US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 3/24/05 -3/25/05 3 500,915 927.29 23.13 0.025 3.65 0.0039 6.67 47 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 01/10/06 3 518,436 962.47 20.27 0.021 20.30 0.021 4.80 30 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 01/05/07 3 510,270 942.60 30.37 0.032 9.20 0.010 7.54 56 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 11/29/07 3 533,285 982.87 6.40 44 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 11/30/07 3 565,524 1045.56 14.39 0.014 15.58 0.015 6.68 47 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 12/11/08 4 541,698 1003.86 7.68 0.0078 6.07 41 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 01/30/09 3 522,181 962.20 26.90 0.028 7.97 65 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 12/02-09 - 12/04/09 5 506,867 929.56 55.69 0.060 6.83 0.0073 6.60 46 US Sugar Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 11/30/10 4 501,802 920.98 8.25 0.0090 5.83 41

Minimum PM 3.65 0.0039

SCGCF Boiler 1 Traveling Grate 11/18/98 3 119,983 233.46 29.69 0.170 8.64 70 SCGCF Boiler 1 Traveling Grate 12/09/99 3 141,066 273.97 44.61 0.163 6.54 45 SCGCF Boiler 1 Traveling Grate 11/15/00 3 120,878 234.39 33.55 0.143 9.62 84 SCGCF Boiler 1 Traveling Grate 11/14/01 3 117,979 228.93 29.00 0.126 8.29 65 SCGCF Boiler 1 Traveling Grate 11/13/02 3 124,632 242.21 22.85 0.094 8.15 63 SCGCF Boiler 1 Traveling Grate 01/07/04 3 139,677 266.65 25.04 0.094 6.45 44 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/15/04 3 131,810 247.85 28.60 0.115 8.17 63 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 01/13/06 3 147,333 281.20 22.87 0.082 8.50 68 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/08/06 3 128,471 239.53 25.25 0.105 9.49 82 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/12/07 3 130,776 245.19 24.85 0.103 8.53 68 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 01/07/09-01/08/09 4 139,548 267.34 35.32 0.131 8.95 74 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/16/09 3 143,407 272.37 20.03 0.073 8.30 65 SCGCF Boiler 1 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/01/10 3 133,757 254.30 17.10 0.067 7.23 52

Minimum PM 17.10 0.067

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs A4 A5 A6_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (ranked by 3 run avg RIO).xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508

SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 11/19/98 3 127,444 245.57 49.61 0.203 8.32 66 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 12/08/99 4 118,361 228.75 51.59 0.226 9.13 77 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 11/16/00 3 122,000 237.33 41.42 0.174 9.53 83 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 11/16/01 3 121,409 236.53 32.98 0.139 9.35 80 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 11/14/02 3 121,497 236.99 41.52 0.175 10.12 92 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 01/21/04 3 130,708 231.29 35.06 0.152 9.55 83 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 12/16/04 2 120,512 232.65 24.90 0.111 9.30 79 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 12/17/04 5 126,037 243.11 34.91 0.144 8.90 73 SCGCF Boiler 2 Traveling Grate 01/27/05 3 138,154 268.77 43.75 0.163 8.92 74 SCGCF Boiler 2 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 01/17/06 3 145,000 275.60 24.82 0.090 8.76 71 SCGCF Boiler 2 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 01/17/07 3 143,140 274.08 30.29 0.111 9.08 76 SCGCF Boiler 2 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/20/07 3 126,906 237.78 25.30 0.107 10.27 96 SCGCF Boiler 2 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 01/14/09 3 132,028 251.09 21.66 0.086 10.96 109 SCGCF Boiler 2 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/17/09 3 140,896 261.53 29.96 0.114 10.22 94 SCGCF Boiler 2 Water-Cooled, Pinhole 12/03/10 3 138,434 254.97 17.81 0.070 8.78 71

Minimum PM 17.81 0.070

SCGCF Boiler 3 Dumping Grate 01/20/98 3 96,062 182.35 36.59 0.201 9.57 84 SCGCF Boiler 3 Dumping Grate 11/24/98 3 105,699 200.65 32.27 0.161 9.08 76 SCGCF Boiler 3 Dumping Grate 11/22/99 4 99,859 190.06 46.93 0.247 9.18 77 SCGCF Boiler 3 Dumping Grate 12/01/99 3 96,550 183.11 37.75 0.206 10.71 103 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 01/18/01 3 101,509 192.80 35.85 0.186 10.85 106 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 11/20/01 3 100,268 189.92 21.56 0.113 10.73 104 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 12/02/02 3 107,681 203.14 25.25 0.124 10.23 95 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 01/13/04 3 104,809 196.88 22.29 0.113 12.04 133 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 01/21/05 3 106,151 201.97 18.19 0.090 10.18 94 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 01/18/06 3 108,000 200.27 11.25 0.056 10.75 104 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 12/07/06 3 97,093 179.03 24.06 0.134 10.36 97 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 12/19/07 3 100,469 185.98 23.46 0.126 8.74 71 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 01/13/09 3 106,620 198.39 24.38 0.123 8.81 72 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 12/22/09 3 103,461 188.97 23.95 0.127 9.23 78 SCGCF Boiler 3 Water-Cooled Pinhole 12/07/10 3 102,230 188.33 14.54 0.077 10.03 91

Minimum PM 11.25 0.056

SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/25/98 3 253,450 489.08 125.88 0.257 8.19 64 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/22/98 3 250,007 480.97 67.01 0.139 7.68 57 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/24/99 3 262,182 505.88 81.85 0.162 8.16 66 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/21/00 3 257,564 498.45 84.40 0.170 7.31 53 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/21/01 3 250,743 484.53 53.67 0.111 7.64 57 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 11/25/02 3 264,010 508.33 42.32 0.083 7.16 52 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 01/14/04 3 272,724 515.80 63.95 0.124 7.48 55 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 01/13/05 3 266,667 512.13 53.18 0.104 7.45 55 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/7/05 - 12/8/05 3 264,856 514.07 37.20 0.072 8.21 66 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 01/05/07 3 259,333 498.83 57.68 0.116 7.60 56 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/04/07 3 266,333 514.73 59.84 0.116 5.07 32 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/09/08 3 285,000 546.60 56.61 0.104 7.22 52 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/08/09 3 267,667 514.50 47.89 0.093 7.25 53 SCGCF Boiler 4 Traveling Grate 12/14/10 3 256,333 493.10 60.68 0.123 7.17 52

Minimum PM 37.20 0.072

SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/01/98 3 196,199 383.03 41.01 0.107 5.20 33 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 11/30/99 3 197,467 381.33 44.89 0.118 8.40 66 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 11/28/00 3 193,890 379.19 59.72 0.158 8.63 69 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/05/01 3 197,888 383.45 34.70 0.090 9.01 75 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 11/27/02 3 185,246 358.94 38.87 0.108 9.40 82 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 01/16/04 3 193,644 370.56 50.69 0.137 9.65 85 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 01/12/05 3 199,333 388.17 58.01 0.150 9.58 84 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/09/05 3 181,987 355.78 22.24 0.063 10.02 91 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 01/09/07 3 183,667 356.27 27.18 0.076 10.60 101 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/06/07 3 187,000 364.33 33.27 0.092 9.12 77 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/11/08 3 185,333 363.13 31.06 0.086 7.97 61 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/10/09 3 184,000 357.17 26.87 0.075 10.00 90 SCGCF Boiler 5 Traveling Grate 12/16/10 3 171,333 333.70 27.18 0.081 9.99 90

Minimum PM 22.24 0.063

SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 01/22/98 3 245,505 473.71 35.08 0.074 9.07 76 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 12/04/98 3 247,700 477.46 51.84 0.108 8.86 72 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 02/24/99 3 241,120 465.04 29.13 0.063 9.98 90 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 12/03/99 3 261,308 503.67 68.93 0.137 9.37 80 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 12/01/00 3 253,597 491.75 70.31 0.143 8.74 71 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 12/11/01 3 256,764 498.26 66.58 0.134 9.53 82 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 12/12/01 3 256,346 497.37 68.51 0.138 9.40 80 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 12/17/02 3 264,489 513.50 60.49 0.118 8.57 68 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 02/13/04 4 249,804 483.45 49.99 0.103 8.12 63 SCGCF Boiler 8 Spreader Stoker 01/19/05 3 266,379 516.90 46.32 0.090 7.54 56 SCGCF Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 01/20/06 3 269,333 514.00 36.21 0.071 6.42 44 SCGCF Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 01/11/07 3 277,333 529.80 57.81 0.109 7.14 51 SCGCF Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 12/10/07 3 265,000 510.00 60.48 0.119 9.58 83 SCGCF Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 12/16/08 3 275,333 530.13 60.57 0.114 9.49 82 SCGCF Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 12/28/09 3 279,000 536.33 49.16 0.092 10.88 107 SCGCF Boiler 8 Traveling Grate 12/21/10 3 264,667 505.23 52.37 0.104 10.27 95

Minimum PM 29.13 0.063

Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 01/14/99 3 128,640 253.43 6.693 46.56 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 02/19/99 3 124,533 244.23 37.18 0.153 5.017 31.15 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/17/99 3 137,067 268.64 46.87 0.174 6.960 49.68 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/15/00 3 128,533 250.35 43.85 0.172 7.757 57.72 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/26/01 3 139,200 273.90 43.93 0.161 8.287 64.96 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/20/02 3 126,667 248.93 45.55 0.184 9.987 90.70 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 12/11/03 3 121,653 238.77 45.72 0.192 8.583 69.50 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/30/04-12/01/04 3 114,972 225.30 38.25 0.170 7.930 60.88 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 01/10/06 3 125,371 247.18 45.53 0.183 7.678 57.89 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/30/06 3 132,565 262.50 40.36 0.153 7.863 60.09 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/13/07-11/14/07 3 128,158 253.97 41.11 0.162 6.428 44.30 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/18/08-11/19/08 3 68,631 251.43 46.69 0.185 8.800 72.95 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/17/09-11/18/09 3 117,341 228.80 44.77 0.196 5.688 37.30 Osceola Boiler 2 Inclined Grate 11/12/10 3 122,759 240.52 44.89 0.187 6.882 49.05

Minimum PM 37.18 0.153

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs A4 A5 A6_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (ranked by 3 run avg RIO).xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508

Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/20/98 3 131,354 248.43 30.59 0.124 8.067 62.35 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/19/99 3 133,674 261.91 49.33 0.188 5.067 30.32 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/10/00 3 138,600 271.43 28.77 0.106 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/21/01 3 140,400 276.23 45.99 0.167 6.300 42.54 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/14/02 3 130,800 256.57 33.64 0.131 6.500 44.77 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/20/03 3 126,198 247.90 39.81 0.160 9.833 89.14 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/22/04 3 117,955 231.87 0.83 0.004 34.02 0.148 9.367 80.67 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 12/15/05 3 132,081 262.43 41.31 0.158 6.497 44.83 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/28/06 3 118,787 235.47 44.63 0.189 5.217 33.10 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/18/07 3 132,609 262.53 46.47 0.177 6.413 44.03 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/14/08 3 127,033 247.80 34.95 0.141 6.307 43.03 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/14/09 3 120,649 236.03 38.32 0.163 5.993 40.09 Osceola Boiler 3 Inclined Grate 11/17/10 3 126,189 245.83 41.31 0.168 6.413 44.07

Minimum PM 28.77 0.106

Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 01/07/99 3 153,333 296.83 41.06 0.138 7.533 55.66 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/12/99 3 149,167 292.72 39.77 0.136 8.433 66.94 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/08/00 3 165,000 316.97 29.65 0.094 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/19/01 3 169,167 333.37 35.03 0.105 8.367 66.05 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/12/02 3 142,500 279.27 35.65 0.127 8.367 66.05 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/14/03 3 144,121 283.23 34.81 0.123 10.067 92.19 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/17/04 3 153,736 304.27 3.40 0.010 43.60 0.143 9.830 90.19 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 12/13/05 3 139,200 273.50 36.06 0.131 8.600 69.31 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/16/06-11/17/06 3 144,550 283.80 34.09 0.120 8.157 63.31 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/06/07 3 138,615 274.57 39.65 0.144 8.163 63.54 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/12/08 3 141,336 274.00 29.34 0.108 7.343 53.63 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/20/09 3 140,296 268.20 32.66 0.122 7.960 60.86 Osceola Boiler 6 Traveling Grate 11/23/10 3 163,540 306.67 24.32 0.079 6.720 47.22

Minimum PM 24.32 0.079

Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 Spreader Stoker 07/15/00 3 208,000 454.33 88.74 0.176 11.677 125.24 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 Spreader Stoker 09/23/03 3 356.20 0.62 0.001 28.47 0.066 8.967 74.43 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 Spreader Stoker 07/25/07 3 210,000 426.67 34.14 0.081 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 Spreader Stoker 08/20/10 3 210,583 381.47 49.07 0.107 9.213 78.13

Minimum PM 28.47 0.066

Puunene Boiler No. 3 Spreader Stoker 07/12/00 3 252,000 437.67 26.87 0.079 10.367 97.45 Puunene Boiler No. 3 Spreader Stoker 09/25/03 3 570.93 52.31 0.095 8.953 74.53 Puunene Boiler No. 3 Spreader Stoker 10/07/04 3 550.77 9.05 0.016 47.22 0.082 8.363 66.21 Puunene Boiler No. 3 Spreader Stoker 04/11/05 3 554.12 8.02 0.012 43.89 0.065 8.693 70.59 Puunene Boiler No. 3 Spreader Stoker 07/16/07 3 274,667 637.00 37.46 0.058 Puunene Boiler No. 3 Spreader Stoker 08/23/10 3 284,673 581.31 23.01 0.044 7.645 57.21

Minimum PM 23.01 0.044

Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Suspension 01/13/09 3 578.67 10.00 0.024 1.00 0.002 6.800 47.86

Minimum PM 1.00 0.0023

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs A4 A5 A6_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (ranked by 3 run avg RIO).xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508

PM Emissions Boiler MACT Data Base (EPA Method 5) Rank Combustor ID Common (lb/MMBtu) 1 Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 0.0023 2 USSC Boiler No. 7 0.0037 3 USSC Boiler No. 8 0.0039 4 Puunene Boiler No. 3 0.044 5 SCGCF Boiler No 3 0.056 6 USSC Boiler No. 4 0.057 7 SCGCF Boiler No 5 0.063 8 SCGCF Boiler No 8 0.063 9 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 0.066 10 SCGCF Boiler No. 1 0.067 11 SCGCF Boiler No 2 0.070 12 SCGCF Boiler No. 4 0.072 13 Osceola Boiler No 6 0.079 14 USSC Boiler No. 2 0.104 15 Osceola Boiler No 3 0.106 16 USSC Boiler No.1 0.107 17 Oscola Boiler No 2 0.153



## Table A-5

Hybrid Suspension Grate Boilers Ranked by Lowest 3-Run Test Average

Tabs A4 A5 A6_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (ranked by 3 run avg RIO).xlsx/A-5 Ranked Minimum 3-run Avg

### July 2011 113-87508



### Table A-6. Statistical Data for PM

Normal Non-Normal 

### Top 5 Sources Actual Natural Log 

### Total No. of Sources (PM data) 17 17 

### No. Sources in MACT Floor 5 5 

### No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 136 136

0.070 -3.38 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 1.82 

### Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z 

### ) and (√β 1z 

### )

NA 3

NA 2044 

### normalization normalization normalization

NA 81 

### Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 27.38 0.9921 0.9992 0.9956

NA 10.75 

### z-value 3.59 4.29 3.79 

### Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.071 1.35 

### Skewness (S) 1.01 -0.21 

### The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum 

### Kurtosis (K) 0.14 -1.24 0.08449 

### SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.210 0.210 0.00714 

### Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Non-Normal Normal 5.18 

### SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 0.420 0.420 0.0257 

### Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal 0.34 

### T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 2.35 3.59 

### Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 

### 99% UPL 0.17 0.49 

### UPL 4.85E-01 5.65E-01 5.08E-01 

### T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 3.15 4.29 

### 99.9% UPL 0.20 0.56



### Top Performing Source - Rio Grande Boiler No. 6 Total No. of Sources (PM data) 1 1 

### No. Sources in MACT Floor 1 1 

### No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 3 3

0.002 -6.079 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 0.055 

### Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z 

### ) and (√β 1z 

### )

NA 3

NA 3.9 

### normalization normalization normalization

NA 0.010 

### Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 416.95 0.9908 0.9993 0.9960

NA 0.42 

### z-value 3.48 4.29 3.79 

### Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.001 0.234 

### Skewness (S) 1.73 1.73 

### The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum 

### Kurtosis (K) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00235 

### SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 1.414 1.414 0.0000055 

### Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Normal Normal 0.0563 

### SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 2.828 2.828 0.0190 

### Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00137 

### T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 6.96 3.48 

### Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 

### 99% UPL 0.0056 0.0039 

### UPL 3.95E-03 4.32E-03 4.09E-03 

### T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 22.33 4.29 

### 99.9% UPL 0.013 0.0043 

### exp ( σ2 

### ) - 1 ( σ2

### /n) + [σ4

### /(2(n - 1))] Square root term 

### Flatness of z distribution (β2z)

Skewness of z distribution (√β1z) Smallest value in column A that is larger than confidence level

exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) exp (2 μ + σ 2 

### ) 

### Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 

### ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Flatness of z distribution (β2z) Skewness of z distribution (√β1z)

exp (2 μ + σ 2 

### ) exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) Smallest value in column A that is larger than 

### Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 

### ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z)

exp ( σ2 

### ) - 1 ( σ2

### /n) + [σ4

### /(2(n - 1))] Square root term

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs A4 A5 A6_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (ranked by 3 run avg RIO).xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508



### Table A-7. Statistical Data for PM

Normal Non-Normal 

### Top 5 Sources Actual Natural Log 

### Total No. of Sources (PM data) 17 17 

### No. Sources in MACT Floor 5 5 

### No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 132 132

0.054 -3.52 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 1.53 

### Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z 

### ) and (√β 1z 

### )

NA 3

NA 715 

### normalization normalization normalization

NA 39 

### Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 20.16 0.9922 0.9993 0.9957

NA 7.27 

### z-value 3.59 4.29 3.79 

### Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.049 1.24 

### Skewness (S) 0.70 -0.30 

### The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum 

### Kurtosis (K) -0.48 -1.19 0.06356 

### SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.213 0.213 0.00404 

### Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Non-Normal Normal 3.62 

### SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 0.426 0.426 0.0205 

### Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal 0.21 

### T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 2.36 3.59 

### Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 

### 99% UPL 0.12 0.32 

### UPL 3.16E-01 3.66E-01 3.30E-01 

### T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 3.15 4.29 

### 99.9% UPL 0.14 0.37



### Top Performing Source - USSC Boiler No. 8 Total No. of Sources (PM data) 1 1 

### No. Sources in MACT Floor 1 1 

### No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 26 26

0.0098 -4.779 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 0.324 

### Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z 

### ) and (√β 1z 

### )

NA 3

NA 11.7 

### normalization normalization normalization

NA 0.438 

### Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 28.62 0.9908 0.9993 0.9960

NA 1.21 

### z-value 3.48 4.29 3.79 

### Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.00563 0.569 

### Skewness (S) -1.72 0.09 

### The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum 

### Kurtosis (K) 0.22 -0.97 0.00988 

### SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.480 0.480 0.00010 

### Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Normal Normal 0.38 

### SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 0.961 0.961 0.0145 

### Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal 0.01 

### T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 2.49 3.48 

### Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 

### 99% UPL 0.0183 0.0228 

### UPL 2.28E-02 2.58E-02 2.40E-02 

### T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 3.45 4.29 

### 99.9% UPL 0.022 0.0258 

### exp ( σ2 

### ) - 1 ( σ2

### /n) + [σ4

### /(2(n - 1))] Square root term 

### Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 

### ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Flatness of z distribution (β2z) Skewness of z distribution (√β1z)

exp (2 μ + σ 2 

### ) exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) Smallest value in column A that is larger



### Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 

### ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z)

exp ( σ2 

### ) - 1 ( σ2

### /n) + [σ4

### /(2(n - 1))] Square root term 

### Flatness of z distribution (β2z) Skewness of z distribution (√β1z) Smallest value in column A that is larger than confidence level

exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) exp (2 μ + σ 2 

### )

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs A7_PM-MACT Floor Analysis (source average USSC Blr 8 new).xlsx

## APPENDIX B

TSM DATAJuly 2011 113-87508

Table B-1. Individual Runs for TSM

Total
Stack Gas Stack Gas Heat Input Select Boiler MACT Data Base Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Steam Rate Rate Arsenic Berylium Cadmium Chromium Lead Manganese Nickel Selenium Antimony Cobalt Metals
Combustor ID Common Date (dscfm) (acfm) (lb/hr) (MMBtu/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
SCGCF Boiler No 8 01/19/05 123,423 191,937 261,136 507.60 5.86E-06 5.58E-07 1.39E-06 7.16E-05 3.75E-05 3.03E-05 1.28E-04 5.86E-06 2.81E-04
SCGCF Boiler No 8 01/19/05 115,669 185,579 268,000 519.60 7.77E-06 5.90E-07 1.47E-06 7.77E-05 1.75E-05 1.04E-04 1.88E-04 6.19E-06 4.03E-04
SCGCF Boiler No 8 01/19/05 123,423 191,937 270,000 523.50 1.54E-06 1.93E-07 2.89E-06 6.83E-05 9.07E-06 1.20E-05 4.01E-05 1.54E-06 1.36E-04

SCGCF Boiler No 8 Number of Runs 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 SCGCF Boiler No 8 MEAN 1.21E+05 1.90E+05 2.66E+05 5.17E+02 5.06E-06 4.47E-07 1.92E-06 7.25E-05 2.14E-05 4.88E-05 1.19E-04 4.53E-06 2.73E-04

Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 05/28-30/06 6.10E-06 1.83E-07 9.16E-07 1.03E-05 8.01E-06 1.41E-04 8.39E-06 1.07E-07 1.75E-04 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 05/28-30/06 6.26E-06 1.21E-07 1.06E-06 8.27E-06 8.99E-06 7.04E-05 3.28E-06 1.09E-07 9.85E-05 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 05/28-30/06 1.06E-05 3.03E-07 2.08E-06 1.52E-05 1.66E-05 3.10E-04 2.65E-05 9.88E-08 3.81E-04 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 07/25/07 213,000 476.0 2.92E-06 1.45E-07 1.35E-06 3.51E-06 1.60E-05 6.12E-05 4.99E-06 1.30E-07 9.02E-05 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 07/25/07 207,000 423.0 4.66E-06 1.63E-07 8.75E-07 4.78E-06 1.52E-05 7.93E-05 4.91E-06 7.49E-07 1.11E-04 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 07/25/07 210,000 381.0 9.07E-06 2.92E-07 1.37E-06 1.35E-06 1.45E-04 8.19E-05 6.55E-06 8.51E-07 2.46E-04

Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 Number of Runs 0 0 0 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 MEAN #DIV/0! ## #DIV/0! 210,000 427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.84E-04

05/28-30/06 6.35E-06 3.30E-07 9.40E-07 4.57E-06 1.50E-05 1.98E-04 2.03E-06 7.11E-08 2.27E-04 05/28-30/06 6.81E-06 3.40E-07 1.14E-06 4.33E-06 9.59E-06 2.66E-04 3.00E-06 8.66E-08 2.91E-04 05/28-30/06 5.33E-06 3.37E-07 8.42E-07 3.93E-06 8.42E-06 2.08E-04 6.74E-06 7.86E-08 2.34E-04 Puunene Boiler No. 3 07/16/07 275,000 624.0 1.74E-05 2.98E-07 4.64E-06 3.71E-06 1.61E-05 2.48E-04 4.24E-06 5.33E-07 2.95E-04 Puunene Boiler No. 3 07/16/07 274,000 634.0 9.44E-06 1.90E-07 5.35E-06 2.47E-06 9.59E-06 2.04E-04 2.61E-06 7.09E-07 2.34E-04 Puunene Boiler No. 3 07/16/07 275,000 653.0 1.06E-05 1.98E-07 3.26E-06 3.23E-06 1.29E-05 1.73E-04 3.13E-06 5.51E-07 2.07E-04

Puunene Boiler No. 3 Number of Runs 0 0 0 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 Puunene Boiler No. 3 MEAN #DIV/0! ## #DIV/0! 274,667 637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.48E-04

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs B1 B2 B3_TSM-MACT Floor Analysis 7-10-11.xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508



## TSM Emissions (EPA Method 29) Rank Unit (lb/MMBtu) 1 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 1.84E-04 2 Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 1.84E-04 3 Puunene Boiler No. 3 2.48E-04 4 SCGCF Boiler No. 8 2.73E-04
Note: Total selected metals is the sum of the following HAP metals: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

## Table B-2 TSM Ranked By Source Average/3-Run Test Average Hybrid Suspension Grate Boilers

Tabs B1 B2 B3_TSM-MACT Floor Analysis 7-10-11.xlsx/B-2 Ranked Source MEAN

### July 2011 113-87508



### Table B-3. Statistical Data for TSM

Normal Non-Normal 

### Top 5 Sources Actual Natural Log 

### Total No. of Sources 4 4 

### No. Sources in MACT Floor 4 4 

### No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 21 21

2.15E-04 -8.56 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 0.250 

### Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z 

### ) and (√β 1z 

### )

NA 3

NA 8.91 

### normalization normalization normalization

NA 0.243 

### Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 38.68 0.9908 0.9993 0.9960

NA 1.01 

### z-value 3.48 4.29 3.79 

### Stdev of top 12% (s) 1.00E-04 3.95 

### Skewness (S) 0.41 -0.23 

### The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum 

### Kurtosis (K) -0.79 -0.69 2.18E-04 

### SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 0.535 0.535 4.74E-08 

### Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Normal Normal 0.28 

### SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 1.069 1.069 1.35E-02 

### Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal 2.15E-04 

### T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 2.53 3.48 

### Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 

### 99% UPL 3.71E-04 4.67E-04 

### UPL 4.67E-04 5.25E-04 4.89E-04 

### T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 3.55 4.29 

### 99.9% UPL 4.34E-04 5.25E-04



### Top Performing Source - Puunene Boiler Nos. 1 and 2 Total No. of Sources 1 1 

### No. Sources in MACT Floor 1 1 

### No. of Runs for MACT Floor Sources (n) 6 6

1.84E-04 -8.746 Lookup for z-dist tab

NA 0.330 

### Go to distribution tab for 99 percentile, which reads in (β 2z 

### ) and (√β 1z 

### )

NA 3

NA 11.9 

### normalization normalization normalization

NA 0.457 

### Confidence level >0.99 >0.999 >0.995

NA 28.05 0.9908 0.9993 0.9960

NA 1.22 

### z-value 3.48 4.29 3.79 

### Stdev of top 12% (s) 0.000 0.574 

### Skewness (S) 1.26 0.66 

### The following are individual terms in Equation 19 in the memorandum 

### Kurtosis (K) 0.92 -1.13 0.00019 

### SE Skewness (SES) (=sqrt(6/n)) 1.000 1.000 0.00000 

### Skewness Test (S>2SES -> non-normal) Normal Normal 0.39 

### SE Kurtosis (SEK)(=sqrt(24/n)) 2.000 2.000 0.0658 

### Kurtosis Test (K>2SEK ?) Normal Normal 0.00 

### T-statistic (99%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 3.36 3.48 

### Confidence Level 99% 99.9% 99.5% 

### 99% UPL 4.54E-04 4.77E-04 

### UPL 4.77E-04 5.44E-04 5.02E-04 

### T-statistic (99.9%) OR z-dist (for Natural Log) 5.89 4.29 

### 99.9% UPL 6.57E-04 5.44E-04 

### exp ( σ2 

### ) - 1 ( σ2

### /n) + [σ4

### /(2(n - 1))]

Square root term ( σ2

### /n) + [σ4

### /(2(n - 1))]

exp ( σ2 

### ) - 1 exp (2 μ + σ 2 

### ) exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) 

### Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Flatness of z distribution (β2z) Skewness of z distribution (√β1z)

exp (2 μ + σ 2 

### ) exp ( μ + ( σ/2)) Smallest value in column A

that is larger than 

### Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 

### ) Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z)

Skewness of z distribution (√β1z) Square root term



### Test runs in test condition (m) - future obs. Numerator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Denominator for calculation of flatness of z distribution (β2z) Flatness of z distribution (β2z) Smallest value in column A that is larger than confidence level 

### Average of top 12% (x) / for natural log of test run values (μ) Variance of natural log of test runs (σ 2 

### )

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs B1 B2 B3_TSM-MACT Floor Analysis 7-10-11.xlsx

## APPENDIX C

BAGASSE METALS ANALYSISJuly 2011 113-87508

Table C-1. Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative Bagasse Analysis: Metals

Parameter Units Min Max Avg Parameter

Date

-- -- -- Antimony ppm < 0.4 U < 0.5 U < 0.4 U < 0.4 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U 0.6 I < 0.4 U 0.4 I < 0.4 U 0.40 0.60 0.46 Antimony Arsenic ppm < 0.22 U < 0.3 U < 0.24 U < 0.23 U < 0.3 U < 0.3 U < 0.3 U 0.36 I < 0.24 U < 0.22 U 0.22 0.36 0.28 Arsenic Beryllium ppm < 0.11 U < 0.2 U < 0.12 U < 0.12 U < 0.2 U < 0.2 U < 0.2 U < 0.12 U < 0.12 U < 0.11 U 0.11 0.20 0.15 Beryllium Cadmium ppm < 0.13 U < 0.2 U < 0.14 U < 0.14 U < 0.2 U < 0.2 U < 0.2 U < 0.14 U < 0.14 U < 0.13 U 0.13 0.20 0.17 Cadmium Chromium ppm 8.2 4.1 2.9 1.6 I 13.2 3.1 1.0 I 1.7 I 1.9 I < 0.4 U 1.00 13.20 4.19 Chromium Cobalt ppm < 0.08 U < 0.09 U < 0.08 U < 0.08 U < 0.09 U < 0.09 U < 0.09 U < 0.08 U < 0.08 U < 0.08 U 0.08 0.09 0.08 Cobalt Lead ppm 0.21 I 0.5 I 0.29 I 0.21 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.39 I 0.29 I 0.04 I 0.20 0.50 0.28 Lead Manganese ppm 6.83 7.9 13.5 7.36 8.2 6.8 5.1 7.69 6.70 < 0.15 U 5.10 13.50 7.79 Manganese Nickel ppm 0.7 I 0.4 I 0.5 I 0.2 I 0.4 I 0.3 I < 0.3 U 0.2 I 0.3 I < 0.2 U 0.20 0.70 0.37 Nickel Selenium ppm < 0.8 U < 0.9 U < 0.8 U < 0.8 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.8 U < 0.8 U < 0.8 U 0.80 0.90 0.84 Selenium

Total Metals ppm 17.68 15.09 18.97 11.14 24.19 12.59 8.89 11.88 10.97 2.53 8.89 24.19 14.60
Mercury ppm < 0.004 U < 0.004 U < 0.004 U < 0.004 U < 0.005 U < 0.004 U < 0.004 U < 0.005 U 0.005 I < 0.004 U 0.004 0.005 0.004 Mercury

Analysis performed by Columbia Analytical Services.
Note: ppm = parts per million. U = Analyzed for but not detected. I = Reported value is between detection limit and practical quantitation limit. Fuel Analysis (dry basis) Range

-- 19-Jan-11 19-Jan-11 19-Jan-11 22-Jan-11 22-Jan-11 SCGC 5 SCGC 7 SCGC 8 SCGC 13 SCGC 15 Method Blank

22-Jan-11 27-Jan-11 27-Jan-11 27-Jan-11 SCGC 16 SCGC 35 SCGC 36 SCGC 38

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs C1_SCGCF Bagasse Sampling Analysis 2011.xlsx

### July 2011 113-87508

Bagasse 4 (8/19/10) Bagasse 5

(8/19/10) Bagasse 6

(8/20/10) Bagasse 10

(8/23/10) Bagasse 11

(8/24/10) Bagasse 12

(8/24/10) mean Arsenic (mg/kg) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.35 Berylium (mg/kg) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10 Cadmium (mg/kg) 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Chromium (mg/kg) 2 5 3 3 4 4 3.50 Lead (mg/kg) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.25 Manganese (mg/kg) 43 66 43 84 92 98 71.00 Nickel (mg/kg) 1 2 1 2 2 2 1.67 Cobalt (mg/kg) 0.5 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.02 Selenium (mg/kg) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Antimony (mg/kg) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

TSM-8 46.53 73.73 47.52 90.13 98.93 105.13 77.00

lb/MMBTU (no control) 5.59E-03 8.92E-03 5.71E-03 1.10E-02 1.20E-02 1.27E-02 9.32E-03

TSM-10 47.07 74.86 48.15 91.47 100.27 106.47 78.05

lb/MMBTU (no control) 5.66E-03 9.06E-03 5.78E-03 1.12E-02 1.21E-02 1.29E-02 9.45E-03

ratio TSM-10 to TSM-8 1.0116 1.0153 1.0133 1.0149 1.0135 1.0127 1.0136

Heat Value (dry) 8321 8267 8329 8193 8263 8267 8273

Yellow highlighting indicates analyte was not detected at the reporting limit shown. 

## TABLE C-2 HC&S BAGASSE ANALYSIS - SEPTEMBER 2010 (FOUR-HOUR COMPOSITE SAMPLES)

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\App C2_HCS 2010 bagasse metals.xlsxJuly 2011 113-87508

Parameter Units

Chlorine ppm
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Arsenic ppm 0.6 0.5 0.5 < 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 < 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4

-- 0.3

-- < 1.8

-- Beryllium ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

-- < 0.1

-- < 0.2

-- Cadmium ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

-- < 0.1

-- < 0.3

-- Chromium ppm 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8

-- 0.5

-- 0.6

-- Lead ppm 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.3 < 0.3 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2

-- 0.4

-- < 1.8

-- Manganese ppm 8.1 7.2 8.9 7.4 8.2 6.2 5.6 8.0 5.8 6.3 10.9 9.5 9.9 7.8 10.2 7.7 8.0 Nickel ppm < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 < 0.2 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.2 0.4

-- 0.5

-- < 1.5

-- Selenium ppm 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9

-- 1.2

-- < 1.5

-- 8-Metals Total 10.80 9.30 11.20 9.90 10.20 7.80 7.50 10.50 7.60 8.40 12.80 12.40

-- 10.90

-- 15.40

-- Mercury ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.22 < 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.22 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.2

-- < 0.19

-- < 0.02

--
Moisture % 50.6 46.6 51.9 54.3 51.4 48.2 48.1 46 49.6 52.1 48.4 51.8 49.3 48.5 54.6 47.4 49.3 No. of Samples Composited 39 42 41 42 43 39 41 42 41 42 41 39 23 26 42 28 36

Parameter Units

HHV Btu/lb

Chlorine lb/MMBtu

Arsenic lb/MMBtu < < < Beryllium lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Cadmium lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Chromium lb/MMBtu Lead lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < Manganese lb/MMBtu Nickel lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < Selenium lb/MMBtu < 8-Metals Total

8-Metals w/o Mn lb/MMBtu

Mercury b lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

Manganese lb/MMBtu

aFor concentrations that are reported as below detection limit the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation were calculated by taking the detection limit. Duplicate samples were not included in the calculations. b Minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation for mercury are based on detection limit.

c90% confidence level calculated based on the following equation [40 CFR 63.7530(d)(2)]:

P 90= mean + (SD * t); where: P90 = 90% confidence level pollutant concentration (lb/MMBtu) mean = average of fuel samples analyzed (lb/MMBtu) SD = standard deviation of pollutant concentrations (lb/MMBtu) t = t distribution critical value for 90% confidence probability (0.1) for n-1 degrees of freedom n = number of samples d Not included because considered an outlier based on all previous testing. TABLE C-3 METALS AND CHLORINE ANALYSES FOR BAGASSE FROM U.S. SUGAR CLEWISTON

Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (collection dates)

1.01E-03 1.01E-03 1.02E-03 9.02E-04 1.14E-03 9.39E-04 1.04E-03 7.68E-04 1.17E-03 1.29E-03 9.87E-04 1.33E-03 7.08E-04 9.95E-04 7.29E-04 7.88E-04 1.35E-03 2.63E-06

-- 2.46E-05

-- 2.41E-05

-- 1.26E-05 2.49E-05 2.77E-05 2.50E-06 2.48E-06 1.26E-05 1.25E-05 1.28E-05 2.79E-05 2.55E-05 1.24E-05 -- 1.01E-03

-- 2.63E-04 2.23E-04 1.98E-04 2.40E-04 3.11E-04 2.26E-04 3.41E-04 2.63E-04 2.94E-04 3.17E-04 2.55E-04 2.03E-03

-- 1.53E-03

-- 1.38E-03

-- 9.48E-04 9.56E-04 1.05E-03 1.58E-03

3.57E-04

-- 3.92E-04 1.36E-03 1.17E-03 1.43E-03 1.26E-03 1.30E-03 9.66E-04 1.97E-04

-- 1.11E-04

-- 1.52E-04 1.31E-03 8.85E-05 9.95E-05 7.54E-05 8.76E-05 8.69E-05 -- 1.17E-03 1.29E-03 9.87E-04 1.33E-03 7.08E-04 9.95E-04

1.26E-04 8.77E-05 1.02E-04 5.07E-05 6.37E-05 6.19E-05 1.97E-04 4.93E-05

-- 6.33E-05

-- 2.53E-05 3.73E-05 2.51E-05 2.50E-05 2.48E-05

-- 2.52E-05 2.51E-05 2.56E-05 6.34E-05 2.55E-05 2.48E-05 1.01E-03 1.01E-03 2.51E-05 3.75E-05 1.24E-05

7.29E-04 7.88E-04 1.35E-03 9.85E-05

-- 6.33E-05

-- 3.79E-05 6.22E-05

1.02E-03 9.02E-04 1.14E-03 9.39E-04 1.04E-03 7.68E-04 2.37E-04

-- 2.46E-05

-- 5.06E-05

-- 2.53E-05 3.73E-05 3.77E-05 3.75E-05 3.72E-05 3.79E-05 3.76E-05 3.83E-05 5.07E-05 3.82E-05 3.72E-05 7.89E-05

-- 5.05E-05 2.51E-05 3.83E-05 7.61E-05 6.37E-05 2.48E-05 1.23E-05

-- 1.27E-05

-- 1.26E-05 1.24E-05 1.26E-05 1.25E-05 1.28E-05 1.27E-05 1.27E-05 1.24E-05 3.77E-05 5.00E-05 3.72E-05

1.26E-05 1.25E-05 1.24E-05 2.63E-05

-- 1.23E-05

-- 1.27E-05

-- 1.25E-05 1.24E-05 3.95E-05 0.070 0.051

1.26E-05 1.25E-05 1.28E-05 1.27E-05 1.27E-05 1.24E-05 2.37E-04

-- 4.93E-05

-- 3.80E-05

-- 3.79E-05 4.98E-05

-- 1.26E-05 1.24E-05 1.26E-05 -- 0.049 0.058 0.048

7.57E-05 6.27E-05 6.39E-05 5.07E-05 3.82E-05 2.48E-05 8,118 7,664 7,900

-- -- -- -- -- 7,658 7,602 7,936 7,994 8,058

-- -- -- -- -- 0.084 8,073 7,911 8,037 7,953 7,922 7,978 7,824 7,884 7,852 1/14-1/20/02 1/21-1/27/02 1/28-2/3/02 2/4-2/10/02 2/11-2/17/02 3/25-3/31/02 11/25-12/1/02 12/9-12/15/02 12/23-12/29/02 2/18-2/24/02 2/25-3/3/02 3/4-3/10/02 3/11-3/17/02 3/18-3/24/02 Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (collection dates) 1/6-1/12/03 1/20-1/26/03 2/3-2/9/03 394.45 441.91 376.65 534.44 391.10 663.94 1/14-1/20/02 1/21-1/27/02 1/28-2/3/02 2/4-2/10/02 2/11-2/17/02 3/18-3/24/02 3/25-3/31/02 11/25-12/1/02 12/9-12/15/02 12/23-12/29/02 2/18-2/24/02 2/25-3/3/02 3/4-3/10/02 3/11-3/17/02 1/6-1/12/03 1/20-1/26/03 2/3-2/9/03

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs C3 - C7_FSI_Bagasse_Analysis.xlsxJuly 2011 113-87508

Parameter Units Min Max Avg a Parameter

Chlorine ppm 140 180 130 210 130 260 300 130 300 192.86 Chlorine

Arsenic ppm 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.63 Arsenic Beryllium ppm < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.19 Beryllium Cadmium ppm < 0.4 < 0.4 0.1 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.36 Cadmium Chromium ppm 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.53 Chromium Lead ppm 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.30 Lead Manganese ppm 10.7 10.5 11.7 13.5 13.4 19.5 14 10.5 19.5 13.33 Manganese Nickel ppm 0.3 0.2 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.53 Nickel Selenium ppm 0.8 0.7 1 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.84 Selenium 8-Metals Total 14.10 13.30 16.10 17.00 17.60 22.20 16.60 13.3 22.2 16.70 8-Metals Total
Mercury ppm < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.02 < 0.01 Mercury

Moisture % 51.7 70.9 79.4 66.3 55.3 49.1 55.3 49.1 79.4 61.14 Moisture No. of Samples Composited 32 42 42 42 28 42 38

-- -- --

Standard 90% Confidence Parameter Units Min Max Avg a Deviation a Level b Parameter

HHV Btu/lb 7,905 8,313 8,113

-- -- HHV

Chlorine lb/MMBtu 1.60E-02 3.71E-02 2.38E-02 8.34E-03 3.6E-02 Chlorine
n = 7 t = 1.4398

HCl c lb/MMBtu

-- -- -- -- 0.037 HCl c

Arsenic lb/MMBtu 3.71E-05 1.11E-04 7.74E-05

-- -- Arsenic Beryllium lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < 1.24E-05 < 2.53E-05 < 2.29E-05

-- -- Beryllium Cadmium lb/MMBtu < < < < < < 1.24E-05 5.06E-05 4.40E-05

-- -- Cadmium Chromium lb/MMBtu 4.81E-05 9.93E-05 6.54E-05

-- -- Chromium Lead lb/MMBtu 2.41E-05 6.17E-05 3.70E-05

-- -- Lead Manganese lb/MMBtu 1.26E-03 2.39E-03 1.64E-03

-- -- Manganese Nickel lb/MMBtu 2.41E-05 2.11E-04 6.55E-05

-- -- Nickel Selenium lb/MMBtu 8.42E-05 1.36E-04 1.04E-04

-- -- Selenium 8-Metals Total 1.60E-03 2.72E-03 2.06E-03 3.61E-04 2.58E-03 8-Metals
n = 7 t = 1.4398

8-Metals w/o Mn lb/MMBtu 3.22E-04 5.46E-04 4.16E-04 9.18E-05 5.48E-04 8-Metals w/o Mn
n = 7 t = 1.4398
Mercury lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < 1.20E-06 < 2.48E-06 < 1.59E-06 6.08E-07 2.46E-06 Mercury
n = 7 t = 1.4398
Manganese lb/MMBtu 1.26E-03 2.39E-03 1.64E-03 3.78E-04 2.19E-03 Manganese
n = 7 t = 1.4398

aFor concentrations that are reported as below detection limit the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation were calculated by taking the detection limit. b90% confidence level calculated based on the following equation (40 CFR 63.7530(d)(2)):

P 90= mean + (SD * t); where: P90 = 90% confidence level pollutant concentration (lb/MMBtu). mean = average of fuel samples analyzed (lb/MMBtu). SD = standard deviation of pollutant concentrations (lb/MMBtu). t = t distribution critical value for 90% confidence probability (0.1) for n-1 degrees of freedom. n = number of samples.

c HCl calculated based on the following equation (40 CFR 63.7530(d)(3)):

HCl = C i90 *1.028,

Ci90 = 90% confidence level Chlorine concentration (lb/MMBtu). where: 1.73E-03 1.31E-03 1.26E-03 1.45E-03 1.71E-03 1.65E-03 2.39E-03 3.22E-04

1.22E-06 1.20E-06 2.48E-06 1.27E-06 2.47E-06 1.22E-06 1.24E-06 4.16E-04 3.37E-04 5.46E-04 4.43E-04 5.18E-04 3.31E-04 9.90E-05 1.73E-03 1.60E-03 2.00E-03 2.15E-03 2.17E-03 2.72E-03 2.05E-03 9.80E-05 8.42E-05 1.24E-04 8.86E-05 1.36E-04 9.80E-05 1.73E-03 3.67E-05 2.41E-05 2.11E-04 7.59E-05 6.17E-05 2.45E-05 2.47E-05 1.31E-03 1.26E-03 1.45E-03 1.71E-03 1.65E-03 2.39E-03 4.95E-05 4.90E-05 2.41E-05 2.48E-05 3.80E-05 6.17E-05 2.45E-05 3.71E-05 4.90E-05 4.81E-05 9.93E-05 8.86E-05 7.40E-05 4.90E-05 2.47E-05 4.90E-05 4.81E-05 1.24E-05 5.06E-05 4.94E-05 4.90E-05 4.95E-05 2.45E-05 2.41E-05 1.24E-05 2.53E-05 2.47E-05 2.45E-05 --
1.10E-04 8.42E-05 6.21E-05 7.59E-05 1.11E-04 6.12E-05 3.71E-05 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,083

1.71E-02 2.17E-02 1.61E-02 2.66E-02 1.60E-02 3.18E-02 3.71E-02 8,165 8,313 8,055 7,905 8,103 8,167 Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (Composite dates) Range a 12/1/2004 12/8/2004 12/27/2004 1/4/2005 1/19/2005 2/2/2005 2/17/2005

Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (Composite dates) Range a 12/1/2004 12/8/2004 12/27/2004 1/4/2005 1/19/2005 2/2/2005 

### TABLE C-4 METALS AND CHLORINE ANALYSES OF BAGASSE FROM OSCEOLA FARMS MILL

2/17/2005

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs C3 - C7_FSI_Bagasse_Analysis.xlsxJuly 2011 113-87508

Parameter Units

Chlorine ppm
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 323.25 268.67 371.76 348.90 291.90

Arsenic ppm 0.6 0.6 < 0.3 < 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7

-- 0.3

-- < 1.3 Beryllium ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

-- < 0.1

-- < 0.1 Cadmium ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

-- < 0.1

-- < 0.2 Chromium ppm < 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 < 0.1 0.1 0.2

-- 0.1

-- < 0.3 Lead ppm < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 0.3

-- 0.3

-- < 1.2 Manganese ppm 8.8 10.9 9.8 10.4 5.3 9.0 8.3 10.3 6.9 8.4 7.3 10.3 9.6 8.5 8.9 7.5 Nickel ppm < 0.2 < 0.2 0.2 < 0.3 0.3 0.2 < 0.2 0.2 < 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

-- 0.2

-- < 1.0 Selenium ppm 1.0 0.9 0.6 < 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0

-- 1.2

-- < 1.0 11.20 13.20 11.60 12.40 7.40 11.20 10.60 12.80 8.80 10.20 9.00 12.80

-- 10.80

-- 10.60
Mercury ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.19 < 0.22 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.21 < 0.22 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.2

-- < 0.2

-- < 0.02

Moisture % 54.0 46.9 49.4 53.2 56.5 52.7 53.2 48.9 51.4 53.1 52.0 55.3 53.3 53.7 51.8 50.3 No. of Samples Composited 48 40 42 38 10 42 42 41 40 42 3 41 30 33 38 46

Parameter Units

HHV Btu/lb

Chlorine lb/MMBtu

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Arsenic lb/MMBtu < < < Beryllium lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Cadmium lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Chromium lb/MMBtu < < < Lead lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < Manganese lb/MMBtu Nickel lb/MMBtu < < < < < < Selenium lb/MMBtu < < 8-Metals Total

8-Metals w/o Mn lb/MMBtu

Mercury b lb/MMBtu < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

Manganese lb/MMBtu

aFor concentrations that are reported as below the detection limit, the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation were calculated using the detection limit. Duplicate samples were not included in the calculations. bFor mercury, only samples with lower detection limits (0.02 ppm or less) were included in the statistical analysis.

c90% confidence level calculated based on the following equation (40 CFR 63.7530(d)(2)): P 90= mean + (SD * t);

where: P90 = 90% confidence level pollutant concentration (lb/MMBtu). mean = average of fuel samples analyzed (lb/MMBtu). SD = standard deviation of pollutant concentrations (lb/MMBtu). t = t distribution critical value for 90% confidence probability (0.1) for n-1 degrees of freedom. n = number of samples. d Not included because an outlier 7.45E-05 3.70E-05 8.65E-05 9.80E-05

2.70E-04 2.83E-04 1.25E-03 1.11E-03 8.89E-04 1.37E-03 1.31E-03 1.54E-03 1.08E-03 1.11E-04

1.08E-03 1.35E-03 1.22E-03 1.28E-03 6.55E-04 1.10E-03 1.02E-03 -- 2.45E-06 2.45E-06

1.24E-03 -- 2.39E-05 2.72E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 2.57E-05 2.70E-05

1.26E-03 8.47E-04 1.03E-03 9.01E-04 1.16E-03 1.01E-03 1.11E-03 9.18E-04 1.23E-05 1.24E-05 1.24E-05 2.35E-05 3.00E-04

-- 2.74E-04

-- 6.24E-04 2.82E-04 2.33E-04 2.21E-04 2.10E-04

2.47E-06 2.40E-05 2.96E-04 2.84E-04 2.23E-04 2.47E-04 2.35E-04 1.38E-03 1.63E-03 1.44E-03 1.53E-03 1.20E-04

-- 1.43E-04

-- 1.22E-04 1.22E-04 7.36E-05 8.59E-05 8.64E-05 1.54E-03 1.29E-03 1.54E-03 1.23E-04 1.11E-04 -- 2.45E-05 2.47E-05 1.20E-05

-- 2.39E-05 3.71E-05 2.45E-05 2.45E-05 2.46E-05 2.47E-05 2.48E-05 3.70E-05 2.46E-05 9.18E-04 1.22E-04 1.24E-03 1.16E-03 1.01E-03 1.11E-03 1.26E-03 8.47E-04 1.03E-03 9.01E-04 2.45E-05 1.47E-04

-- 3.68E-05 3.70E-05 3.60E-05

-- 3.58E-05 3.69E-05 3.67E-05 3.68E-05 1.08E-03 1.35E-03 1.22E-03 1.28E-03 6.55E-04 1.10E-03 1.02E-03 3.70E-05 3.71E-05 3.72E-05 4.94E-05 3.71E-05 3.68E-05 2.45E-05 1.24E-05 2.45E-05 2.46E-05 -- 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.20E-05

-- 1.19E-05 1.24E-05 1.23E-05 2.40E-05

-- 1.19E-05

-- 3.67E-05 1.23E-05 1.24E-05 1.24E-05 1.23E-05 1.20E-05

-- 1.19E-05

-- 1.22E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.22E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.24E-05 2.48E-05 4.94E-05 2.45E-05 2.45E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.24E-05 1.24E-05 1.23E-05 1.24E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 -- 1.59E-04 3.68E-05 2.47E-05 1.22E-05 7.39E-05 7.41E-05 3.72E-05 4.94E-05 6.16E-05 4.90E-05 4.91E-05 8.40E-05

-- 3.58E-05 3.71E-05 6.13E-05 0.039 0.032 0.044 0.043 0.036 8,311 8,385 8,032 8,174 8,165 8,151 8,152 8,105 8,330 8,117 8,097 8,058 8,098 8,097 8,161 8,120 3/4-3/10/02 3/11-3/17/02 3/18-3/24/02 1/20-1/26/03 1/14-1/20/02 1/21-1/27/02 1/28-2/3/02 2/4-2/10/02 2/11-2/17/02 3/25-3/31/02 11/25-12/1/02 12/9-12/15/02 12/23-12/29/02 1/6-1/12/03 2/18-2/24/02 2/25-3/3/02 Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (collection dates) 11/25-12/1/02 12/9-12/15/02 12/23-12/29/02 1/6-1/12/03 2/18-2/24/02 2/25-3/3/02 3/4-3/10/02 3/11-3/17/02 3/18-3/24/02 1/20-1/26/03

Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (collection dates)

TABLE C-5 METALS AND CHLORINE ANALYSIS FOR BAGASSE FROM SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA

1/14-1/20/02 1/21-1/27/02 1/28-2/3/02 2/4-2/10/02 2/11-2/17/02 3/25-3/31/02

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs C3 - C7_FSI_Bagasse_Analysis.xlsxJuly 2011 113-87508

Parameter Units Max Min Average a Chlorine ppm 265 182 377 261 249 253 206 193 194 377 182 242

Arsenic ppm 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.70 0.10 0.41 Beryllium ppm 0.1 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Cadmium ppm 0.04 0.03 0.03 < 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.010 0.030 Chromium ppm 11 9 7 5 5 5 3 2 2 11.00 2.00 5.44 Lead ppm 2.4 0.8 1.6 1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1 * 20 20.00 0.80 3.63 Manganese ppm 167.0 153 116 46.0 42 41.0 115.0 101 84 167.00 41.00 96.11 Nickel ppm 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 11 11.00 2.00 4.67 Selenium ppm < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 187.24 168.73 130.33 56.41 52.42 51.32 123.74 106.66 117.62 187.24 51.32 110.50
Mercury ppm 0.02 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.030 0.010 0.013
Moisture (as received) % 49.6 48.8 48.4 48.6 47.7 47.0 47.65 48.98 46.99 49.6 46.95 48.19

* Potential sample contamination.

Parameter Units Max Min Average a HHV Btu/lb 7,973 7,120 8,786 9,440 8,287 7,477 8,776 9,080 8,847 9,440 7,120 8,421

Chlorine lb/MMBtu 3.32E-02 2.56E-02 4.29E-02 2.76E-02 3.00E-02 3.38E-02 2.35E-02 2.13E-02 2.19E-02 4.29E-02 2.13E-02 2.89E-02

Arsenic lb/MMBtu 7.53E-05 9.83E-05 5.69E-05 2.12E-05 1.21E-05 2.67E-05 6.84E-05 4.41E-05 4.52E-05 9.83E-05 1.21E-05 4.98E-05 Beryllium lb/MMBtu 1.25E-05 1.40E-05 1.14E-05 < 1.06E-05 < 1.21E-05 < 1.34E-05 1.14E-05 1.10E-05 1.13E-05 1.40E-05 1.06E-05 1.20E-05 Cadmium lb/MMBtu 5.02E-06 4.21E-06 3.41E-06 < 1.06E-06 2.41E-06 2.67E-06 4.56E-06 6.61E-06 2.26E-06 6.61E-06 1.06E-06 3.58E-06 Chromium lb/MMBtu 1.38E-03 1.26E-03 7.97E-04 5.30E-04 6.03E-04 6.69E-04 3.42E-04 2.20E-04 2.26E-04 1.38E-03 2.20E-04 6.70E-04 Lead lb/MMBtu 3.01E-04 1.12E-04 1.82E-04 1.06E-04 2.53E-04 2.54E-04 2.16E-04 1.10E-04 2.26E-03 2.26E-03 1.06E-04 4.22E-04 Manganese lb/MMBtu 2.09E-02 2.15E-02 1.32E-02 4.87E-03 5.07E-03 5.48E-03 1.31E-02 1.11E-02 9.49E-03 2.15E-02 4.87E-03 1.16E-02 Nickel lb/MMBtu 7.53E-04 7.02E-04 5.69E-04 4.24E-04 3.62E-04 4.01E-04 3.42E-04 2.20E-04 1.24E-03 1.24E-03 2.20E-04 5.57E-04 Selenium lb/MMBtu < 1.25E-05 < 1.40E-05 < 1.14E-05 1.06E-05 1.21E-05 1.34E-05 1.14E-05 1.10E-05 < 1.13E-05 1.40E-05 1.06E-05 1.20E-05 8-Metals Total 2.37E-02 5.98E-03 1.34E-02

Mercury lb/MMBtu 2.51E-06 4.21E-06 < 1.14E-06 < 1.06E-06 1.21E-06 1.34E-06 < 1.14E-06 < 1.1E-06 < 1.13E-06 4.21E-06 1.06E-06 1.65E-06 Moisture (as received) % 49.6 48.8 48.4 48.6 47.7 47.0 47.65 48.98 46.99 49.6 47.0 48.2

aFor concentrations that are reported as below the detection limit, the minimum, maximum, and average were calculated using the detection limit. TABLE C-6 Bagasse Fuel Analysis - Puunene Mill, Hawaii

1.33E-02 7/16/2007 7/17/2007 7/17/2007

2.35E-02 2.37E-02 1.48E-02 5.98E-03 6.33E-03 Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (collection dates)

7/17/2007 7/17/2007 Range a

Range a 4/26/2007 5/7/2007 5/15/2007 7/25/2007 7/25/2007

6.86E-03 1.41E-02 1.17E-02 Concentration (dry basis) for Sample Weeks (collection dates)

7/25/2007 7/25/2007 5/15/2007 5/7/2007 4/26/2007 7/27/2007

7/27/2007 7/16/2007

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs C3 - C7_FSI_Bagasse_Analysis.xlsxJuly 2011 113-87508

No. of Samples Dates No. of Samples Dates No. of Samples Dates No. of Samples Dates No. of Samples Dates Max Min Average

HHV Btu/lb 32 8,356 7,378 7,931 7 8,313 7,905 8,113 26 8,459 7,955 8,173 9 9,440 7,120 8,421 74 9,440 7,120 8,159

Chlorine lb/MMBtu 21 1.17E-01 4.77E-02 7.30E-02 7 3.71E-02 1.60E-02 2.38E-02 15 6.29E-02 1.54E-02 3.43E-02 9 4.29E-02 2.13E-02 2.89E-02 52 1.17E-01 1.54E-02 4.00E-02

Arsenic lb/MMBtu 22 2.37E-04 b 2.48E-05 b 6.70E-05 b 7 1.11E-04 3.71E-05 7.74E-05 22 1.59E-04 b 2.47E-05 b 6.12E-05 b 9 9.83E-05 1.21E-05 4.98E-05 60 2.37E-04 1.21E-05 6.38E-05 Beryllium lb/MMBtu 22 2.71E-05 a 1.23E-05 a 1.78E-05 a 7 2.53E-05 a 1.24E-05 a 2.29E-05 a 22 2.51E-05 a 1.19E-05 a 1.67E-05 a 9 1.40E-05 b 1.06E-05 b 1.20E-05 b 60 2.71E-05 1.06E-05 1.73E-05 Cadmium lb/MMBtu 22 5.09E-05 a 1.23E-05 a 2.18E-05 a 7 5.06E-05 b 1.24E-05 b 4.40E-05 b 22 5.03E-05 a 1.19E-05 a 2.61E-05 a 9 6.61E-06 b 1.06E-06 b 3.58E-06 b 60 5.09E-05 1.06E-06 2.39E-05 Chromium lb/MMBtu 22 1.36E-04 1.24E-05 5.82E-05 7 9.93E-05 4.81E-05 6.54E-05 22 9.84E-05 b 1.18E-05 b 2.79E-05 b 9 1.38E-03 2.20E-04 6.70E-04 60 1.38E-03 1.18E-05 2.05E-04 Lead lb/MMBtu 22 2.37E-04 b 2.46E-05 b 4.51E-05 b 7 6.17E-05 2.41E-05 3.70E-05 21 1.47E-04 b 2.36E-05 b 4.26E-05 b 9 2.26E-03 1.06E-04 4.22E-04 59 2.26E-03 2.36E-05 1.37E-04 Manganese lb/MMBtu 31 2.29E-03 7.08E-04 1.15E-03 7 2.39E-03 1.26E-03 1.64E-03 25 1.59E-03 6.55E-04 1.09E-03 9 2.15E-02 4.87E-03 1.16E-02 72 2.15E-02 6.55E-04 3.88E-03 Nickel lb/MMBtu 22 1.97E-04 b 2.39E-05 b 4.05E-05 b 7 2.11E-04 2.41E-05 6.55E-05 21 1.22E-04 b 1.20E-05 b 3.09E-05 b 9 1.24E-03 2.20E-04 5.57E-04 59 1.24E-03 1.20E-05 1.74E-04 Selenium lb/MMBtu 22 1.97E-04 b 5.07E-05 b 1.03E-04 b 7 1.36E-04 8.42E-05 1.04E-04 22 1.43E-04 b 3.70E-05 b 1.01E-04 b 9 1.40E-05 b 1.06E-05 b 1.20E-05 b 60 1.97E-04 1.06E-05 7.99E-05 8-Metals Total 22 2.03E-03 9.48E-04 1.38E-03 7 2.72E-03 1.60E-03 2.06E-03 22 2.07E-03 8.89E-04 1.39E-03 2.37E-02 5.98E-03 1.34E-02 2.37E-02 8.89E-04 4.55E-03

Mercury lb/MMBtu 27 2.79E-05 b 1.20E-06 b 9.08E-06 b 7 2.48E-06 a 1.20E-06 a 1.59E-06 a 22 2.72E-05 1.18E-06 1.05E-05 9 4.21E-06 b 1.06E-06 b 1.65E-06 b 65 2.79E-05 1.06E-06 5.69E-06

Moisture (as received) (%) 32 59.95 46.00 51.15 7 79.40 49.10 61.14 26 57.48 46.90 53.02 9 49.61 46.95 48.19 74 79.40 46.00 53.38

aAll sample analysis reported below detection limit*. bContains sample analysis with concentration reported as below the detection limit*. * For concentrations that are reported as below the detection limit, the minimum, maximum, and average were calculated using the detection limit. FLORIDA SUGAR INDUSTRY AND PUUNENE MILL, HAWAII

SCGCF Puunene TABLE C-7

Total OFC USSC BAGASSE FUEL ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Average Min Max Min Average Max Min Max Min Average Max Average

Y:\Projects\2011\113-87508 FSI\MACT Floor Analysis\Draft\Appendices\Tabs C3 - C7_FSI_Bagasse_Analysis.xlsx

## APPENDIX D

LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION STATISTICAL EQUATIONS