Facility _Information

facility _id utility

_code legal_owner_nam e

legl_operator_name

legal_address_type

legal_address

legal_city legal_state legal_zip 1241 2079 Kansas City Power & Light Com pany Kansas City

Power & Light Com pany legal ownerP. O. Box 418679 Kansas City

MO 64141 2079 2079 Kansas City Power & Light Com pany Kansas City

Power & Light Com pany legal ownerP. O. Box 418679 Kansas City

MO 64141 2080 2079 Kansas City Power & Light Com pany Kansas City

Power & Light Com pany legal ownerP. O. Box 418679 Kansas City

MO 64141 2094 2094 KCP&L - Greater Missouri Operations Company KCP&L - Greater Missouri Operations Company

legal ownerP. O. Box 418679 Kansas City

MO 64141 2098 2098 KCP&L - Greater Missouri Operations Company KCP&L - Greater Missouri Operations Company

legal ownerP. O. Box 418679 Kansas City

MO 64141 6065 6065 Kansas City Power & Light Com pany Kansas City

Power & Light Com pany legal ownerP. O. Box 418679 Kansas City

MO 64141

Page 1Facility _Information

plant_nam e

physical_address

phyical_city

physical_state

physical_zip

ma iling_address

ma iling_city

ma iling_state

ma iling_zip La Cygne 25166 E. 2200 Road La Cygne KS 66040 25166 E. 2200 Road La Cygne KS 66040 Hawthorn 8700 E. Front Street Kansas City

MO 64120 8700 E. Front Street Kansas City

MO 64120 Montrose 400 SWHighway P Clinton MO 64735 400 SWHighway P Clinton MO 64735 Sibley 33200 E. Johnson Road Sibley MO 64088 33200 E. Johnson Road Sibley MO 64088 Lake Road 1413 Lower Lake Road St. Joseph MO 64504 1413 Lower Lake Road St. Joseph MO 64504 Iatan 20250 Highway 45 N We ston MO 64098 20250 Highway 45 N We ston MO 64098

Page 2Facility _Information

RFA_small_entity

ff_fired_coal

ff_fired_oil ff_fired_ngas ff_fired_petcoke

ff_fired_other

ff_permitted_coal

ff_permitted_oil

ff_permitted_ngas No TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE No TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE No TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE No TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE No TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE No TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE

Page 3Facility _Information

ff_permitted_petcoke

ff_permitted_other

deviation_reporting

continuous_emissions

cem_provided

facility _note FALSE TRUE None No CAMD in the form of quarterly EDRs. KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i FALSE FALSE None No EPA CAMD This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito FALSE TRUE None No Hourly Data Reported to EPA CAMD in quarterly EDR submission. No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou FALSE TRUE NONE No EPA CAMD The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. FALSE TRUE None No CAMD - Acid Rain Program Reporting This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. FALSE FALSE NONE No EPA CAMD Quarterly Report KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 4Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 5Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 6Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 7Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 8Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 9Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 10Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou The coal deliveries are reported as monthly totals, and the location indicates the predominate deliveries for that month. On the bituminous coal, slightly over 95% is from Emery Co. in Utah, there is less than 5% of the 2009 deliveries which came from Bates Co., Missouri that does not show up in the monthly totals.Stack temperature during the Mercury testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 305 F.Stack temperature during the PM testing Oct. 1, 2008 was 303.4 F.Sibley has a mercury

continous emission monitor installed in the stack, but since the CAMR rule was voided this monitor has not been through any required certification or quality assurance and quality

control. The monitor availability is also very

low. This survey

is for Boiler 6 which connects to Turbine 4 at the Lake Road Facility. This is the only coal-fired boiler at Lake Road which is in the Acid Rain and CAIR programs. Herein Boiler 6 is referred to as Unit 6.Flue Gas Temperature during the 4-22-2005 Stack testing for particulate and mercury was 357.1, average temperature for the three test runs.Flue Gas Temperature durng the 5-1-2005 stack testing for particulate was 362.8, average termperature for the three test runs.No coal samples were taken and there was no coal analysis during either stack test.TSP limit compliance mechanism is a stack test, and the reference method calls for a 3-hour test. KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 11Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou

KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 12Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou

KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 13Facility _Information

KCP&L is the 50% owner and operator of the La Cygne units another company also owns 50%.The La Cygne Trucked coal originated in both Kansas and Missouri. Annual numbers showed 40% from Kansas so five months of the coal data was coded from Kansas and seven months were coded as being from Missouri. The actual tons were divided within each month.The stack velocities for both stacks was the maximum velocityduring full load RATA testing.The PM Emission limit for Unit 1 of 0.12 lbs/mmbtu is a plant-wide limit. Compliance is through an average of Unit 1 and Unit 2's PM emission rate.Unit 1 NOx limit is based on a 12-month rolling monthly average.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during Hg Testing on 7/25/2006 was 316.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during HCl and Hf testing on 7/26/2006 was 315.7 F, average of three runs.Unit 2 Flue Gas Temperature during H2SO4 testing on 7/27/2006 was 311.8 F, average of three runs.Unit 1 and 2 Hg test results for concentration i This demonstration project included the evaluation of three additives, powdered activated carbon (PAC), CaCl2, and a proprietary additive (SEA2). The addition of calcium chloride enhanced mercury oxidation across the SCR at concentration of 625 ppm, mercury removal increased to 84% from baseline. The addition of PAC alone provided a removal efficiency of 70% from baseling at an injection rate of 8lb/Macf. The use of PAC at 2lbs/Macf combined with SEA2 at 0.0125 lb/lb carbon pushed mercury removal to 95% from baseline. Overall mercury emissions were reduced from 7.9 lb/Tbtu to 0.5 lb/Tbtu. This was a short-term test only, the maximum removal was over a 4-hour period only, and may not be indictative of long-term results.For the mercury demonstation project no cost data was made available as part of this demonstation. KCP&L does not have access to that cost data.Hawthorn Unit 5A is equipped with a mercury continous emission monitor in the stack. However, since the CAMR rule was voided the monito No record of any

guarantees on the PM control device when orignially installed on the unit. There were no coal samples taken during the 2005 and 2006 Acid Gas and Mercury stack testing.In March and May of 2007 KCP&L performed PM stack testing on all three Montrose units as part of a PM CAM Plan required with the renewal of our Title V Operating Permit. The testing was to correlate stack testing results with readings from continuous particulate emission monitors located in each of the unit ducts. This PM testing is not being reported since the testing was performed at particulate loading levels not representative of normal operations. To establish the correlation we needed to take reading with opacity at very low levels and then at artificially high levels, we do not believe the data from this testing represents PM emission levels at normal operation. The testing was for PM only and no tests were done of PM10 filterable or condensable, or of PM 2.5.Both of the stacks at Montrose have continuou

KCP&L is the majority

owner and operator of this unit, there are other co-owners.SCR uses anhydrous ammonia so no percentage is reported.Sampling ports are designated by location and the number in ( ) is the number of ports at that location.PM10 Limit listed of .0244 lbs/mmbtu is both filterable and condensable.The mercury emission limits are actually applied only

to vapor phase mercury and are listed in the permit at 39 X 10-6 lbs/gross megawatt hour on an annual rolling average, and 210 pounds per year from Unit 1 and the new Unit 2 combined, once it comes on line.Iatan performed PM stratification testing in November 2005 in contemplation of a CAM plan for PM. The stratification testing only produced data correlating stack tester data with CEMs data over varying points. W e have not submitted this data. It was performed on the old, now retired, stack configuration.HAP Control Technology (non-demonstration) we do not have capital dollars for the ACI project specifically. The cos

Page 14facility _contacts

facility _id contact_id contact_title contact_name

contact_phone1

contact_phone2

contact_email

contact_primary 1241 5 Senior Environm ental Consultant Dan Haas 8165562998 dan.haas@kcpl.com TRUE 2079 3 Senior Environm ental Consultant Dan Haas 8165562998 dan.haas@kcpl.com TRUE 2080 6 Senior Environm ental Consultant Dan Haas 8165562998 dan.haas@kcpl.com TRUE 2094 1 Senior Environm ental Consultant Dan Haas 8165562998 dan.haas@kcpl.com TRUE 2098 2 Senior Environm ental Consultant Dan Haas 8165562998 dan.haas@kcpl.com TRUE 6065 4 Senior Environm ental Consultant Dan Haas 8165562998 dan.haas@kcpl.com TRUE

Page 15facility _coal_utilized

facility _id coal_type percentage_mass percentage_btu

synfuel_type

coal_note 1241 bitum inous 11.8 14.6 1241 subbituminous 88.2 85.4 2079 subbituminous 100 100 2080 subbituminous 100 100 2094 bitum inous 15 15 2094 subbituminous 85 85 2098 bitum inous 11 15 2098 subbituminous 89 85 6065 subbituminous 100 100

Page 16facility _oil_utilized

facility _id oil_type percentage_volume percentage_btu

other_type 1241 No.2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 100 100 2080 No.2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 100 100 6065 No.2 Fuel Oil (distillate) 100 100

Page 17facility _other_materials

facility _id other_material

permitted_burn

actually _burn other_quantity

other_quantity

_units other_note rcra_utilize rcra_explain 1241 Shredded Railroad Ties

TRUE FALSE 0 tons/year Permitted to burn railrod ties but did not burn in 2009, not in the past five years. No 1241 Used Oil TRUE TRUE 2100 num ber/year Gallons per year

No 2080 Boiler Chem ical Clean W aste

TRUE TRUE 0 tons/year Boiler clean is only done once every

6 to 8 years and that is the only tim e it is burned. W hen cleaned the waste amounts to around 600 tons. No 2094 BioMass Fuel Pellets

TRUE TRUE 2349 tons/year This was a one-time test burn of biofuel pellets. Amounted to much less than 1% of annual Btus. Special permission provided by the state for this one time burn. No 2094 Boiler Cleaning Solutions

TRUE TRUE 0 tons/year Boiler Cleaning occurs on an infrequent basis once every 6 - 8 years. This would be the only tim e this material is burned. No 2094 Propane TRUE TRUE 4236 num ber/year Propane burn is in Barrels/Year. Amounted to much less than 1% of annual Btus. 2094 Tire Derived Fuel

TRUE TRUE 378 tons/year Am ounted to much less than 1% of annual Btus. No 2098 Boiler Cleaning Solutions

TRUE TRUE 0 tons/year Boiler Clean only occurs infrequently, every 6 to 8 years, that is the only tim e this is burned. No 2098 Tire Derived Fuel

TRUE TRUE 1292 tons/year No

Page 18facility _other_materials

rcra_explain

Propane burn is in Barrels/Year. Amounted to much less than 1% of annual Btus.

Page 19boiler_information

facility _id boiler_id boiler_type boiler_other bottom_design

design_fuel heat_input max_heat_input MW e_capacity 1241 1 Cyclone firing Wet Bottom coal 8850 8850 893 1241 2 Wa ll firing - opposed firing Dry Bottom coal 7700 7700 685 2079 5A Wa ll firing - opposed firing Dry Bottom coal 6300 6600 594 2080 1 Tangential firing Dry Bottom coal 1668 2140 188 2080 2 Tangential firing Dry Bottom coal 1668 2130 188 2080 3 Tangential firing Dry Bottom coal 1640 2250 188 2094 1 Cyclone firing Wet Bottom coal 609.6 609.6 55 2094 2 Cyclone firing Wet Bottom coal 627.3 627.3 51 2094 3 Cyclone firing Wet Bottom coal 4094.1 4094.1 419 2098 6 Cyclone firing Wet Bottom coal 980 980 99 6065 1 Wa ll firing - opposed firing Dry Bottom coal 7800 7800 726

Page 20boiler_information

MW e_net_capacity

design_gross_efficiency

operating_gross_efficiency

design_pressure

operating_pressure

design_temp

operating_temp

design_reheat_multiple

design_reheat_temp1 736 87.93 85 3825 3425 1010 1010 FALSE 1005 682 84.97 82 2820 2450 1005 1005 FALSE 1005 563 86.58 87.6 2500 2400 1010 1010 FALSE 1005 170 59 59 1800 1800 1005 1005 FALSE 1005 164 59 59 1800 1800 1005 1005 FALSE 1005 176 59 59 1800 1800 1005 1005 FALSE 1005 51 88 88 1300 1300 950 950 FALSE 51 88 88 1300 1300 950 950 FALSE 364 89 89 3653 3653 1005 1005 FALSE 1005 99 88 88 2020 2020 1005 1055 FALSE 1055 706 85.05 86.7 2620 2400 1005 1005 FALSE 1005

Page 21boiler_information

design_reheat_temp2

operating_reheat_multiple

operating_reheat_temp1

operating_reheat_temp2

hours_operated

vg_capacity

_factor applicable_NSPS

retirement_year

retirement_year_CBI FALSE 1005 7303 79.7 N TRUE FALSE 1005 7956 81.7 Subpart D TRUE FALSE 1007 7733 77.78 Subpart Da(1) TRUE FALSE 1005 7769 67.7 N TRUE FALSE 1005 8367 73.6 N TRUE FALSE 1005 8351 73.3 N TRUE FALSE 8060 78 N TRUE FALSE 7920 76.4 N TRUE FALSE 1005 6637 62.6 N TRUE FALSE 1055 7839 71 N TRUE FALSE 1005 6707 69.73 Subpart D TRUE

Page 22boiler_information

NOx_control

SO2_control

combustion_additives Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No

Page 23boiler_fuels

facility _id boiler_id fuel_type fuel_year percentage_massvol percentage_btu

other_type 1241 1 coal - bituminous2007 10.2 12.6 1241 1 coal - bituminous2008 10 12.3 1241 1 coal - bituminous2009 11.8 14.5 1241 1 coal - subbituminous 2007 89.8 87.2 1241 1 coal - subbituminous 2008 90 87.3 1241 1 coal - subbituminous 2009 88.2 85.3 1241 1 oil - distillate 2007 0 0.2 1241 1 oil - distillate 2008 0 0.4 1241 1 oil - distillate 2009 0 0.2 1241 2 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 99.8 1241 2 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 99.8 1241 2 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 99.8 1241 2 oil - distillate 2007 0 0.2 1241 2 oil - distillate 2008 0 0.2 1241 2 oil - distillate 2009 0 0.2 2079 5A coal - subbituminous 2007 0 99.8 2079 5A coal - subbituminous 2008 0 99.6 2079 5A coal - subbituminous 2009 0 99.8 2079 5A natural gas 2007 0 0.2 2079 5A natural gas 2008 0 0.4 2079 5A natural gas 2009 0 0.2 2080 1 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 99.6 2080 1 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 99.6 2080 1 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 99.6 2080 1 oil - distillate 2007 0 0.4 2080 1 oil - distillate 2008 0 0.4 2080 1 oil - distillate 2009 0 0.4 2080 2 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 99.6 2080 2 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 99.6 2080 2 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 99.6 2080 2 oil - distillate 2007 0 0.4 2080 2 oil - distillate 2008 0 0.4 2080 2 oil - distillate 2009 0 0.4 2080 3 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 99.6 2080 3 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 99.6 2080 3 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 99.6 2080 3 oil - distillate 2007 0 0.4 2080 3 oil - distillate 2008 0 0.4 2080 3 oil - distillate 2009 0 0.4 2094 1 coal - bituminous2007 0 20 2094 1 coal - bituminous2008 0 20 2094 1 coal - bituminous2009 0 15 2094 1 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 80 2094 1 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 80 2094 1 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 85 2094 2 coal - bituminous2007 0 20 2094 2 coal - bituminous2008 0 20 2094 2 coal - bituminous2009 0 15 2094 2 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 80 2094 2 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 80 2094 2 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 85

Page 24boiler_fuels

2094 3 coal - bituminous2007 0 20 2094 3 coal - bituminous2008 0 20 2094 3 coal - bituminous2009 0 10 2094 3 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 80 2094 3 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 80 2094 3 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 90 2098 6 coal - bituminous2007 0 12.6 2098 6 coal - bituminous2008 0 12.4 2098 6 coal - bituminous2009 0 12.8 2098 6 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 84.2 2098 6 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 83 2098 6 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 85.4 2098 6 natural gas 2007 0 2.1 2098 6 natural gas 2008 0 3.6 2098 6 natural gas 2009 0 0.5 2098 6 other non-fossil fuel (specify) 2007 0 1.1 Tire-Derived Fuel 2098 6 other non-fossil fuel (specify) 2008 0 1 Tire-Derived FuelTire Derived Fuel 2098 6 other non-fossil fuel (specify) 2009 0 1.3 Tire-Derived Fuel 6065 1 coal - subbituminous 2007 0 99.8 6065 1 coal - subbituminous 2008 0 99.9 6065 1 coal - subbituminous 2009 0 99.6 6065 1 oil - distillate 2007 0 0.2 6065 1 oil - distillate 2008 0 0.1 6065 1 oil - distillate 2009 0 0.4

Page 25boiler_fuels

Page 26boiler_fuels

Tire-Derived FuelTire Derived Fuel

Page 27boiler_control_NOx

facility _id boiler_id NOx_type NOx_other NOx_online 1241 1 Overfire Air 3/1/2000 1241 2 Low NOx Burner 2/1/1977 2079 5A Low NOx Burner 5/1/2001 2079 5A Overfire Air 5/1/2001 2094 1 Overfire Air 5/1/2002 2094 2 Overfire Air 5/1/2002 2094 3 Overfire Air 5/1/1999 2098 6 Overfire Air 6/1/2002 6065 1 Advanced Overfire Air 2/1/2009 6065 1 Low NOx Burner 2/1/2009

Page 28boiler_control_SO2

facility _id boiler_id SO2_type SO2_other SO2_online 2079 5A Low Sulfur Coal 5/1/2001 6065 1 Low Sulfur Coal 2/1/2009 6065 1 Low Sulfur Fuel Oil 2/1/2009

Page 29boiler_additives

facility _id boiler_id boiler_additive additive_other

additive_online

Page 30facility _units

facility _id unit_id 1241 1 1241 2 2079 5A 2080 1 2080 2 2080 3 2094 1 2094 2 2094 3 2098 6 6065 1

Page 31unit_boilers

facility _id unit_id boiler_id 1241 1 1 1241 2 2 2079 5A 5A 2080 1 1 2080 2 2 2080 3 3 2094 1 1 2094 2 2 2094 3 3 2098 6 6 6065 1 1

Page 32facility _controls

facility _id control_id control_group control_type

control_other

legacy _control cntrol_online

control_offline

NOx_reagent 1241 ESP1 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 3/1/1977 1241 SCR1 NOx control Selective Cataly

tic Reduction FALSE 7/1/2007 Am mo nia 1241 WS C1 SO2 control Venturi type FALSE 3/1/1973 1241 WS cbr1 PM control PM scrubber - Venturi FALSE 3/1/1973 2079 FF1 PM control Fabric Filter, pulse FALSE 5/1/2001 2079 FGD1 SO2 control Spray dryer type FALSE 5/1/2001 2079 SCR1 NOx control Selective Cataly

tic Reduction FALSE 5/1/2001 Am mo nia 2080 ESP1 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 6/1/1958 2080 ESP2 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 3/1/1960 2080 ESP3 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 3/1/1964 2080 SO31 Other control Other (specify)

SO3 injection for Opacity control. FALSE 5/1/1993 2080 SO32 Other control Other (specify)

SO3 injection for Opacity control. FALSE 5/1/1993 2080 SO33 Other control Other (specify)

SO3 injection for opacity control. FALSE 5/1/1993 2094 ESP1 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 1/1/1990 2094 ESP2 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 1/1/1990 2094 ESP3 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 4/1/1993 2094 SCR3 NOx control Selective Cataly

tic Reduction FALSE 1/1/2009 Urea to Ammonia conversion 2094 SNCR1 NOx control Selective Noncataly

tic Reduction FALSE 5/1/2008 Urea to Ammonia conversion 2094 SNCR2 NOx control Selective Noncataly

tic Reduction FALSE 5/1/2008 Urea to Ammonia conversion 2098 ESP-2 PM control Electrostatic precipitator, cold side, w/o flue gas conditioning FALSE 7/1/1995 6065 ACI1 Other control Activated carbon injection FALSE 10/1/2009 6065 BH1 PM control Fabric Filter, pulse FALSE 2/1/2009 6065 FGD1 SO2 control Spray type FALSE 2/1/2009 6065 SCR1 NOx control Selective Cataly

tic Reduction FALSE 2/1/2009 Am mo nia

Page 33facility _controls

reagent_other

NOx_ammonia

SO2_sorbent

oher_sorbent

SO2_scrubber_additive

Lim estone No

Lim e and alkaline fly

ash No

Urea to Ammonia conversion Urea to Ammonia conversion Urea to Ammonia conversion

Lim estone No

Page 34facility _sampling_ports

facility _id sampling_port_id 1241 SP1A 1241 SP1B 1241 SP1C 1241 SP2A 1241 SP2B 1241 SP2C 1241 SP2D 2079 Dct1 2079 Dct2 2079 Dct3 2079 Dct4 2079 SP1 2079 SP2 2079 SP3 2079 SP4 2079 SP5 2079 SP6 2080 SP1A 2080 SP1B 2080 SP2A 2080 SP2B 2080 SP3A 2080 SP3B 2080 SP4A 2080 SP4B 2080 SPD1 2080 SPD2 2080 SPD3 2094 SP1 2094 SP2 2094 SP3 2094 SP4 2098 SP1 2098 SP2 2098 SP3 6065 AbsorbIn(10) 6065 Absorbout(2) 6065 FFIn(9) 6065 FFOut(8) 6065 IDFanIn(10) 6065 IDFanOut(10) 6065 SCRIn(18) 6065 SCROut(12) 6065 Stack(4)

Page 35facility _stacks

facility _id stack_id stack_height stack_diameter

sack_gas_velocity 1241 S1 700 23 108 1241 S2 700 24 92 2079 S5A 602 20.27 88.1 2080 S1 450.5 10.25 120 2080 SCS2-3 446.5 15 120 2094 S1 696 13.35 169 2098 S6 225 9.5 80 6065 S1 615 28.5 65

Page 36configurations

facility _id configuration_id 1241 1 1241 2 2079 5A 2080 1 2080 2 2080 3 2094 1 2094 2 2094 3 2098 6 6065 1

Page 37configuration_components

facility _id configuration_id

component_id

order component_type port_near 1241 1 1 1 Unit 1241 1 S1 6 Stack 1241 1 SCR1 2 NOx control 1241 1 SP1A 5 Sam pling Port next 1241 1 SP1B 5 Sam pling Port next 1241 1 SP1C 5 Sam pling Port next 1241 1 WS C1 4 SO2 control 1241 1 WS cbr1 3 PM control 1241 2 2 1 Unit 1241 2 ESP1 2 PM control 1241 2 S2 4 Stack 1241 2 SP2A 3 Sam pling Port next 1241 2 SP2B 3 Sam pling Port next 1241 2 SP2C 3 Sam pling Port next 1241 2 SP2D 3 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A 5A 1 Unit 2079 5A Dct1 4 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A Dct2 4 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A Dct3 4 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A Dct4 4 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A FF1 5 PM control 2079 5A FGD1 3 SO2 control 2079 5A S5A 7 Stack 2079 5A SCR1 2 NOx control 2079 5A SP1 6 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A SP2 6 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A SP3 6 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A SP4 6 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A SP5 6 Sam pling Port next 2079 5A SP6 6 Sam pling Port next 2080 1 1 1 Unit 2080 1 ESP1 3 PM control 2080 1 S1 6 Stack 2080 1 SO31 2 Other control 2080 1 SP1A 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 1 SP2A 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 1 SP3A 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 1 SP4A 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 1 SPD1 4 Sam pling Port next 2080 2 2 1 Unit 2080 2 ESP2 3 PM control 2080 2 SCS2-3 6 Stack 2080 2 SO32 2 Other control 2080 2 SP1B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 2 SP2B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 2 SP3B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 2 SP4B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 2 SPD2 4 Sam pling Port next 2080 3 3 1 Unit 2080 3 ESP3 3 PM control 2080 3 SCS2-3 6 Stack

Page 38configuration_components

2080 3 SO33 2 Other control 2080 3 SP1B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 3 SP2B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 3 SP3B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 3 SP4B 5 Sam pling Port next 2080 3 SPD3 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 1 1 1 Unit 2094 1 ESP1 3 PM control 2094 1 S1 5 Stack 2094 1 SNCR1 2 NOx control 2094 1 SP1 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 1 SP2 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 1 SP3 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 1 SP4 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 2 2 1 Unit 2094 2 ESP2 3 PM control 2094 2 S1 5 Stack 2094 2 SNCR2 2 NOx control 2094 2 SP1 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 2 SP2 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 2 SP3 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 2 SP4 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 3 3 1 Unit 2094 3 ESP3 3 PM control 2094 3 S1 5 Stack 2094 3 SCR3 2 NOx control 2094 3 SP1 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 3 SP2 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 3 SP3 4 Sam pling Port next 2094 3 SP4 4 Sam pling Port next 2098 6 6 1 Unit 2098 6 ESP-2 2 PM control 2098 6 S6 4 Stack 2098 6 SP1 3 Sam pling Port next 2098 6 SP2 3 Sam pling Port next 2098 6 SP3 3 Sam pling Port next 6065 1 1 1 Unit 6065 1 AbsorbIn(10) 11 Sam pling Port next 6065 1 Absorbout(2) 13 Sam pling Port pevious 6065 1 ACI1 5 Other control 6065 1 BH1 7 PM control 6065 1 FFIn(9) 6 Sam pling Port next 6065 1 FFOut(8) 8 Sam pling Port pevious 6065 1 FGD1 12 SO2 control 6065 1 IDFanIn(10) 9 Sam pling Port pevious 6065 1 IDFanOut(10) 10 Sam pling Port next 6065 1 S1 15 Stack 6065 1 SCR1 3 NOx control 6065 1 SCRIn(18) 2 Sam pling Port next 6065 1 SCROut(12) 4 Sam pling Port pevious 6065 1 Stack(4) 14 Sam pling Port next

Page 39configuration_pollutants1

facility _id configuration_id

pollutant_nam e

permit_type_1

em lim it_1 em lim it_units_1 avg_period_1

em lim it_2 em lim it_units_2 2079 5A Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

30 days 0.1 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) 2079 5A PM10 (Filterable) Fedral - Title V Operating Permit

0.018 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2079 5A Carbon Monoxide (CO) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.16 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2079 5A VOCs Federal - Title V Operating Permit 0.0036 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2079 5A Lead (Pb) Federal - Title V Operating Permit 0.6 tons per year (tons/yr)

annual 2080 1 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.2 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2080 1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

3.9 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

24 hours 2080 1 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Federal Operating Permit

0.45 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

annual 2080 2 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.2 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2080 2 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

3.9 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

24 hours 2080 2 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.45 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

annual 2080 3 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.2 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2080 3 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.45 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

annual 2080 3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

3.9 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

24 hours 2098 6 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

1400 pound per hour (lb/hr)

24 hours 2079 5A Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.12 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

30 days 0.54 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) 2098 6 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.15 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 1241 1 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.12 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 1241 1 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.15 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

annual 1241 1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

3 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 1241 2 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.1 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 0.12 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) 1241 2 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

1.2 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 1241 2 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.7 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2094 1 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.12 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

1 hour 2094 1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

9 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2094 2 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.12 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

1 hour 2094 2 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

9 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2094 3 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.12 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

1 hour 2094 3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

9 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 2094 3 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.86 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

annual 6065 1 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.09 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

30 days 6065 1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.07 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

30 days 4212 pound per hour (lb/hr) 6065 1 PM10 (Filterable) Fedral - Title V Operating Permit

0.0244 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

30 days 0.014 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) 6065 1 PM (Filterable) Fderal - Title V Operating Permit

0.015 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 6065 1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.16 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

30 days 6065 1 VOCs Federal - Title V Operating Permit 0.0036 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 6065 1 Total Mercury (Hgt) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.039 pound per Gigawatt hour (lb/GW h)

annual 0.105 tons per year (tons/yr) 6065 1 Sulfuric Acid Federal - Title V Operating Permit

0.0052 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours 6065 1 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Federal - Title V Operating Permit

33.15 pound per hour (lb/hr)

3 hours 6065 1 Lead (Pb) Federal - Title V Operating Permit 5.93E-06 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

3 hours

Page 40configuration_pollutants1

avg_period_2

em lim it_3 em lim it_units_3 avg_period_3

em lim it_4 em lim it_units_4 avg_period_4

em lim it_details

test_method 24 hours 3-hour averaging period refers to reference method stack testing on annual basis. Annual Stack Test CO compliance mechanism is annual stack test. 3-hour averaging period is the period of time required to do a stack test under the reference method. Compliance mechanism is annual stack test, 3-hour averaging period is the required time for stack testing under reference method.

24 hours 1.6 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) 3 hours Compliance mechanism is stack test. 3-hour averaging period refers to 3-hour stack test under the reference method.

3 hours Facility-wide average.

24 hours 6630 pound per hour (lb/hr) 3 hours 3 hours

Compliance mechanism is a stack test. The 3-hour averaging period refers to the 3-hour stack testing under the reference method. annual Compliance mechanism is a stack test. The 3-hour averaging period refers to a 3-hour stack test under the reference method. Compliance mechanism for Hf is a stack test. The three-hour averaging period refers to the traditional 3-hour stack test under the reference method. Compliance mechanism is a stack test. The 3-hour averaging period refers to the the 3-hours a stack test takes under the reference method.

Page 41configuration_pollutants1

em rate em rate_units guarantee_level

_explain

req_monitoring

eq_recordkeeping

req_reporting 0.08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Most recent SCR catalyst replacement. Part 75 CEMS

Maintain all records required Under 40 CFR Part 75

Quarterly

Excess Emission Reports.Report any exceedence within 10 days. 0.012 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Most recent bag replacement. Monitor pressure drop across baghouse every 15 minutes. Maintain copies of annual stack test showing compliance.Maintain record of baghouse pressure drops.

Report any

exceedence within 10 days. 0.1 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No None Maintain copies of annual stack test showing compliance. Report any

exceedence within 10 days. 0.0036 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No None Maintain copies of annual stack test showing compliance Report any

exceedence within 10 days. No None Monitor monthly coal burn and calculate emissions Maintain m onthly

and rolling 12-month mass emissions from coal burn. Report any

exeedence within 10 days. No PM Monitor in Duct as an indicator of compliance under CAM Plan. Record of hourly

PM em ission rate from monitor. Quarterly

report of excursions and exceedences as defined in CAM Plan.Report any exceedence within 10 days. No Certified Part 75 SO2 CEMS Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75

Quarterly

CEM EDRS.Quarterly excess emission report. No See Note Section Certified Part 75 NOx CEMS

Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75.

Quarterly

CEM EDRs. No PM m onitor in duct as an indicator of compliance under CAM Plan Maintain hourly

ecords from PM monitor. Quarterly

excursion and exceedence report.Report any exceedence within 10 days. No Part 75 SO2 CEMS Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75.

Quarterly

CEMS EDR reports.Quarerly excess emissions report. No See Notes Part 75 NOx CEMS. Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75

Quarterly

CEMS EDR reports. No PM m onitor in duct as an indicator of compliance under CAM Plan. Hourly PM readings from PM monitor. Quarterly

report excursions and exceedences of PM limit.Report any exceedence within 10 days. No See Notes Part 75 NOx CEMS. Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75.

Quarterly

CEMS EDRs. No Part 75 SO2 CEMS. Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75.

Quarterly

CEMS EDRs.Quarterly Excess Emissions report. No Part 75 SO2 CEMS. Maintain all records required by 40 CFR Part 75. Quarterly

Excess Emission and Compliance Report. 0.1 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Part 75 CEMS Maintain all records required under 40 CFR Part 75.

Quarterly

Excess Emission Reports.Report any exceedence within 10 days. Compliance mechanism is stack test. 3-hour averaging period refers to 3-hour stack test under the reference method. No ESP param eters specified in operating permit. Maintain records required by operating permit. Quarterly

Excess Emission and Compliance report. No Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission reports. Report any exceedences within 48 hours. 0.08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Certified Part 75 CEMS. Monthly average NOx rate with calculation of rolling 12-month average. All Requirem ents under 40 CFR Part 75 for CEMS. Rolling 12-month record of monthly averages. Quarterly

report any

tim e 12-month rolling NOx average exceeds .1275 lbs/mmbtu. Semi-annual Compliance Report. Report within 48 hours any exceedence of limit. No Certified Part 75 CEMS. All requirem ents under 40 CFR Part 75 for CEMS.

Sem i-annual excess emissions report for SO2. Report any exceedences within 48 hours. No Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission reports. Any exceedence of individual or facility-wide lim it m ust be reported within 48-hours. No 40 CFR Part 75 Certified CEMS. Maintain all records required by 40 CFR Part 75. Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission report. Report any exceedence of limit within 48 hours. No 40 CFR Part 75 Certified CEMS. Maintain all records required by 40 CFR Part 75. Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission report. Report any exceedence of limit within 48 hours. PM continuous emission monitors as part of CAM Plan serve as an indicator of ESP performance.

PM CEMS and required operating permit records.

Subm it quarterly

excess emission reports listing PM excursions and exceedences. Report any exceedence of limit within 48 hours. 40 CFR Part 75 CEMS.

Maintain all requirem ents of a certified Part 75 CEMS.

Quarterly

Excess Emission reports. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. PM continous emission monitors installed as part of CAM plan as indicators of ESP performance.

Maintain records from PM CEMS and required operating permit records.

Quarterly

excess emission reports for excursions and exceedences of CAM correlation limits. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. 40 CFR Part 75 CEMS.

Maintain all records required by Part 75 CEMS. Quarterly

Excess Emission reports. Report any exceedence within 48-hours. PM continuous emission monitor as part of CAM plan as an indicator of ESP performance.

Maintain PM CEMS records and required operating permit records.

Quarterly

excess emission reports for any excursions or exceedences as defined in CAM plan. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. 40 CFR Part 75 CEMS.

Maintain all records required by fully certified Part 75 CEMS. Quarterly

excess emission reports. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. 40 CFR Part 75 CEMS.

Maintain all records required by fully certified Part 75 CEMS. Report any

exceedence within 48 hours. 0.07 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Continuous Emission Monitors Maintain data and required QA for CEMS

Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. 0.021 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Continuous Emission Monitors Maintain data and required QA for CEMS

Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. 0.02 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Continuous Emission Monitors plus a stack test factor. Maintain data and required QA for CEMS.

Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. 0.012 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No Continuous Emission Monitors Maintain data and required QA for CEMS

Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. 100 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd) No Less than 100 ppm. Continuous Emission Monitors

Maintain data and required QA for CEMS

Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Compliance mechanism is a stack test. The 3-hour averaging period refers to the 3-hour stack testing under the reference method. No No guarantee None None Perform and report compliance stack test every two years. 1.5 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu)

No Continuous Emission Monitors Maintain data and required QA for CEMS

Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. 0.005 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No None None Perform and report compliance stack test every two years. Compliance mechanism for Hf is a stack test. The three-hour averaging period refers to the traditional 3-hour stack test under the reference method. No No specific guarantee given. None None Perform and report compliance stack test every two years. 5.5E-06 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu)

No None None Perform and report compliance stack test every two years.

Page 42configuration_pollutants1

Quarterly

Excess Emission Reports.Report any exceedence within 10 days. Report any

exceedence within 10 days. Report any

exceedence within 10 days. Report any

exceedence within 10 days. Report any

exeedence within 10 days. Quarterly

report of excursions and exceedences as defined in CAM Plan.Report any exceedence within 10 days. Quarterly

CEM EDRS.Quarterly excess emission report.

Quarterly

excursion and exceedence report.Report any exceedence within 10 days. Quarterly

CEMS EDR reports.Quarerly excess emissions report.

Quarterly

report excursions and exceedences of PM limit.Report any exceedence within 10 days.

Quarterly

CEMS EDRs.Quarterly Excess Emissions report. Quarterly

Excess Emission and Compliance Report. Quarterly

Excess Emission Reports.Report any exceedence within 10 days. Quarterly

Excess Emission and Compliance report. Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission reports. Report any exceedences within 48 hours. Quarterly

report any

tim e 12-month rolling NOx average exceeds .1275 lbs/mmbtu. Semi-annual Compliance Report. Report within 48 hours any exceedence of limit. Sem i-annual excess emissions report for SO2. Report any exceedences within 48 hours. Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission reports. Any exceedence of individual or facility-wide lim it m ust be reported within 48-hours. Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission report. Report any exceedence of limit within 48 hours. Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission report. Report any exceedence of limit within 48 hours. Subm it quarterly

excess emission reports listing PM excursions and exceedences. Report any exceedence of limit within 48 hours. Quarterly

Excess Emission reports. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. Quarterly

excess emission reports for excursions and exceedences of CAM correlation limits. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. Quarterly

Excess Emission reports. Report any exceedence within 48-hours. Quarterly

excess emission reports for any excursions or exceedences as defined in CAM plan. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. Quarterly

excess emission reports. Report any exceedence within 48 hours. Report any

exceedence within 48 hours. Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Perform and report compliance stack test every two years. Sem i-annual excess emission and compliance reporting. Report any exceedence within 10 days. Perform and report compliance stack test every two years. Perform and report compliance stack test every two years. Perform and report compliance stack test every two years.

Page 43configuration_pollutants1

Quarterly

report any

tim e 12-month rolling NOx average exceeds .1275 lbs/mmbtu. Semi-annual Compliance Report. Report within 48 hours any exceedence of limit.

Sem i-annual compliance and excess emission reports. Any exceedence of individual or facility-wide lim it m ust be reported within 48-hours.

Page 44control_technologies

facility _id configuration_id

component_id

control_id project_titleproject_type vendor_name

vndor_contact

vendor_phone 2079 5A 5A 1 Large-Scale Testing of Enhanced Mercury Removal at Hawthorn Unit 5 Demonstration

Energy & Environm ental Research Center (EERC) Jas Laumb

7017775114 6065 1 1 1 Activated Carbon Injection Unit 1 Non-Demonstration

Alstom Power Inc.

Gary Lexa

Page 45control_technologies

vendor_address

vndor_city

vendor_state

vendor_zip actual_start_date projected_start_date

end_date sorbent chemical_additive University

of North 15 North 23rd StreetP.O. Box 9018 Grand Forks

ND 58202 5/1/2005 9/6/2006 PAC and Halogenated PAC Calcium Chloride 2000 Day

Hill Rd. Wi nsor CT 06095 ######## Powdered Activated Carbon None

Page 46control_technologies

injection_point

HAP_em ission_reduction

HAP_em ission_rate

HAP_em ission_rate_units

HAP_achieved_reduction

HAP_achieved_rate

HAP_achieved_rate_units

feed_rate feed_rate_units After the SCR and Air heater and prior to the dry scrubber. Chemical additive was added to the coal prior to delivery into plant. 90 0.79 lb/TBtu 95 0.5 lb/TBtu After the SCR and before the fabric filter 15 lb/TBtu 0.294 lb/TBtu 510 lb/hr

Page 47control_technologies

feed_rate_units

Page 48control_coal_ranks

facility _id configuration_id

component_id

control_id coal_type 2079 5A 5A 1 subbituminous 6065 1 1 1 subbituminous

Page 49control_pollutants1

facility _id configuration_id

component_id

control_id pollutant_nam e 2079 5A 5A 1 Total Mercury (Hgt) 6065 1 1 1 Total Mercury (Hgt)

Page 50control_costs

facility _id configuration_id

component_id

control_id boiler_retrofit boiler_new_install

total_capital_investm ent

total_operating_costs

base_year 2079 5A 5A 1 Yes No 6065 1 1 1 Yes 460000 2009

Page 51control_costs

CBI TRUE FALSE

Page 52mi sc_controls

facility _id mi sc_control_id

control_description

Page 53mi sc_control_configurations

facility _id mi sc_control_id

configuration_id

Page 54fuel_shipments

facility _id shipment_id

shipment_date

am ount_received

am ount_units

fuel_type state_country other_country

county 1241 Apr-Train 4/1/2009 233367 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Apr-Truck 4/1/2009 18468 short tons (2000 lbs) coal KS KS - Linn 1241 Aug-Train 8/1/2009 289540 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Aug-Truck 8/1/2009 17860 short tons (2000 lbs) coal KS KS - Linn 1241 Dec-Train 12/1/2009 327482 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Dec-Truck 12/1/2009 23044 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 1241 Feb-Train 2/1/2009 274801 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Feb-Truck 2/1/2009 18703 short tons (2000 lbs) coal KS KS - Linn 1241 Jan-Train 1/1/2009 429453 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Jan-Truck 1/1/2009 21496 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 1241 Jul-Train 7/1/2009 279723 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Jul-Truck 7/1/2009 17194 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 1241 Jun-Train 6/1/2009 353074 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Jun-Truck 6/1/2009 17810 short tons (2000 lbs) coal KS KS - Linn 1241 Mar-Train 3/1/2009 287661 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Mar-Truck 3/1/2009 16959 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 1241 May-Train 5/1/2009 160865 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 May-Truck 5/1/2009 16768 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 1241 Nov-Train 11/1/2009 395974 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Nov-Truck 11/1/2009 23508 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 1241 Oct-Train 10/1/2009 342422 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Oct-Truck 10/1/2009 20001 short tons (2000 lbs) coal KS KS - Linn 1241 Sep-Train 9/1/2009 375365 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 1241 Sep-Truck 9/1/2009 22249 short tons (2000 lbs) coal MO MO - Bates 2079 April 4/1/2009 113376 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 August 8/1/2009 149234 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 December 12/1/2009 110238 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 February 2/1/2009 135465 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 January 1/1/2009 178323 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 July 7/1/2009 146541 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 June 6/1/2009 114628 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 March 3/1/2009 55639 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 May 5/1/2009 170955 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 Novem ber 11/1/2009 69397 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 October 10/1/2009 149438 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2079 Septem ber 9/1/2009 173166 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 April 4/1/2009 75036 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 August 8/1/2009 148616 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 December 12/1/2009 117439 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 February 2/1/2009 108592 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 January 1/1/2009 117269 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 July 7/1/2009 150305 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 June 6/1/2009 86667 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 March 3/1/2009 73146 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 May 5/1/2009 107224 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 Novem ber 11/1/2009 107225 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 October 10/1/2009 145889 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2080 Septem ber 9/1/2009 148236 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Apr-Bit 4/1/2009 22736 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Apr-Sub 4/1/2009 47040 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Aug-Bit 8/1/2009 11164 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery

Page 55fuel_shipments

2094 Aug-Sub 8/1/2009 84601 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Dec-Bit 12/1/2009 21768 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Dec-Sub 12/1/2009 81170 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Feb-Bit 2/1/2009 40633 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Feb-Sub 2/1/2009 65048 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Jan-Bit 1/1/2009 11244 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Jan-Sub 1/1/2009 55842 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Jul-Sub 7/1/2009 132252 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Jun-Bit 6/1/2009 23095 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Jun-Sub 6/1/2009 84087 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Mar-Bit 3/1/2009 28620 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Mar-Sub 3/1/2009 55881 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 May-Bit 5/1/2009 34730 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 May-Sub 5/1/2009 112316 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Nov-Bit 11/1/2009 33649 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Nov-Sub 11/1/2009 73539 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Oct-Bit 10/1/2009 22903 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Oct-Sub 10/1/2009 46076 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2094 Sep-Bit 9/1/2009 23268 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2094 Sep-Sub 9/1/2009 103787 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 2098 Apr-Sub 4/1/2009 19387 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Aug-Sub 8/1/2009 45635 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Dec-Sub 12/1/2009 18456 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Feb-Sub 2/1/2009 9524 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Jan-Bit 1/1/2009 10605 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2098 Jan-Sub 1/1/2009 56536 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Jul-Bit 7/1/2009 10608 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2098 Jul-Sub 7/1/2009 17976 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Jun-Sub 6/1/2009 19241 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Mar-Bit 3/1/2009 10557 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2098 Mar-Sub 3/1/2009 9494 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 May-Sub 5/1/2009 29247 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Oct-Sub 10/1/2009 9400 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 2098 Sep-Bit 9/1/2009 10395 short tons (2000 lbs) coal UT UT - Emery 2098 Sep-Sub 9/1/2009 28845 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Converse 6065 April 4/1/2009 136795 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 August 8/1/2009 144993 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 December 12/1/2009 155729 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 February 2/1/2009 110549 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 January 1/1/2009 119662 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 July 7/1/2009 168601 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 June 6/1/2009 169473 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 March 3/1/2009 55385 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 May 5/1/2009 168244 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 Novem ber 11/1/2009 191414 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 October 10/1/2009 224648 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell 6065 Septem ber 9/1/2009 225429 short tons (2000 lbs) coal WY WY - Campbell

Page 56fuel_shipments

coal_seam shipment_method WY - Campbell Unit Train Cottonwood Creek Mine

Trucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Cottonwood Creek Mine

Trucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Cottonwood Creek

Trucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Cottonwood Creek Mine

Trucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Cottonwood Creek Mine

Trucks WY - Campbell Unit Train Hume MineTrucks WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train

Page 57fuel_shipments

WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train UT - Emery Unit Train WY - Converse Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train WY - Campbell Unit Train

Page 58fuel_shipment_configurations

facility _id shipment_id

configuration_id 1241 Apr-Train 1 1241 Apr-Train 2 1241 Apr-Truck 1 1241 Aug-Train 1 1241 Aug-Train 2 1241 Aug-Truck 1 1241 Dec-Train 1 1241 Dec-Train 2 1241 Dec-Truck 1 1241 Feb-Train 1 1241 Feb-Train 2 1241 Feb-Truck 1 1241 Jan-Train 1 1241 Jan-Train 2 1241 Jan-Truck 1 1241 Jul-Train 1 1241 Jul-Train 2 1241 Jul-Truck 1 1241 Jun-Train 1 1241 Jun-Train 2 1241 Jun-Truck 1 1241 Mar-Train 1 1241 Mar-Train 2 1241 Mar-Truck 1 1241 May-Train 1 1241 May-Train 2 1241 May-Truck 1 1241 Nov-Train 1 1241 Nov-Train 2 1241 Nov-Truck 1 1241 Oct-Train 1 1241 Oct-Train 2 1241 Oct-Truck 1 1241 Sep-Train 1 1241 Sep-Train 2 1241 Sep-Truck 1 2079 April 5A 2079 August 5A 2079 December 5A 2079 February 5A 2079 January 5A 2079 July 5A 2079 June 5A 2079 March 5A 2079 May 5A 2079 Novem ber 5A 2079 October 5A 2079 Septem ber 5A 2080 April 1 2080 April 2 2080 April 3

Page 59fuel_shipment_configurations

2080 August 1 2080 August 2 2080 August 3 2080 December 1 2080 December 2 2080 December 3 2080 February 1 2080 February 2 2080 February 3 2080 January 1 2080 January 2 2080 January 3 2080 July 1 2080 July 2 2080 July 3 2080 June 1 2080 June 2 2080 June 3 2080 March 1 2080 March 2 2080 March 3 2080 May 1 2080 May 2 2080 May 3 2080 Novem ber 1 2080 Novem ber 2 2080 Novem ber 3 2080 October 1 2080 October 2 2080 October 3 2080 Septem ber 1 2080 Septem ber 2 2080 Septem ber 3 2094 Apr-Bit 1 2094 Apr-Bit 2 2094 Apr-Bit 3 2094 Apr-Sub 1 2094 Apr-Sub 2 2094 Apr-Sub 3 2094 Aug-Bit 1 2094 Aug-Bit 2 2094 Aug-Bit 3 2094 Aug-Sub 1 2094 Aug-Sub 2 2094 Aug-Sub 3 2094 Dec-Bit 1 2094 Dec-Bit 2 2094 Dec-Bit 3 2094 Dec-Sub 1 2094 Dec-Sub 2 2094 Dec-Sub 3 2094 Feb-Bit 1

Page 60fuel_shipment_configurations

2094 Feb-Bit 2 2094 Feb-Bit 3 2094 Feb-Sub 1 2094 Feb-Sub 2 2094 Feb-Sub 3 2094 Jan-Bit 1 2094 Jan-Bit 2 2094 Jan-Bit 3 2094 Jan-Sub 1 2094 Jan-Sub 2 2094 Jan-Sub 3 2094 Jul-Sub 1 2094 Jul-Sub 2 2094 Jul-Sub 3 2094 Jun-Bit 1 2094 Jun-Bit 2 2094 Jun-Bit 3 2094 Jun-Sub 1 2094 Jun-Sub 2 2094 Jun-Sub 3 2094 Mar-Bit 1 2094 Mar-Bit 2 2094 Mar-Bit 3 2094 Mar-Sub 1 2094 Mar-Sub 2 2094 Mar-Sub 3 2094 May-Bit 1 2094 May-Bit 2 2094 May-Bit 3 2094 May-Sub 1 2094 May-Sub 2 2094 May-Sub 3 2094 Nov-Bit 1 2094 Nov-Bit 2 2094 Nov-Bit 3 2094 Nov-Sub 1 2094 Nov-Sub 2 2094 Nov-Sub 3 2094 Oct-Bit 1 2094 Oct-Bit 2 2094 Oct-Bit 3 2094 Oct-Sub 1 2094 Oct-Sub 2 2094 Oct-Sub 3 2094 Sep-Bit 1 2094 Sep-Bit 2 2094 Sep-Bit 3 2094 Sep-Sub 1 2094 Sep-Sub 2 2094 Sep-Sub 3 2098 Apr-Sub 6 2098 Aug-Sub 6

Page 61fuel_shipment_configurations

2098 Dec-Sub 6 2098 Feb-Sub 6 2098 Jan-Bit 6 2098 Jan-Sub 6 2098 Jul-Bit 6 2098 Jul-Sub 6 2098 Jun-Sub 6 2098 Mar-Bit 6 2098 Mar-Sub 6 2098 May-Sub 6 2098 Oct-Sub 6 2098 Sep-Bit 6 2098 Sep-Sub 6 6065 April 1 6065 August 1 6065 December 1 6065 February 1 6065 January 1 6065 July 1 6065 June 1 6065 March 1 6065 May 1 6065 Novem ber 1 6065 October 1 6065 Septem ber 1

Page 62fuel_shipment_samples

facility _id shipment_id

sample_id am ount_fuel am ount_fuel_units

total_sulfur ash_content heating_value

hating_units

Page 63fuel_shipment_samples

chlorine chlorine_units fluorine fluorine_units data_provided

data_other_specified

supplier_type

supplier_name

supplier_address

Page 64fuel_shipment_samples

supplier_city

supplier_state

supplier_zip

lab_nam e lab_address lab_city lab_state lab_zip analysis_copies

Page 65fuel_shipment_samples

analysis_copies

Page 66fuel_sample_pollutants

facility _id shipment_id

sample_id fuel_pollutant pollutant_conc

pollutant_conc_units

pollutant_conc_ND

pollutant_conc_MDL

Page 67test_reports

facility _id report_id report_type other_type report_description report_begin_date

report_end_date

before_control

during_deviation 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

other For internal analysis La Cgne 1 Acid Gas and Mercury Test Report - June 2005 6/8/2005 6/8/2005 No No 1241 LC1CAMTesting

other Testing in conjunction with CAM Plan. CAM Test Report La Cygne Unit 1 - Nov. 2008 - Baseline Test Results

11/5/2008 11/5/2008 No No 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

other Testing to develop CAM plan for PM emissions. La Cygne 1 Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Plan Test Report - July 2009 7/28/2009 7/28/2009 No No 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 other For Internal analysis. La Cygne 1 Acid Gas Test Report - July 2006 7/24/2006 7/24/2006 No No 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006 La Cygne 1 Acid Gas Testing - July 2006 7/21/2006 7/21/2006 No No 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

other For internal analysis La Cgne 1 Acid Gases and Mercury Test Report - June 2005 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 No No 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

other For internal evaluation and analysis. Acid Gases and Mercury Test Report for La Cygne Unit 1 - July 2006 7/20/2006 7/20/2006 No No 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

other For Internal Analysis La Cygne 1 Particulate Emission Test Report - Feb. 2005

2/1/2005 2/1/2005 No No 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

other For internal analysis La Cgne 2 Acid Gases and Mercury Test - June 2005 6/13/2005 6/13/2005 No No 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

other For Internal analysis La Cygne 2 Acid Gas and Mercury Testing - July

2006 7/27/2006 7/27/2006 No No 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

other For internal analysis La Cgne 2 Acid Gas and Mercury Testing - July

2006 7/26/2006 7/26/2006 No No 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

other For Internal analysis La Cygne 2 Acid Gas and Mercury Test Report - June 2005 6/14/2005 6/14/2005 No No 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

other For internal analysis La Cgne 2 Acid Gas and Mercury Testing - July

2006 7/25/2006 7/25/2006 No No 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

other For internal analysis La Cgne 2 Particulate Emission Test Report - Feb. 2005

2/2/2005 2/2/2005 No No 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

compliance CO, VOC and PM10 Emisssions Test Report - May 2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 No No 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

compliance CO, VOC and PM10 Emissions Test Report - April 2006 4/20/2006 4/20/2006 No No 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

compliance CO, VOC and PM10 Emissions Test Report - April 2007 4/5/2007 4/5/2007 No No 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

compliance CO, VOC and PM10 Compliance Test Report - April 2008 4/3/2008 4/3/2008 No No 2079 2009COTest

compliance CO, VOC and PM10 Compliance Test Report - April 2009 4/29/2009 4/29/2009 No No 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

compliance CO, VOC and PM10 Compliance Test Report - April 2009 4/8/2009 4/9/2009 No No 2079 AcidGasTest2005

other For internal analysis Acid Gases Source Emissions Testing - Hawthorn 5A May 2005 5/4/2005 5/4/2005 No No 2079 AcidGasTest2006

other For internal analysis Acid Gases Source Emissions Test - Hawthorn 5A April 2006

4/19/2006 4/19/2006 No No 2080 M1Oct2006

other Test for Internal information. Montrose 1 Acid Gas and Mercury Test - October 2006 ######## ######## No No 2080 M1OctNov-2005

other Testing for internal analysis. Acid Gases and Mercury Stack Test Unit 1. 11/1/2005 11/1/2005 No No 2080 M2-3Oct2006

other Testing for internal analysis. Montrose 2-3 Acid Gas and Mercury Test Report - October 2006 ######## ######## No No 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

other Testing for internal analysis. Acid Gases and Mercury Test for Montrose Units 1 and CS 2-3. ######## ######## No No 2094 Mercury2008

other For internal analysis Sibley Station Mercury

Test Report - October 2008 10/1/2008 10/1/2008 No No 2094 PM2007 other CAM Plan Correlation Testing Compliance Assurance Monitoring Test Report Correlation Test - Sibley 2007 1/29/2007 2/2/2007 No No 2094 PMOct2008

compliance Relative Response Audit Test Report - Sibley Station October 2008 10/1/2008 10/1/2008 No No 2094 PMSept2009

compliance Relative Response Audit Test Report for Sibley Station - September 2009 9/30/2009 9/30/2009 No No 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 other For Internal Analysis Precipitator performance Test Report for Lake Road 6 plus mercury stack test. 4/22/2005 4/22/2005 Yes No 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 other For Internal Analysis ESP Performace Test Report for Lake Road 6, May 2005. 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 Yes No 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

compliance Compliance Test Report for Iatan Station - July 2009 7/16/2009 7/16/2009 No No 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

other Testing to establish baseline emissions. Sulfuric Acid Mist Source Emissions Test Report - Iatan May 2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 No No 6065 LeadTestOct2009

compliance Lead Em issions Compliance Test Report for Iatan Station - Oct. 2009 10/8/2009 10/8/2009 No No 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

compliance Iatan - Relative Accuracy Test Audit June 2009 6/30/2009 6/30/2009 No No 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

compliance Compliance Test Report for Iatan Station - july 2009 7/15/2009 7/15/2009 No No 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

compliance Compliance Test Report for Iatan Station - July 2009 7/7/2009 7/8/2009 No No 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

compliance Compliance Test Report Iatan Station - July 2009 7/10/2009 7/10/2009 No No

Page 68test_reports

deviation_reports No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Page 69test_report_configurations

facility _id report_id configuration_id 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

1 1241 LC1CAMTesting

1 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

1 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 1 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

1 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

1 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

1 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

1 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

2 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

2 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

2 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

2 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

2 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

2 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

5A 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

5A 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

5A 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

5A 2079 2009COTest

5A 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

5A 2079 AcidGasTest2005

5A 2079 AcidGasTest2006

5A 2080 M1Oct20061 2080 M1OctNov-2005

1 2080 M2-3Oct2006

2 2080 M2-3Oct2006

3 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

2 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

3 2094 Mercury2008

1 2094 Mercury2008

2 2094 Mercury2008

3 2094 PM2007 1 2094 PM2007 2 2094 PM2007 3 2094 PMOct2008

1 2094 PMOct2008

2 2094 PMOct2008

3 2094 PMSept2009

1 2094 PMSept2009

2 2094 PMSept2009

3 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 6 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 6 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

1 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

1 6065 LeadTestOct2009

1 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

1 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

1 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

1 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

1

Page 70test_report_fuels

facility _id report_id fuel_id 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

FuelBlend 1241 LC1CAMTesting

FuelBlend 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

FuelBlend 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 Coal Blend 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

Coal Blend 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

FuelBlend 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

Coal Blend 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

FuelBlend 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

WyoSubbit 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

WyoSubbit 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

WyoSubbit 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

WyoSubbit 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

WyoSubbit 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

WySubbit 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

WySubBit 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

WySubbit 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

WySubbit 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

WySubbit 2079 2009COTest

WySubbit 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

WyoSubbit 2079 AcidGasTest2005

WyoSubbit 2079 AcidGasTest2006

WyoSubbit 2080 M1Oct2006

Wyo Subbit Coal 2080 M1OctNov-2005

Wyo Subbit Coal 2080 M2-3Oct2006

Wyo Subbit Coal 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

WyoSubbit 2094 Mercury2008

CoalBlend 2094 PM2007 CoalBlend 2094 PMOct2008

FuelBlend 2094 PMSept2009

FuelBlend 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 Blended Coal plus TDF 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 Coal Blend 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

WySubbit 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

WySubbit 6065 LeadTestOct2009

WySubbit 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

WySubbit 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

WySubbit1 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

WySbbit 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

WySubbit

Page 71test_report_fuel_types

facility _id report_id fuel_id fuel_type percentage_massvol percentage_btu

other_type 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 0 12 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 0 88 1241 LC1CAMTesting

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 10 12.5 1241 LC1CAMTesting

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 90 87.5 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 10 12.6 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 90 87.4 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 Coal Blend coal - bituminous 19.3 23.5 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 Coal Blend coal - subbituminous 80.7 76.5 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

Coal Blend coal - bituminous 19.3 23.5 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

Coal Blend coal - subbituminous 80.7 76.5 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 0 12 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 0 88 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

Coal Blend coal - bituminous 19.3 23.5 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

Coal Blend coal - subbituminous 80.7 76.5 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 0 16.6 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 0 83.4 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

WySubBit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 2009COTest

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 AcidGasTest2005

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2079 AcidGasTest2006

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2080 M1Oct2006

Wyo Subbit Coal

coal - subbituminous

100 100 2080 M1OctNov-2005

Wyo Subbit Coal

coal - subbituminous

100 100 2080 M2-3Oct2006

Wyo Subbit Coal

coal - subbituminous

100 100 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

WyoSubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 2094 Mercury2008

CoalBlend coal - bituminous 0 20 2094 Mercury2008

CoalBlend coal - subbituminous 0 80 2094 PM2007 CoalBlend coal - bituminous 0 20 2094 PM2007 CoalBlend coal - subbituminous 0 80 2094 PMOct2008

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 13.9 18.2 2094 PMOct2008

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 86.1 81.8 2094 PMSept2009

FuelBlend coal - bituminous 21.5 27.2 2094 PMSept2009

FuelBlend coal - subbituminous 78.5 72.8 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 Blended Coal plus TDF

coal - bituminous 0 24 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 Blended Coal plus TDF

coal - subbituminous 0 75 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 Blended Coal plus TDF

other non-fossil fuel (specify)

0 1 Tire-Derived Fuel 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 Coal Blend coal - bituminous 0 25 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 Coal Blend coal - subbituminous 0 75 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 6065 LeadTestOct2009

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100

Page 72test_report_fuel_types

6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

WySubbit1 coal - subbituminous 100 100 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

WySbbit coal - subbituminous 100 100 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

WySubbit coal - subbituminous 100 100

Page 73cem_data

facility _id tim e_period

cem_period_description 1241 Quarterly

CEM EDR. Hourly CEMS data is available on the CAMD website for the respective quarter. 2079 Quarterly

CEM EDR for test period. All CEMS data is available in the Quarterly CEM EDR reported to EPA and available on the CAMD website, for the quarter in which the testing took place. 2080 Quarterly

CEM Report Hourly emissions data for quarter are reported to EPA CAMD and available on that website. 2094 Quarterly

CEM EDR Hourly CEMS data is available for the quarter at the CAMD website from the quarterly CEM EDRs that were submitted. 2098 2nd quarter 2005 Acid Rain Program EDR

CEMS data was reported and is available in the 2nd Q. 2005 EDR on the CAMD website. 6065 Quarterly

CEM EDRs Hourly data available in quarterly EDRs submitted to EPA CAMD website and available on that website.

Page 74cem_data

All CEMS data is available in the Quarterly CEM EDR reported to EPA and available on the CAMD website, for the quarter in which the testing took place. Hourly emissions data for quarter are reported to EPA CAMD and available on that website. Hourly CEMS data is available for the quarter at the CAMD website from the quarterly CEM EDRs that were submitted. CEMS data was reported and is available in the 2nd Q. 2005 EDR on the CAMD website. Hourly data available in quarterly EDRs submitted to EPA CAMD website and available on that website.

Page 75cem_data_pollutants1

facility _id tim e_period

pollutant_nam e 2080 Quarterly

CEM Report Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 2080 Quarterly

CEM Report Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 2098 2nd quarter 2005 Acid Rain Program EDR

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 2098 2nd quarter 2005 Acid Rain Program EDR

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1241 Quarterly

CEM EDR. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 1241 Quarterly

CEM EDR. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 2079 Quarterly

CEM EDR for test period. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 2079 Quarterly

CEM EDR for test period. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 2094 Quarterly

CEM EDR Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 2094 Quarterly

CEM EDR Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 6065 Quarterly

CEM EDRs Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 6065 Quarterly

CEM EDRs Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Page 76test_report_sampling

facility _id report_id sampling_port_id point_differ point_description befre_SO2_device

point_orientation

normal_bypass_percent

testing_bypass_percent 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

S1 No No 1241 LC1CAMTesting

S1 No No 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

S1 No No 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 S1 No No 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

S1 No No 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 No No 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

S1 No No 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

S1 No No 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

S2 No No 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

S2 No No 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

S2 No No 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 No No 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

S2 No No 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

S2 No No 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

S5A No No 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A No No 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A No No 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A No No 2079 2009COTest

S5A No No 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

S5A No No 2079 AcidGasTest2005

S5A No No 2079 AcidGasTest2006

S5A No No 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 No No 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 No No 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 No No 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 No No 2094 Mercury2008

S1 No No 2094 PM2007 S1 No No 2094 PMOct2008

S1 No No 2094 PMSept2009

S1 No No 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 No No 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 SP2 No No 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

S1 No No 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

S1 Yes This stack test occurred before this unit was modified with the addition of an SCR, bag house, scrubber and ACI system, as well as, a new stack. The only control device for this test was an ESP and emissions exited the retired stack. No 6065 LeadTestOct2009

S1 No No 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

S1 Yes This test was performed before the Activated Carbon Injection System was operational. No 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 No No 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

S1 No No 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

S1 No No

Page 77test_report_sampling

fg_fraction 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 78sampling_runs

facility _id report_id sampling_port_id run_id start_datetime end_datetim e

unit_load net_generation fg_moisture_content 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

S1 average 6/8/2005 6/8/2005 834 2835 11.58 1241 LC1CAMTesting

S1 average 11/5/2008 11/5/2008 793 2700 15.34 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

S1 average 7/28/2008 7/28/2009 806 3450 16.17 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 S1 average 7/24/2006 7/24/2006 799 2037 16.2 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

S1 average 7/21/2006 7/21/2006 790 2015 16.67 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average 6/9/2005 6/9/2005 817 5555 16.39 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

S1 average 7/20/2006 7/20/2006 795 3378 17.3 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

S1 average 2/1/2005 2/1/2005 755 3555 15.44 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

S2 average 6/13/2005 6/13/2005 717 4218 13.31 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

S2 average 7/27/2006 7/27/2006 715 3040 12.39 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

S2 average 7/26/2006 7/26/2006 714 4200 13.5 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average 6/14/2005 6/14/2005 709 7500 12.19 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

S2 average 7/25/2006 7/25/2006 714 5585 13.11 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

S2 average 2/2/2005 2/2/2005 717 2438 10.32 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

S5A average 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 520 6120 14.02 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average 4/20/2006 4/20/2006 531 4510 12.7 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average 4/5/2007 4/5/2007 585 4975 15.08 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average 4/3/2008 4/3/2008 581 3950 15.64 2079 2009COTest

S5A average 4/29/2009 4/29/2009 560 1430 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

S5A average 4/8/2009 4/9/2009 550 3880 14.45 2079 AcidGasTest2005

S5A average 5/4/2005 5/4/2005 515 1750 14.44 2079 AcidGasTest2006

S5A average 4/19/2006 4/19/2006 531 1805 13.77 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average ######## ######## 149 401 10.9 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average 11/1/2005 11/1/2005 180 485 11.79 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average ######## ######## 317 856 10.6 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average ######## ######## 335 905 11.75 2094 Mercury2008

S1 average 10/1/2008 10/1/2008 456 1550 11 2094 PM2007 S1 average 1/30/2007 1/30/2007 439 1615 10.84 2094 PMOct2008

S1 average 10/1/2008 10/1/2008 458 2060 12.26 2094 PMSept2009

S1 average 9/30/2009 9/30/2009 439 1978 11.19 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 average 4/22/2005 4/22/2005 98 265 8.5 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 SP2 average 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 96 259 9.68 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

S1 average 7/16/2009 7/16/2009 722 6208 18.1 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

S1 average 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 685 4660 11.8 6065 LeadTestOct2009

S1 average 10/8/2009 10/8/2009 725 4046 17.46 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

S1 average 6/30/2009 6/30/2009 710 3962 18.5 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average 7/15/2009 7/15/2009 724 7784 17.97 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

S1 average 7/7/2009 7/8/2009 725 6068 17.9 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

S1 average 7/10/2009 7/10/2009 701 7358 19.1

Page 79sampling_runs

fg_flow_rate

fg_flow_rate_units

standard_temperature

standard_pressure

normal_temperature

normal_pressure

fg_oxygen_content

fg_CO2_content

fg_temperature 2022236 dscfm 90.5 28.73 6 12.9 168.5 1792877 dscfm 76.5 28.82 6.2 12.9 164.3 1847076 dscfm 87.1 28.88 6.4 12.9 166.6 1950376 dscfm 96 29.06 6.2 12.7 169.4 1950377 dscfm 94.7 29.09 6.13 12.73 169.5 1815841 dscfm 86.2 28.79 6 12.9 168.3 1930677 dscfm 105 29.09 6 12.9 169.7 1900986 dscfm 52.7 29.5 6 13.3 162.3 1755869 dscfm 83.6 28.78 5.5 13.6 1 1745148 dscfm 96.6 28.97 5.5 13.5 1 1714763 dscfm 100.2 28.88 5.8 13.2 1 1754422 dscfm 87.9 28.95 5.4 13.5 300 1717514 dscfm 97.4 29 5.5 13.5 1 1820352 dscfm 50 29.47 5.7 13.5 295 1133706 dscfm 79.5 29.44 4.61 14.52 181.5 1409294 dscfm 81.4 29.23 6.8 12.4 187.7 1229511 dscfm 63.6 29.54 4.4 14.9 185.6 1323557 dscfm 74.4 29.05 5.5 13.9 188.8 5.44 13.77 1271723 dscfm 67.5 28.94 5.9 13.1 186.8 1150924 dscfm 73.5 29.5 6.2 12.5 179.5 1441784 dscfm 80.9 28.84 5.4 13.5 179.9 416597 dscfm 61 29.12 5.6 13.7 300 436144 dscfm 63 29.35 5.6 13.6 297.3 756403 dscfm 52 29.39 5 14.2 296.8 849096 dscfm 61.3 29.5 5.3 13.9 296.7 87.2 29.18 1 875803 dscfm 45.7 29.44 4.5 14.7 287.1 906346 dscfm 87.7 29.18 3.8 14.7 1 904717 dscfm 81.4 29.18 4.8 14 293.1 207423 dscfm 57.5 29.12 3 16 1 214938 dscfm 29.18 3.2 15.6 1 1749634 dscfm 97.8 28.94 5.9 13.2 134.4 1526827 dscfm 82 28.91 5 13.9 287.5 1690533 dscfm 90.6 28.78 5.6 13.3 133.6 2062415 dscfm 1739077 dscfm 99.2 28.97 6 13.2 134.2 1735900 dscfm 103 28.83 5.6 13.3 134.8 1709521 dscfm 102.7 28.89 5.8 13.1 136.1

Page 80sampling_runs

fg_pressure

Hg_loi test_method run_comments

fuel_id fuel_unit_load fuel_flow_rate

fuel_ash fuel_heating_value 28.55 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 26A No LOI measured 28.56 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 5B 28.73 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 5B This particular test was a two-hour average. 28.84 Reference Method 8 LOI was not measured. 28.87 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 26A LOI was not measured during testing. 28.6 Ontario Hydro; Reference Methods 1 - 4 No LOI measured during testing.

FuelBlend 817 8.86 11931 28.87 Ontario Hydro No LOI was evaluated during this testing. 29.35 Reference Method 1 - 4 and 17 28.61 Reference Method 26A No LOI measured during testing. 28.79 Reference Method 8 No LOI Testing done. 28.7 Reference Method 1 - 4 and 26A. No LOI Testing. 28.77 Ontario Hydro; Reference Methods 1 - 4. No LOI measurements taken.

WyoSubbit 717 8.03 11909 28.82 Ontario Hydro No LOI measurements were taken during Hg testing. 29.32 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 17 29.31 Reference Methods 3A, 1 - 5 and 202, 10 and 25A. No LOI measurements taken. 29.05 Reference Methods 3A, 1-5 and 202, 10 and 25A. LOI not measured during test. 29.38 Reference Methods 3A, 1 - 5 and 202, 10 and 25A No LOI measured during testing. 28.87 Reference Methods 1 - 5, 3A, 10, 25A and 202. Due to unit operations only two test runs could be completed before having to reduce unit load. No LOI measured during testing. Reference Method 10

Since the Annual Compliance for CO was run seperately from the PM10 and VOC testing not all stack parameters were recorded during this CO test only, and therefore there are blanks in the data. 28.72 Reference Methods 1 - 5, 3A, 25A and 202 In this three run test Run 1 was done on 4/8/2009, while runs 2 and 3 were done the next day on 4/9/2009. No LOI was measured. 29.37 Reference Methods 1 - 4, 26A and NCASI Method 8A No LOI measured 29.25 Reference Methods 8 and 26A No LOI measured. 29.07 HCl and Hf Method 26; Mercury Ontario Hydro. LOI not measured during test. 29.35 No LOI taken during testing. 29.38 HCl and Hf Method 26; Mercury Ontario Hydro LOI was not measured during test. 29.5 HCl and Hf Method 26; Hg - Ontario Hydro No test for LOI during mercury testing. 29.18 Method 30B - Sorbent Trap analsysis. No LOI was measurered during testing. Test report does not show stack flow rate, or O2 or CO2 content. 29 Reference Method 17 Weare reporting only

the average of 3-runs during normal baseline operations. Other runs were done with intentianally elevated PM to establish a correlation with opacity for the CAM Plan. This was just a correlation test so not all data was recorded. 28.7 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 17. 28.8 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 17 29.12 Reference Test Methosds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17. Ontario Hydro for mercury

. LOI was not measured during Testing. 29.08 Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17. 28.85 Reference Method 8 28.69 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 8 29.69 Reference Methods 1 - 4 and 12.

Method 30B

LOI was not measured. Since this was a RATA on the monitor not all data was available in test report. 28.88 Reference Method 29 The lead test results were suspect and were re-run at a later date.

WySubbit1 724 696419 6.33 11951 28.76 Reference Method 5 and 202 Three run average, two runs on the 7th and one run on the 8th. 28.8 Reference Methods 25A and 26 Hf concentrations were all below the detectable limits.

Page 81sampling_runs

fuel_sulfur

0.91

0.77

Due to unit operations only two test runs could be completed before having to reduce unit load. No LOI measured during testing. Since the Annual Compliance for CO was run seperately from the PM10 and VOC testing not all stack parameters were recorded during this CO test only, and therefore there are blanks in the data. In this three run test Run 1 was done on 4/8/2009, while runs 2 and 3 were done the next day on 4/9/2009. No LOI was measured.

No LOI was measurered during testing. Test report does not show stack flow rate, or O2 or CO2 content. Weare reporting only

the average of 3-runs during normal baseline operations. Other runs were done with intentianally elevated PM to establish a correlation with opacity for the CAM Plan. This was just a correlation test so not all data was recorded.

LOI was not measured. Since this was a RATA on the monitor not all data was available in test report. 0.43

Page 82sampling_runs

Since the Annual Compliance for CO was run seperately from the PM10 and VOC testing not all stack parameters were recorded during this CO test only, and therefore there are blanks in the data.

Weare reporting only

the average of 3-runs during normal baseline operations. Other runs were done with intentianally elevated PM to establish a correlation with opacity for the CAM Plan. This was just a correlation test so not all data was recorded.

Page 83sampling_run_pollutants1

facility _id report_id sampling_port_id run_id pollutant_nam e conc conc_units conc_ND conc_MDL 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 28.6 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 20.4 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Sulfuric Acid 124014 mi crogram per gram (mg/g) FALSE 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.0008 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.03058 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.15599 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M2-3Oct2006

SCS2-3 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.1874 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 4.3E-06 FALSE 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00225 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.00917 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.01622 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2098 ESP Performance and Mercury Test Apr. 2005 SP2 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.0276 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2098 ESP Performance Test Report May 2005 SP2 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 2.4E-06 FALSE 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

S1 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00522 FALSE 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

S1 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.00238 FALSE 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

S1 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.31334 FALSE 1241 LC1MercuryJuly2006

S1 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.3209 FALSE 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

S1 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.83 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 1241 LC1HCl/HfJuly2006

S1 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) TRUE 1241 LC1H2SO4Test- July 2006 S1 average Sulfuric Acid 0.059 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

S2 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00121 FALSE 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

S2 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.00194 FALSE 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

S2 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.15345 FALSE 1241 LC2HgTestJuly2006

S2 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.1566 FALSE 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

S2 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 1.5 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 1241 LC2HCl&HfTestJuly2006

S2 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 0.61 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 1241 LC2H2SO4TestJuly2006

S2 average Sulfuric Acid 0.007 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

S5A average PM10 (Filterable) 1.1E-06 FALSE 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

S5A average VOCs 0.35 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd) FALSE 2079 2005VOC/PM10/CO

S5A average Carbon Monoxide (CO) 145.2 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd) FALSE 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average PM10 (Filterable) 9E-07 FALSE 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average VOCs 0.36 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2006VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average Carbon Monoxide (CO) 55.06 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average PM10 (Filterable) 4E-07 FALSE 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average VOCs 0.7 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2007VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average Carbon Monoxide (CO) 154.69 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average PM10 (Filterable) 0.000001 FALSE 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average VOCs 0.25 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2008VOC/PM10/COTest

S5A average Carbon Monoxide (CO) 129.56 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

S5A average PM10 (Filterable) 1.3E-06 FALSE 2079 2009VOC/PM/Test

S5A average VOCs 0.08 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 2009COTest

S5A average Carbon Monoxide (CO) 137.08 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 AcidGasTest2005

S5A average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.58 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 AcidGasTest2005

S5A average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) TRUE 2079 AcidGasTest2006

S5A average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.18 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2079 AcidGasTest2006

S5A average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) TRUE 2079 AcidGasTest2006

S5A average Sulfuric Acid 0.072 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 2094 Mercury2008

S1 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 3.3342 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

S1 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) TRUE 1241 LC1AcidGas2005

S1 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) TRUE 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 8.8E-06 FALSE

Page 84sampling_run_pollutants1

1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00358 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.00134 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.28679 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.2917 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

S2 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.62 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd @ 7% O2) FALSE 1241 LC2AcidGas2005

S2 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) TRUE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 1.2E-06 FALSE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00278 FALSE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.00159 FALSE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.13609 FALSE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.1405 FALSE 1241 LC1PMFeb2005

S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 8.3E-06 FALSE 1241 LC2PMTestFeb2005

S2 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 1.9E-06 FALSE 1241 LC1CAMTesting

S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 9.6E-06 FALSE 1241 LC1CAMTestJul2009

S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 9.4E-06 FALSE 6065 H2SO4TestMay2006

S1 average Sulfuric Acid 2.44 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd) FALSE 6065 MercuryCEMSRATA2009

S1 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 8.4 mi crogram per dry

standard cubic meter ( FALSE 6065 ParticulateTestJuly2009

S1 average PM10 (Filterable) 0.00226 FALSE 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

S1 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) TRUE 6065 VOC/HfJul62009

S1 average VOCs 0.04 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd) FALSE 6065 H2SO4TestJuly2009

S1 average Sulfuric Acid 1.05 parts per million by volum e (dry) (ppmvd) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Arsenic (As) TRUE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Beryllium (Be) TRUE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Cadmium (Cd) 1.08E-10 FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Chromium (Cr) 6.17E-11 FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Cobalt (Co) 9.14E-12 FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Manganese (Mn) 5.28E-10 FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Nickel (Ni) 5.39E-10 FALSE 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 370 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 385 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00111 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.0232 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.251 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 Mon2-3Oct-Nov2005

SCS2-3 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.2759 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 125 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 107 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00165 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.04826 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.26436 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1OctNov-2005

S1 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.3143 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 30.3 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 40.7 mi crogram per gram (mg/g)

FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Sulfuric Acid 61874 mi crogram per gram (mg/g) FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Particulate-bound Mercury (Hgp) 0.00043 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Oxidized Mercury (Hg++) 0.05637 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Elem ental Mercury (Hg0) 0.17025 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 2080 M1Oct2006

S1 average Total Mercury (Hgt) 0.2271 mi crogram per dry standard cubic meter ( FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Selenium (Se) 2.08E-11 FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Lead (Pb) 5.22E-10 FALSE 6065 LeadTestOct2009

S1 average Lead (Pb) 5.4E-11 FALSE 2094 PMOct2008

S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 15.22 mi lligram per cubic meter (mg/m3)

FALSE 2094 PMSept2009

S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 11.7 mi lligram per cubic meter (mg/m3)

FALSE

Page 85sampling_run_pollutants1

2094 PM2007 S1 average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 20.51 mi lligram per cubic meter (mg/m3)

FALSE

Page 86sampling_run_pollutants1

em ission_rate

em ission_rate_units

em ission_rate_ND

em ission_rate_MDL

em ission_factor

em ission_factor_units

em ission_factor_ND

em ission_factor_MDL

run_pollutant_comment 1.154 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0003 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 0.846 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0002 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 293.8 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.082 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 0.00009 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.00344 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.01756 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.0211 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 7.565 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE 52.67 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.05 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 0.00006 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.00025 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.00044 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.000748 pound per hour (lb/hr) FALSE 0.707 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE 30.97 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0277 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 0.00133 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.00061 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.08002 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.081962 pound per hour (lb/hr) FALSE 12.9449 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE ug/dscf 4.7 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE 0.00017 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 0.00027 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.00044 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.03485 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.035566 pound per hour (lb/hr) FALSE 6.3128 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE ug/dscf 8.13 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 3.23 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE FALSE 0.00002 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 76.36 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.014 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf; Total PM10 2.7 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0004 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 613.11 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.113 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 75.76 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.013 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf; Total PM10 3.52 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0005 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 296.46 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.058 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 80.24 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0135 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf; Total PM10 5.94 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.001 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 706.38 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.139 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 79.79 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0133 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf; Total PM10 2.27 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.125 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 643.39 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.125 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 96.91 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0172 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf; total PM10 0.73 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.00013 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE FALSE 0.132 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 1.92 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.00035 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE TRUE TRUE 1.49 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.00027 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE TRUE TRUE 0.0002 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 3.6E-08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE FALSE FALSE Test report showed only a concentration value. TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 954.34 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.1199 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf

Page 87sampling_run_pollutants1

0.00085 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.00032 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.0689 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.07007 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 11.7735 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE 6.16 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0009 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE TRUE TRUE 128.74 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.016 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 0.00063 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.00037 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.03152 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE ug/dscf 0.032519 pound per hour (lb/hr) FALSE 5.6434 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE ug/dscf 940.88 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.1129 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 207.33 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0255 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 1035.61 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.134 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 1044.7 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.132 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lb/dscf 56.88 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.00802 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE FALSE FALSE 33.62 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0043 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE grs/dscf TRUE TRUE 0.53 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.00006 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE FALSE 0.0029 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 0.01123 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 3.5E-08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 0.00643 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.000001 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 0.00095 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 1.2E-08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 0.0551 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 7.2E-06 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 0.00562 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 7.2E-07 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 13.889 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0036 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 14.956 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0038 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 0.00012 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.0026 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.0282 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.031 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 11.14 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE 1.979 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.001 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE Total ug 1.764 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0009 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE total ug 0.0001 kilogram per hour (kg/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.00278 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.01525 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.0181 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 12.689 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE 0.644 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0003 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 0.888 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.0004 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 74.78 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 0.03915 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE 0.00003 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.00335 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.01013 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE FALSE 0.0135 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 9.168 pound per trillion British Thermal Unit (lb/1012Btu) FALSE 0.0022 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 9E-08 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 0.05446 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 7.1E-06 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf 0.00546 pound per hour (lb/hr)

FALSE 7.2E-07 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE lbs/dscf FALSE 0.0194 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE FALSE 0.0156 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE

Page 88sampling_run_pollutants1

FALSE 0.0262 pound per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) FALSE mi lligram /actual cubic meter

Page 89sampling_run_pollutants1

run_pollutant_comment

lbs/dscf; Total PM10

lb/dscf; Total PM10

lb/dscf; Total PM10

lb/dscf; Total PM10

lb/dscf; total PM10

Test report showed only a concentration value.

Page 90sampling_run_pollutants1

Page 91sampling_run_pollutants1

mi lligram /actual cubic meter

Page 92sampling_run_fuel

facility _id report_id sampling_port_id run_id fuel_pollutant fuel_conc fuel_conc_units fuel_conc_ND

fuel_conc_MDL 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Chloride (Cl) 0.013 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 1241 LC1HgandPM2005

S1 average Mercury (Hg) 0.146 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Chloride (Cl) 0.01 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 1241 LC2Hg/PMTest2005

S2 average Mercury (Hg) 0.23 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Arsenic (As) mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) TRUE 1 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Beryllium (Be) mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) TRUE 1 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Cadmium (Cd) mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) TRUE 1 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Chloride (Cl) percent (dry) (%) TRUE 0.0001 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Chromium (Cr) 4.4 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Fluoride (F) 68 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Lead (Pb) 2 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Manganese (Mn) 9 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Mercury (Hg) 0.2 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Nickel (Ni) 4 mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) FALSE 6065 MetalsTestJuly2006

S1 average Selenium (Se) mi crogram per gram (dry) (mg/g) TRUE 1

Page 93sampling_run_fuel

fuel_conc_MDL

Page 94