TEST REPORT 

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. 

Hennepin Power Plant 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit 

Test Program 

Boiler 1&2 Stack 

Hennepin, Illinois 61327 

Presented to: 

Dynegy Midwest Generation

Hennepin, Illinois 61327

Presented by: 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Lombard, IL 60148

TRC Project No. 168321.2010.0000 

September 2010 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 i September 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 

 1.1 Field Effort #1 ..........................................................................................................1 

 1.2 Field Effort #2 ..........................................................................................................2 

 1.3 Contact Information .................................................................................................2 

 1.4 Test Report Organization .........................................................................................3 

2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..............................................................................................4 

 2.1 Field Effort #1 ..........................................................................................................4 

2.1.1 Coal Analysis Results ..................................................................................4 

 2.1.2 Stack Emissions Results ..............................................................................5 

 2.2 Field Effort #2 ..........................................................................................................8 

2.2.1 Coal Analysis Results ..................................................................................8 

 2.2.2 Stack Emissions Results ..............................................................................8 

3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................11 

3.1 Boiler Operating Data ............................................................................................11 

4.0 TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES .........................................................................14 

 4.1 EPA Test Methods .................................................................................................14 

4.2 Equipment Calibration ...........................................................................................14 

4.3 On-Site Sampling Activities ..................................................................................15 

4.3.1 EPA Method 3 for Determination of Dry Molecular Weight ....................15 

4.3.2 EPA Method 23 for Determination of PCDD/PCDF & PCB Emissions ...15 

4.3.3 EPA Method 29 for Determination of Metals Emissions ..........................17 

4.3.4 EPA OTM 27/28 for PM2.5 and CPM ........................................................19 

4.3.5 Determination of Metals Content in Fuel ..................................................21 

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE .................................................................................................22 

5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................22

5.2 Field Quality Control Summary .............................................................................22 

5.2.1 Calibration Procedures ...............................................................................22 

5.2.2 Equipment Leak Checks ............................................................................22 

5.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check .................................................................................22 

5.3 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting ............................................................22 

5.3.1 Field Data Reduction .................................................................................22 

5.3.2 Data Validation ..........................................................................................23 

Figures

Figure 3-1 Process Schematic ..................................................................................................11 

Figure 3-2 Method 1 Dimensional Schematic .........................................................................12 

Figure 4-1 EPA Method 23 Schematic ....................................................................................16 

Figure 4-2 EPA Method 29 Schematic ....................................................................................18 

Figure 4-3 EPA OTM 27/28 Schematic ..................................................................................20 

 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 ii September 2010

Tables 

Table 1-1 Sack Sampling Program Schedule & Test Matrix – Field Effort #1 .......................1 

Table 1-2 Fuel Sampling, Analytical Parameters & Methods..................................................1 

Table 1-3 Sack Sampling Program Schedule & Test Matrix – Field Effort #2 .......................2 

Table 1-4 Contact Information .................................................................................................2 

Table 2-1 Fuel Metals Results and Fd Determination: Metals – Field Effort #1 ......................4 

Table 2-2 Fuel Metals Results and Fd Determination: PCDD/PCDF & PCB Condition .........5 

Table 2-3 Summary of Method 29 Results – Field Effort #1 ...................................................6 

Table 2-4 Summary of PCDD/PCDF Results ..........................................................................7 

Table 2-5 Summary of PCB Results ........................................................................................8 

Table 2-6 Fuel Metals Results and Fd Determination: Metals – Field Effort #2 ......................8 

Table 2-7 Summary of Method 29 Results – Field Effort #2 ...................................................9 

Table 2-8 Summary of Method OTM 27/28 Results .............................................................10 

Table 3-1 Method 29 Testing: Facility Operational Data – Field Effort #1 ...........................11 

Table 3-2 Method 23 Testing: Facility Operational Data – Field Effort #1 ...........................13 

Table 3-3 Facility Operational Data – Field Effort #2 ...........................................................13 

Table 4-1 TRC’s Reference Method Instrumentation ..............................................................6 

APPENDICES 

 Appendix A Data Summary Sheets 

 Appendix A-1 Fuel 

 Appendix A-2 Method 29 Metals 

 Appendix A-3 PCDD/PCDF 

 Appendix A-4 PCB 

 Appendix A-5 PM2.5 & Condensable PM 

Appendix B Field Data Sheets 

 Appendix B-1 Method 29 Metals 

 Appendix B-2 PCDD/PCDF & PCB 

 Appendix B-3 PM2.5 & Condensable PM 

 

Appendix C Laboratory Data 

 Appendix C-1 Fuel 

 Appendix C-2 Method 29 Metals 

 Appendix C-3 PCDD/PCDF 

 Appendix C-4 PCB 

 Appendix C-5 PM2.5 & Condensable PM 

 

Appendix D Process and Operational Data 

Appendix E Calibration Data 

Appendix F Calculations 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Dynegy) owns and operates two bituminous coal-fired 

electric utility steam generating units that are subject to the U.S. EPA Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Section 114 to develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). To 

develop the NESHAP standards, the U.S. EPA has requested that Dynegy collect fuel and 

emissions data from the Boiler 1 & 2 common stack to generate information to populate a survey 

data base from like sources within the U.S. Under Section 114 of the CAA, the U.S. EPA 

reserves the legal authority for industry to conduct testing to obtain the information requested in 

the survey. Based on U.S. EPA’s guidance for the test procedures, methods, and reporting 

requirements relevant to the coal-fired electric utility steam generating units source category, a 

test program was designed that required fuel, emissions and process sampling. 

1.1 Field Effort #1

TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) in Lombard, Illinois was contracted to conduct the 

Hennepin test program for Dynegy. Table 1-1 outlines the original test schedule & matrix for 

the stack sampling program. 

Table 1-1 

Stack Sampling Program Schedule & Test Matrix – Field Effort #1 

Date Time Task Method(s)

4/13/10 0820-1641 

0910-1340 

1st

 of 3 stack tests for PCDD/PCDF & PCB 

1st of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 

EPA 23 

EPA 29 

4/14/10 0840-1712 

0855-1320 

2nd

 of 3 stack tests for PCDD/PCDF & PCB 

2nd of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 

EPA 23 

EPA 29 

4/15/10 0735-1554 

0745-1205 

3rd of 3 stack tests for PCDD/PCDF & PCB 

3rd of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 

EPA 23 

EPA 29 

Triplicate composite fuel samples were collected for each parameter listed in Table 1-1 and 

submitted to a contract laboratory for analysis. Two samples were collected on each test day. 

Table 1-2 presents the corresponding analytical parameters and methodologies. 

Table 1-2 

Fuel Sampling, Analytical Parameters & Methods 

Parameter Method 

Sample composite preparation ASTM D2013 

Composite analysis ASTM D3172 

Moisture ASTM D3302/D3173 

Ash ASTM D3174 

Sulfur ASTM D4239B 

HHV ASTM D5865 

Carbon, hydrogen & nitrogen ASTM D5373/D3176 

Mercury ASTM D6722 

As, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Pb, Mn, Ni, Sb, P ASTM D6357 

Selenium ASTM D4606 

Chlorine ASTM D6721 

Fluorine ASTM D5987 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 2

1.2 Field Effort #2

TRC retested the stack in August for the metals and PM2.5 with condensable PM. Table 1-3

outlines the test schedule & matrix for the follow-up stack sampling program. 

Table 1-3 

Stack Sampling Program Schedule & Test Matrix – Field Effort #2 

Date Time Task Method(s) 

8/24/10 1910-2325 

1910-0104 

1st

 of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 

1st of 3 tests for PM2.5 and condensable PM 

EPA 29 

OTM 27/28

8/25/10 1015-1430 

1020-1606 

2nd

 of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 

2nd of 3 tests for PM2.5 and condensable PM 

EPA 29 

OTM 27/28

8/25/10 1623-2031 

1620-2203 

3rd

 of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 

3rd of 3 tests for PM2.5 and condensable PM 

EPA 29 

OTM 27/28

Triplicate composite fuel samples were collected with the retest and sent to the same contract 

laboratory as the original fuel samples. The first sample was collected on 8/24/10 and the 

remaining two were taken on 8/25/10. 

1.3 Contact Information

Table 1-4 provides the contact information for this test program. 

Table 1-4 

Contact and Information 

Facility Name and Address 

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. 

Hennepin Power Station 

RR #1, Box 200 AA 

Hennepin, Illinois 61327 

Dynegy Contact 

Mr. Wendell Watson 

E-mail: wendell.watson@dynegy.com 

Phone: (618) 206-5927 

Cell: (618) 420-4830 

Testing Company Name and Address 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

1058 North DuPage Avenue 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 

TRC Contact 

Mr. Scott Miller 

E-mail: smiller@trcsolutions.com 

Phone: (630) 953-9046 

Fax: (630) 953-9114 

TRC Test Personnel 

Mr. David Wells 

Mr. Chris Yarman 

Mr. Mike Oleszko 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 3

1.4 Test Report Organization

This test report is organized into five (5) individual sections with six (6) appendices as follows: 

• Section 1.0 – Introduction 

• Section 2.0 – Summary of Results 

• Section 3.0 – Facility Description 

• Section 4.0 – Test Methods and Procedures 

• Section 5.0 – Quality Assurance 

• Supporting Data- Appendices A through F 

 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 4

2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The following subsections detail the results from the fuel sampling and the stack emissions 

testing programs. 

For the treatment of non-detectable values “NDs” in all stack gas samples, the method detection 

limit (MDL) was used to carry through the calculations. Analytical results are annotated based 

on Section 114 guidance as follows: 

• BDL (below detection level) – all analytical values are below the analytical detection level 

• DLL (detection level limited) – at least one but not all analytical values are BDL 

• ADL (above detection level) – all analytical values are > than the laboratory detection level 

2.1 Field Effort #1

2.1.1 Coal Analysis Results

After collection, the coal samples were shipped to Standard Laboratories, Inc. in Freeburg, 

Illinois for analysis of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorus, selenium, chlorine, fluorine, sulfur, nitrogen, heating 

value, ash, and moisture content. Sulfur, nitrogen and ash were not required coal parameters 

under the ICR requirements but were analyzed and reported. It should also be noted that 

antimony, cobalt, phosphorus and selenium did not have specific ASTM methods identified in 

Enclosure 1 and analysis was performed in accordance with laboratory specified analysis. The 

specific method utilized is listed in Section 1 of this report. Table 2-1 presents the analytical 

results. 

Test # 1 2 3 Average

Antimony (ppm) 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.13

Arsenic (ppm) 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.1

Beryllium (ppm) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Cadmium (ppm) 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.07

Chlorine (ppm) 16 14 18 16

Chromium (ppm) 4 4 5 4

Cobalt (ppm) 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9

Fluorine (ppm) 62 63 66 64

Lead (ppm) 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.1

Manganese (ppm) 11 11 13 12

Mercury (ppm) 0.069 0.077 0.075 0.074

Nickel (ppm) 4 4 5 4

Phosphorus (ppm) 177 200 175 184

Selenium (ppm) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Carbon (%) 70.37 69.73 69.08 69.73

Hydrogen (%) 4.96 4.91 4.95 4.94

Nitrogen (%) 0.9 0.91 0.89 0.90

Oxygen (%) 17.31 12.48 17.57 15.79

Sulfer (%) 0.37 0.4 0.4 0.39

Ash (%) 6.09 6.57 7.11 6.59

BTU/lb 12,206 12,148 12,101 12,152

Fd = 9,675 9,810 9,584 9,690

Equation 19-13 from 40CFR60, Appendix A

Fuel Metals Analysis & Fd Determination

Condition: Metals Testing

Table 2-1
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 5

Table 2-2 presents the analytical results for the fuel samples that were collected in conjunction 

with PCDD/PCDF & PCB sampling. 

There were no quality issues or problems noted through the method 29 sampling activities. 

2.1.2 Stack Emissions Results

During the emission testing program, stack sampling was performed on the Unit 1 & 2 common 

exhaust stack for emissions of PCDD/PCDF & PCB by EPA Method 23 and metals by EPA 

Method 29. 

Table 2-3 presents the Unit 1 & 2 stack gas results for the metals testing. 

Test # 1 2 3 Average

Antimony (ppm) 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.13

Arsenic (ppm) 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.2

Beryllium (ppm) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Cadmium (ppm) 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.07

Chlorine (ppm) 20 14 16 17

Chromium (ppm) 4 4 5 4

Cobalt (ppm) 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9

Fluorine (ppm) 61 62 64 62

Lead (ppm) 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.2

Manganese (ppm) 11 10 12 11

Mercury (ppm) 0.076 0.094 0.084 0.085

Nickel (ppm) 4 4 4 4

Phosphorus (ppm) 191 180 185 185

Selenium (ppm) 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7

Carbon (%) 70.50 70.11 69.48 70.03

Hydrogen (%) 4.96 4.91 4.96 4.94

Nitrogen (%) 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89

Oxygen (%) 16.89 17.40 17.35 17.21

Sulfer (%) 0.4 0.37 0.41 0.39

Ash (%) 6.35 6.32 6.91 6.53

BTU/lb 12,190 12,174 12,116 12,160

Fd = 9,721 9,649 9,635 9,669

Equation 19-13 from 40CFR60, Appendix A

Fuel Metals Analysis & Fd Determination

Condition: PCDD/PCDF & PCB Testing

Table 2-2
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 6

Table 2-4 presents the Unit 1 & 2 stack gas results for the PCDD/PCDF testing. 

Summary of Method 29 Results

Run No. 1 2 3

Date: 4/13/10 4/14/10 4/15/10

Start Time 0910 0855 0745

Stop Time 1340 1320 1205 Average

F-Factor, (dscf/MMBtu) 9,675 9,810 9,584 9,690

 Antimony

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 5.51E-05 5.86E-05 6.29E-05 5.89E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 1.76E-06 1.92E-06 2.15E-06 1.94E-06

 Arsenic

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 1.09E-05 8.47E-06 1.20E-05 1.05E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 3.49E-07 2.77E-07 4.09E-07 3.45E-07

 Beryllium

 Detection Level Annotation BDL DLL BDL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 1.49E-07 1.51E-07 1.50E-07 1.50E-07

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 4.75E-09 4.95E-09 5.12E-09 4.94E-09

 Cadmium

 Detection Level Annotation DLL DLL DLL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 2.01E-06 1.82E-06 1.87E-06 1.90E-06

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 6.41E-08 5.95E-08 6.40E-08 6.25E-08

 Chromium

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 1.20E-04 4.90E-05 1.06E-04 9.15E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 3.82E-06 1.61E-06 3.61E-06 3.01E-06

 Cobalt

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL DLL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 1.27E-05 5.45E-06 7.05E-06 8.38E-06

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 4.04E-07 1.78E-07 2.41E-07 2.74E-07

Lead

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 7.04E-05 4.69E-05 4.93E-05 5.55E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 2.25E-06 1.54E-06 1.68E-06 1.82E-06

 Manganese

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 4.41E-05 2.44E-05 3.26E-05 3.37E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 1.41E-06 8.00E-07 1.11E-06 1.11E-06

 Nickel

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 5.28E-05 3.94E-05 4.81E-05 4.68E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 1.68E-06 1.29E-06 1.64E-06 1.54E-06

 Selenium

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 7.68E-05 5.40E-05 5.64E-05 6.24E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 2.45E-06 1.77E-06 1.92E-06 2.05E-06

Table 2-3
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 7

Table 2-5 presents the Unit 1 & 2 stack gas results for the PCB testing. 

There were no quality issues or unresolved problems noted through the sampling & analytical 

activities. 

Sample Volume (dscm)

pg ng/dscm @ 7% O2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu

2378 TCDD 14.79 1.87E-03 1.18E-16 1.71E-12 BDL 21.65 2.75E-03 1.77E-16 2.49E-12 BDL 13.00 1.67E-03 1.08E-16 1.51E-12 BDL

12378 PeCDD 21.46 2.71E-03 1.72E-16 2.48E-12 BDL 26.38 3.35E-03 2.15E-16 3.04E-12 BDL 16.57 2.13E-03 1.38E-16 1.93E-12 BDL

123478 HxCDD 24.02 3.04E-03 1.92E-16 2.77E-12 BDL 33.31 4.24E-03 2.72E-16 3.84E-12 BDL 20.52 2.64E-03 1.70E-16 2.39E-12 BDL

123678 HxCDD 20.75 2.62E-03 1.66E-16 2.39E-12 BDL 28.77 3.66E-03 2.35E-16 3.31E-12 BDL 17.72 2.28E-03 1.47E-16 2.06E-12 BDL

123789 HxCDD 23.79 3.01E-03 1.90E-16 2.75E-12 BDL 32.98 4.19E-03 2.69E-16 3.80E-12 BDL 20.32 2.61E-03 1.69E-16 2.36E-12 BDL

1234678 HpCDD 27.97 3.54E-03 2.24E-16 3.23E-12 BDL 31.53 4.01E-03 2.57E-16 3.63E-12 BDL 17.00 2.19E-03 1.41E-16 1.98E-12 BDL

OCDD 31.49 3.98E-03 2.52E-16 3.63E-12 BDL 31.12 3.96E-03 2.54E-16 3.59E-12 BDL 19.41 2.49E-03 1.61E-16 2.26E-12 BDL

Total Tetra-Dioxins 14.76 1.87E-03 1.18E-16 1.70E-12 BDL 21.60 2.75E-03 1.76E-16 2.49E-12 BDL 12.97 1.67E-03 1.08E-16 1.51E-12 BDL

Total Penta-Dioxins 21.41 2.71E-03 1.71E-16 2.47E-12 BDL 26.33 3.35E-03 2.15E-16 3.03E-12 BDL 16.54 2.13E-03 1.37E-16 1.92E-12 BDL

Total Hexa-Dioxins 15.17 1.92E-03 1.21E-16 1.75E-12 BDL 21.03 2.67E-03 1.72E-16 2.42E-12 BDL 12.95 1.66E-03 1.08E-16 1.51E-12 BDL

Total Hepta-Dioxins 27.74 3.51E-03 2.22E-16 3.20E-12 BDL 31.27 3.98E-03 2.55E-16 3.60E-12 BDL 62.80 8.07E-03 5.22E-16 7.30E-12 ADL

2378 TCDF 285.42 3.61E-02 2.28E-15 3.29E-11 EMPC 186.50 2.37E-02 1.52E-15 2.15E-11 EMPC 195.03 2.51E-02 1.62E-15 2.27E-11 EMPC

12378 PeCDF 67.49 8.53E-03 5.40E-16 7.79E-12 EMPC 26.99 3.43E-03 2.20E-16 3.11E-12 BDL 18.06 2.32E-03 1.50E-16 2.10E-12 BDL

23478 PeCDF 21.22 2.68E-03 1.70E-16 2.45E-12 BDL 27.15 3.45E-03 2.22E-16 3.13E-12 BDL 18.16 2.33E-03 1.51E-16 2.11E-12 BDL

123478 HxCDF 20.78 2.63E-03 1.66E-16 2.40E-12 BDL 26.73 3.40E-03 2.18E-16 3.08E-12 BDL 17.36 2.23E-03 1.44E-16 2.02E-12 BDL

123678 HxCDF 17.71 2.24E-03 1.42E-16 2.04E-12 BDL 22.78 2.90E-03 1.86E-16 2.62E-12 BDL 14.80 1.90E-03 1.23E-16 1.72E-12 BDL

234678 HxCDF 20.73 2.62E-03 1.66E-16 2.39E-12 BDL 26.67 3.39E-03 2.18E-16 3.07E-12 BDL 17.32 2.23E-03 1.44E-16 2.01E-12 BDL

123789 HxCDF 25.75 3.26E-03 2.06E-16 2.97E-12 BDL 33.12 4.21E-03 2.70E-16 3.82E-12 BDL 21.51 2.76E-03 1.79E-16 2.50E-12 BDL

1234678 HpCDF 72.65 9.19E-03 5.81E-16 8.38E-12 ADL 24.10 3.06E-03 1.97E-16 2.78E-12 BDL 14.55 1.87E-03 1.21E-16 1.69E-12 BDL

1234789 HpCDF 25.18 3.18E-03 2.01E-16 2.91E-12 BDL 33.67 4.28E-03 2.75E-16 3.88E-12 BDL 50.59 6.50E-03 4.20E-16 5.88E-12 EMPC

OCDF 38.75 4.90E-03 3.10E-16 4.47E-12 BDL 32.32 4.11E-03 2.64E-16 3.72E-12 BDL 22.03 2.83E-03 1.83E-16 2.56E-12 BDL

Total Tetra-Furans 466.86 5.90E-02 3.73E-15 5.39E-11 ADL 186.50 2.37E-02 1.52E-15 2.15E-11 BDL 195.03 2.51E-02 1.62E-15 2.27E-11 BDL

Total Penta-Furans 20.85 2.64E-03 1.67E-16 2.41E-12 BDL 26.68 3.39E-03 2.18E-16 3.07E-12 BDL 17.85 2.29E-03 1.48E-16 2.08E-12 BDL

Total Hexa-Furans 20.86 2.64E-03 1.67E-16 2.41E-12 BDL 26.84 3.41E-03 2.19E-16 3.09E-12 BDL 17.43 2.24E-03 1.45E-16 2.03E-12 BDL

Total Hepta-Furans 72.65 9.19E-03 5.81E-16 8.38E-12 ADL 28.02 3.56E-03 2.29E-16 3.23E-12 BDL 50.59 6.50E-03 4.20E-16 5.88E-12 BDL

Table 2-4

Summary of Dioxan/Furan Test Results

1

0820-1641

4/13/10

Test No.

637,164

12.6

6.8

7.52

614,688

12.9

6.5

619,466

6.6

9,721

2

0840-1712

4/14/10

281.377

7.65

275.7818397

291.128

7.81

9,649 9,635

3

0735-1554

4/15/10

277.464

270.1286509

12.8

265.4171357

Oxygen (%dry)

Fd (dscf/MMBtu)

Time

Date

Sample Volume (acf)

Sample Volume (dscf)

Volumetric Flowrate (dscfm)

Carbon Dioxide (%dry)

Sample Volume (dscm)

pg ng/dscm @ 7% O2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu

54.2 6.86E-03 4.34E-16 6.26E-12 ADL 21.06 2.68E-03 1.72E-16 2.43E-12 BDL 23.66 3.04E-03 1.97E-16 2.75E-12 BDL

22.99 2.91E-03 1.84E-16 2.65E-12 BDL 141.53 1.80E-02 1.16E-15 1.63E-11 ADL 26.24 3.37E-03 2.18E-16 3.05E-12 DLL

458.4 5.80E-02 3.66E-15 5.29E-11 ADL 314.26 4.00E-02 2.57E-15 3.62E-11 ADL 23.15 2.98E-03 1.92E-16 2.69E-12 DLL

19.64 2.48E-03 1.57E-16 2.27E-12 BDL 18.00 2.29E-03 1.47E-16 2.07E-12 BDL 25.38 3.26E-03 2.11E-16 2.95E-12 BDL

1,094.06 1.38E-01 8.75E-15 1.26E-10 ADL 690.34 8.78E-02 5.63E-15 7.95E-11 ADL 695.67 8.94E-02 5.78E-15 8.09E-11 ADL

918.48 1.16E-01 7.34E-15 1.06E-10 ADL 608.37 7.74E-02 4.97E-15 7.01E-11 ADL 35.45 4.56E-03 2.94E-16 4.12E-12 BDL

22.81 2.88E-03 1.82E-16 2.63E-12 BDL 17.53 2.23E-03 1.43E-16 2.02E-12 BDL 26.17 3.36E-03 2.17E-16 3.04E-12 BDL

64.42 8.14E-03 5.15E-16 7.43E-12 ADL 44.67 5.68E-03 3.65E-16 5.15E-12 ADL 26.54 3.41E-03 2.20E-16 3.09E-12 BDL

31.39 3.97E-03 2.51E-16 3.62E-12 BDL 20.41 2.60E-03 1.67E-16 2.35E-12 BDL 27.86 3.58E-03 2.31E-16 3.24E-12 BDL

32.79 4.15E-03 2.62E-16 3.78E-12 BDL 20.66 2.63E-03 1.69E-16 2.38E-12 BDL 28.54 3.67E-03 2.37E-16 3.32E-12 BDL

37.25 4.71E-03 2.98E-16 4.30E-12 BDL 25.69 3.27E-03 2.10E-16 2.96E-12 BDL 31.53 4.05E-03 2.62E-16 3.67E-12 BDL

53.20 6.73E-03 4.25E-16 6.14E-12 BDL 32.39 4.12E-03 2.64E-16 3.73E-12 BDL 56.18 7.22E-03 4.67E-16 6.53E-12 BDL

Summary of PCB Test Results

Test No. 1 2 3

Table 2-5

Time 0820-1641 0840-1712 0735-1554

Date 4/13/10 4/14/10 4/15/10

Sample Volume (acf) 291.128 281.377 277.464

Sample Volume (dscf) 275.7818397 270.1286509 265.4171357

12.6 12.8 12.9

7.81 7.65 7.52

6.5

Fd (dscf/MMBtu) 9,721 9,649 9,635

Volumetric Flowrate (dscfm 637,164 619,466 614,688

Carbon Dioxide (%dry)

114

118

123

Oxygen (%dry) 6.8 6.6

189

PCB IUPAC Number

126

156

157

167

169

77

81

105
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 8

2.2 Field Effort #2

2.2.1 Coal Analysis Results

Table 2-6 presents the fuel results from field effort #2. 

There were no quality issues or problems encountered during fuel sampling or analysis.

2.2.2 Stack Emissions Results

Stack sampling was performed on the Unit 1 & 2 common exhaust stack for emissions of metals 

by EPA Method 29. 

Table 2-7 presents the metals results from the retest. 

Test # 1 2 3 Average

Antimony (ppm) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

Arsenic (ppm) 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5

Beryllium (ppm) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Cadmium (ppm) 0.1 0.08 0.11 0.10

Chlorine (ppm) 16 11 15 14

Chromium (ppm) 7 6 6 6

Cobalt (ppm) 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.5

Fluorine (ppm) 82 68 74 75

Lead (ppm) 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.6

Manganese (ppm) 12 11 14 12

Mercury (ppm) 0.080 0.073 0.086 0.080

Nickel (ppm) 6 6 6 6

Phosphorus (ppm) 237 212 217 222

Selenium (ppm) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7

Carbon (%) 68.38 69.22 68.88 68.83

Hydrogen (%) 4.62 4.63 4.61 4.62

Nitrogen (%) 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.83

Oxygen (%) 17.74 18.11 18.11 17.99

Sulfer (%) 0.3 0.3 0.32 0.31

Ash (%) 8.13 6.92 7.25 7.43

BTU/lb 11,918 12,078 12,046 12,014

Fd = 9,529 9,498 9,475 9,501

Equation 19-13 from 40CFR60, Appendix A

Fuel Metals Analysis & Fd Determination

Condition: Metals Testing - Field Effort #2

Table 2-6
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 9

There were no quality issues or problems noted through the method 29 sampling activities. 

Table 2-8 presents the results from the OTM 27/28 testing that was conducted for emissions of 

PM2.5 & condensable PM. 

Summary of Method 29 Results - Field Effort #2

Run No. 1 2 3

Date: 8/24/10 8/25/10 8/25/10

Start Time 1910 1015 1623

Stop Time 2325 1430 2031 Average

F-Factor, (dscf/MMBtu) 9,529 9,498 9,475 9,501

 Antimony

 Detection Level Annotation DLL DLL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 2.30E-05 9.70E-06 7.81E-06 1.35E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 6.77E-07 2.87E-07 2.34E-07 3.99E-07

 Arsenic

 Detection Level Annotation BDL DLL BDL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 1.11E-05 2.69E-05 1.27E-05 1.69E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 3.27E-07 7.94E-07 3.80E-07 5.00E-07

 Beryllium

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 2.22E-06 1.54E-06 1.46E-06 1.74E-06

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 6.54E-08 4.57E-08 4.37E-08 5.16E-08

 Cadmium

 Detection Level Annotation ADL DLL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 6.49E-06 4.39E-06 2.54E-06 4.47E-06

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 1.91E-07 1.30E-07 7.59E-08 1.32E-07

 Chromium

 Detection Level Annotation DLL ADL DLL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 3.96E-05 1.03E-04 8.44E-05 7.57E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 1.17E-06 3.04E-06 2.53E-06 2.25E-06

 Cobalt

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 1.14E-05 9.64E-06 5.21E-06 8.74E-06

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 3.35E-07 2.85E-07 1.56E-07 2.59E-07

Lead

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 9.94E-05 1.06E-04 8.46E-05 9.66E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 2.93E-06 3.13E-06 2.53E-06 2.86E-06

 Manganese

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 7.06E-05 5.04E-05 5.12E-05 5.74E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 2.08E-06 1.49E-06 1.53E-06 1.70E-06

 Nickel

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 7.36E-05 6.03E-05 8.22E-05 7.20E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 2.17E-06 1.78E-06 2.46E-06 2.14E-06

 Selenium

 Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

 Concentration (mg/dscf) 6.74E-05 6.94E-05 1.47E-05 5.05E-05

 Concentration (lb/MMBtu) 1.99E-06 2.05E-06 4.40E-07 1.49E-06

Table 2-7
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 10

There were no quality issues or problems noted during the OTM 27/28 sampling activities. 

 

Table 2-8

PM2.5 and Condensable

Run No. 1 2 3

Date: 8/24/10 8/25/10 8/25/10

Start Time 1910 1020 1620

Stop Time 0104 1606 2203 Average

F-Factor, (dscf/MMBtu) 9,529 9,498 9,475 9,501

Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL --

Actual PM2.5 Cut Diameter, microns 2.47 2.41 2.49 2.46

Particulate Matter2.5 concentration, gr/dscf 1.07E-03 5.41E-04 6.67E-04 7.59E-04

Filterable Particulate Matter2.5 Emission Rate, lbs/MMBtu 2.04E-03 1.04E-03 1.29E-03 1.46E-03

Detection Level Annotation ADL ADL ADL

Condensable Particulate Matter Grain Loading, gr/dscf 3.01E-03 2.52E-03 2.60E-03 2.71E-03

Condensable Particulate Matter Emission Rate, lbs/MMBtu 5.74E-03 4.84E-03 5.05E-03 5.21E-03
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 11

3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Dynegy owns and operates the Hennepin Power Station, located in Hennepin, Illinois. The 

facility consists of two coal-fired boilers with associated coal handling equipment and steam 

turbines for electrical generation. Units 1 and 2 are Combustion Engineering tangential-fired 

boilers with burners evenly grouped into the four corners of each boiler. Unit 1 boiler has 12 

burners; unit 2 boiler has 32 burners. The boilers have a combined nominal rating of 300 

megawatts (MW) and burn PRB coal with an approximate heating value of 8,600 Btu/lb. 

Particulate matter (PM) emissions are controlled by two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and 

two bag-houses. Construction of fabric filter (FF) bag-houses with ACI systems to reduce Hg 

emissions began in 2008 and was completed in 2009. The bag-houses, which can operate with or 

without the ESPs in service, significantly reduce PM emissions. Emissions from both units are 

vented to the atmosphere through a common stack. The sorbent trap probe for the units 1 and 2 

Stack STMMS is installed at the 681-foot elevation platform. A schematic of the process 

indicating sampling location is shown in Figure 3-1. A dimensional schematic of the sampling 

location with calculated isokinetic sample points is presented in Figure 3-2. 

Figure 3-1: Process Schematic 

3.1 Boiler Operating Data

During the test program, Dynegy operated Boilers 1 & 2 in the normal, day-to-day operating 

mode. Table 3-1 presents the key operational parameters for each test run during field effort #1 

metals testing. 

Table 3-1 

Method 29 Testing: Boiler & Control Equipment Operating Data – Field Effort #1 

Unit # 1 2 

Parameter Test Run: 1 2 3 1 2 3 

Bag-house ∆P (abs) inches w.c. 4.56 4.64 4.50 3.57 3.17 4.80 

Gross Generation MW 55.37 55.92 55.38 184.47 184.82 186.34 

Net Generation MW 50.39 50.90 50.35 170.44 170.28 171.35 

Soot Blow Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 12

Firm Total Traverse Points Required 12

Location Number of Ports 4

Diameters Upstream Points Per Port 3

Diameters Downstream Traverse (Horizontal or Vertical) horizontal

Nipple Size (in.)

Duct Diameters Upstream From Flow Disturbance 199 in. >2 DD

0.5 1 1.5 2 3

40

PARTICULATE

30 >8 DD

24 or 25

20 20

16 

10

NON-PARTICULATE

23456789

Duct Diameters Down Stream From Flow Disturbance

Point Distance Nipple Total

4 6 8 10 12 Number From Wall Size Distance

6.7 4.4 3.2 2.6 2.1 1 8.8 30.0 38.8

25.0 14.6 10.5 8.2 6.7 2 29.1 30.0 59.1

75.0 29.6 19.4 14.6 11.8 3 58.9 30.0 88.9

93.3 70.4 32.3 22.6 17.7 4

85.4 67.7 34.2 25.0 5

95.6 80.6 65.8 35.6 6

89.5 77.4 64.4 7

96.8 85.4 75.0 8

 91.8 82.3 9

 97.4 88.2 10

 93.3 11

 97.9 12

Cross-Sectional Layout

For Rectangular Stacks

Total

Total Traverse Points Matrix

3x3

4x3

4x4

Traverse Point Location

9

12

16

20

25

5x4

5x5

12

(Percent of Stack Diameter from

Inside Wall to Traverse Point)

(No. of Traverse Points on a Dia.)

8

9

10

11

4

5

On a

10

12

8 or 9

6

7

Diameter

1

2

3

and Non-Particulate Traverses

Dynegy - Hennepin

Units 1 &2 common stack

>2

Point

Number

50

0

EPA Method 1 Data Sheet

TRC Environmental Corporation

>8

30

Minimum Number of Traverse Points For Particulate

Figure 3-2

Minimum Number of Traverse

Flo

w
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 13

Table 3-2 presents the key operational parameters for each test run during PCDD/PCDF & PCB 

testing. 

Table 3-2 

Method 23 Testing: Boiler & Control Equipment Operating Data – Field Effort #1 

Unit # 1 2 

Parameter Test Run: 1 2 3 1 2 3 

Bag-house ∆P (abs) inches w.c. 4.65 4.62 4.61 3.72 3.37 4.99 

Gross Generation MW 56.35 55.90 55.36 186.54 184.86 186.09 

Net Generation MW 51.35 50.90 50.35 172.62 170.28 171.33 

Soot Blow Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Table 3-3 presents the key operational parameters for each test run of the second field effort. 

Table 3-3 

Boiler & Control Equipment Operating Data – Field Effort #2 

Unit # 1 2 

Parameter Test Run: 1 2 3 1 2 3 

Bag-house ∆P (abs) inches w.c. 6.13 5.99 6.01 4.92 5.16 4.87 

Gross Generation MW 74.0 74.6 74.6 229.9 230.2 230.6 

Net Generation MW 68.2 68.6 68.8 214.0 214.2 214.1 

Soot Blow Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 14

4.0 TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This section describes the test methods and procedures that TRC utilized during this emissions 

program. Throughout the program, TRC followed EPA sampling methods as referenced in 

40CFR60, Appendix A. 

4.1 EPA Test Methods

TRC utilized the following test methods: 

• ASTM D2013 Standard Practice for Preparing Coal Samples for Analysis 

• EPA Method 1 Sample Velocity Traverse for Stationary Sources 

• EPA Method 2 Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow 

Rate (Type S pitot tube) 

• EPA Method 3 Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight 

• EPA Method 23 Determination of PCDD and PCDF Emissions from 

Stationary Sources 

• EPA Method 29 Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources 

• OTM 27 & 28 PM2.5 & Condensable PM 

4.2 Equipment Calibration

TRC follows a program of positive actions to prevent the failure of equipment or pertinent 

instruments during use. This preventative maintenance and regular calibration helps to ensure 

accurate measurements from field and laboratory instruments. 

All equipment that is scheduled for field use is cleaned and inspected prior to use. Once the 

equipment has gone through the cleaning and inspection process it is then calibrated. Following 

calibration, the equipment is packed and stored to ensure its integrity until use in the field. 

Calibration of the equipment required for this program was conducted in accordance with the 

procedures outlined in EPA documents entitled "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution 

Measurement Systems; Volume III - Stationary Source Specific Methods" (EPA-600/4-94-027b) 

and 40CFR60 Appendix A. All calibrations were performed prior to the test program. 

• Pitot tubes - measured for appropriate spacing and dimensions. Rejection criteria 

given on the calibration sheet. Post-test check - inspect for damage. 

• Thermocouples Thermocouple calibrations are performed in-house utilizing a 

Fluke 714 Thermocouple Calibrator. The Fluke 714 is NIST traceable and is a 

precise source and measurement tool used for calibrating thermocouple 

instruments. The calibrator measures in units of oC, oF or mV through a 

thermocouple mini-jack. Each K-type thermocouple on the meter box is calibrated 

throughout the typical source temperature range in accordance with USEPA 

Standards and TRC’s Standard Operating procedures to insure accurate 

temperature measurement. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 15

• Dry gas meters - calibrated against a primary standard wet test meter. Acceptance 

criteria - pretest Yi = Y = + 0.02; post test Y = + 0.05 Yi. 

• Probe Nozzles - average of three ID measurements of nozzle; difference between 

high and low < 0.004 in. Recalibrate, reshape and sharpen when nozzle becomes 

nicked dented or corroded. 

• Field Barometer - compared against a mercury-in-glass barometer or Airport 

Station BP and corrected for elevation. Acceptance criteria - + 0.02 in. Hg; posttest check - same. 

4.3 On-Site Sampling Activities

The following sampling activities were conducted. 

4.3.1 EPA Method 3 for Determination of Dry Molecular Weight

Oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were determined from a grab sample that 

was collected during each test run. The gas sample was collected into a Tedlar bag for each test 

performed. The stack gas was analyzed for O2 and CO2 content by using a calibrated rack 

mounted O2/CO2 gas analyzer. Analyzer calibrations were conducted in accordance with EPA 

Method 3A and concentrations were corrected for instrument drift & bias as per EPA Method 

6C. 

 

4.3.2 EPA Method 23 for Determination PCDD/PCDF and PCB Emissions

EPA Method 23 was used to measure the concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins 

(PCDD), dibenzofurans (PCDF) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). 

Sample Collection

Particulates are collected on a filter and vaporous emissions are retained by a sorbent cartridge. 

Following sampling, the appropriate components of the train are recovered and transferred to the 

laboratory for analysis. The components are extracted. The extracts are cleaned to remove 

excessive levels of potential interferences and the cleaned extracts are analyzed for PCDD/PCDF 

and PCB using combined high resolution gas chromatography and high resolution mass 

spectrometry. 

Figure 4-1 illustrates a typical EPA Method 23 sampling train configuration. All sampling train 

components that contact the recovered sample are composed of borosilicate glass, 

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or similar materials to avoid potential sample contamination or 

reactions with PCDDs and PCDFs. The sampling train contains a glass-lined temperature 

controlled probe equipped with a pitot tube (for measuring stack velocity pressure) and a sharpedged Pyrex button-hook nozzle. The exit of the probe is connected to a high efficiency glass 

fiber filter supported in a glass filter holder inside an oven. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 16

The exit of the filter holder is connected to a water jacketed glass coil condenser and adsorbent 

trap unit, configured such that the effluent gas and condensed moisture flows down through the 

resin in the cartridge. The adsorbent trap contains an XAD-2 resin cartridge to adsorb the PCDDs 

and PCDFs present in the vapor and condensed portion of the sample. During operation, a leakfree submersible pump is used to recirculate cooling water through the coil condenser and resin 

cartridge to ensure proper cooling of the condenser and resin cartridge unit. 

A series of five full size leak-free glass impingers immediately follows the adsorbent cartridge. 

The first impinger is empty, the second and third impingers each contain 100 milliliters of 

HPLC-grade distilled water. The fourth impinger is empty and the fifth is charged with 

approximately 300 grams of silica gel. The impingers are immersed in an ice bath for the 

duration of the test. All train components from the first impinger forward are rigorously cleaned 

before use to avoid organic contamination. 

The impingers are connected to the metering system via an umbilical. The metering system 

includes a vacuum gauge, a leak-free pump, thermometers accurate to within ±5.4°F, and a dry 

gas meter accurate to within 2%. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 17

Procedures for selecting sampling locations and for operation of the train are derived from EPA 

Method 23 and associated Methods 1 through 5. The effluent gas sample is collected by 

operating the train according to the Method 5 specifications, including leak-checking, isokinetic 

sampling rates, and stack traversing. The sampling train is leak-checked before and after each 

test. Sampling is performed isokinetically (within ±10%). 

Sample Recovery

At the conclusion of each test run, the probe and umbilical are carefully removed from the 

sampling train. The inlet to the sampling train is capped with methylene chloride rinsed 

aluminum foil and removed to a clean field laboratory for sample recovery. The sample from the 

probe nozzle and probe liner is recovered at the sampling location. The recovered sample 

consists of the following components: 

Container No. 1: Glass fiber filter and particulate catch. 

Container No. 2: Adsorbent trap containing the XAD-2 resin. 

Container No. 3: Acetone/MeCl rinse: Probe liner and nozzle rinsed and brushed 

three times combined with three rinses of the filter holder, coil 

condenser and all interconnecting glassware; 

Container No. 4: Toluene rinse: Probe liner and nozzle rinsed and brushed three 

times combined with three rinses of the filter holder, coil 

condenser and all interconnecting glassware. 

Container No. 5: The volume of water collected in the impinger train will be 

measured gravimetrically and the water stored in sample containers 

and archived. 

Sample Analysis

All method 23 metals analyses were performed by Data Analysis Technologies, Inc. (DAT) of 

Plain City, Ohio. 

A computer program developed by TRC is used to calculate the mass emission rates in grains per 

dry standard cubic foot, pound per million British thermal units and pounds per hour. The 

program is also used to determine the stack moisture, molecular weight of the stack gas, and the 

percent isokinetics. 

4.3.3 EPA Method 29 for Determination of Metals Emissions 

Testing for emissions of multiple metals was conducted in accordance with EPA Method 29 as 

presented in 40CFR60. 

Sample Collection

Metals sampling is performed isokinetically in accordance with EPA Method 29. The sampling 

train, presented in Figure 4-2, consists of a glass nozzle, glass-lined probe, filter, flexible 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 18

umbilical line, seven impingers, a vacuum pump, a dry-gas meter, and an orifice flow meter. A 

glass nozzle is attached to a glass-lined probe that is heated to 248°F ± 25°F to prevent 

condensation of moisture. Whatman quartz filter media is supported in a 3-inch glass filter 

holder. The filter assembly is enclosed in a heated box to maintain temperatures at 248°F ± 25°F. 

A thermocouple located inside the back half of the filter holder monitors the gas stream 

temperature and verifies that the temperature is kept within the appropriate range. An ice bath 

containing seven impingers is attached to the back end of the filter via flexible tubing. 

The first impinger is empty and used for moisture knockout. Impingers 2 and 3 each contain 100 

milliliters (ml) of 5% HNO3 / 10% H2O2, the fourth is empty, and the fifth contains indicating 

silica gel to remove any remaining moisture. Each impinger is weighed before and after each 

test run for determination of moisture gain. Flexible tubing, a vacuum gauge, needle valve, 

leakless vacuum pump, bypass valve, dry-gas meter, calibrated orifice, and an inclined 

manometer complete the sampling train. The stack velocity pressure is measured using an Stype pitot tube and inclined manometer. The stack temperature is monitored by a thermocouple 

attached to the pitot and connected to a potentiometer. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 19

Sample Recovery

Samples are recovered at the end of each test and placed in appropriate containers as follows: 

Container No. 1: The 3-inch filter is removed from its holder, placed in a petri dish, 

sealed, and labeled. 

Container No. 2: The probe, nozzle, and front half of the filter holder are each 

brushed and rinsed three times with acetone. The wash is deposited 

in a 175 ml, Nalgene® sample jar and labeled. 

Container No. 3: The probe, nozzle, and front half of the filter holder are thoroughly 

rinsed with a total of 100 ml of 0.1 N HNO3. The rinse is 

deposited into a certified clean, 125 ml glass sample jar and 

labeled. 

Container No. 4: The liquid in the first three impingers is measured gravimetrically 

and transferred into a certified clean, 900 ml glass sample jar and 

labeled. The three impingers and all connecting glassware are 

rinsed with exactly 100 ml of 0.1 N HNO3 and this rinse is placed 

into the same sample container. 

Container No. 5A: The liquid in the fourth impinger is measured gravimetrically and 

transferred into a certified clean, appropriately sized glass sample 

jar and labeled. The fourth impinger and connecting glassware are 

rinsed with exactly 100 ml of 0.1 N HNO3 and the rinse is placed 

into the same sample container. 

All samples are placed in shockproof containers for transport to the analytical laboratory. 

Sample Analysis

All method 29 metals analyses were performed by Data Analysis Technologies, Inc. (DAT) of 

Plain City, Ohio. 

A computer program developed by TRC is used to calculate the mass emission rates in grains per 

dry standard cubic foot, pound per million British thermal units and pounds per hour. The 

program is also used to determine the stack moisture, molecular weight of the stack gas, and the 

percent isokinetics. 

4.3.4 EPA OTM 27/28 for PM2.5 and CPM 

Provided that no water droplets are present in the stack gas, and that the stack gas temperature is 

less than 700°F, it is feasible to conduct PM2.5 sampling by EPA Other Test Method 27 (OTM27). OTM-27 utilizes an in-stack cyclone sampling head that removes particulate matter greater 

than 2.5 microns. If water droplets are present, or the stack temperature exceeds 700°F, EPA has 

approved the use of Method 5. TRC uses a PM2.5 cyclone sampling head separate particles 

greater than 2.5 microns. Figure 4-3 presents a schematic of this sampling train. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 20

Sample Collection 

Samples are collected near isokinetically (80% to 120%) from the stack using an EPA OTM-027 

sampling train. The sampling train consists of a stainless steel nozzle, a glass-lined probe with a 

Type S Pitot tube attached, a quartz filter supported by a Teflon frit and maintained at a 

temperature of 248oF +/- 25oF, chilled impingers, and a metering console. Condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) is determined using EPA OTM-28 procedures. 

This procedure for determining CPM involves recovering the back-half of the sampling train. As 

specified in EPA OTM-28, the CPM is collected in the two empty impingers which are 

maintained at 85°F or less by use of a chilled water recirculating pump and non-contact 

condenser. These two empty impingers are followed by a Teflon membrane filter maintained at 

85°F or less. This Teflon filter is the final sample fraction in the OTM-28 sample train. It is 

followed by two impingers in an ice bath which serve to condense any remaining moisture so 

that the stack gas moisture content can be determined. Organic condensable PM and inorganic 

condensable PM are quantified by OTM-28. Each of the impingers is weighed prior to sample 

train assembly. 

Sample Recovery 

The front-half filter is removed from the filter holder and placed in a glass jar or petri dish. The 

nozzle, probe, and front-half of the filter holder are rinsed with acetone into a glass jar. The 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 21

front-half acetone rinse is analyzed per OTM-27 to determine PM2.5. Immediately following 

each test run, the impinger train is purged with ultrapure, filtered nitrogen for 1 hour at 20 liters 

per minute. Next, each of the impingers is weighed to determine the post-test weight. The 

weight of water vapor condensed in the impingers and the weight of water vapor collected in the 

silica gel is summed and subsequently entered into moisture content calculations. 

The material collected in the two empty impingers of the OTM-28 sample train is placed in a glass 

sample jar. The back-half of the filter holder, impingers, and connecting glassware are rinsed 

twice with DI water into the jar containing the back-half impinger catch. Next the back portion of 

the filter holder, the two impingers, and the connecting glassware are rinsed once with acetone and 

then twice with MeCl2 with these solvent rinses placed into a separate glass jar. 

Sample Analysis 

OTM-27 analytical procedures are used to analyze the front-half acetone rinse for PM2.5. EPA 

OTM-28 analytical procedures are used to analyze the combined DI water reagent/DI water rinses 

and the acetone/MeCl2 rinses for condensable particulate matter. The water fraction is extracted 

with methylene chloride to separate organic material from the aqueous phase. The aqueous phase 

(after solvent extraction) is dried down and the remaining residue is weighed and reported as the 

inorganic condensable PM. The methylene chloride rinse fraction and solvent extract are 

evaporated and the remaining residue is weighed and reported as the organic condensable PM. 

4.3.5 Determination of Metals Content in Fuel 

Fuel samples were collected by TRC and shipped to Standard Laboratories, Inc. of Freeburg, 

Illinois for analysis. Pertinent analytical test methods are presented in Table 1-1 from Section 

1.0 of this report. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 22

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

5.1 Overview

TRC Environmental Corporation is fully committed to an effective Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control (QA/QC) Program whose objective is the delivery of a quality product. For much of 

TRC's work, that product is data resulting from field measurements, sampling and analysis 

activities, engineering assessments, and the analysis of gathered data for planning purposes. The 

Quality Assurance Program works to provide complete, precise, accurate, representative data in a 

timely manner for each project, considering both the project's needs and budget constraints. 

This section highlights the specific QA/QC procedures followed throughout this Test Program. 

5.2 Field Quality Control Summary

5.2.1 Calibration Procedures

Calibration of the field sampling equipment was performed prior to the field sampling effort. 

Copies of the calibration sheets were submitted to the field team leader to take onsite and for the 

project file. Calibrations were performed as described in the EPA publications "Quality 

Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems; Volume III - Stationary Source 

Specific Methods" (EPA-600/4-94-0271b) and EPA 40CFR60, Appendix A. Equipment 

calibrated for this program includes the sample metering system, nozzles, barometers, 

thermocouples, and pitot tubes. All calibrations were available for review at the test program. 

5.2.2 Equipment Leak Checks

Prior to sampling, each sampling train was leak checked according to the procedures outlined in 

EPA Reference Methods 23 & 29. During the course of a test run, a leak check was conducted 

before and after every test, or if replacement of a component became necessary. Final leak 

checks were performed to ensure that no leaks developed in the train during the course of the test 

run. All leakage rates, if any found, were recorded on the appropriate field data sheet. 

5.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check

The absence of cyclonic flow the sampling location has been previously verified in accordance 

with EPA Method 1. 

5.3 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting

Specific QC measures were used to ensure the generation of reliable data from sampling 

activities. Proper collection and organization of accurate information followed by clear and 

concise reporting of the data is a primary goal in all projects. 

5.3.1 Field Data Reduction

The Field Team Leader and at least one other field crew-member reviewed the field data 

collected in the field. 
Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois 

Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report 

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 23

5.3.2 Data Validation

TRC’s supervisory and QC personnel use validation methods and criteria appropriate to the type 

of data and the purpose of the measurement. Records of all data are maintained, including that 

judged to be an "outlying" or spurious value. The persons validating the data have sufficient 

knowledge of the technical work to identify questionable values. 

Field sampling data were validated by the Field Team Leader and/or the QC Coordinator based 

on their review of the adherence to an approved sampling protocol and written sample collection 

procedure. 

The following criteria were used to evaluate the field sampling data: 

• Use of approved test procedures; 

• Proper operation of the process being tested; 

• Use of properly operating and calibrated equipment; 

• Leak checks conducted before and after tests; 

• Use of reagents conforming to QC specified criteria; 

• Proper chain-of-custody maintained.