# 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 2010Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 i 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 PM 2.5 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 ..................................................................................20Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 ii Tables Table 1-1 Sack Sampling Program Schedule & Test Matrix – Field Effort #1 .......................1 Table 1-2 Fuel Sampling, Analy tical 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 F d Determination: Metals – Field Effort #1 ......................4 Table 2-2 Fuel Metals Results and F d 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 F d Determination: Metals – Field Effort #2 ......................8 Table 2-7 Summary of Method 29 Results – Field Effort #2 ...................................................9 Table 2-8 Summary of Me thod 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 Operationa l 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 PM 2.5 & Condensable PM

Appendix B Field Data Sheets Appendix B-1 Method 29 Metals Appendix B-2 PCDD/PCDF & PCB Appendix B-3 PM 2.5 & 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 PM 2.5 & Condensable PM

Appendix D Process and Operational Data

Appendix E Calibration Data

Appendix F CalculationsDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 generati ng units that are subject to th e U.S. EPA Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 to develop national em ission standards for hazardous ai r 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 obta in the information requested in the survey. Based on U.S. EPA’s guidance fo r 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 Lomb ard, Illinois was contra cted 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 & Te st Matrix – Field Effort #1 Date Time Task Method(s)

4/13/10 0820-1641 0910-1340 1 s t of 3 stack tests for PCDD/PCDF & PCB 1 st of 3 stack tests for multiple metals EPA 23 EPA 29

4/14/10 0840-1712 0855-1320 2 n d of 3 stack tests for PCDD/PCDF & PCB 2 nd of 3 stack tests for multiple metals EPA 23 EPA 29

4/15/10 0735-1554 0745-1205 3 r d of 3 stack tests for PCDD/PCDF & PCB 3 rd 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 correspond ing analytical paramete rs 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, M n, Ni, Sb, P ASTM D6357 Selenium ASTM D4606 Chlorine ASTM D6721 Fluorine ASTM D5987Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 PM 2.5 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 & Te st Matrix – Field Effort #2

Date Time Task Method(s)

8/24/10 1910-2325 1910-0104 1 s t of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 1 st of 3 tests for PM 2.5 and condensable PM EPA 29 OTM 27/28

8/25/10 1015-1430 1020-1606 2 n d of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 2 nd of 3 tests for PM 2.5 and condensable PM EPA 29 OTM 27/28

8/25/10 1623-2031 1620-2203 3 r d of 3 stack tests for multiple metals 3 rd of 3 tests for PM 2.5 and condensable PM EPA 29 OTM 27/28
Triplicate composite fuel samples were collected w ith the retest and sent to the same contract laboratory as the original fuel samples. Th e 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 informa tion 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 OleszkoDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 3 1.4 Test Report Organization

This test report is organized into five (5) indi vidual 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 Meth ods and Procedures

• Section 5.0 – Quality Assurance

• Supporting Data- Appendices A through FDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 a ll stack gas samples, the method detection limit (MDL) was used to carry through the calculati ons. Analytical results are annotated based on Section 114 guidance as follows:

• BDL (below detection level) – a ll 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 ar e > than the laborato ry detection level

2.1 Field Effort #1
2.1.1 Coal Analysis Results After collection, the coal sample s were shipped to Standard La boratories, Inc. in Freeburg, Illinois for analysis of antimony, arsenic, be ryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, phosphorus, selenium, chlorine, fluorine, sulfur, nitrogen, heating value, ash, and moisture content. Sulfur, nitrog en and ash were not required coal parameters under the ICR requirements but were analyzed a nd 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 acco rdance 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 F d = 9,675 9,810 9,584 9,690 Equation 19-13 from 40CFR60, Appendix A Fuel Metals Analysis & F d Determination Condition: Metals Testing Table 2-1Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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/PCD F & 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 F d = 9,721 9,649 9,635 9,669 Equation 19-13 from 40CFR60, Appendix A Fuel Metals Analysis & F d Determination Condition: PCDD/PCDF & PCB Testing Table 2-2Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 6 Table 2-4 presents the Unit 1 & 2 stack gas re sults 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 2-3Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 pr oblems noted through the sampling & analytical activities.

Sample Volume (dscm)

pg ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 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

9,635 9,649 3
0735-1554
4/15/10
277.464
270.1286509

12.8 265.4171357

Oxygen (% dry )
F d (dscf/MMBtu) Time
Date Sample Volume (acf) Sample Volume (dscf)

Volumetric Flowrate (dscfm)

Carbon Dioxide (% dry )

Sample Volume (dscm)

pg ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 lb/dscf lb/MMBtu pg ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 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
F d (dscf/MMBtu) 9,721 9,649 9,635 V olumetric Flowrate (dscf m 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
105Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 en countered during fuel sampling or analysis.

2.2.2 Stack Emissions Results

Stack sampling was performed on the Unit 1 & 2 co mmon 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 F d = 9,529 9,498 9,475 9,501 Equation 19-13 from 40CFR60, Appendix A Fuel Metals Analysis & F d Determination Condition: Metals Testing - Field Effort #2 Table 2-6Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 te sting that was conducted for emissions of PM 2.5 & 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 2-7Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 PM 2.5 and C ondensable

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 Matter 2.5 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-03Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 11 3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Dynegy owns and operates the Hennepin Power St ation, located in He nnepin, Illinois. The facility consists of two coal-fired boilers wi th associated coal handling equipment and steam turbines for electrical generation. Units 1 a nd 2 are Combustion Engineering tangential-fired boilers with burners evenly grouped into the f our corners of each boiler. Unit 1 boiler has 12 burners; unit 2 boiler has 32 burners. The boil ers 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 controlle d by two electrostatic pr ecipitators (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, si gnificantly 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 th e 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 Boiler s 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 Equipm ent 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 YesDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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
Matrix Total Traverse Points
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 3-2Minimum Number of TraverseFlowDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 Equipm ent 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 YesDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 followe d EPA sampling methods as referenced in 40CFR 60, Appendix A.

4.1 EPA Test Methods
TRC utilized the following test methods:

• ASTM D2013 Standard Practice for Pr eparing Coal Samples for Analysis

• EPA Method 1 Sample Velocity Tr averse 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 PM 2.5 & Condensable PM
4.2 Equipment Calibration
TRC follows a program of positive actions to pr event the failure of equipment or pertinent instruments during use. This preventative main tenance and regular calibr ation 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 insp ection process it is th en calibrated. Following calibration, the equipment is packed and stored to ensure its inte grity 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 40CFR 60 Appendix A. All calibrations were pe rformed prior to the test program.

• Pitot tubes - measured for appropriate spac ing 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 ther mocouple on the meter box is calibrated throughout the typical source temperatur e range in accordance with USEPA Standards and TRC’s Standard Opera ting procedures to insure accurate temperature measurement.Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 15 • Dry gas meters - calibrated against a primar y standard wet test meter. Acceptance criteria - pretest Y i = Y = + 0.02; post test Y = + 0.05 Y i .

• Probe Nozzles - average of three ID meas urements 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 elev ation. 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 (O 2 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations were determined from a grab sample that was collected during each test run. The gas sample was collected into a Te dlar bag for each test performed. The stack gas was analyzed for O 2 and CO 2 content by using a calibrated rack mounted O 2 /CO 2 gas analyzer. Analyzer calibrations were conducted in accordance with EPA Method 3A and concentrations were corrected fo r instrument drift & bias as per EPA Method 6C.

4.3.2 EPA Method 23 for Determinatio n PCDD/PCDF and PCB Emissions

EPA Method 23 was used to measure the concentr ations of polychlorinat ed 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 th e train are recovered and transferred to the laboratory for analysis. The com ponents are extracted. The ex tracts are cleaned to remove excessive levels of potential interferences and th e 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 sampli ng train configuration. All sampling train components that contact the recovered samp le are composed of borosilicate glass, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or similar materi als to avoid potential sa mple contamination or reactions with PCDDs and PCDFs. The sampli ng train contains a glass-lined temperature controlled probe equipped with a pitot tube (formeasuring stack velocity pressure) and a sharpedged Pyrex button-hook nozzle. The exit of the pr obe 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 St eam 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 contai ns an XAD-2 resin cartridge to adsorb the PCDDs and PCDFs present in the vapor and condensed po rtion of the sample. During operation, a leakfree submersible pump is used to recirculate co oling water through the co il condenser and resin cartridge to ensure proper cooling of the condenser and resin cartridge unit.

A series of five full size leak-free glass impi ngers immediately follows the adsorbent cartridge. The first impinger is empty, the second and thir d impingers each cont ain 100 milliliters of HPLC-grade distilled water. The fourth impi nger 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 th e first impinger forward are rigorously cleaned before use to avoid organic contamination.

The impingers are connected to the metering sy stem via an umbilical. The metering system includes a vacuum gauge, a leak-free pump, thermo meters 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 St eam 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, includ ing 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 methyl ene chloride rinsed aluminum foil and removed to a clean field labora tory for sample recovery. The sample from the probe nozzle and probe liner is recovered at the sampling lo cation. The recovered sample consists of the following components:

Container No. 1: Glass fiber f ilter and particulate catch.

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

Container No. 3: Acetone/MeCl rinse: Pr obe liner and nozzle rinsed and brushed three times combined with three rinses of the filter holder, coil condenser and all inte rconnecting glassware;

Container No. 4: Toluene rinse: Probe li ner and nozzle rinsed and brushed three times combined with three rinses of the filter holder, coil condenser and all inte rconnecting 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 Br itish thermal units and pounds per hour. The program is also used to determine the stack mois ture, molecular weight of the stack gas, and the percent isokinetics.

4.3.3 EPA Method 29 for Determinat ion of Metals Emissions
Testing for emissions of multiple metals was conducted in accordance with EPA Method 29 as presented in 40CFR 60.
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 pr obe, filter, flexibleDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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. Whatma n quartz filter media is suppor ted 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 moistu re knockout. Impingers 2 and 3 each contain 100 milliliters (ml) of 5% HNO 3 / 10% H 2 O 2 , the fourth is empty, and the fifth contains indicating silica gel to remove any remaining moisture. E ach 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 me ter, calibrated orific e, and an inclinedmanometer 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 c onnected to a potentiometer.Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam 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 remove d 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 HNO 3 . The rinse is deposited into a certified clean, 125 ml glass sample jar and labeled.

Container No. 4: The liquid in the first th ree impingers is measured gravimetrically and transferred into a certified clean, 900 ml glass sample jar and labeled. The three impingers a nd all connecting glassware are rinsed with exactly 100 ml of 0.1 N HNO 3 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 HNO 3 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 Br itish thermal units and pounds per hour. The program is also used to determine the stack mois ture, molecular weight of the stack gas, and the percent isokinetics.

4.3.4 EPA OTM 27/28 for PM 2.5 and CPM
Provided that no water droplets are present in the st ack gas, and that the stack gas temperature is less than 700°F, it is feasible to conduct PM 2.5 sampling by EPA Other Test Method 27 (OTM27). OTM-27 utilizes an in-stack cyclone sampli ng head that removes pa rticulate 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 PM 2.5 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 St eam 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 c onsists of a stainless steel nozzl e, 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 248 o F +/- 25 o F, chilled impingers, and a metering console. Condensable particulate matter (CPM) is determin ed using EPA OTM-28 procedures.
This procedure for determining CPM involves rec overing the back-half of the sampling train. As specified in EPA OTM-28, the CPM is collect ed in the two empty impingers which are maintained at 85°F or less by use of a chill ed water recirculati ng pump and non-contact condenser. These two empty impi ngers are followed by a Teflon me mbrane filter maintained at 85°F or less. This Teflon filter is the final samp le 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 cont ent can be determined. Organi c 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 ar e rinsed with acetone into a glass jar. TheDynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 21 front-half acetone rinse is anal yzed per OTM-27 to determine PM 2.5 . Immediately following each test run, the impinger train is purged with ultr apure, filtered nitrogen for 1 hour at 20 liters per minute. Next, each of the impingers is we ighed 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 entere d into moisture content calculations.

The material collected in the tw o empty impingers of the OTM-28 sa mple train is placed in a glass sample jar. The back-half of the filter holde r, 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 tw o impingers, and the connecting glassw are are rinsed once with acetone and then twice with MeCl 2 with these solvent ri nses placed into a separate glass jar.
Sample Analysis
OTM-27 analytical procedures are used to analyze the front-half acetone rinse for PM 2.5 . EPA OTM-28 analytical procedures are used to analyze the combined DI water r eagent/DI water rinses and the acetone/MeCl 2 rinses for condensable particulate ma tter. The water fr action is extracted with methylene chloride to separa te organic material from the a queous 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 chlo ride rinse fraction a nd solvent extract are evaporated and the remaining residue is weighe d 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 pres ented in Table 1-1 from Section 1.0 of this report.Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 22 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

5.1 Overview

TRC Environmental Corporation is fully committe d to an effective Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program whose obj ective is the delivery of a qua lity product. For much of TRC's work, that product is data resulting fr om field measurements, sampling and analysis activities, engineering assessments, and the analysis of gathered da ta 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 proce dures followed throughout this Test Program.

5.2 Field Quality Control Summary

5.2.1 Calibration Procedures

Calibration of the field sampling equipment was pe rformed 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 we re performed as described in the EPA publications " Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurem ent Systems; Volume III - Stationary Source Specific Methods " (EPA-600/4-94-0271b) and EPA 40CFR 60, 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 ch ecked 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 deve loped in the train during the course of the test run. All leakage rates, if any found, were r ecorded on the appropria te field data sheet.

5.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check

The absence of cyclonic flow the sampling location has been previously ve rified 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 othe r field crew-member reviewed the field data collected in the field.Dynegy Midwest Generation –Hennepin, Illinois Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility St eam Generating Unit Test Report

168321.2010.0000 September 2010 23 5.3.2 Data Validation

TRC’s supervisory and QC personne l use validation methods and crit eria appropriate to the type of data and the purpose of the measurement. R ecords 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 validat ed by the Field Team Leader and/or the QC Coordinator based on their review of the adherence to an approved sampling protocol and wr itten 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.