# 1 United States

Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation

(6204J) EPA # 430-F-11-066

December 2011



# Documentation Supplement for EPA

Base Case v.4.10_MATS – Updates for

Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

(MATS) Rule

# 2

# 3 This report is the third of three supplements to the August 2010 document ation for EPA Base Case

v.4.10 1 

# . The previous two supplements presented the enhancements and updates that were made to the

Base Case for the Proposed Toxics Rule (March 2011) 2 

# and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR

(June 2011) 3 

# . The current supplement presents the enhan cements and updates that were made for the

final Toxics Rule, now designated the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

The 3 documentation supplements are cumulative in nature. Previous documented features not

addressed here were retained in the MATS Base Ca se as described in the most recent previous

documentation. Figure 1 attempts to provide a graphica l representation of the cumu lative structure. The

March 2011 documentation supplement for the Proposed Toxics Rule is highlighted in Figure 1 because

the Base Case for MATS represents an extension of the Base Case for the Proposed Toxics Rule.

Figure 1. Relationship of Current Report to Previous Documentation for EPA Base Case v.4.10 Variants



# The current report consists of two parts: Part A briefly summarize s the changes found in the EPA Base

1 

# The formal title of the August 2010 documentation report is Documentation for EPA Base Case v.4.10

Using the Integrated Planning Model (EPA #430-R-10-010), August 2010. It is available for viewing and

downloading at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/p rogsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.

2 The formal title of the March 2011 documentation supplement is Documentation Supplement for

EPA Base Case v4.10_PTox

− Updates for Proposed Toxics Rule (EPA #430-R-11-006 ), March 2011. It

is available for viewing and downloading at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/docs/suppdoc.pdf

3 

# The formal title of the June 2011 documentation supplement is Documentation Supplement for EPA

Base Case v.4.10_FTransport – Updates for Final Transport Rule (EPA #430-K-11-004). June 2011. It is

available for viewing and downloading at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/CSAPR/docs/DocSupp v410_FTransport.pdf.

# 4 Case v.4.10 for the MATS. To facilitat e cross-references to the previous documentation re ports, the topics

in Part A are covered in the same categories and in the same order as covered in the previous

documentation reports. At the end of Part A there a listing of corrections to errors in previous

documentation and enhancements to previous documentati on items. The items in this section of Part A

do not represent changes in the base case itself but in the documentation describing features included in

the base case.

Part B of this report gives detailed information on these changes and takes the form of a supplement to

the previous documentation, using redline and strike-out highlights to show provisions that changed and

building upon the section numbering in the previous documentation to show where new enhancements fit

into the modeling structure.

# 5 

# Part A

Summary of Key Changes

in the EPA Base Case v.4.10

for the MATS

# 6 

# Power System Operations Assumptions

(Chapter 3 in previous documentation)

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) : Since issuing the Documentation Supplement for the

Proposed Toxics Rule in March of 2011, the EPA Administrator on July 6, 2011 signed a Notice of Final

Rulemaking for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As a result of this regulatory action, the SO2

and NOx provisions of CSAPR were incorporated in the EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS. Part B CrossReference : For an indication of previous provisions removed and details of the representation of

CASAPR provisions in the final MATS base case (i ncluding tables of key CSAPR provisions, state

budgets, and a map of affected states), see the ne w redlined text in Section 3.9 in Part B.

Colorado RPS : Part B Cross-Reference : For a summary of the Colorado RPS included see the redlined

additions to Section 3.9.3 in Part B.)

Colorado Clean Air – Clean Jobs Act : Due to timing, previous versions of EPA Base Case v.4.10 did

not include this state regulation, which was ena cted in April 2011. Part B Cross-Reference : For a

summary of the modeled provisions of the Colorado Clean Air – Clean Jobs Act, see the new redlined

additions to Section 3.9.4 in Part B.)

Handling of State Mercury Regulations in MATS Base and Policy Cases : State mercury regulations

(as shown in Appendix 3-2 in the Documentation Supplement for Proposed Toxics Rule) were not

modeled in the MATS base or policy cases. Part B Cross-Reference : For an explanation of reasons why

state mercury regulations were not included in the MA TS base or policy cases, see the new text that

appears at the end of Section 3.9. 4 (“State Specific Environmenta l Regulations”) in Part B.

NIPSCO and TVA NSR Settlements : Between the last previously released EPA Base Case v.4.10 (for

CSAPR) and the base case for MATS, provisions of the NSR settlement s with Northern Indiana Public

Service Company (NIPSCO) and Tennessee Valle y Authority (TVA) were announced. See

www.epa.gov/compliance/resource s/cases/civil/caa/nipsco.html and

www.epa.gov/compliance/resource s/cases/civil/caa/tvacoalfired . The NIPSCO settlement and the

system-wide TVA SO2 limit, which were not previously included, are now represented in the Base Case

v.4.10_MATS. Part B Cross-Reference : For a summary of the modeled provisions of the NIPSCO and

TVA NSR settlements see the appropriate entries in the updated version of Appendix 3-3 (“New Source

Review (NSR) Settlements in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS.

Handling of Existing ACI Controls in MATS Base and Policy Cases : Certain existing ACI controls

(shown in the NEEDS data base) were not included in EPA Base Ca se v.4.10_MATS but were included in

the MATS policy case. Part B Cross-Reference : For an explanation of reasons and a listing of existing

ACI controls that were not included in the MATS Ba se Case but were included in the MATS policy case

see new sub-section 3.9.7 (“Unit-L evel Control Assumptions”) and 3.9. 7.1 (“Existing ACI Controls in

MATS Base and Policy Cases”) in Part B.

Unit-Specific Assumptions on Emi ssions, Emission Controls, and Fuels :

Unit specific assumptions were adopted for

 Big Sandy Units 1 and 2,

 Monroe Units 1 and 2

 Dunkirk Units 3 and 4,

 C R Huntley Units 7 and 8

 Coal Units in Washington State, including the retirements at



# - Centralia



# - Boardman

 D B Wilson plant

 Revised coal assignments at various plants to improve consistency with EIA Form 923

Part B Cross-Reference : For details of these changes, see new documentation sub-se ction 3.9.7 (“UnitLevel Control, Emission and Fuel Assumptions”) in Part B.

# 7 

# Generation Resources

(Chapter 4 in previous documentation)

Revised Capital Cost Structure for New Nuclear Units : The capital cost for new nuclear capacity was

updated to $5,000/kW from $4,621 (in 2007$). The life ex tension costs for existing nuclear units were

revised to be consistent with the new nuclear plant capital costs

. Part B Cross-Reference : The changes noted here are shown in Table 4-13 in Part B.

# 8 

# Emission Control Technologies

(Chapter 5 in previous documentation)

Filterable Particulate Matter (PM) Compliance Technologies for Existing Units : In the MATS policy

case all coal units with a capacity greater t han 25 MW must meet the filterable PM compliance

requirement. Units that have an existing fabric filter are assumed to meet the requirement. Depending on

the incremental filterable PM reduction needed to bring a unit into compliance, uncontrolled units and

units with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) for PM control that do not currently meet their compliance

requirement are assigned either a fa bric filter or one of three tier ed ESP upgrades to bring them into

compliance. The determination of the appropriate op tion is an off-line calculation and the assignment of

that option is performed in setting up a run, not in the course of the run. Part B Cross-Reference : See

new section 5.6 for details of the procedure used to determine the appropriate compliance technology.

Updated FGD Removal Rate Assumptions for Petroleum Coke : Based on the performance

capabilities indicated in the 2010 ICR, a 93% mercur y removal rate is assumed when FGD is present on

units that burn petroleum co ke. Part B Cr oss-Reference : The previous sentence should be appended as

a note under Table 5-13 (“Mercury Emission Mo dification Factors Used in EPA Base Case

v.4.10_MATS”) in section 5.4.3 (“Mercury Control Ca pabilities”) of the August 2010 documentation for

EPA Base Case v.4.10. (This is not reproduced in Part B.)

Revised ACI VOM Cost for Units with Certain Particulate Control Configurations : For certain

particulate control configurations the variable operat ing and maintenance (VOM) cost of activated carbon

injection (ACI) retrofits is assumed to be 81 percent lower due the presence of pre-existing particulate

controls. Part B Cross-Reference : See the redlined addition to section 5.4.3 (“Mercury Control

Capabilities”) for the specific configuratio ns affected by this VOM cost revision

.

Revised HCl Emissions from Lignite and S ubbituminous Coals Reflecting Impact of Ash

Chemistry : To account for the effect of ash chemistry on HCl emissions, the HCl content of lignite and

subbituminous coals is reduced by 75%. Part B Cross-Reference : For a fuller explanation of these

changes see additional redlined text at end of Secti on 5.5.1 (“Chlorine Content of Fuels”) in Part B

FGD Upgrade Assumptions in MATS Policy Case : In setting up the MATS policy runs, it is assumed

that the most cost effective appr oach for units with pre-existing FGD that do not meet the 94% HCl

removal requirement is to upgrade their FGD to bring the unit into compliance. Part B Cross-Reference : For the specifics of the FGD upgrade see the new red lined text in Section 5.5. 3.1 (“Wet and Dry FGD”) in

Part B.

Dry Scrubber Removal Assumptions for Waste Coal and Petroleum Coke Units in MATS Policy

Case : In setting up the Base Case v.4.10_MATS, waste coal and petroleum coke fired FBC units without

an existing FGD were mistakenly not provided with a sc rubber retrofit option. To make up for this

oversight, in run year 2015 a dry scrubber and its associated capital cost (applied through and FOM

adder) are assigned to these units when setting up the MATS policy case. Part B Cross-Reference : For

further details on these revisions see new redli ned text in Section 5.5.3.1 (“Wet and Dry FGD”).

Revisions to DSI cost and performance assumptions in the Base Case for MATS: A number of

additional assumptions were made regarding DSI in the Base Case v.4.10_MATS. Part B CrossReference : : See the redlined addition to section 5.5. 3.2 (“Dry Sorbent Injection”) in Part 2 for a

discussion of the specific assumptions

.

Assumed Air-to-Cloth Ratio in the Cost Equations for the DSI + Fabric Filter Retrofit Option : Based

on public comments and engineering assessments, an air-to -cloth ratio of 4.0, rather than 6.0, was used

in MATS to provide a conservative projection of the requirements and cost of sorbent removal. Part B

Cross-Reference : New redlined text was added to the “Capit al Cost” write-up in Section 5.5.4 (“Fabric

Filter (Baghouse) Cost Development”) to reflect this assumption. This addition is shown in Part B.

# 9 

# Other Fuels and Fuel Emission Factor Assumptions

(Chapter 11 in previous documentation)

Correction of Error in Mercury Emission Factor (EMF) for Petroleum Coke : A previous computational

error in the mercury emission factor for petroleum coke as presented in Table 6-3 of the EPA report titled

Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electr ic Utility Boilers: Interim Report Including Errata, 3-21-

02 was corrected (from 23.18 lbs/TBtu to 2.66 lb/TBt u) based on re-examination of the 1999 ICR data for

petroleum coke and implementation of a procedure for flagging and excluding outlier values above the 95

percentile value. Part B Cross-Reference : This correction is reflected in the update of Table 11-4 that

appears in Part B.

Mercury Removal Assumption for Waste Coal Units : Based on 2010 ICR data waste coal units in the

Base Case for MATS were assume d to achieve 99% mercury removal. Part B Cross-Reference : This

revision is reflected in new footnote un der Table 11-4 that appears in Part B.

# 10 

# Errata and Enhancements of Previous Documentation

Below is a listing of corrections to errors in previous documentation and enhancements to previous

documentation items. The items below do not repres ent changes in the base case itself but in the

documentation describing features included in the base case.

SCR Cost Equations : The following editorial corrections should be made to the Sargent & Lundy paper,

SCR Cost Development Methodology (at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/docs/v410/Appendix52A.pdf :

a) on pages 5 and 6, change the formula text for "NOx Removal Factor" (L) to: K/80

b) on page 6, add the following formula text for "Variable O&M costs for catalyst replacement &

disposal" (VOMW):

VOMW ($/MWh) = 0.3*(G)^2.9*(L)^0.71/8760/J*100*S

Fabric Filter (FF) Costs Include Ash Handling : The following clarifying text should be added to the

Sargent & Lundy paper, Particulate Cont rol Cost Development Methodology (at

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsre gs/epa-ipm/docs/append5_5.pdf ):

a) on page 4, to the list of capital cost items inclu ded, add: “interconnecting piping, etc, to existing fly

ash handling system”

SNCR Removal Rates in Table 5-7: The removal rates in the last column of Table 5-7 did not correctly

reflect the implementation in EPA Base Case v.4. 10_MATS. Table 5-7 (“Summary of Retrofit NOx

Emission Control Performance Assumptions”) is lo cated in section 5.2 (“Nitrogen Oxides Control

Technology”) of the previous document ation. Part B Cross-Reference : Using redline and strike-out

highlights, the corrections to Table 5-7 are shown in Part B.

ACI Cost Equations : The following editorial corrections should be made to the Sargent & Lundy paper,

Mercury Control Cost Development Methodolog y (at www.epa.gov/airma rkets/progsregs/epaipm/docs/append5_3.pdf) :

a) on pages 12 – 16 change the formula text for capital cost component “BMB” to:

if(J = Not Added then 0, J = 6.0 Air-to-Cloth then 422, J = 4.0 Air-to-Cloth then 476)*B*L^0.81

# 11 

# Part B

Detailed Information on Changes in

EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS

(Using Mark-Up of Previous Documentation

Reports)

# 12 

# Chapter 3: Power System Operation Assumptions



# 3.9 Existing Environmental Regulations

This section describes the exis ting federal, regional, and state SO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , mercury, and CO 2 

# emissions

regulations that are represented in the EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS. The first three subsections

discuss national and regional regulations. The nex t two subsections describe state level environmental

regulations and a variety of legal settlements. T he last subsection presents emission assumptions for

potential units.

Note on Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR): In December 2008 the U.S. Cour t of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA to correct legal fl aws in the propose d regulations as cited in

the Court’s July 2008 ruling. Until EPA’s work was completed, CAIR , which includes a cap

- and

- trade

system for SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# emissions, was temporarily reinstated. However, although CAIR’s provisions

were still in effect when EPA B ase Case v.4.10 was released, it is not included in the base case to allow

EPA Base Case v.4.10 to be used to analyze the regulations proposed to replace CAIR.

Note on Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR): Since issuing the Documentation Supplement for the

Proposed Toxics Rule in March of 2011, the EPA Administrator on July 6, 2011 signed a Notice of Final

Rulemaking for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As a result of this regulatory action, the SO2

and NOx provisions of CSAPR were incorporated in the EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS. Below are a map

of affected states and st ate budget tables listing the key CSAPR provisions.

Figure 3.1. CSAPR States

# 13 

# Table 3. 1. a) SO2

Emissions Budget Variability Limit

In 1000 tons 2012 2014 2012 2014

Alabama 216.033 213.258 38.886 38.386

Georgia 158.527 95.231 28.535 17.142

Illinois 234.889 124.123 42.28 22.342

Indiana 285.424 161.111 51.376 29

Iowa 107.085 75.184 19.275 13.533

Kansas 41.528 41.528 7.475 7.475

Kentucky 232.662 106.284 41.879 19.131

Maryland 30.12 28.203 5.422 5.077

Michigan 229.303 143.995 41.275 25.919

Minnesota 41.981 41.981 7.557 7.557

Missouri 207.466 165.941 37.344 29.869

Nebraska 65.052 65.052 11.709 11.709

New Jersey 5.574 5.574 1.003 1.003

New York 27.325 18.585 4.919 3.345

North Carolina 136.881 57.62 24.639 10.372

Ohio 310.23 137.077 55.841 24.674

Pennsylvania 278.651 112.021 50.157 20.164

South Carolina 88.62 88.62 15.952 15.952

Tennessee 148.15 58.833 26.667 10.59

Texas 243.954 243.954 43.912 43.912

Virginia 70.82 35.057 12.748 6.31

West Virginia 146.174 75.668 26.311 13.62

Wisconsin 79.48 40.126 14.306 7.223

Table 3.1. b) Ozone Season NOx

Emissions Budget Variability Limit

In 1000 tons 2012 2014 2012 2014

Alabama 31.746 31.499 6.667 6.615

Arkansas 15.037 15.037 3.158 3.158

Florida 27.825 27.825 5.843 5.843

Georgia 27.944 18.279 5.868 3.839

Illinois 21.208 21.208 4.454 4.454

Indiana 46.876 46.175 9.844 9.697

Iowa 16.532 16.207 3.472 3.403

Kansas 13.536 10.998 2.843 2.31

Kentucky 36.167 32.674 7.595 6.862

Louisiana 13.432 13.432 2.821 2.821

Maryland 7.179 7.179 1.508 1.508

# 14 

# Michigan 25.752 24.727 5.408 5.193

Mississippi 10.16 10.16 2.134 2.134

Missouri 22.762 21.073 4.78 4.425

New Jersey 3.382 3.382 0.71 0.71

New York 8.331 8.331 1.75 1.75

North Carolina 22.168 18.455 4.655 3.876

Ohio 40.063 37.792 8.413 7.936

Oklahoma 21.835 21.835 4.585 4.585

Pennsylvania 52.201 51.912 10.962 10.902

South Carolina 13.909 13.909 2.921 2.921

Tennessee 14.908 8.016 3.131 1.683

Texas 63.043 63.043 13.239 13.239

Virginia 14.452 14.452 3.035 3.035

West Virginia 25.283 23.291 5.309 4.891

Wisconsin 13.704 13.216 2.878 2.775

Table 3.1. c) Annual NOx

Emissions Budget Variability Limit

In 1000 tons 2012 2014 2012 2014

Alabama 72.691 71.962 13.084 12.953

Georgia 62.01 40.54 11.162 7.297

Illinois 47.872 47.872 8.617 8.617

Indiana 109.726 108.424 19.751 19.516

Iowa 38.335 37.498 6.9 6.75

Kansas 30.714 25.56 5.529 4.601

Kentucky 85.086 77.238 15.315 13.903

Maryland 16.633 16.574 2.994 2.983

Michigan 60.193 57.812 10.835 10.406

Minnesota 29.572 29.572 5.323 5.323

Missouri 52.374 48.717 9.427 8.769

Nebraska 26.44 26.44 4.759 4.759

New Jersey 7.266 7.266 1.308 1.308

New York 17.543 17.543 3.158 3.158

North Carolina 50.587 41.553 9.106 7.48

Ohio 92.703 87.493 16.687 15.749

Pennsylvania 119.986 119.194 21.597 21.455

South Carolina 32.498 32.498 5.85 5.85

Tennessee 35.703 19.337 6.427 3.481

Texas 133.595 133.595 24.047 24.047

Virginia 33.242 33.242 5.984 5.984

West Virginia 59.472 54.582 10.705 9.825

# 15 

# Wisconsin 31.628 30.398 5.693 5.472

“Dispatchable” Controls Operate in CSAPR Covered States : After the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

was remanded to EPA by the Court for revision, ex isting emission controls for SO2 and NOx that had

been installed in anticipation of CAIR were modeled as “dispatchable.” (see Documentation Supplement

for EPA Base Case v.4.10_FTransport – Updates for Final Transport Rule (EPA #430-K-11-004). June

2011, page 54, available at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/CSAPR/docs/DocSupp v410_FTransport.pdf.)

Since Base Case v.4.10_MATS includes CASPR, wh ich EPA recently promulgated to replace CAIR,

“dispatchable” controls in states covered by CASPR are operated in this scenario.

Table 3.2.a) List of Units Operating "Dispatchab le" FGD Retrofits in Base Case v4.10 for MATS



# Plant Name UniqueID Unit ID State Name Capacity (MW)

Cayuga 1001_B_2 2 Indiana 473

E W Brown 1355_B_1 1 Kentucky 94.0

E W Brown 1355_B_2 2 Kentucky 160

Ghent 1356_B_1 1 Kentucky 475

Ghent 1356_B_2 2 Kentucky 469

Ghent 1356_B_3 3 Kentucky 478

Ghent 1356_B_4 4 Kentucky 478

Elmer Smith 1374_B_1 1 Kentucky 132

Elmer Smith 1374_B_2 2 Kentucky 261

Paradise 1378_B_3 3 Kentucky 977

Kenneth C Coleman 1381_B_C1 C1 Kentucky 150

Kenneth C Coleman 1381_B_C2 C2 Kentucky 150

Kenneth C Coleman 1381_B_C3 C3 Kentucky 155

HMP&L Station Two

Henderson 1382_B_H1 H1 Kentucky 153

HMP&L Station Two

Henderson 1382_B_H2 H2 Kentucky 159

Dickerson 1572_B_1 1 Maryland 182

Dickerson 1572_B_2 2 Maryland 182

Dickerson 1572_B_3 3 Maryland 182

Monroe 1733_B_1 1 Michigan 770

Monroe 1733_B_2 2 Michigan 785

Monroe 1733_B_3 3 Michigan 795

Monroe 1733_B_4 4 Michigan 775

Sioux 2107_B_1 1 Missouri 497

Sioux 2107_B_2 2 Missouri 497

B L England 2378_B_1 1 New Jersey 129

B L England 2378_B_2 2 New Jersey 155

AES Cayuga 2535_B_1 1 New York 152

AES Cayuga 2535_B_2 2 New York 153

C R Huntley Generating Station 2549_B_67 67 New York 190

# 16 

# C R Huntley Generating Station 2549_B_68 68 New York 190

Dunkirk Generating Station 2554_B_3 3 New York 185

Dunkirk Generating Station 2554_B_4 4 New York 185

E C Gaston 26_B_5 5 Alabama 861

Miami Fort 2832_B_7 7 Ohio 500

Miami Fort 2832_B_8 8 Ohio 500

Niles 2861_B_1 1 Ohio 109

Hamilton 2917_B_9 9 Ohio 51.0

Barry 3_B_5 5 Alabama 750

Homer City Station 3122_B_3 3 Pennsylvania 650

Keystone 3136_B_1 1 Pennsylvania 850

Keystone 3136_B_2 2 Pennsylvania 850

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_1 1 Pennsylvania 335

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_2 2 Pennsylvania 387

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_3 3 Pennsylvania 754

PPL Montour 3149_B_1 1 Pennsylvania 761

PPL Montour 3149_B_2 2 Pennsylvania 757

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_1 1 Pennsylvania 530

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_2 2 Pennsylvania 530

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_3 3 Pennsylvania 530

W S Lee 3264_B_3 3 South

Carolina 170

Wateree 3297_B_WAT1 WAT1 South

Carolina 350

Wateree 3297_B_WAT2 WAT2 South

Carolina 350

Williams 3298_B_WIL1 WIL1 South

Carolina 615

W A Parish 3470_B_WAP6 WAP6 Texas 650

Yorktown 3809_B_1 1 Virginia 159

Fort Martin Power Station 3943_B_1 1 West Virginia 552

Fort Martin Power Station 3943_B_2 2 West Virginia 555

Harrison Power Station 3944_B_1 1 West Virginia 652

Harrison Power Station 3944_B_2 2 West Virginia 642

Harrison Power Station 3944_B_3 3 West Virginia 651

Genoa 4143_B_1 1 Wisconsin 356

Charles R Lowman 56_B_1 1 Alabama 86.0

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_1 1 Alabama 684

Brandon Shores 602_B_1 1 Maryland 643

Killen Station 6031_B_2 2 Ohio 615

Gibson 6113_B_1 1 Indiana 630

Gibson 6113_B_2 2 Indiana 628

# 17 

# Gibson 6113_B_3 3 Indiana 628

Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 1 Texas 598

Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 2 Texas 598

Gorgas 8_B_10 10 Alabama 690

Gorgas 8_B_8 8 Alabama 165

Gorgas 8_B_9 9 Alabama 175

Cheswick 8226_B_1 1 Pennsylvania 580

Coffeen 861_B_01 01 Illinois 340

Coffeen 861_B_02 02 Illinois 560

Havana 891_B_9 9 Illinois 487

Harding Street 990_B_70 70 Indiana 435

Petersburg 994_B_3 3 Indiana 540

Table 3.2.b) List of Units Operating "Dispatchab le" SCR Retrofits in Base Case v4.10 for MATS



# Plant Name UniqueID Unit ID State Name Capacity (MW)

Lansing 1047_B_4 4 Iowa 261

AES Deepwater 10670_B_AAB001 AAB001 Texas 140

Seminole 136_B_1 1 Florida 658

Seminole 136_B_2 2 Florida 658

St Johns River Power Park 207_B_1 1 Florida 626

St Johns River Power Park 207_B_2 2 Florida 626

W A Parish 3470_B_WAP5 WAP5 Texas 645

W A Parish 3470_B_WAP6 WAP6 Texas 650

W A Parish 3470_B_WAP7 WAP7 Texas 565

W A Parish 3470_B_WAP8 WAP8 Texas 600

Edgewater 4050_B_5 5 Wisconsin 414

John P Madgett 4271_B_B1 B1 Wisconsin 398

Crystal River 628_B_4 4 Florida 722

Crystal River 628_B_5 5 Florida 721

Deerhaven Generating Station 663_B_B2 B2 Florida 228

Sandow 6648_B_4 4 Texas 545

C D McIntosh Jr 676_B_3 3 Florida 342

● ● ●

3.9.3 CO 2 

# Regulations and Renewable Portfolio Standards

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a year-round CO 2 

# cap and trade program affecting

fossil fired electric power plants 25 MW or larger in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS incorporated the followi ng updated targets to re flect Colorado RPS:



# - 12% of its retail electricity sales in Colorado for the years 2011-2014;



# - 20% of its retail electricity sales in Colorado for the years 2015-2019; and

# 18 

# - 30% of its retail electricity sales in Colorado for the years 2020 and later.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) generally refer to various state-level policies that require the

addition of renewable generation to meet a specified s hare of state-wide generation In EPA Base Case

v.4.10 the state RPS requirements ar e represented at a regional le vel utilizing the aggregate regional

representation of RPS requirements that is implemented in AEO 2010 4 

# as shown in Appendix 3-6. This

appendix shows the RPS requirements that apply to the NEMS (National Energy Modeling System)

regions used in AEO. The RPS requirement for a particular NEMS region applies to all IPM regions that

are predominantly contained in that NEMS region.

3.9.4 State Specific Environmental Regulations

EPA Base Case v.4.10 represents laws and regulati ons in 25 states affecting emissions from the

electricity sector. The laws and regulations had to ei ther be on the books or expected to come into force.

Appendix 3-2 summarizes the provisions of state laws and regulations that are represented in EPA Base

Case 4.10.

EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS incorporated the followi ng provisions of the Co lorado Clean Air-Clean

Jobs Act (HB 1365, passed in April 2010):

Table 3-9-4. Changes Incorporated in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS in Response to Provisions

of the Colorado Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act (HB 1365, passed in April 2010)

Plant

Name UniqueID ORIS Plant

Code Unit

ID Modeled In v.4.10_FMATS

Arapahoe 465_B_3 465 3 Unit retired, effective in 2015 run year

Arapahoe 465_B_4 465 4 Unit forced to convert to natural gas,

effective in 2015 run year

Cameo 468_B_1 468 1 Retired in NEEDS

Cameo 468_B_2 468 2 Retired in NEEDS

Cherokee 469_B_1 469 1 Unit retired, effective in 2012 run year

Cherokee 469_B_2 469 2 Unit retired, effective in 2012 run year

Cherokee 469_B_3 469 3 Unit retired, effective in 2020 run year

Cherokee 469_B_4 469 4 Unit forced to convert to natural gas,

effective in 2020 run year

Valmont 477_B_5 477 5 Unit retired, effective in 2020 run year

W N Clark 462_B_55 462 55 Unit retired, effective in 2015 run year

W N Clark 462_B_59 462 59 Unit retired, effective in 2015 run year

State Mercury Regulations in MATS Base and Policy Cases : Consistent with the mercury risk

deposition modeling for MATS, EPA did not model non-f ederally enforceable mercury-specific emissions

reduction rules (as shown in Appendix 3-2 in the Document ation Supplement for Proposed Toxics Rule)

in the base case or MATS policy case (see preamble section III.A)

3.9.5 New Source Review (NSR) Settlements

The New Source Review, (NSR) settlements refer to legal agreements with companies resulting from the

4 

# Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Assumptions to Annual Energy Outlook

2010: Renewable Fuels Module (DOE/EIA-0554(2010)), April 9, 2010, Table 13.4 “Aggregate Regional

RPS Requirements, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/as sumption/renewable.html and

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/renewable_tbls.pdf

# 19 permitting process under the CAAA whic h requires industry to undergo an EPA pre-constructi on review of

proposed environmental controls ei ther on new facilities or as modifi cations to existi ng facilities where

there would result a “significant increase” in a regulated pollutant. EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS includes

more than 20 NSR settlements with electric power companies. EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS includes

provisions of the recently announced NSR settlements with Northern Indiana Public Service Company

(NIPSCO) and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). See

www.epa.gov/compliance/resource s/cases/civil/caa/nipsco.html and

www.epa.gov/compliance/resource s/cases/civil/caa/tvacoalfired

. A n updated summary of the units

affected and how the settlements were all the NSR settlements that are modeled in Base Case

v.4.10_MATS can be found in Appendix 3-3.

Seven state settlements and five citizen settlements are also represented in EPA Base Case v.4.10.

These are summarized in Appendices 3-4 and 3-5 respectively.

3.9.7 Unit-Level Control, Emission and Fuel Assumptions (new)

The following unit specific assumptions were adopted in EPA Base Case v.4.10 for MATS:

3.9.7.1 Existing ACI Controls in MATS Base and Policy Cases : As indicated above in section 3.9.4,

EPA did not model non-federally enfor ceable mercury-specific emissions reduction rules. Units which

were online before 2008 with existing ACI controls in stalled were therefore assumed not to operate those

controls in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS, but were assumed to operate the existing ACI in the MATS

policy case. Units that commenced operation after 2007 were assumed to operate existing ACI because

these units are required under section 112(g) to meet HAP limitations (including Hg) for new units.

3.9.7.2 Monroe Units 1 and 2 and Big Sandy Units 1 and 2: T he flue gas desulfurization (FGD) for

SO2 control at Monroe units 1 and 2 are assumed not to run in 2012. This restriction was not imposed

after 2012. Big Sandy Units 1 and 2 had dispatchable c ontrols in the Proposed MATS. This flexibility was

not offered in Final MATS, the controls were implemented as non-dispatchable.

3.9.7.3 Dunkirk Units 3 and 4, C R Huntley Units 7 and 8 : T 

# he SO2 removal rates were adjusted to

reflect DSI technology instead of FGD that was assumed in the previous versions.

DSI FGD

Dunkirk Units 3 and 4 70% 95.9%

CR Huntley Units 7 and 8 70% 92.3%

3.9.7.4 Coal Units in Washington State (including retirement of Centralia Units 1 and 2 and the

Boardman Units : Due to the approval of the Washington State Senate bill (formally known as Senate

Bill 5769), new base load coal generation in Washin gton is subjected to 1,100 lbs/MWh CO2 rate limit

and Centralia Units 1 and 2 and the Boardman uni ts are retired in 2021, 2026 and 2021 years

respectively.

3.9.7.5 D B Wilson plant : Based on a comment received bituminous coal in addition to petroleum coke

was provided as a fuel option for D B Wilson (uniq ue ID 6823_B_W1). In previous base cases its fuel

choice had been exclusively petroleum coke. To make the additional fuel choice possible, this plant was

assigned to coal demand region IBB3 instead of PCOK

3.9.7.6 Revised Coal Assignments to Improve Consistency with EIA Form 923 : The following table

shows revisions in coal assignments that were made to improve the consistency between the coal

assignments in EPA Base Case v.4. 10_MATS and the coal consumpti on reported in EIA Form 923 for

2008.

# 20 Table 3-9-7-5. Changes in Coal Assignments in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS to Improve

Consistency with Information Reported in EIA Form 923 (2008)

Plant Name UniqueID ORIS

Plant

Code Unit

ID Modeled Fuels In

v.4.10_FTransport Modeled Fuels In

v.4.10_MATS Notes

C P Crane 1552_B_1 1552 1 Subbituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous

C P Crane 1552_B_2 1552 2 Subbituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous

Herbert A

Wagner 1554_B_2 1554 2 Subbituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous

Herbert A

Wagner 1554_B_3 1554 3 Subbituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous

PSEG Hudson

Generating

Station 2403_B_2 2403 2 Bituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous Coal demand

region

changed from

NE2 to PE1 to

provide both

coal ranks.

R E Burger 2864_B_5 2864 5 Bituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous

R E Burger 2864_B_6 2864 6 Bituminous Subbituminous,

Bituminous

Willow Island 3946_B_1 3946 1 Bituminous Subbituminous

Willow Island 3946_B_2 3946 2 Bituminous Subbituminous21Appendix 3-3 New Source Review (NSR) Settlements in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATSCompany andPlantStateUnitSettlement ActionsReferenceRetire/RepowerSO2controlNOxControlPM or Mercury ControlAllowanceRetirementAllowanceRestrictionActionEffectiveDateEquipmentPercentRemovalor RateEffectiveDateEquipmentRateEffectiveDateEquipmentRateEffectiveDateRetirementRestrictionEffectiveDateAlabama PowerJames H. MillerAlabamaUnits3 & 4Install andoperateFGDcontinuously95%12/31/11OperateexistingSCRcontinuously0.105/01/080.0312/31/06With 45days ofsettlemententry, APCmust retire7,538 SO2emissionallowances.APC shall notsell, trade, orotherwiseexchange anyPlant Millerexcess SO2emissionallowancesoutside of theAPC system1/1/21http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/alabamapower.htmlMinnkota Power CooperativeBeginning 1/01/2006, Minnkota shall not emit more than 31,000 tons of SO2/year, no more than 26,000 tons beginning 2011, no more than 11,500 tons beginning 1/01/2012. If Unit 3 is not operational by12/31/2015, then beginning 1/01/2014, the plant wide emissionshall not exceed 8,500.Milton R. YoungMinnesotaUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD95% ifwetFGD,90% ifdry12/31/11Install andcontinuouslyoperateOver-fireAIR, orequivalenttechnologywithemissionrate < .360.3612/31/090.03 ifwetFGD,.015 ifdry FGDPlant willsurrender4,346allowancesfor eachyear 2012–2015, 8,693allowancesfor years2016–2018,12,170allowancesfor year2019, and14,886allowances/yearthereafter ifUnits 1–3areoperationalby12/31/2015.If only Units1 and 2 areoperationalby12/31/2015, the plantshall retire17,886 unitsin 2020 andthereafter.Minnkota shallnot sell or tradeNOxallowancesallocated toUnits 1, 2, or 3that wouldotherwise beavailable forsale or trade asa result of theactions taken bythe settlingdefendants tocomply with therequirementshttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/minnkota.htmlUnit 2Design,upgrade,andcontinuouslyoperateFGD90%12/31/10Install andcontinuouslyoperateover-fireAIR, orequivalenttechnologywithemissionrate < .360.3612/31/070.03Before200822SIGECOFB CulleyIndianaUnit 1Repowertonaturalgas (orretire)12/31/06Theprovision didnot specifyan amountof SO2allowancesto besurrendered.It onlyprovidedthat excessallowancesresultingfromcompliancewith NSRsettlementprovisionsmust beretired.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/sigecofb.htmlUnit 2Improve andcontinuouslyoperateexistingFGD(shared byUnits 2 and3)95%06/30/04Unit 3Improve andcontinuouslyoperateexistingFGD(shared byUnits 2 and3)95%06/30/04OperateExistingSCRContinuously0.109/01/03Install andcontinuouslyoperate aBaghouse0.01506/30/07PSEG FOSSILBergenNew JerseyUnit 2Repowertocombined cycle12/31/02Theprovision didnot specifyan amountof SO2allowancesto besurrendered.It onlyprovidedthat excessallowancesresultingfromcompliancewith NSRsettlementprovisionsmust beretired.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/psegllc.htmlHudsonNew JerseyUnit 2Install DryFGD (orapprovedalt.technology)andcontinuallyoperate0.1512/31/06Install SCR(or approvedtech) andcontinuallyoperate0.105/01/07InstallBaghouse(or approvedtechnology)0.01512/31/0623MercerNew JerseyUnits1 & 2Install DryFGD (orapprovedalt.technology)andcontinuallyoperate0.1512/31/10Install SCR(or approvedtech) andcontinuallyoperate0.1305/01/06TECOBig BendFloridaUnits1 & 2ExistingScrubber(shared byUnits 1 & 2)95%(95% or.25)09/1/00(01/01/13)Install SCR0.105/01/09Theprovision didnot specifyan amountof SO2allowancesto besurrendered.It onlyprovidedthat excessallowancesresultingfromcompliancewith NSRsettlementprovisionsmust beretired.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/teco.htmlUnit 3ExistingScrubber(shared byUnits 3 & 4)93% ifUnits 3 &4 areoperating2000(01/01/10)Install SCR0.105/01/09Unit 4ExistingScrubber(shared byUnits 3 & 4)93% ifUnits 3 &4 areoperating06/22/05Install SCR0.107/01/07GannonFloridaSixunitsRetire allsix coalunits andrepowerat least550 MWof coalcapacitytonaturalgas12/31/04WEPCOWEPCO shall comply with the following system wide average NOxemission rates and total NOxtonnage permissible: by 1/1/2005 an emission rate of 0.27 and 31,500 tons, by 1/1/2007 an emission rateof 0.19 and 23,400 tons, and by 1/1/2013 an emission rate of 0.17 and 17, 400 tons. For SO2emissions, WEPCO will comply with: by 1/1/2005 an emission rate of 0.76 and 86,900 tons, by 1/1/2007 anemission rate of 0.61 and 74,400 tons, by 1/1/2008 an emission rate of 0.45 and 55,400 tons, and by 1/1/2013 an emission rate of 0.32 and 33,300 tons.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/wepco.htmlPresque IsleWisconsinUnits1–4Retire orinstallSO2andNOxcontrols12/31/12Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orapprovedequiv. tech)95% or0.112/31/12Install SCR(or approvedtech) andcontinuallyoperate0.112/31/12Theprovision didnot specifyan amountof SO2allowancesto besurrendered.It onlyprovidedthat excessallowancesresultingfromcompliancewith NSRsettlementprovisionsmust beretired.Units5 & 6Install andoperate lowNOxburners12/31/03Units7 & 8Operateexisting lowNOxburners12/31/05InstallBaghouseUnit 9Operateexisting lowNOxburners12/31/06InstallBaghousePleasant PrairieWisconsin1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (or95% or0.112/31/06Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR (or0.112/31/0624approvedcontrol tech)approvedtech)2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orapprovedcontrol tech)95% or0.112/31/07Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR (orapprovedtech)0.112/31/03Oak CreekWisconsinUnits5 & 6Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orapprovedcontrol tech)95% or0.112/31/12Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR (orapprovedtech)0.112/31/12Unit 7Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orapprovedcontrol tech)95% or0.112/31/12Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR (orapprovedtech)0.112/31/12Unit 8Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orapprovedcontrol tech)95% or0.112/31/12Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR (orapprovedtech)0.112/31/12Port WashingtonWisconsinUnits1–4Retire12/31/04for Units1–3.Unit 4 byentry ofconsentdecreeValleyWisconsinBoilers 1–4Operateexisting lowNOxburner30 daysafterentry ofconsentdecreeVEPCOThe Total Permissible NOx Emissions (in tons) from VEPCO system are: 104,000 in 2003, 95,000 in 2004, 90,000 in 2005, 83,000 in 2006, 81,000 in 2007, 63,000 in 2008 – 2010, 54,000 in 2011,50,000 in 2012, and 30,250 each year there after. Beginning 1/1/2013 they will have a system wide emission rate no greater then 0.15 lb/MMBtu.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/vepco.htmlMount StormWestVirginiaUnits1–3Construct orimproveFGD95% or0.1501/01/05Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.1101/01/08On or beforeMarch 31 ofevery yearbeginning in2013 andcontinuingthereafter,VEPCOshallsurrender45,000 SO2allowances.ChesterfieldVirginiaUnit 4Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.101/01/13Unit 5Construct orimproveFGD95% or0.1310/12/12Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.101/01/12Unit 6Construct orimproveFGD95% or0.1301/01/10Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.101/01/1125ChesapeakeEnergyVirginiaUnits3 & 4Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.101/01/13CloverVirginiaUnits1 & 2ImproveFGD95% or0.1309/01/03Possum PointVirginiaUnits3 & 4Retireandrepowertonaturalgas05/02/03Santee CooperSantee Cooper shall comply with the following system wide averages for NOxemission rates and combined tons for emission of: by 1/01/2005facility shall comply with an emission rate of 0.3 and 30,000tons, by 1/1/2007 anemission rate of 0.18 and 25,000 tons, by 1/1/2010 and emission rate of 0.15 and 20,000 tons. For SO2emission the company shall comply with system wide averages of: by 1/1/2005 an emission rate of 0.92 and 95,000 tons, by1/1/2007 and emission rate of 0.75 and 85,000 tons, by 1/1/2009 an emission rate of 0.53 and 70 tons, and by 1/1/2011 and emission rate of 0.5 and 65 tons.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/santeecooper.htmlCrossSouthCarolinaUnit 1UpgradeandcontinuouslyoperateFGD95%06/30/06Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.105/31/04Theprovision didnot specifyan amountof SO2allowancesto besurrendered.It onlyprovidedthat excessallowancesresultingfromcompliancewith NSRsettlementprovisionsmust beretired.Unit 2UpgradeandcontinuouslyoperateFGD87%06/30/06Install andContinuously operateSCR0.11/0.105/31/04and05/31/07WinyahSouthCarolinaUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD95%12/31/08Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.11/0.111/30/04and11/30/04Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD95%12/31/08Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.1211/30/04Unit 3UpgradeandcontinuouslyoperateexistingFGD90%12/31/08Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.14/0.1211/30/2005 and11/30/08Unit 4UpgradeandcontinuouslyoperateexistingFGD90%12/31/07Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR0.13/0.1211/30/05and11/30/08GraingerSouthCarolinaUnit 1Operate lowNOxburneror morestringenttechnology06/25/04Unit 2Operate lowNOxburneror morestringenttechnology05/01/04JeffriesSouthCarolinaUnits3, 4Operate lowNOxburneror morestringenttechnology06/25/04Ohio Edison26Ohio Edison shall achieve reductions of 2,483 tons NOxbetween 7/1/2005 and 12/31/2010 using any combination of: 1) low sulfur coal at Burger Units 4 and 5, 2) operating SCRs currently installed atMansfield Units 1–3 during the months of October through April, and/or 3) emitting fewer tons than the Plant-Wide Annual Cap for NOxrequired for the Sammis Plant. Ohio Edison must reduce 24,600tons system-wide of SO2by 12/31/2010.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/ohioedison.htmlNo later than 8/11/2005, Ohio Edison shall install and operate low NOxburners on Sammis Units 1 - 7 and overfired air on Sammis Units 1,2,3,6, and 7. No later than 12/1/2005, Ohio Edison shall install advanced combustion control optimization with software to minimizeNOxemissions from Sammis Units 1–5.W.H. SammisPlantOhioUnit 1InstallInductScrubber (orapprovedequiv.control tech)50%removalor 1.1lb/MMBtu12/31/08InstallSNCR(or approvedalt. tech) &operatecontinuously0.2510/31/07Beginning on1/1/2006, OhioEdison mayuse, sell ortransfer anyrestricted SO2only to satisfythe OperationalNeeds at theSammis, Burgerand MansfieldPlant, or newunits within theFirstEnergySystem thatcomply with a96% removalfor SO2. Forcalendar year2006 through2017, OhioEdison mayaccumulateSO2allowancesfor use at theSammis,Burger, andMansfieldplants, orFirstEnergyunits equippedwith SO2EmissionControlStandards.Beginning in2018, OhioEdison shallsurrenderunusedrestricted SO2allowances.Unit 2InstallInductScrubber (orapprovedequiv.control tech)50%removalor 1.1lb/MMBtu12/31/08OperateexistingSNCRcontinuously0.2502/15/06Unit 3InstallInductScrubber (orapprovedequiv.control tech)50%removalor 1.1lb/MMBtu12/31/08Operate lowNOxburnersand overfireair by12/1/05;install SNCR(or approvedalt. tech) &operatecontinuouslyby 12/31/070.2512/01/05and10/31/07Unit 4InstallInductScrubber (orapprovedequiv.control tech)50%removalor 1.1lb/MMBtu06/30/09InstallSNCR(or approvedalt. tech) &operatecontinuously0.2510/31/07Unit 5Install FlashDryerAbsorberor ECO2(orapprovedequiv.control tech)&operatecontinuously50%removalor 1.1lb/MMBtu06/29/09InstallSNCR(or approvedalt. tech) &OperateContinuously0.2903/31/08Unit 6Install FGD3(orapprovedequiv.control tech)&operatecontinuously95%removalor 0.13lb/MMBtu06/30/11InstallSNCR(or approvedalt. tech) &operatecontinuously"MinimumExtentPracticable"06/30/05OperateExistingESPContinuously0.0301/01/10Unit 7Install FGD(orapprovedequiv.control tech)&operatecontinuously95%removalor 0.13lb/MMBtu06/30/11OperateexistingSNCRContinuously"MinimumExtentPracticable"08/11/05OperateExistingESPContinuously0.0301/01/10Mansfield PlantPennsylvaniaUnit 1UpgradeexistingFGD95%12/31/0527Unit 2UpgradeexistingFGD95%12/31/06Unit 3UpgradeexistingFGD95%10/31/07EastlakeOhioUnit 5Install lowNOxburners,over-firedair andSNCR &operatecontinuously"MinimizeEmissions to theExtentPracticable"12/31/06BurgerOhioUnit 4Repowerwith atleast80%biomassfuel, upto 20%lowsulfurcoal.12/31/11Unit 512/31/11MirantI1,6System-wide NOxEmission Annual Caps: 36,500 tons 2004; 33,840 tons 2005; 33,090 tons 2006; 28,920 tons 2007; 22,000 tons 2008; 19,650 tons 2009; 16,000 tons 2010 onward. System-wide NOxEmission Ozone Season Caps: 14,700 tons 2004; 13,340 tons 2005; 12,590 tons 2006; 10,190 tons 2007; 6,150 tons 2008–2009; 5,200 tons 2010 thereafter. Beginning on 5/1/2008, and continuing foreach and every Ozone Season thereafter, the Mirant System shall not exceed a System-wide Ozone Season Emission Rate of 0.150 lb/MMBtu NOx.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/mirant.htmlPotomac RiverPlantVirginiaUnit 1Unit 2Unit 3Install lowNOxburners (ormoreeffectivetech) &operatecontinuously05/01/04Unit 4Install lowNOxburners (ormoreeffectivetech) &operatecontinuously05/01/04Unit 5Install lowNOxburners (ormoreeffectivetech) &operatecontinuously05/01/04MorgantownPlantMarylandUnit 1Install SCR(or approvedalt. tech) &operatecontinuously0.105/01/0728Unit 2Install SCR(or approvedalt. tech) &operatecontinuously0.105/01/08Chalk PointMarylandUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orequiv.technology)95%06/01/10For each yearafter MirantcommencesFGD operationat Chalk Point,Mirant shallsurrender thenumber of SO2Allowancesequal to theamount bywhich the SO2Allowancesallocated to theUnits at theChalk PointPlant aregreater than thetotal amount ofSO2emissionsallowed underthis SectionXVIII.Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD (orequiv.technology)95%06/01/10Illinois PowerSystem-wide NOx Emission Annual Caps: 15,000 tons 2005; 14,000 tons 2006; 13,800 tons 2007 onward. System-wide SO2 Emission Annual Caps: 66,300 tons 2005 – 2006; 65,000 tons 2007;62,000 tons 2008 – 2010; 57,000 tons 2011; 49,500 tons 2012; 29,000 tons 2013 onward.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/illinoispower.htmlBaldwinIllinoisUnits1 & 2Install wetor dry FGD(orapprovedequiv. alt.tech) &operatecontinuously0.112/31/11OperateOFA &existingSCRcontinuously0.108/11/05Install &continuouslyoperateBaghouse0.01512/31/10By year end2008, Dynergywill surrender12,000 SO2emissionallowances, byyear end 2009 itwill surrender18,000, by yearend 2010 it willsurrender24,000, any byyear end 2011and each yearthereafter it willsurrender30,000allowances. Ifthe surrenderedallowancesresult ininsufficientremainingallowancesallocated to theunitscomprising theDMG system,DMG canrequest tosurrender fewerSO2allowances.Unit 3Install wetor dry FGD(orapprovedequiv. alt.tech) &operatecontinuously0.112/31/11OperateOFA and/orlow NOxburners0.12 until12/30/12;0.1 from12/31/1208/11/05and12/31/12Install &continuouslyoperateBaghouse0.01512/31/10HavanaIllinoisUnit 6Install wetor dry FGD(orapprovedequiv. alt.tech) &operatecontinuously1.2lb/MMBtu until12/30/2012; 0.1lb/MMBtu from12/31/2012onward08/11/05and12/31/12OperateOFA and/orlow NOxburners &operateexistingSCRcontinuously0.108/11/05Install &continuouslyoperateBaghouse,then installESP or alt.PM equipFor Baghouse:0.015lb/MMBtu; ForESP:0.03lb/MMBtuForBaghouse:12/31/12;For ESP:12/31/05HennepinIllinoisUnit 11.207/27/05OperateOFAand/or lowNOxburners"MinimumExtentPracticable"08/11/05Install ESP(or equiv. alt.tech) &continuously0.0312/31/0629operateESPsUnit 21.207/27/05OperateOFAand/or lowNOxburners"MinimumExtentPracticable"08/11/05Install ESP(or equiv. alt.tech) &continuouslyoperateESPs0.0312/31/06VermilionIllinoisUnits1 & 21.201/31/07OperateOFAand/or lowNOxburners"MinimumExtentPracticable"08/11/05Install ESP(or equiv. alt.tech) &continuouslyoperateESPs0.0312/31/10Wood RiverIllinoisUnits4 & 51.207/27/05OperateOFAand/or lowNOxburners"MinimumExtentPracticable"08/11/05Install ESP(or equiv. alt.tech) &continuouslyoperateESPs0.0312/31/05Kentucky Utilities CompanyEW BrownGeneratingStationKentuckyUnit 3Install FGD97% or0.10012/31/10Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR by12/31/2012,continuouslyoperate lowNOxboilerand OFA.0.0712/31/12Continuouslyoperate ESP0.0312/31/10KU mustsurrender53,000 SO2allowances of2008 or earliervintage byMarch 1, 2009.All surplus NOxallowancesmust besurrenderedthrough 2020.SO2and NOxallowances maynot be used forcompliance,and emissionsdecreases forpurposes ofcomplying withthe ConsentDecree do notearn credits.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/kucompany.htmlSalt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP)CoronadoGeneratingStationArizonaUnit 1orUnit 2Immediatelybegincontinuousoperation ofexistingFGDs onboth units,install newFGD.95% or0.08NewFGDinstalledby1/1/2012Install andcontinuouslyoperate lowNOxburnerand SCR0.32 priorto SCRinstallation, 0.080afterLNB by06/01/2009, SCRby06/01/2014Optimizationandcontinuousoperation ofexistingESPs.0.03Optimizationbeginsimmediately, ratelimitbegins01/01/12(date ofnewFGDinstallation)Beginning in2012, allsurplus SO2allowances forboth CoronadoandSpringervilleUnit 4 must besurrenderedthrough 2020.The allowanceslimited by thiscondition may,however, beused forcompliance at aprospectivefuture plantusing BACTand otherwisespecified in par.54 of theSO2and NOxallowances maynot be used forcompliance,and emissionsdecreases forpurposes ofcomplying withthe ConsentDecree do notearn credits.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/srp.htmlUnit 1orUnit 2Install newFGD95% or0.0801/01/13Install andcontinuouslyoperate lowNOxburner0.3206/01/11Optimizationbeginsimmediately, ratelimitbegins01/01/13(date of30newFGDinstallation)consent decree.American Electric PowerEastern System-WideAnnualCap(tons)YearAnnualCap(tons)YearNOxand SO2allowances thatwould havebeen madeavailable byemissionreductionspursuant to theConsentDecree must besurrendered.NOxand SO2allowances maynot be used tocomply with anyof the limitsimposed by theConsentDecree. TheConsentDecree includesa formula forcalculatingexcess NOxallowancesrelative to theCAIRAllocations, andrestricts the useof some. Seepar. 74-79 fordetails.Reducingemissionsbelow theEasternSystem-WideAnnualTonnageLimitations forNOxand SO2earns supercomplianceallowances.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/americanelectricpower1007.html450,000201096,0002009450,000201192,5002010420,000201292,5002011350,000201385,0002012340,000201485,0002013275,000201585,0002014260,000201675,0002015235,000201772,0002016 andthereafter184,0002018174,0002019 andthereafterAt least 600MWfrom variousunitsWestVirginiaSporn1–4Retire,retrofit,or repower12/31/18VirginiaClinchRiver1–3IndianaTannersCreek1–3WestVirginiaKammer1–3AmosWestVirginiaUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/09Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/0831Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/10Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Unit 3Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/09Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/08Big SandyKentuckyUnit 1Burn onlycoal with nomore than1.75lb/MMBtuannualaverageDate ofentryContinuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryUnit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/15Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09CardinalOhioUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/08Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Continuouslyoperate ESP0.0312/31/09Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/08Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Continuouslyoperate ESP0.0312/31/09Unit 3Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/12Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Clinch RiverVirginiaUnits1–3Plantwideannualcap:21,700tons from2010 to2014,then16,300after1/1/20152010–2014,2015 andthereafterContinuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryConesvilleOhioUnit 1Retire,retrofit,or repowerDate ofentryUnit 2Retire,retrofit,or repowerDate ofentry32Unit 3Retire,retrofit,or repower12/31/12Unit 4Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/10Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR12/31/10Unit 5UpgradeexistingFGD95%12/31/09Continuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryUnit 6UpgradeexistingFGD95%12/31/09Continuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryGavinOhioUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGDDate ofentryInstall andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGDDate ofentryInstall andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Glen LynVirginiaUnits1–3Units5, 6Burn onlycoal with nomore than1.75lb/MMBtuannualaverageDate ofentryContinuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryKammerWestVirginiaUnits1–3Plantwideannualcap:35,00001/01/10Continuously operateover-fire airDate ofentryKanawha RiverWestVirginiaUnits1, 2Burn onlycoal with nomore than1.75lb/MMBtuannualaverageDate ofentryContinuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryMitchellWestVirginiaUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/07Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/07Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/09MountaineerWestVirginiaUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/07Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/08MuskingumRiverOhioUnits1–4Retire,retrofit,or repower12/31/1533Unit 5Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/15Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR01/01/08Continuouslyoperate ESP0.0312/31/02PicwayOhioUnit 9Continuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryRockportIndianaUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/17Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR12/31/17Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD12/31/19Install andcontinuouslyoperateSCR12/31/19SpornWestVirginiaUnit 5Retire,retrofit,or repower12/31/13Tanners CreekIndianaUnits1–3Burn onlycoal with nomore than1.2lb/MMBtuannualaverageDate ofentryContinuously operatelow NOxburnersDate ofentryUnit 4Burn onlycoal with nomore than1.2% sulfurcontentannualaverageDate ofentryContinuously operateover-fire airDate ofentryEast Kentucky Power Cooperative Inc.By 12/31/2009, EKPC shall choose whether to: 1) install and continuously operate NOxcontrols at Cooper 2 by 12/31/2012 and SO2controls by 6/30/2012 or 2) retire Dale 3 and Dale 4 by 12/31/2012.System-wideSystemwide 12-monthrollingtonnagelimits apply12-monthrollinglimit(tons)Start of12-monthcycleAll unitsmustoperate lowNOxboilers12-monthrollinglimit(tons)Start of12-monthcyclePM controldevices mustbe operatedcontinuouslysystem-wide,ESPs mustbe optimizedwithin 270days of entrydate, or0.031 yearfromentrydateAll surplus SO2allowancesmust besurrenderedeach year,beginning in2008.SO2and NOxallowances maynot be used tocomply with theConsentDecree. NOxallowances thatwould becomeavailable as aresult ofhttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/nevadapower.html57,00010/01/0811,50001/01/0840,00007/01/118,50001/01/133428,00001/01/138,00001/01/15EKPC maychoose tosubmit a PMPollutionControlUpgradeAnalysis.compliance withthe ConsentDecree may notbe sold ortraded. SO2and NOxallowancesallocated toEKPC must beused within theEKPC system.Allowancesmade availabledue to supercompliancemay be sold ortraded.SpurlockKentuckyUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD95% or0.16/30/2011Continuously operateSCR0.12 forUnit 1until01/01/2013, atwhichpoint theunit limitdrops to0.1. Priorto01/01/2013, thecombinedaveragewhenboth unitsareoperatingmust beno morethan 0.160 daysafterentry35Unit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperateFGD by10/1/200895% or0.11/1/2009Continuously operateSCR andOFA0.1 forUnit 2,0.1combinedaveragewhenboth unitsareoperating60 daysafterentryDale PlantKentuckyUnit 1Install andcontinuouslyoperate lowNOxburnersby10/31/20070.4601/01/08EKPC mustsurrender 1,000NOxallowancesimmediatelyunder the ARP,and 3,107under the NOxSIP Call. EKPCmust alsosurrender15,311 SO2allowances.Date ofentryhttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/eastkentuckypowerdale0907.htmlUnit 2Install andcontinuouslyoperate lowNOxburnersby10/31/20070.4601/01/08Unit 3EKPCmaychooseto retireDale 3and 4 inlieu ofinstallingcontrolsinCooper 212/31/2012Unit 4CooperKentuckyUnit 1Unit 2If EKPCopts toinstallcontrolsrather thanretiringDale, it mustinstall andcontinuouslyoperateFGD orequiv.technology95% or0.10If EKPCelects toinstallcontrols, itmustcontinuouslyoperateSCR orinstall equiv.technology0.08 (or90% ifnon-SCRtechnology is used)12/31/12Nevada Power CompanyBeginning 1/1/2010, combined NOxemissions from Units 5,6,7, and 8 must be no more than 360 tons per year.Clark GeneratingStationNevadaUnit 5Unitsmay onlyfirenaturalIncreasewaterinjectionimmediately,5ppm 1-houraverage12/31/08(ULNBinstallation),Allowancesmay not beused to complywith thehttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources36gasthen installand operateultra-lowNOxburners(ULNBs) orequivalenttechnology.In 2009,Units 5 and8 may notemit morethan 180tonscombined01/30/09(1-houraverage)ConsentDecree, and noallowancesmade availabledue tocompliance withthe ConsentDecree may betraded or sold./cases/civil/caa/nevadapower.htmlUnit 65ppm 1-houraverage12/31/09(ULNBinstallation),01/30/10(1-houraverage)Unit 75ppm 1-houraverage12/31/09(ULNBinstallation),01/30/10(1-houraverage)Unit 85ppm 1-houraverage12/31/08(ULNBinstallation),01/30/09(1-houraverage)Dayton Power & LightNon-EPA Settlement of 10/23/2008StuartGeneratingStationOhioStationwideCompleteinstallationof FGDs oneach unit.96% or0.1007/31/09Owners maynotpurchaseany newcatalyst withSO2to SO3conversionrate greaterthan 0.5%0.17stationwide30 daysafterentry0.030 lbper unit07/31/09NOxand SO2allowances maynot be used tocomply with themonthly ratesspecified in theConsentDecree.Courtlinkdocumentprovidedby EPA inemail0.17stationwide60 daysafterentrydate82%includingdatafromperiodsofmalfunctions7/31/09through7/30/11Installcontroltechnologyon one unit0.10 onanysingleunit12/31/12Installrigidtypeelectrodes ineachunit'sESP12/31/1582%includingdatafromperiodsofmalfunctionsafter7/31/110.15stationwide07/01/120.10stationwide12/31/14PSEG FOSSIL, Amended Consent Decree of November 2006KearnyNew JerseyUnit 7Retireunit01/01/07Allowancesallocated toKearny,Hudson, andMercer mayonly be used forthe operationalhttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/amended/psegfossil-37needs of thoseunits, and allsurplusallowancesmust besurrendered.Within 90 daysof amendedConsentDecree, PSEGmust surrender1,230 NOxAllowances and8,568 SO2Allowances notalreadyallocated to orgenerated bythe units listedhere. Kearnyallowancesmust besurrenderedwith theshutdown ofthose units.amendedcd.pdfUnit 8Retireunit01/01/07HudsonNew JerseyUnit 2Install DryFGD (orapprovedalt.technology)andcontinuallyoperate0.1512/31/10Install SCR(or approvedtech) andcontinuallyoperate0.112/31/10InstallBaghouse(or approvedtechnology)0.01512/31/10AnnualCap(tons)YearAnnualCap(tons)Year5,54720073,48620075,27020083,48620085,27020093,48620095,27020103,4862010MercerNew JerseyUnits1 &2Install DryFGD (orapprovedalt.technology)andcontinuallyoperate0.1512/31/10Install SCR(or approvedtech) andcontinuallyoperate0.101/01/07InstallBaghouse(or approvedtechnology)0.01512/31/10Westar EnergyJeffrey EnergyCenterKansasAllunitsUnits 1, 2, and 3 have a total annuallimit of 6,600 tons of SO2 and anannual rate limit of 0.07 lbs/MMBtustarting 2012Units 1, 2, and 3 must all install FGDsby 2011 and operate themcontinuously.FGDs must maintain a 30-Day RollingAverage Unit Removal Efficiency forSO2 of at least 97% or a 30-DayRolling Average Unit Emission Rate forSO2 of no greater than 0.070lb/MMBtu.Units 1-3 must continuously operate LowNOx Combustion Systems by 2012 andachieve and maintain a 30-Day RollingAverage Unit Emission Rate for NOx ofno greater than 0.180 lb/MMBtu.One of the three units must install anSCR by 2015 and operate itcontinuously to maintain a 30-DayRolling Average Unit Emission Rate forNOx of no greater than 0.080 lb/MMBtu.By 2013 Westar shall elect to either (a)install a second SCR on one of the otherJEC Units by 2017 or (b) meet a 0.100lb/MMBtu Plant-Wide 12-Month RollingAverage Emission Rate and 9.6 MTonsannual cap for NOx by 2015Units 1, 2, and 3 must operate eachESP and FGD system continuously by2011 and maintain a 0.030 lb/MMBtuPM Emissions Rate.Units 1 and 2’s ESPs must be rebuilt by2014 in order to meet a 0.030 lb/MMBtuPM Emissions RateDuke EnergyGallagherIndianaUnits1 & 3Retire orrepowerasnaturalgas1/1/201238Units2 & 4Install Drysorbentinjectiontechnology80%1/1/2012American Municipal PowerGorsuch StationOhioUnits2 & 3Elected to Retire Dec15, 2010 (must retireby Dec 31, 2012)http://amppartners.org/newsroom/amp-toretiregorsuchgenerating-station/Units1 & 4Hoosier Energy Rural Electric CooperativeRattsIndianaUnits1 & 2Install &continuallyoperateSNCRS0.2512/31/2011Continuously operate ESPAnnually surrender any NOx and SO2 allowancesthat Hoosier does not need in order to meet itsregulatory obligationshttp://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/hoosier.htmlMeromIndianaUnit 1Continuallyrun currentFGD for90%removal andupdate FGDfor 98%removal by201298%2012ContinuouslyoperateexistingSCRs0.12Continuously operate ESP and achievePM rate no greater than 0.007 by6/1/12Unit 2Continuallyrun currentFGD for90%removal andupdate FGDfor 98%removal by201498%2014Continuously operate ESP and achievePM rate no greater than 0.007 by6/1/13Northern Indiana Public Service Co.System-wide NOxEmission Caps in Tons: 15,537 in 2012, if NIPSCO chooses NOx Option 1: 15,247 in 2013, 14,959 in 2014, 14,365 in 2015, 11,704 in 2016 - 2018, if NIPSCO chooses NOx option A: 11,704 in 2019 & onwards, if NIPSCO chooses NOx option B: 10,300in 2019 & onwards; if NIPSCO chooses NOx Option 2: 13,752 in 2013, 13,464 in 2014, 12,870 in 2015 - 2018, if NIPSCO chooses NOx option A: 12,870 in 2019 & onwards, if NIPSCO chooses NOx option B: 11,470 in 2019 & onwards. System-wide SO2 Emission Capsin Tons: 50,200 in 2012 - 2013,10,200 35,900 in 2014 & 2015, 25,300 in 2016-2018, if NIPSCO chooses SO2 option 1: 10,200 in 2019 & onwards, if NIPSCO chooses SO2 option 2: 11,600 in 2019 & onwards.BaillyIndianaUnits7 & 8UpgradeexistingFGD95% by 01/01/1197% by 01/01/14 (95%if low sulfur coal onlyis burned)OFA & SCR0.15 lb/MMBtu by12/31/100.13 lb/MMBtu by12/31/130.12 lb/MMBtu by12/31/150.3lb/MMBtu (0.015if abaghouse isinstalled)12/31/2010Michigan CityIndianaUnit12FGD0.1lb/MMBtu12/31/2018OFA & SCR0.14 lb/MMBtu by12/31/100.12 lb/MMBtu by12/31/110.10 lb/MMBtu by12/31/130.3lb/MMBtu (0.015if abaghouse isinstalled)12/31/201839SchahferIndianaUnit14FGD0.08lb/MMBtu12/31/2013OFA & SCR0.14 lb/MMBtu by12/31/100.12 lb/MMBtu by12/31/120.10 lb/MMBtu by12/31/140.3lb/MMBtu (0.015if abaghouse isinstalled)12/31/2013IndianaUnit15FGD0.08lb/MMBtu12/31/2015LNB/OFA0.163/31/20110.3lb/MMBtu (0.015if abaghouse isinstalled)12/31/2015SCR0.0812/31/2015IndianaUnits17 &18UpgradeexistingFGD97%1/31/2011LNB/OFA0.23/31/20110.3lb/MMBtu (0.015if abaghouse isinstalled)12/31/2010Dean H MitchellIndianaUnits4, 5,6, &11Retire12/31/2010Tennessee Valley AuthoritySystem-wide NOx Emission Caps in Tons: 100,600 in 2012, 90,791 in 2013, 86,842 in 2014, 83,042 in 2015, 70,667 in 2016, 64,951in 2017, 52,000 in 2018 & onwards. System-wide SO2 Emission Caps in Tons: 285,000 in 2012, 235,518 in 2013, 228,107 in 2014,220,631 in 2015, 175,626 in 2016, 164,257 in 2017, 121,699 in 2018, 100,000 in 2019 & onwards.ColbertAlabamaUnits1- 4FGD6/30/2016SCR6/30/2016Shall surrenderall calendaryear NOx andSO2Allowancesallocated toTVA that arenot needed forcompliance withits own CAAreqts.Allocatedallowances maybe used forTVA’s owncompliance withCAA reqts.Shall not useNOx or SO2Allowances tocomply with anyrequirement ofthe ConsentDecree,Nothingprevents TVAfrom purchasingor otherwiseobtaining NOxand SO2allowancesfrom othersources for itscompliance withCAA reqts.TVA may sell,bank, use,trade, ortransfer anyNOx and SO2”SuperCompliance”Allowancesresulting from2011http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/tvacoalfired.htmlUnit 5FGD12/31/15SCREffectiveDateWidows CreekAlabamaUnits1 - 6Retire 2 units 7/31/13Retire 2 units 7/31/14Retire 2 units 7/31/15Unit 7SCREffectiveDateUnit 8SCREffectiveDateParadiseKentuckyUnits1 & 2UpgradeFGD93%12/31/12SCREffectiveDateUnit 3Wet FGDEffectiveDateSCREffectiveDateShawneeKentuckyUnits1 & 4FGD1.212/31/17SCR12/31/17Units5 - 101.2EffectiveDateAllenTennesseeUnits1 - 3FGD12/31/180.312/31/18Bull RunTennesseeUnit 1Wet FGDEffectiveDate0.3EffectiveDate40CumberlandTennesseeUnits1 & 2Wet FGDEffectiveDatemeetingSystem-widelimits. Exceptthat reductionsused to supportnew CC/CT willnot be SuperAllowances inthat year andthereafter.GallatinTennesseeUnits1 - 4FGD12/31/17SCR12/31/170.312/31/17John SevierTennesseeUnits1 & 2Retire 2 Units12/31/12 and 12/31/15Units3 & 4FGD12/31/15SCR12/31/15JohnsonvilleTennesseeUnits1 - 10Retire 6 Units12/31/15Retire 4 Units12/31/17KingstonTennesseeUnits1 - 9FGDEffectiveDateSCREffectiveDate0.3EffectiveDateNotes:1) Updates to the EPA Base Case 4.10 Final from EPA Base Case 4.10 include the additions of the American Municipal Power settlement, the Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative settlement, a modification to the control requirements on the Mercer plantunder thePSEG Fossil settlement, and an update to the SO2emission modeling on Jeffrey Energy Center as part of the Westar settlement.2) This summary table describes New Source Review settlement actions as they are represented in EPA Base Case. The settlementactions are simplified for representation in the model. This table is not intended to be a comprehensive description of allelements of theactual settlement agreements.3) Settlement actions for which the required emission limits will be effective by the time of the first mapped run year (before 1/1/2012) are built into the database of units used in EPA Base Case ("hardwired"). However, future actions are generally modeled as individualconstraints on emission rates in EPA Base Case, allowing the modeled economic situation to dictate whether and when a unit would opt to install controls versus retire.4) Some control installations that are required by these NSR settlements have already been taken by the affected companies, even if deadlines specified in their settlement haven't occurred yet. Any controls that are already in place are built into EPABase Case5) If a settlement agreement requires installation of PM controls, then the controls are shown in this table and reflected inEPA Base Case. If settlement requires optimization or upgrade of existing PM controls, those actions are not included in EPA Base Case.6) For units for which an FGD is modeled as an emissions constraint in EPA Base Case, EPA used the assumptions on removal efficiencies that are shown in the latest emission control technologies documentation7) For units for which an FGD is hardwired in EPA Base Case, unless the type of FGD is specified in the settlement, EPA modeling assumes the most cost effective FGD (wet or dry) and a corresponding 95% removal efficiency for wet and 90% for dry.8) For units for which an SCR is modeled as an emissions constraint or is hardwired in EPA Base Case, EPA assumed an emissionsrate equal to 10% of the unit's uncontrolled rate, with a floor of .06 lb/MMBtu or used the emission limit if provided.9) The applicable low NOx burner reduction efficiencies are shown in Table A 3-1:3 in the Base Case documentation materials.10) EPA included in EPA Base Case the requirements of the settlements as they existed on January 1, 2011.11) Some of the NSR settlements require the retirement of SO2 allowances. For Base Case, EPA estimates the amount of allowances to be retired from these settlements and adjusted the total Title IV allowances accordingly.41Chapter 4. Generating ResourcesTable 4-13. Performance and Unit Cost Assumptions for Potential (New) Capacity from Conventional Technologies in EPA Base Casev4.10_MATSAdvancedCombinedCycleAdvancedCombustionTurbineNuclearIntegratedGasificationCombinedCycle –BituminousIntegratedGasificationCombined Cycle– SubbituminousAdvancedCoal withCarbonCaptureBituminous1Advanced Coalwith CarbonCapture –Subbituminous1SupercriticalPulverizedCoal - WetBituminousSupercriticalPulverizedCoal - DrySubBituminousSize (MW)5601701350600600500500600600First YearAvailable201520122017201320132015201520132013Lead Time (Years)326444444Vintage #1(years covered)2012 -20542012 - 20542012 -20542012 - 20542012 - 20542012 - 20542015 - 20542012 - 20542012 - 2054Availability87%92%90%85%85%85%85%85%85%Vintage #1Heat Rate(Btu/kWh)6,81010,72010,4008,4248,06210,1499,7138,8748,937Capital2(2007$/kW)9766984,6215,0003,2653,3104,7204,7852,9183,008Fixed O&M(2007$/kW/yr)14.412.392.447.948.260.561.028.928.6Variable O&M(2007$/MWh)2.573.590.771.321.151.671.463.432.27Notes:1For The term “Advanced Coal withCarbon Capture” is used hereand in the output files for EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS to represent a varietyof technologies that are expected to provide carbon capture capabilities. These include both supercriticalsteam generators with carbon captureand integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon capture. Although IGCC with carbon capture was used to define the cost andperformance parameters thatare implemented in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS, projections of “Advanced Coalwith Carbon Capture” inEPABase Case v.4.10_MATS are not limited to this technology.2Capital cost represents overnight capital cost.

# 42 

# Chapter 5: Emission Control Technologies

● ● ●

5.2 Nitrogen Oxides Control Technology

Table 5-7. Summary of Retrofit NOx Emission Control Performance Assumptions

Control

Performance

Assumptions Selective Catalytic Reduction

(SCR) Selective Non-Catalytic

Reduction

(SNCR)

Unit Type Coal Oil/Gas Coal

Percent Removal 90% down to 0.06

lb/MMBtu 80% Pulverized Coal: 35%

25% with a NOx rate floor of

0.1 lbs/MMBtu

Fluidized Bed: 50%

with a NOx rate floor of

0.08lbs/MMBtu

Size Applicability Units ≥ 25 MW Units ≥ 25 MW Units ≥ 25 MW

Costs (2007$) See Table 5-8* Table 5-9* Table 5-8*

* Tables in EPA Base Case v.4.10 (EPA #430-R-10-010), August 2010 at

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsre gs/epa-ipm/transport.html.

● ● ●

5.4.3 Mercury Control Capabilities

[Insert the following text at the end of section 5.4.3 as it appears in the Documentation Supplement for the

Proposed Toxics Rule (March 2011)]

Revisions to ACI VOM Cost in Base Case v.4.10_MATS : For coal units that have a FF embedded in LSD

or DSI+FF retrofits, the variable operating and main tenance (VOM) cost of activated carbon injection

(ACI) retrofits is assumed to be 81 percent lower due to the presence of pre-existing particulate controls.

● ● ●

5.5.1 Chlorine Content of Fuels

HCl emissions from the power sector result from the chlorine content of the coal that is combusted by

electric generating units. Data on chlorine cont ent of coals had been collected as part EPA’s 1999

“Information Collection Reque st for Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Mercury Emissions Information

Collection Effort” (ICR 1999 ) described above in sect ion 5.4.1 To provide the capability for EPA Base

Case v4.10_MATS to account for HCl emissions, th is data had to be incorporated into the model. The

procedures used for this are presented in the updated text in section 9.1.3 below.

To account for the effect of ash chemistry on HCl em issions, the HCl content of lignite and subbituminous

coals is reduced by 75%.

In the IPM modeling runs done in support of the proposed MATS, 100 % of the coal chlorine was

assumed to convert to HCl and be present in the flue gas at the point of injection of the dry sorbent. This

was the assumption for all coal ranks and types. After MATS propo sal a team of EPA and DOE engineers

and control technology specialists met regularly to further evaluate the application of DSI. One of the

outcomes of that collaboration was recognition that western sub-bitumi nous coal (such as that mined in

# 43 the Powder River Basin) and lignites contain natural alkalinity in the form of non-glassy calcium oxide

(CaO) and other alkaline and alkaline earth oxides. This fly ash (classified as ‘Class C’ fly ash) has a

natural pH of 9 and higher and the natural alkalinity c an effectively neutralize much of the HCl in the flue

gas stream prior to the primary control device.

Eastern bituminous coals, by contrast, tend to pr oduce fly ash with lower natural alkalinity. Though

bituminous fly ash (classified as ‘Class F’ fly ash) may contain calcium, it tends to be present in a glassy

matrix and unavailable for acid-base neutralization reactions.

In order to assess the extent of expected natural neutralization, the 2010 ICR data was examined. It was

observed that some of the subbitum inous coals contained chlorine levels in such low quantities that users

should expect to meet the HCl emission limit with no additional controls. It was also noted that some

other units burning subbituminous or lignite coals wi th higher levels of Cl were achieving 50-85 % HCl

control with only cold-side ESP (i.e., with no flue gas des ulfurization or other acid gas control technology).

We examined the Cl content of the sub-bituminous coals that are modeled in IPM and compared those to

the ICR results. From that analysis we believe that those coals can expect to achieve approximately 75 %

natural HCl neutralization from the alkaline fly ash.

● ● ●

5.5.3 HCl Retrofit Emission Control Options

Table 5

‐ 20 Summary of HCl Emission Control Technology

Assumptions in EPA Base Case v4.10_PTox

(Proposed Toxics Rule)

HCl Control Technology

Options Applicability

Limestone Forced Oxidation

(LSFO) Scrubber Base case and policy case

Lime Spray Dryer (LSD) Base case and policy case

Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) Base case and policy case

Scrubber upgrade

adjustment To existing coal steam units with

FGD in policy cases analyzed for

MATS Rulemaking

All the retrofit options for HCl emission control ar e summarized in Table 5-20. The scrubber upgrade

adjustment was discussed above in 5.5.2. The other options are discussed in detail in the following

sections.

5.5.3.1 Wet and Dry FGD

In addition to providing SO 2 

# reductions, wet scrubbers (Limesto ne Forced Oxidation, LSFO) and dry

scrubbers (Lime Spray Dryer, LSD) reduce HCl as well. For both LSFO and LSD the HCl removal rate is

assumed to be 99% with a floor of 0.0001 lbs/MMBtu. This is summarized in columns 2-5 of Table 5-21.

# 44 FGD Upgrade Assumptions in MATS Policy Case : In setting up the MATS policy case, all scrubbed unit

that do not currently achieve an SO2 removal rate of 94% are assigned a capital cost of $100/kW (2009$)

for an FGD upgrade that will improve their HCl removal rates to 99% and bring any unit whose SO2

removal rate was below 90% up to 90%.

Dry Scrubber Removal Assumptions for Waste Coal and Petroleum Coke Units in MATS Policy

Case : In setting up the Base Case v.4.10_MATS, waste coal and petroleum coke units without an

existing FGD were mistakenly not provided with a scrubbe r retrofit option. To make up for this oversight,

in run year 2015 a dry scrubber and an associated capital cost of $748/kW (applied through and FOM

adder) are assigned to these units when setting up the MATS policy case. (The $748/kW capital cost was

calculated using the procedures described in secti on 5.1.1 and, illustrated in Appendix 5-1 for a 100 MW

unit with an average heat rate of the waste coal units .) The removal rates obtained by the dry FGD ( 92%

for SO2 and 99% for HCl) are incremental to existing FBC removals. In addition, petroleum coke units

with dry FGD are assigned a mercury emission modification factor (EMF) of 0.07.]

● ● ●

5.5.3.2 Dry Sorbent Injection

[Insert the following text at the end of section 5.5.3.2 as it appears in the Documentation Supplement for

the Proposed Toxics Rule (March 2011)]

Revisions to DSI Cost and Performance Assumptions in Base Case v.4.10_MATS : The following

additional assumptions were made with respect to DSI in the Base Case v.4.10_MATS

(a) Since fabric filters are a pre-requisite for a DSI retrofit, the DSI retrofit VOM cost incurred by units

with no pre-existing fabric filter is reduced by 35% to reflect the non-contamination of fly ash and

the resulting savings in fly ash disposal costs fr om the forced installation of a fabric filter.

(b) The cost of the pre-requisite fabric filter is implemented as adders to the FOM and capital cost of

the DSI installation.

● ● ●

5.5.4 Fabric Filter (Baghouse) Cost Development

Fabric filters are not en dogenously modeled as a separate retrofit option in EPA Base Case v4.10_PTox,

but are accounted for as a cost adder where they ar e required for particulate matter (PM), mercury, or

HCl emission control. In EPA Base Case v4.10_PTox, an exis ting or new fabric filter particulate control

device is a pre-condition for installing a DSI retrofi t. In the v4.10_PTox policy case any unit that was

retrofit by the model with DSI and did not have an exis ting fabric filter incurred the cost of installing a

fabric filter. This cost was added to the DSI costs di scussed in section 5.5.3.2. This section describes

the methodology used by Sargent & Lundy to derive the cost of a fabric filter.

The engineering cost analysis is based on a pulse-jet fabric filter which collects particulate matter on a

fabric bag and uses air pulses to dislodge the particu late from the bag surface and collect it in hoppers for

removal via an ash handling system to a silo. This is a mature technology that has been operating

commercially for more than 25 years. “Baghouse” and “fabric filters” are used interchangeably to refer to

such installations.

Capital Cost : Two governing variables are used to derive the bare module capital cost of a fabric filter.

The first of these is the “air-to-cloth” (A/C) ratio. The major driver of f abric filter capital cost, the A/C ratio

is defined as the volumetric flow, (typically expressed in Actual Cubi c Feet per Minute, ACFM) of flue gas

entering the baghouse divided by the areas (typically in square feet) of f abric filter cloth in the baghouse.

The lower the A/C ratio, e.g., A/C = 4.0 compared to A/C = 6.0, the greater the area of the cloth required

and the higher the cost for a given volumetric flow.

# 45 Note: Based on public comments and engineering assessme nts, an air-to-cloth ratio or 4.0, rather than

6.0, was used in modeling for MATS to provide a co nservative projection of the requirements and cost of

sorbent removal.

The other determinant of capital cost is the flue gas vo lumetric flow rate (in ACFM) which is a function of

the type of coal burned and the unit’s size and heat rate.

● ● ●

5.6 Filterable Particul ate Matter (PM) Compliance

When the MATS policy case is modeled off the v.4.10 _MATS Base Case, it is assumed that all coal

burning generating units with a capa city of 25 MW or greater will comply with the filterable PM

requirements through the operat ion of either electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric filter (FF) particulate

controls. The decision of whether an upgrade of ex isting controls will be needed to meet the requirement

is not modeled endogenously but supplied as an input when setting up the run.

Units with existing fabric filters are assumed to be abl e to meet the filterable PM compliance requirement.

For units with existing ESPs the following procedure is used to determine if they already meet the

filterable PM requirement, can meet it by one of th ree possible ESP upgrades, or can only meet it by

installing a FF.

First, PM emission rate data derived either from 2 005 EIA Form 767 or (where available) from EPA’s

2010 Information Collection Request5 are compared to the applicable filterable PM compliance

requirement. If the unit’s emission rate is equal to or less than the compliance requirement, adequate

controls are assumed already to be in place and no a dditional upgrade costs are imposed. For units that

do not meet the filterable PM compliance requireme nt, the incremental reduction needed (in lbs/mmBtu)

is calculated by subtracting the filterable PM comp liance standard from the reported emission rate.

Depending on the magnitude of the incremental reduction needed, the unit is as signed one of three ESP

upgrade costs (designated ESP1, ESP2, and ESP3) or the cost of a FF installation (designated ESP4), if

the required incremental reduction cannot be achieved by an ESP upgrade. Table 5-25 shows the four

levels of ESP upgrades (column 1), the key technologies includ ed in each upgrade (c olumn 2), trigger

points for the upgrades (column 3), t he capital cost of each upgrade (col umn 4), and the percent increase

in collection efficiency provided by the upgrade, di fferentiated according to the rank (subbituminous,

bituminous, or lignite) of coal burned.

When setting up a model run, the c apital costs for the ESP upgrades that are shown in Table 5-25 are

converted into annual fixed operating and maintena nce (FOM) charges which are added to the other

FOM costs incurred by a particu lar generating unit. To obtain the FOM adder for the ESP upgrades, the

values shown in Table 5-25 are multiplied by 11.3%, the capital charge rate for environmental retrofits.

(For a discussion of all the capital charge ra tes in the model runs built upon the EPA base case

v.4.10_MATS, see Chapter 8 (“F inancial Assumptions”) in Documentation for EPA Base Case

v.4.10_MATS Using the Integrated Planning Model , August 2010, EPA #430-R-10- 010.) To prevent

double counting of PM control costs, the FOM adde r described here is removed if a represented

generating unit had previously had an ESP4 fabric filter upg rade, or if, in the course of a model run, was

retrofit with dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD), DSI, or ACI plus TOXECON --- each of which includes

particulate controls in its capital cost.

The percentage improvements in collect ion efficiency shown in column 5 in Table 5-25 are additive in the

sense that the values shown in this column are added to the pre-upgrade collection efficiency to obtain

the after-upgrade collection efficiency.

5 2005 EIA Form 767 is the last year where the data was reported in the format of lb/MMBtu, which is compatible

with this analysis. Since any changes to facilities since 2005 would likely have improved (reduced) emissions, the

use of this data is conservative. More recent 2010 ICR test data is used where available.46Table 5-25. Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)Upgrades as Implemented in EPA Base Casefor MATS --- Characteristics, Trigger Points,Associated Costs, and Performance ImprovementsUpgradeLevelKey Technologies Employed inUpgradeTrigger Points for ESPUpgrade(Expressed in terms ofincremental reductionneeded (lbs/mmBtu) tomeet the filterable PMCompliance Standard) Capital CostAdditive Percent Improvement5inCollection Efficiency as a Result ofthe Upgrade (differentiated by therank of coal combusted)1High Frequency transformer-rectifier(TR) sets> 0.0 to≤0.005 $55/kW10.12 for subbituminous0.05 for bituminous0.01 for lignite2High frequency transformer-rectifier(TR) sets+New internals (rigid electrodes,increased plate spacing, increasedplate height)> 0.005 to≤0.01 $80/kW20.25 for subbituminous0.10 for bituminous0.02 for lignite3High frequency transformer-rectifier(TR) sets+New internals (rigid electrodes,increased plate spacing, increasedplate height)+Additional field> 0.01 to≤0.02 $100/kW30.50 for subbituminous0.20 for bituminous0.05 for lignite4Replacement with fabric filter(baghouse)> 0.02Use capital costequations for afabric filter4(Not Applicable)1Assumes upgrading the specific collection area (SCA) to250 square-feet/1000 afm (actual feet per minute).2Assumes upgrading the specific collection area (SCA) to300 square-feet/1000 afm (actual feet per minute).3Assumes upgrading the existing specific collection area (SCA)by 100 square-feet/1000 afm (actual feet per minute), a 20% height increase, andadditional field.4The cost equations for fabric filters are described in Section 5.5.4 ("Fabric Filter (Baghouse) Cost Development") with calculations illustrated inTables 1 and 2 in Appendix 5-5 ("Example Cost Calculation Worksheets forFabric Filters") inDocumentation Supplement for EPA Base Casev4.10_PTox−Updates for Proposed Toxics Rule(EPA # 430-R-11-006). This documentation supplement is available on the web atww.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/suppdoc.pdf.5The percentage improvement due to the ESP upgradeas shown in this column is added tothe pre-upgrade collection efficiency toobtain theafter-upgrade collection removal efficiency.

# 47 Appendix 5-6 contains a comple te listing of coal generating units with either cold- or hot-side ESPs but no

fabric filters. For each generating unit the tabl e in Appendix 5-6 shows the incremental reductions

needed to meet the PM filterabl e compliance requirement and the corresponding ESP upgrade (if any)

assigned to the unit to enable it to meet that requi rement. A filterable PM limit of 0.279 lb/mmBtu was

used in this analysis. This value is roughly 10% below the limit in the final MATS rule, therefore resulting

in a conservative estimate of the need to upgrade existing ESPs48Appendix 5-6. ESP Upgrade Provided to Existing Units without Fabric Filters so that They MeetTheir Filterable PM Compliance RequirementPlant NameUnit IDState NameUniqueIDCapacity (MW)OnLineYearFiringBottomDryScrubberInstalledCurrentFilterablePMEmission(lbs/MMBtu)FilterablePM Limit(lbs/MMBtu)Compliance withtheFilterablePM Limit?FinalFilterableEmission(lb/MMBtu)IncrementalFilterableReductionNeeded(lb/MMBtu)Level ofESPUpgradeRequiredto MeetFilterablePMRequirementA B Brown 2 Indiana 6137_B_2 245 1986 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---AES Beaver ValleyPartners Beaver Valley 2Pennsylvania 10676_B_2 43 1943 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4AES Beaver ValleyPartners Beaver Valley 3Pennsylvania 10676_B_3 43 1943 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4AES Beaver ValleyPartners Beaver Valley 4Pennsylvania 10676_B_4 43 1943 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1AES Cayuga 1 New York 2535_B_1 150 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---AES Cayuga 2 New York 2535_B_2 151 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---AES DeepwaterAAB001 Texas10670_B_AAB001 139 1986 vertical dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---AES Somerset LLC 1 New York 6082_B_1 681 1984 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Albright 1WestVirginia 3942_B_1 73 1952 wall dry 0 0.0696 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0417 ESP-4Albright 2WestVirginia 3942_B_2 73 1952 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Albright 3WestVirginia 3942_B_3 137 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Allen Steam Plant 1 Tennessee 3393_B_1 245 1959 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Allen Steam Plant 2 Tennessee 3393_B_2 245 1959 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Allen Steam Plant 3 Tennessee 3393_B_3 245 1959 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Alloy Steam Station BLR4WestVirginia 50012_B_BLR4 38 1950 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Alma B4 Wisconsin 4140_B_B4 51 1957 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Alma B5 Wisconsin 4140_B_B5 77 1960 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Ames Electric ServicesPower Plant 7 Iowa 1122_B_7 33 1968 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Ames Electric ServicesPower Plant 8 Iowa 1122_B_8 70 1982 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Apache Station 2 Arizona 160_B_2 175 1979 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Apache Station 3 Arizona 160_B_3 175 1979 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---49Armstrong Power Station 1Pennsylvania 3178_B_1 172 1958 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Armstrong Power Station 2Pennsylvania 3178_B_2 171 1959 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Asbury 1 Missouri 2076_B_1 213 1970 cyclone wet 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Asheville 1NorthCarolina 2706_B_1 191 1964 wall dry 0 0.0030 0.0279 Yes 0.0030 0.0000 ---Asheville 2NorthCarolina 2706_B_2 185 1971 wall dry 0 0.0036 0.0279 Yes 0.0036 0.0000 ---Ashtabula 7 Ohio 2835_B_7 244 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Austin Northeast NEPP Minnesota 1961_B_NEPP 29 1971 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Avon Lake 10 Ohio 2836_B_10 93 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Avon Lake 12 Ohio 2836_B_12 616 1970 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---B C Cobb 4 Michigan 1695_B_4 156 1956 tangential dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4B C Cobb 5 Michigan 1695_B_5 156 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0620 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0341 ESP-4B L England 1 New Jersey 2378_B_1 126 1962 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1B L England 2 New Jersey 2378_B_2 152 1964 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Bailly 7 Indiana 995_B_7 160 1962 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Bailly 8 Indiana 995_B_8 320 1968 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Barry 1 Alabama 3_B_1 138 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Barry 2 Alabama 3_B_2 137 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Barry 3 Alabama 3_B_3 249 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Barry 4 Alabama 3_B_4 362 1969 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Barry 5 Alabama 3_B_5 740 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Bay Shore 2 Ohio 2878_B_2 138 1959 vertical wet 0 0.3200 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2921 ESP-4Bay Shore 3 Ohio 2878_B_3 142 1963 wall dry 0 0.3200 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2921 ESP-4Bay Shore 4 Ohio 2878_B_4 215 1968 wall dry 0 0.3200 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2921 ESP-4Belews Creek 1NorthCarolina 8042_B_1 1115 1974 cell dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Belews Creek 2NorthCarolina 8042_B_2 1115 1975 cell dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Belle River 1 Michigan 6034_B_1 698 1984 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-150Belle River 2 Michigan 6034_B_2 698 1985 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Big Bend BB01 Florida 645_B_BB01 391 1970 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Big Bend BB02 Florida 645_B_BB02 391 1973 wall wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Big Bend BB03 Florida 645_B_BB03 364 1976 wall wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Big Bend BB04 Florida 645_B_BB04 447 1985 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Big Cajun 2 2B1 Louisiana 6055_B_2B1 580 1981 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Big Cajun 2 2B2 Louisiana 6055_B_2B2 575 1982 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Big Cajun 2 2B3 Louisiana 6055_B_2B3 588 1983 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Big Sandy BSU1 Kentucky 1353_B_BSU1 259 1963 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Big Sandy BSU2 Kentucky 1353_B_BSU2 789 1969 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Black Dog 3 Minnesota 1904_B_3 94 1955 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Black Dog 4 Minnesota 1904_B_4 165 1960 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Blount Street 8 Wisconsin 3992_B_8 49 1957 wall dry 0 0.1200 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0921 ESP-4Blount Street 9 Wisconsin 3992_B_9 48 1961 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Blue Valley 3 Missouri 2132_B_3 51 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Boardman 1SG Oregon 6106_B_1SG 585 1980 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Bowen 1BLR Georgia 703_B_1BLR 713 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Bowen 2BLR Georgia 703_B_2BLR 718 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Bowen 3BLR Georgia 703_B_3BLR 902 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Bowen 4BLR Georgia 703_B_4BLR 929 1975 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Brayton Point 3Massachusetts 1619_B_3 607 1969 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Bremo Bluff 3 Virginia 3796_B_3 71 1950 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Bremo Bluff 4 Virginia 3796_B_4 156 1958 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Bruce Mansfield 3Pennsylvania 6094_B_3 830 1979 wall dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Buck 5NorthCarolina 2720_B_5 38 1941 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Buck 6NorthCarolina 2720_B_6 38 1941 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---51Buck 7NorthCarolina 2720_B_7 38 1942 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Buck 8NorthCarolina 2720_B_8 128 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Buck 9NorthCarolina 2720_B_9 128 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Bull Run 1 Tennessee 3396_B_1 881 1967 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Burlington 1 Iowa 1104_B_1 209 1968 tangential dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4C D McIntosh Jr 3 Florida 676_B_3 340 1982 wall dry 0 0.0736 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0457 ESP-4Canadys Steam CAN1SouthCarolina 3280_B_CAN1 105 1962 tangential dry 0 0.2600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2321 ESP-4Canadys Steam CAN2SouthCarolina 3280_B_CAN2 116 1964 tangential dry 0 0.0140 0.0279 Yes 0.0140 0.0000 ---Cane Run 4 Kentucky 1363_B_4 155 1962 wall dry 0 0.0257 0.0279 Yes 0.0257 0.0000 ---Cane Run 5 Kentucky 1363_B_5 168 1966 wall dry 0 0.0113 0.0279 Yes 0.0113 0.0000 ---Cane Run 6 Kentucky 1363_B_6 240 1969 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Cape Fear 5NorthCarolina 2708_B_5 144 1956 tangential dry 1 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ---Cape Fear 6NorthCarolina 2708_B_6 172 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Carbon 1 Utah 3644_B_1 67 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Carbon 2 Utah 3644_B_2 105 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Cardinal 1 Ohio 2828_B_1 600 1967 cell dry 0 0.0114 0.0279 Yes 0.0114 0.0000 ---Cardinal 2 Ohio 2828_B_2 600 1967 cell dry 0 0.0114 0.0279 Yes 0.0114 0.0000 ---Cardinal 3 Ohio 2828_B_3 621 1977 wall dry 0 0.0114 0.0279 Yes 0.0114 0.0000 ---Cayuga 1 Indiana 1001_B_1 479 1970 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Cayuga 2 Indiana 1001_B_2 466 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Chalk Point LLC 1 Maryland 1571_B_1 341 1964 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Chalk Point LLC 2 Maryland 1571_B_2 342 1965 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Chamois 2 Missouri 2169_B_2 49 1960 cyclone wet 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Charles R Lowman 1 Alabama 56_B_1 85 1969 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Charles R Lowman 2 Alabama 56_B_2 238 1979 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Charles R Lowman 3 Alabama 56_B_3 238 1980 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-152Chesapeake 1 Virginia 3803_B_1 111 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Chesapeake 2 Virginia 3803_B_2 111 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Chesapeake 3 Virginia 3803_B_3 155 1959 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Chesapeake 4 Virginia 3803_B_4 216 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Chesterfield 3 Virginia 3797_B_3 98 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Chesterfield 4 Virginia 3797_B_4 164 1960 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Chesterfield 5 Virginia 3797_B_5 310 1964 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Cliffside 5NorthCarolina 2721_B_5 550 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Cliffside 6NorthCarolina 2721_B_6 800 2011 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Clifty Creek 1 Indiana 983_B_1 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Clifty Creek 2 Indiana 983_B_2 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Clifty Creek 3 Indiana 983_B_3 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Clifty Creek 4 Indiana 983_B_4 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Clifty Creek 5 Indiana 983_B_5 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Clifty Creek 6 Indiana 983_B_6 214 1956 wall wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Clinch River 1 Virginia 3775_B_1 234 1958 vertical dry 0 0.0531 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0252 ESP-4Clinch River 2 Virginia 3775_B_2 234 1958 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Clinch River 3 Virginia 3775_B_3 234 1961 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Coal Creek 1NorthDakota 6030_B_1 554 1979 tangential dry 0 0.0047 0.0279 Yes 0.0047 0.0000 ---Coal Creek 2NorthDakota 6030_B_2 560 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0035 0.0279 Yes 0.0035 0.0000 ---Coffeen 01 Illinois 861_B_01 335 1965 cyclone wet 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Coffeen 02 Illinois 861_B_02 551 1972 cyclone wet 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Colbert 1 Alabama 47_B_1 177 1955 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Colbert 2 Alabama 47_B_2 177 1955 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Colbert 3 Alabama 47_B_3 177 1955 wall dry 0 0.0114 0.0279 Yes 0.0114 0.0000 ---Colbert 4 Alabama 47_B_4 173 1955 wall dry 0 0.0240 0.0279 Yes 0.0240 0.0000 ---53Colbert 5 Alabama 47_B_5 459 1965 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Columbia 1 Wisconsin 8023_B_1 546 1975 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Columbia 2 Wisconsin 8023_B_2 551 1978 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Conemaugh 1Pennsylvania 3118_B_1 850 1970 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Conemaugh 2Pennsylvania 3118_B_2 850 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Conesville 3 Ohio 2840_B_3 165 1962 wall dry 0 0.0491 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0212 ESP-4Conesville 4 Ohio 2840_B_4 780 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Conesville 5 Ohio 2840_B_5 375 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Conesville 6 Ohio 2840_B_6 375 1978 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Cooper 1 Kentucky 1384_B_1 116 1965 wall dry 0 0.1700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1421 ESP-4Cooper 2 Kentucky 1384_B_2 221 1969 wall dry 0 0.1700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1421 ESP-4Coronado U1B Arizona 6177_B_U1B 395 1979 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Coronado U2B Arizona 6177_B_U2B 388 1980 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Crawford 7 Illinois 867_B_7 212 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0570 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0291 ESP-4Crawford 8 Illinois 867_B_8 318 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0560 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0281 ESP-4Crist 4 Florida 641_B_4 78 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Crist 5 Florida 641_B_5 78 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Crist 6 Florida 641_B_6 300 1970 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Crist 7 Florida 641_B_7 472 1973 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Cross 1SouthCarolina 130_B_1 620 1995 wall dry 0 0.0140 0.0279 Yes 0.0140 0.0000 ---Cross 2SouthCarolina 130_B_2 540 1984 tangential dry 0 0.0160 0.0279 Yes 0.0160 0.0000 ---Cross 3SouthCarolina 130_B_3 580 2007 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Cross 4SouthCarolina 130_B_4 600 2009 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Crystal River 1 Florida 628_B_1 379 1966 tangential dry 0 0.1470 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1191 ESP-4Crystal River 2 Florida 628_B_2 491 1969 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Crystal River 4 Florida 628_B_4 718 1982 wall dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-454Crystal River 5 Florida 628_B_5 717 1984 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Cumberland 1 Tennessee 3399_B_1 1232 1973 cell dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Cumberland 2 Tennessee 3399_B_2 1233 1973 cell dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---D B Wilson W1 Kentucky 6823_B_W1 420 1986 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Dale 1 Kentucky 1385_B_1 27 1954 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Dale 2 Kentucky 1385_B_2 27 1954 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Dale 3 Kentucky 1385_B_3 75 1957 wall dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Dale 4 Kentucky 1385_B_4 75 1960 wall dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Dallman 31 Illinois 963_B_31 86 1968 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Dallman 32 Illinois 963_B_32 87 1972 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Dallman 33 Illinois 963_B_33 199 1978 tangential wet 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4Dan E Karn 1 Michigan 1702_B_1 255 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Dan E Karn 2 Michigan 1702_B_2 260 1961 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Danskammer GeneratingStation 3 New York 2480_B_3 133 1987 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Danskammer GeneratingStation 4 New York 2480_B_4 236 1987 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Dave Johnston BW41 Wyoming 4158_B_BW41 106 1959 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Dave Johnston BW42 Wyoming 4158_B_BW42 106 1961 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Dolet Hills 1 Louisiana 51_B_1 650 1986 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Dolphus M Grainger 1SouthCarolina 3317_B_1 85 1966 wall dry 0 0.3600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.3321 ESP-4Dolphus M Grainger 2SouthCarolina 3317_B_2 85 1966 wall dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Dubuque 1 Iowa 1046_B_1 35 1959 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Dubuque 5 Iowa 1046_B_5 30 1952 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Duck Creek 1 Illinois 6016_B_1 335 1976 wall dry 0 0.0033 0.0279 Yes 0.0033 0.0000 ---E C Gaston 1 Alabama 26_B_1 254 1960 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---E C Gaston 4 Alabama 26_B_4 256 1962 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---E C Gaston 5 Alabama 26_B_5 849 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-155E D Edwards 1 Illinois 856_B_1 112 1960 wall dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4E D Edwards 2 Illinois 856_B_2 273 1968 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4E D Edwards 3 Illinois 856_B_3 364 1972 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3E W Brown 1 Kentucky 1355_B_1 92 1957 wall dry 0 0.1400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1121 ESP-4E W Brown 2 Kentucky 1355_B_2 158 1963 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---E W Brown 3 Kentucky 1355_B_3 420 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Eagle Valley 3 Indiana 991_B_3 43 1951 tangential wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Eagle Valley 4 Indiana 991_B_4 56 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Eagle Valley 5 Indiana 991_B_5 62 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Eagle Valley 6 Indiana 991_B_6 99 1956 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Earl F Wisdom 1 Iowa 1217_B_1 38 1960 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---East Bend 2 Kentucky 6018_B_2 600 1981 wall dry 0 0.0087 0.0279 Yes 0.0087 0.0000 ---Eastlake 1 Ohio 2837_B_1 132 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0057 0.0279 Yes 0.0057 0.0000 ---Eastlake 2 Ohio 2837_B_2 132 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Eastlake 3 Ohio 2837_B_3 132 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0056 0.0279 Yes 0.0056 0.0000 ---Eastlake 4 Ohio 2837_B_4 240 1956 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Eastlake 5 Ohio 2837_B_5 597 1972 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Eckert Station 1 Michigan 1831_B_1 40 1954 wall dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4Eckert Station 2 Michigan 1831_B_2 42 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Eckert Station 3 Michigan 1831_B_3 41 1961 tangential dry 0 0.1400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1121 ESP-4Eckert Station 4 Michigan 1831_B_4 69 1964 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Eckert Station 5 Michigan 1831_B_5 69 1968 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Eckert Station 6 Michigan 1831_B_6 67 1970 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Edge Moor 3 Delaware 593_B_3 86 1957 tangential dry 1 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ---Edge Moor 4 Delaware 593_B_4 174 1966 tangential dry 1 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ---Edgewater 3 Wisconsin 4050_B_3 76 1951 cyclone wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Edgewater 4 Wisconsin 4050_B_4 321 1969 cyclone wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-356Edgewater 5 Wisconsin 4050_B_5 412 1985 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Elmer Smith 1 Kentucky 1374_B_1 130 1964 cyclone wet 0 0.0147 0.0279 Yes 0.0147 0.0000 ---Elmer Smith 2 Kentucky 1374_B_2 257 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0147 0.0279 Yes 0.0147 0.0000 ---Elrama 1Pennsylvania 3098_B_1 93 1952 vertical dry 0 0.0184 0.0279 Yes 0.0184 0.0000 ---Elrama 2Pennsylvania 3098_B_2 93 1953 vertical dry 0 0.0184 0.0279 Yes 0.0184 0.0000 ---Elrama 3Pennsylvania 3098_B_3 103 1952 vertical dry 0 0.0184 0.0279 Yes 0.0184 0.0000 ---Elrama 4Pennsylvania 3098_B_4 171 1952 wall dry 0 0.0184 0.0279 Yes 0.0184 0.0000 ---Endicott Station 1 Michigan 4259_B_1 55 1982 wall dry 0 1.7300 0.0279 No 0.0279 1.7021 ESP-4Erickson Station 1 Michigan 1832_B_1 152 1973 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Fair Station 2 Iowa 1218_B_2 41 1967 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Fayette Power Project 1 Texas 6179_B_1 590 1979 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Fayette Power Project 2 Texas 6179_B_2 590 1980 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Fayette Power Project 3 Texas 6179_B_3 445 1988 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Fisk Street 19 Illinois 886_B_19 325 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0780 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0501 ESP-4Flint Creek 1 Arkansas 6138_B_1 528 1978 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Fort Martin Power Station 1WestVirginia 3943_B_1 545 1967 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Fort Martin Power Station 2WestVirginia 3943_B_2 547 1968 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Frank E Ratts 1SG1 Indiana 1043_B_1SG1 122 1970 wall dry 0 0.3400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.3121 ESP-4Frank E Ratts 2SG1 Indiana 1043_B_2SG1 121 1970 wall dry 0 0.3000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2721 ESP-4G F Weaton Power Station BLR1Pennsylvania 50130_B_BLR1 56 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---G F Weaton Power Station BLR2Pennsylvania 50130_B_BLR2 56 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---G G Allen 1NorthCarolina 2718_B_1 162 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3G G Allen 2NorthCarolina 2718_B_2 162 1957 tangential dry 0 0.1400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1121 ESP-4G G Allen 3NorthCarolina 2718_B_3 260 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0041 0.0279 Yes 0.0041 0.0000 ---G G Allen 4NorthCarolina 2718_B_4 275 1960 tangential dry 0 0.0041 0.0279 Yes 0.0041 0.0000 ---57G G Allen 5NorthCarolina 2718_B_5 265 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Gadsden 1 Alabama 7_B_1 64 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Gadsden 2 Alabama 7_B_2 66 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Gallatin 1 Tennessee 3403_B_1 222 1956 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Gallatin 2 Tennessee 3403_B_2 222 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0393 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0114 ESP-3Gallatin 3 Tennessee 3403_B_3 260 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Gallatin 4 Tennessee 3403_B_4 260 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---General James M Gavin 1 Ohio 8102_B_1 1310 1974 cell dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1General James M Gavin 2 Ohio 8102_B_2 1300 1975 cell dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1George Neal North 1 Iowa 1091_B_1 135 1964 cyclone wet 0 0.1700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1421 ESP-4George Neal North 2 Iowa 1091_B_2 300 1972 wall dry 0 0.2300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2021 ESP-4George Neal North 3 Iowa 1091_B_3 515 1975 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1George Neal South 4 Iowa 7343_B_4 632 1979 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Ghent 1 Kentucky 1356_B_1 468 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Ghent 2 Kentucky 1356_B_2 463 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Ghent 3 Kentucky 1356_B_3 472 1981 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Ghent 4 Kentucky 1356_B_4 472 1984 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Gibbons Creek 1 Texas 6136_B_1 462 1983 tangential dry 0 0.3000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2721 ESP-4Gibson 1 Indiana 6113_B_1 621 1975 wall dry 0 0.0067 0.0279 Yes 0.0067 0.0000 ---Gibson 2 Indiana 6113_B_2 619 1975 wall dry 0 0.0038 0.0279 Yes 0.0038 0.0000 ---Gibson 3 Indiana 6113_B_3 619 1978 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Gibson 4 Indiana 6113_B_4 622 1979 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Gibson 5 Indiana 6113_B_5 620 1982 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Glen Lyn 51 Virginia 3776_B_51 45 1944 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Glen Lyn 52 Virginia 3776_B_52 45 1944 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Glen Lyn 6 Virginia 3776_B_6 235 1957 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Gorgas 10 Alabama 8_B_10 681 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---58Gorgas 6 Alabama 8_B_6 108 1951 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Gorgas 7 Alabama 8_B_7 109 1952 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Gorgas 8 Alabama 8_B_8 163 1956 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Gorgas 9 Alabama 8_B_9 173 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---GRDA 1 Oklahoma 165_B_1 490 1982 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3GRDA 2 Oklahoma 165_B_2 520 1986 wall dry 1 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Green River 4 Kentucky 1357_B_4 68 1954 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Green River 5 Kentucky 1357_B_5 95 1959 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Greene County 1 Alabama 10_B_1 254 1965 wall dry 0 0.0140 0.0279 Yes 0.0140 0.0000 ---Greene County 2 Alabama 10_B_2 243 1966 wall dry 0 0.0160 0.0279 Yes 0.0160 0.0000 ---H B Robinson 1SouthCarolina 3251_B_1 176 1960 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4H L Spurlock 1 Kentucky 6041_B_1 315 1977 wall dry 0 0.0065 0.0279 Yes 0.0065 0.0000 ---H L Spurlock 2 Kentucky 6041_B_2 509 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0065 0.0279 Yes 0.0065 0.0000 ---Hamilton 8 Ohio 2917_B_8 33 1964 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Hammond 1 Georgia 708_B_1 112 1954 wall dry 0 0.0430 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0151 ESP-3Hammond 2 Georgia 708_B_2 112 1954 wall dry 0 0.0430 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0151 ESP-3Hammond 3 Georgia 708_B_3 112 1955 wall dry 0 0.0430 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0151 ESP-3Hammond 4 Georgia 708_B_4 510 1970 wall dry 0 0.0190 0.0279 Yes 0.0190 0.0000 ---Harbor Beach 1 Michigan 1731_B_1 103 1968 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Harding Street 50 Indiana 990_B_50 109 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0049 0.0279 Yes 0.0049 0.0000 ---Harding Street 60 Indiana 990_B_60 109 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0021 0.0279 Yes 0.0021 0.0000 ---Harding Street 70 Indiana 990_B_70 429 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0168 0.0279 Yes 0.0168 0.0000 ---Harllee Branch 1 Georgia 709_B_1 261 1965 cell dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Harllee Branch 2 Georgia 709_B_2 319 1967 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Harllee Branch 3 Georgia 709_B_3 499 1968 celldry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Harllee Branch 4 Georgia 709_B_4 497 1969 celldry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Harrington 061B Texas 6193_B_061B 347 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-359Harrison Power Station 1WestVirginia 3944_B_1 643 1972 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Harrison Power Station 2WestVirginia 3944_B_2 633 1973 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Harrison Power Station 3WestVirginia 3944_B_3 642 1974 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Hatfields Ferry PowerStation 1Pennsylvania 3179_B_1 523 1969 cell dry 0 0.0323 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0044 ESP-1Hatfields Ferry PowerStation 2Pennsylvania 3179_B_2 523 1970 cell dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Hatfields Ferry PowerStation 3Pennsylvania 3179_B_3 523 1971 cell dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Herbert A Wagner 2 Maryland 1554_B_2 135 1959 wall dry 0 0.0017 0.0279 Yes 0.0017 0.0000 ---Herbert A Wagner 3 Maryland 1554_B_3 324 1966 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---HMP&L Station TwoHenderson H1 Kentucky 1382_B_H1 151 1973 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4HMP&L Station TwoHenderson H2 Kentucky 1382_B_H2 157 1974 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Homer City Station 1Pennsylvania 3122_B_1 612 1969 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Homer City Station 2Pennsylvania 3122_B_2 606 1970 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Homer City Station 3Pennsylvania 3122_B_3 641 1977 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Hoot Lake 2 Minnesota 1943_B_2 60 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0812 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0533 ESP-4Hoot Lake 3 Minnesota 1943_B_3 84 1964 wall dry 0 0.0812 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0533 ESP-4Hugo 1 Oklahoma 6772_B_1 440 1982 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Hunter 1 Utah 6165_B_1 430 1978 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Hunter 2 Utah 6165_B_2 430 1980 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Hutsonville 05 Illinois 863_B_05 76 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Hutsonville 06 Illinois 863_B_06 77 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Independence 1 Arkansas 6641_B_1 836 1983 tangential wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Independence 2 Arkansas 6641_B_2 842 1985 tangential wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3J B Sims 3 Michigan 1825_B_3 73 1983 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1J C Weadock 7 Michigan 1720_B_7 151 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4J C Weadock 8 Michigan 1720_B_8 151 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-360J E Corette Plant 2 Montana 2187_B_2 158 1968 tangential dry 0 0.2700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2421 ESP-4J H Campbell 1 Michigan 1710_B_1 260 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0111 0.0279 Yes 0.0111 0.0000 ---J H Campbell 2 Michigan 1710_B_2 353 1967 wall dry 0 0.0111 0.0279 Yes 0.0111 0.0000 ---J H Campbell 3 Michigan 1710_B_3 822 1980 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---J M Stuart 1 Ohio 2850_B_1 597 1971 cell dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4J M Stuart 2 Ohio 2850_B_2 597 1970 cell dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4J M Stuart 3 Ohio 2850_B_3 597 1972 cell dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4J M Stuart 4 Ohio 2850_B_4 597 1974 cell dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---J R Whiting 1 Michigan 1723_B_1 102 1952 wall dry 0 0.1600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1321 ESP-4J R Whiting 2 Michigan 1723_B_2 102 1952 wall dry 0 0.1400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1121 ESP-4J R Whiting 3 Michigan 1723_B_3 124 1953 wall dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Jack Watson 4 Mississippi 2049_B_4 230 1968 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Jack Watson 5 Mississippi 2049_B_5 476 1973 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3James De Young 5 Michigan 1830_B_5 27 1969 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1James H Miller Jr 1 Alabama 6002_B_1 674 1978 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---James H Miller Jr 2 Alabama 6002_B_2 687 1985 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---James H Miller Jr 3 Alabama 6002_B_3 687 1989 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---James H Miller Jr 4 Alabama 6002_B_4 688 1991 wall dry 0 0.0040 0.0279 Yes 0.0040 0.0000 ---James River PowerStation 3 Missouri 2161_B_3 41 1960 wall dry 0 0.1100 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0821 ESP-4James River PowerStation 4 Missouri 2161_B_4 56 1964 wall dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4James River PowerStation 5 Missouri 2161_B_5 97 1970 wall dry 0 0.0113 0.0279 Yes 0.0113 0.0000 ---Jefferies 3SouthCarolina 3319_B_3 153 1970 wall dry 0 0.0000 0.0279 Yes 0.0000 0.0000 ---Jefferies 4SouthCarolina 3319_B_4 153 1970 wall dry 0 0.0000 0.0279 Yes 0.0000 0.0000 ---Jeffrey Energy Center 1 Kansas 6068_B_1 726 1978 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Jeffrey Energy Center 2 Kansas 6068_B_2 727 1980 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Jeffrey Energy Center 3 Kansas 6068_B_3 727 1983 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---61Jim Bridger BW71 Wyoming 8066_B_BW71 530 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Jim Bridger BW72 Wyoming 8066_B_BW72 530 1975 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Jim Bridger BW73 Wyoming 8066_B_BW73 530 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Jim Bridger BW74 Wyoming 8066_B_BW74 530 1979 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---John E Amos 1WestVirginia 3935_B_1 800 1971 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1John E Amos 2WestVirginia 3935_B_2 789 1972 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1John E Amos 3WestVirginia 3935_B_3 1282 1973 cell dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1John Sevier 2 Tennessee 3405_B_2 176 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---John Sevier 3 Tennessee 3405_B_3 176 1956 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---John Sevier 4 Tennessee 3405_B_4 176 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 1 Tennessee 3406_B_1 106 1951 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 10 Tennessee 3406_B_10 141 1959 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 2 Tennessee 3406_B_2 106 1951 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 3 Tennessee 3406_B_3 106 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 4 Tennessee 3406_B_4 106 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 5 Tennessee 3406_B_5 106 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 6 Tennessee 3406_B_6 106 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 7 Tennessee 3406_B_7 141 1958 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 8 Tennessee 3406_B_8 141 1959 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Johnsonville 9 Tennessee 3406_B_9 141 1959 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Joliet 29 71 Illinois 384_B_71 258 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0650 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0371 ESP-4Joliet 29 72 Illinois 384_B_72 258 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0650 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0371 ESP-4Joliet 29 81 Illinois 384_B_81 258 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0490 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0211 ESP-4Joliet 29 82 Illinois 384_B_82 258 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0490 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0211 ESP-4Joliet 9 5 Illinois 874_B_5 311 1959 cyclone wet 0 0.0588 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0309 ESP-4Joppa Steam 1 Illinois 887_B_1 167 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Joppa Steam 2 Illinois 887_B_2 167 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---62Joppa Steam 3 Illinois 887_B_3 167 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Joppa Steam 4 Illinois 887_B_4 167 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Joppa Steam 5 Illinois 887_B_5 167 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Joppa Steam 6 Illinois 887_B_6 167 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Kammer 1WestVirginia 3947_B_1 206 1958 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kammer 2WestVirginia 3947_B_2 206 1958 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kammer 3WestVirginia 3947_B_3 206 1959 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kanawha River 1WestVirginia 3936_B_1 204 1953 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kanawha River 2WestVirginia 3936_B_2 204 1953 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kenneth C Coleman C1 Kentucky 1381_B_C1 148 1969 wall dry 0 0.1400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1121 ESP-4Kenneth C Coleman C2 Kentucky 1381_B_C2 148 1970 wall dry 0 0.1900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1621 ESP-4Kenneth C Coleman C3 Kentucky 1381_B_C3 153 1971 wall dry 0 0.1200 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0921 ESP-4Keystone 1Pennsylvania 3136_B_1 839 1967 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Keystone 2Pennsylvania 3136_B_2 839 1968 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Killen Station 2 Ohio 6031_B_2 608 1982 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kincaid Generation LLC 1 Illinois 876_B_1 584 1967 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kincaid Generation LLC 2 Illinois 876_B_2 584 1968 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kingston 1 Tennessee 3407_B_1 134 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kingston 2 Tennessee 3407_B_2 134 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kingston 3 Tennessee 3407_B_3 134 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kingston 4 Tennessee 3407_B_4 134 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kingston 5 Tennessee 3407_B_5 175 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kingston 6 Tennessee 3407_B_6 175 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Kingston 7 Tennessee 3407_B_7 175 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Kingston 8 Tennessee 3407_B_8 175 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Kingston 9 Tennessee 3407_B_9 175 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---63Kraft 1 Georgia 733_B_1 48 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Kraft 2 Georgia 733_B_2 52 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0170 0.0279 Yes 0.0170 0.0000 ---Kraft 3 Georgia 733_B_3 102 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0430 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0151 ESP-3KUCC 1 Utah 56163_B_1 30 1944 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1KUCC 2 Utah 56163_B_2 30 1945 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1KUCC 3 Utah 56163_B_3 30 1945 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1KUCC 4 Utah 56163_B_4 65 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kyger Creek 1 Ohio 2876_B_1 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Kyger Creek 2 Ohio 2876_B_2 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Kyger Creek 3 Ohio 2876_B_3 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Kyger Creek 4 Ohio 2876_B_4 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Kyger Creek 5 Ohio 2876_B_5 214 1955 wall wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4La Cygne 2 Kansas 1241_B_2 682 1977 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Labadie 1 Missouri 2103_B_1 597 1970 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Labadie 2 Missouri 2103_B_2 594 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Labadie 3 Missouri 2103_B_3 612 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Labadie 4 Missouri 2103_B_4 612 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Lake Road 6 Missouri 2098_B_6 97 1967 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Lake Shore 18 Ohio 2838_B_18 245 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Lansing 4 Iowa 1047_B_4 260 1977 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Lansing Smith 1 Florida 643_B_1 162 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Lansing Smith 2 Florida 643_B_2 195 1967 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Laramie River Station 1 Wyoming 6204_B_1 565 1980 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Laramie River Station 2 Wyoming 6204_B_2 570 1981 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Laramie River Station 3 Wyoming 6204_B_3 570 1982 wall dry 1 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Lawrence Energy Center 3 Kansas 1250_B_3 48 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Leland Olds 1NorthDakota 2817_B_1 221 1966 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---64Leland Olds 2NorthDakota 2817_B_2 448 1975 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Limestone LIM1 Texas 298_B_LIM1 830 1985 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Limestone LIM2 Texas 298_B_LIM2 857 1986 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Lon Wright 8 Nebraska 2240_B_8 85 1976 wall dry 0 0.1200 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0921 ESP-4Marion 4 Illinois 976_B_4 170 1978 cyclone wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Marshall 1NorthCarolina 2727_B_1 378 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Marshall 2NorthCarolina 2727_B_2 378 1966 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Marshall 3NorthCarolina 2727_B_3 657 1969 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Marshall 4NorthCarolina 2727_B_4 657 1970 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Martin Lake 1 Texas 6146_B_1 750 1977 tangential wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Martin Lake 2 Texas 6146_B_2 750 1978 tangential wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Martin Lake 3 Texas 6146_B_3 750 1979 tangential wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Mayo 1ANorthCarolina 6250_B_1A 371 1983 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Mayo 1BNorthCarolina 6250_B_1B 371 1983 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4McIntosh 1 Georgia 6124_B_1 157 1979 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Meramec 1 Missouri 2104_B_1 122 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Meramec 2 Missouri 2104_B_2 120 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Meramec 3 Missouri 2104_B_3 269 1959 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Meramec 4 Missouri 2104_B_4 347 1961 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Meredosia 05 Illinois 864_B_05 203 1960 tangential dry 0 0.0319 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0040 ESP-1Merom 1SG1 Indiana 6213_B_1SG1 507 1983 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Merom 2SG1 Indiana 6213_B_2SG1 493 1982 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Merrimack 1NewHampshire 2364_B_1 111 1960 wall wet 0 0.0332 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0053 ESP-2Merrimack 2NewHampshire 2364_B_2 315 1968 cyclone wet 0 0.0332 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0053 ESP-2Miami Fort 6 Ohio 2832_B_6 162 1960 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-365Miami Fort 7 Ohio 2832_B_7 493 1975 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Miami Fort 8 Ohio 2832_B_8 493 1978 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Michigan City 12 Indiana 997_B_12 469 1974 cyclone wet 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Mill Creek 1 Kentucky 1364_B_1 303 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Mill Creek 2 Kentucky 1364_B_2 301 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Mill Creek 3 Kentucky 1364_B_3 391 1978 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Mill Creek 4 Kentucky 1364_B_4 477 1982 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Milton L Kapp 2 Iowa 1048_B_2 211 1967 tangential dry 0 0.1420 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1141 ESP-4Milton R Young B1NorthDakota 2823_B_B1 250 1970 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Milton R Young B2NorthDakota 2823_B_B2 455 1977 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Mitchell 1WestVirginia 3948_B_1 800 1971 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Mitchell 2WestVirginia 3948_B_2 800 1971 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Mitchell Power Station 33Pennsylvania 3181_B_33 277 1963 tangential dry 0 0.1800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1521 ESP-4Monroe 1 Michigan 1733_B_1 760 1972 cell dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Monroe 2 Michigan 1733_B_2 775 1973 cell dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Monroe 3 Michigan 1733_B_3 785 1973 cell dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Monroe 4 Michigan 1733_B_4 765 1974 cell dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Monticello 3 Texas 6147_B_3 750 1978 wall wet 0 0.0453 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0174 ESP-3Montrose 1 Missouri 2080_B_1 170 1958 tangential dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Montrose 2 Missouri 2080_B_2 164 1960 tangential dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Montrose 3 Missouri 2080_B_3 176 1964 tangential dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4Morgantown GeneratingPlant 1 Maryland 1573_B_1 624 1970 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Morgantown GeneratingPlant 2 Maryland 1573_B_2 620 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Mountaineer 1WestVirginia 6264_B_1 1300 1980 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Mt Storm 1WestVirginia 3954_B_1 524 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---66Mt Storm 2WestVirginia 3954_B_2 524 1966 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Mt Storm 3WestVirginia 3954_B_3 521 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Muscatine Plant #1 8 Iowa 1167_B_8 35 1969 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Muscatine Plant #1 9 Iowa 1167_B_9 147 1983 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Muskingum River 1 Ohio 2872_B_1 190 1953 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskingum River 2 Ohio 2872_B_2 190 1954 wall wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskingum River 3 Ohio 2872_B_3 205 1957 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskingum River 4 Ohio 2872_B_4 205 1958 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskingum River 5 Ohio 2872_B_5 578 1968 cell dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskogee 4 Oklahoma 2952_B_4 511 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskogee 5 Oklahoma 2952_B_5 522 1978 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Muskogee 6 Oklahoma 2952_B_6 515 1984 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Naughton 1 Wyoming 4162_B_1 158 1963 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Naughton 2 Wyoming 4162_B_2 207 1968 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Naughton 3 Wyoming 4162_B_3 330 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Navajo 1 Arizona 4941_B_1 750 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Navajo 2 Arizona 4941_B_2 750 1975 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Navajo 3 Arizona 4941_B_3 750 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Nearman Creek N1 Kansas 6064_B_N1 229 1981 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Nebraska City 1 Nebraska 6096_B_1 646 1979 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Neil Simpson II 2 Wyoming 7504_B_2 80 1995 wall dry 1 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ---Nelson Dewey 1 Wisconsin 4054_B_1 107 1959 cyclone wet 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4Nelson Dewey 2 Wisconsin 4054_B_2 111 1962 cyclone wet 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4New Castle 3Pennsylvania 3138_B_3 95 1952 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---New Castle 4Pennsylvania 3138_B_4 96 1958 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---New Castle 5Pennsylvania 3138_B_5 138 1964 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-467New Madrid 1 Missouri 2167_B_1 580 1972 cyclone wet 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4New Madrid 2 Missouri 2167_B_2 580 1977 cyclone wet 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Newton 1 Illinois 6017_B_1 555 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0091 0.0279 Yes 0.0091 0.0000 ---Newton 2 Illinois 6017_B_2 567 1982 tangential dry 0 0.0091 0.0279 Yes 0.0091 0.0000 ---Niles 1 Ohio 2861_B_1 107 1954 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Niles 2 Ohio 2861_B_2 111 1954 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---North Omaha 1 Nebraska 2291_B_1 79 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1North Omaha 2 Nebraska 2291_B_2 111 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1North Omaha 3 Nebraska 2291_B_3 111 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1North Omaha 4 Nebraska 2291_B_4 138 1963 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1North Omaha 5 Nebraska 2291_B_5 224 1968 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Northeastern 3313 Oklahoma 2963_B_3313 450 1979 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Northeastern 3314 Oklahoma 2963_B_3314 450 1980 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---O H Hutchings H-1 Ohio 2848_B_H-1 58 1948 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1O H Hutchings H-2 Ohio 2848_B_H-2 55 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4O H Hutchings H-3 Ohio 2848_B_H-3 63 1950 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1O H Hutchings H-4 Ohio 2848_B_H-4 63 1951 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1O H Hutchings H-5 Ohio 2848_B_H-5 63 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---O H Hutchings H-6 Ohio 2848_B_H-6 63 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Oklaunion 1 Texas 127_B_1 690 1986 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Ottumwa 1 Iowa 6254_B_1 673 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1P H Glatfelter5PB036Pennsylvania50397_B_5PB036 36 1989 FBC dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Paradise 3 Kentucky 1378_B_3 963 1970 cyclone wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Petersburg 1 Indiana 994_B_1 232 1967 tangential dry 0 0.0520 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0241 ESP-4Petersburg 2 Indiana 994_B_2 435 1969 tangential dry 0 66.0000 0.0279 No 0.0279 65.9721 ESP-4Petersburg 3 Indiana 994_B_3 532 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0270 0.0279 Yes 0.0270 0.0000 ---Petersburg 4 Indiana 994_B_4 545 1986 tangential dry 0 0.0250 0.0279 Yes 0.0250 0.0000 ---68Philip Sporn 11WestVirginia 3938_B_11 150 1950 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Philip Sporn 21WestVirginia 3938_B_21 150 1950 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Philip Sporn 31WestVirginia 3938_B_31 150 1951 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Philip Sporn 41WestVirginia 3938_B_41 150 1952 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Picway 9 Ohio 2843_B_9 95 1955 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Pirkey 1 Texas 7902_B_1 674 1985 wall dry 0 0.2500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.2221 ESP-4Platte 1 Nebraska 59_B_1 100 1982 tangential dry 0 0.0280 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0001 ESP-1Pleasant Prairie 1 Wisconsin 6170_B_1 617 1980 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Pleasant Prairie 2 Wisconsin 6170_B_2 617 1985 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Pleasants Power Station 1WestVirginia 6004_B_1 639 1979 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Pleasants Power Station 2WestVirginia 6004_B_2 639 1980 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Portland 1Pennsylvania 3113_B_1 157 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Portland 2Pennsylvania 3113_B_2 242 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Potomac River 1 Virginia 3788_B_1 88 1949 tangential dry 1 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Potomac River 2 Virginia 3788_B_2 88 1950 tangential dry 1 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ---Potomac River 3 Virginia 3788_B_3 102 1954 tangential dry 1 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ---Potomac River 4 Virginia 3788_B_4 102 1956 tangential dry 1 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Potomac River 5 Virginia 3788_B_5 102 1957 tangential dry 1 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Powerton 51 Illinois 879_B_51 382 1972 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Powerton 52 Illinois 879_B_52 383 1972 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Powerton 61 Illinois 879_B_61 382 1975 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Powerton 62 Illinois 879_B_62 383 1975 cyclone wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---PPL Brunner Island 2Pennsylvania 3140_B_2 382 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0256 0.0279 Yes 0.0256 0.0000 ---PPL Brunner Island 3Pennsylvania 3140_B_3 744 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0256 0.0279 Yes 0.0256 0.0000 ---PPL Montour 1Pennsylvania 3149_B_1 751 1971 tangential dry 0 0.0107 0.0279 Yes 0.0107 0.0000 ---69PPL Montour 2Pennsylvania 3149_B_2 747 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0166 0.0279 Yes 0.0166 0.0000 ---Prairie Creek 3 Iowa 1073_B_3 42 1958 wall dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Prairie Creek 4 Iowa 1073_B_4 125 1967 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Pulliam 5 Wisconsin 4072_B_5 49 1949 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Pulliam 6 Wisconsin 4072_B_6 72 1951 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Pulliam 7 Wisconsin 4072_B_7 88 1958 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Pulliam 8 Wisconsin 4072_B_8 133 1964 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Quindaro 1 Kansas 1295_B_1 72 1965 cyclone wet 0 0.0284 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0005 ESP-1Quindaro 2 Kansas 1295_B_2 111 1971 wall dry 0 0.0284 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0005 ESP-1R D Green G1 Kentucky 6639_B_G1 231 1979 wall dry 0 0.0469 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0190 ESP-3R D Green G2 Kentucky 6639_B_G2 233 1981 wall dry 0 0.0469 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0190 ESP-3R D Morrow 1 Mississippi 6061_B_1 180 1978 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1R D Morrow 2 Mississippi 6061_B_2 180 1978 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---R E Burger 5 Ohio 2864_B_5 47 1955 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4R E Burger 6 Ohio 2864_B_6 47 1955 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3R M Heskett B1NorthDakota 2790_B_B1 29 1954stoker/SPR dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3R M Heskett B2NorthDakota 2790_B_B2 76 1963 FBC dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---R M Schahfer 14 Indiana 6085_B_14 424 1976 cyclone wet 0 0.0152 0.0279 Yes 0.0152 0.0000 ---R M Schahfer 15 Indiana 6085_B_15 472 1979 wall dry 0 0.0152 0.0279 Yes 0.0152 0.0000 ---R M Schahfer 17 Indiana 6085_B_17 361 1983 tangential dry 0 0.0152 0.0279 Yes 0.0152 0.0000 ---R M Schahfer 18 Indiana 6085_B_18 361 1986 tangential dry 0 0.0152 0.0279 Yes 0.0152 0.0000 ---R Paul Smith PowerStation 9 Maryland 1570_B_9 28 1947 wall dry 0 0.1700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1421 ESP-4R S Nelson 6 Louisiana 1393_B_6 550 1982 tangential wet 0 0.0113 0.0279 Yes 0.0113 0.0000 ---River Rouge 2 Michigan 1740_B_2 241 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---River Rouge 3 Michigan 1740_B_3 272 1958 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Riverbend 10NorthCarolina 2732_B_10 133 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0284 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0005 ESP-170Riverbend 7NorthCarolina 2732_B_7 94 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0284 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0005 ESP-1Riverbend 8NorthCarolina 2732_B_8 94 1952 tangential dry 0 0.1050 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0771 ESP-4Riverbend 9NorthCarolina 2732_B_9 133 1954 tangential dry 0 0.1050 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0771 ESP-4Riverside 9 Iowa 1081_B_9 130 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Riverton 39 Kansas 1239_B_39 38 1950 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Riverton 40 Kansas 1239_B_40 54 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Rivesville 7WestVirginia 3945_B_7 46 1943 vertical wet 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Rivesville 8WestVirginia 3945_B_8 91 1951 vertical wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Rockport MB1 Indiana 6166_B_MB1 1280 1984 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Rockport MB2 Indiana 6166_B_MB2 1280 1989 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Rodemacher 2 Louisiana 6190_B_2 523 1982 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Roxboro 1NorthCarolina 2712_B_1 369 1966 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Roxboro 2NorthCarolina 2712_B_2 671 1968 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Roxboro 3ANorthCarolina 2712_B_3A 353 1973 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Roxboro 3BNorthCarolina 2712_B_3B 353 1973 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Roxboro 4ANorthCarolina 2712_B_4A 349 1980 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Roxboro 4BNorthCarolina 2712_B_4B 349 1980 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Rumford Cogeneration 6 Maine 10495_B_6 43 1990 FBC dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Rumford Cogeneration 7 Maine 10495_B_7 43 1990 FBC dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Rush Island 1 Missouri 6155_B_1 604 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Rush Island 2 Missouri 6155_B_2 604 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Salem Harbor 1Massachusetts 1626_B_1 82 1951 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Salem Harbor 2Massachusetts 1626_B_2 80 1952 wall dry 0 0.0005 0.0279 Yes 0.0005 0.0000 ---Salem Harbor 3Massachusetts 1626_B_3 149 1958 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-171San Miguel SM-1 Texas 6183_B_SM-1 391 1982 wall dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4Sandow 4 Texas 6648_B_4 542 1981 tangential wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Schiller 4NewHampshire 2367_B_4 48 1952 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Scholz 1 Florida 642_B_1 49 1953 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Scholz 2 Florida 642_B_2 49 1953 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Seminole 1 Florida 136_B_1 654 1984 wall dry 0 0.0210 0.0279 Yes 0.0210 0.0000 ---Seminole 2 Florida 136_B_2 654 1984 wall dry 0 0.0160 0.0279 Yes 0.0160 0.0000 ---Shawville 1Pennsylvania 3131_B_1 122 1954 wall dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Shawville 2Pennsylvania 3131_B_2 125 1954 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Shawville 3Pennsylvania 3131_B_3 175 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0133 0.0279 Yes 0.0133 0.0000 ---Shawville 4Pennsylvania 3131_B_4 175 1960 tangential dry 0 0.0133 0.0279 Yes 0.0133 0.0000 ---Sherburne County 1 Minnesota 6090_B_1 762 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Sherburne County 2 Minnesota 6090_B_2 752 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Sibley 1 Missouri 2094_B_1 54 1960 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Sibley 2 Missouri 2094_B_2 54 1962 cyclone wet 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Sibley 3 Missouri 2094_B_3 401 1969 cyclone wet 0 0.0092 0.0279 Yes 0.0092 0.0000 ---Sikeston Power Station 1 Missouri 6768_B_1 233 1981 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Sioux 1 Missouri 2107_B_1 490 1967 cyclone wet 0 0.0034 0.0279 Yes 0.0034 0.0000 ---Sioux 2 Missouri 2107_B_2 490 1968 cyclone wet 0 0.0034 0.0279 Yes 0.0034 0.0000 ---Sooner 1 Oklahoma 6095_B_1 535 1979 tangential dry 0 0.0320 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0041 ESP-1Sooner 2 Oklahoma 6095_B_2 540 1980 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4South Oak Creek 5 Wisconsin 4041_B_5 257 1959 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---South Oak Creek 6 Wisconsin 4041_B_6 260 1961 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---South Oak Creek 7 Wisconsin 4041_B_7 292 1965 tangential dry 0 0.0015 0.0279 Yes 0.0015 0.0000 ---South Oak Creek 8 Wisconsin 4041_B_8 306 1967 tangential dry 0 0.0117 0.0279 Yes 0.0117 0.0000 ---Southwest Power Station 1 Missouri 6195_B_1 178 1976 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-372St Clair 1 Michigan 1743_B_1 151 1953 wall dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4St Clair 2 Michigan 1743_B_2 154 1953 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---St Clair 3 Michigan 1743_B_3 160 1954 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---St Clair 4 Michigan 1743_B_4 151 1954 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1St Clair 6 Michigan 1743_B_6 312 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---St Clair 7 Michigan 1743_B_7 440 1969 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---St Johns River PowerPark 1 Florida 207_B_1 623 1987 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---St Johns River PowerPark 2 Florida 207_B_2 622 1988 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Stanton 1NorthDakota 2824_B_1 130 1967 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Stanton Energy Center 1 Florida 564_B_1 440 1987 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Stanton Energy Center 2 Florida 564_B_2 446 1996 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Stone Container FlorenceMill PB4SouthCarolina 50806_B_PB4 75 1987 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Streeter Station 7 Iowa 1131_B_7 36 1973 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Sunbury Generation LP 3Pennsylvania 3152_B_3 94 1951 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Sunbury Generation LP 4Pennsylvania 3152_B_4 128 1953 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Sutherland 3 Iowa 1077_B_3 82 1961 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Taconite Harbor EnergyCenter 1 Minnesota 10075_B_1 65 1957 tangential dry 1 0.0055 0.0279 Yes 0.0055 0.0000 ---Taconite Harbor EnergyCenter 2 Minnesota 10075_B_2 67 1957 tangential dry 1 0.0201 0.0279 Yes 0.0201 0.0000 ---Taconite Harbor EnergyCenter 3 Minnesota 10075_B_3 68 1967 tangential dry 1 0.0201 0.0279 Yes 0.0201 0.0000 ---Tanners Creek U1 Indiana 988_B_U1 145 1951 vertical dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Tanners Creek U2 Indiana 988_B_U2 145 1952 vertical dry 0 0.0053 0.0279 Yes 0.0053 0.0000 ---Tanners Creek U3 Indiana 988_B_U3 200 1954 vertical dry 0 0.0053 0.0279 Yes 0.0053 0.0000 ---Tanners Creek U4 Indiana 988_B_U4 500 1964 cyclone wet 0 0.0053 0.0279 Yes 0.0053 0.0000 ---Tecumseh Energy Center 10 Kansas 1252_B_10 129 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Tecumseh Energy Center 9 Kansas 1252_B_9 74 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-473Thomas Hill MB1 Missouri 2168_B_MB1 175 1966 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Thomas Hill MB2 Missouri 2168_B_MB2 275 1969 cyclone wet 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Thomas Hill MB3 Missouri 2168_B_MB3 670 1982 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Titus 1Pennsylvania 3115_B_1 81 1951 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Titus 2Pennsylvania 3115_B_2 81 1951 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Titus 3Pennsylvania 3115_B_3 81 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Transalta CentraliaGeneration BW21 Washington 3845_B_BW21 703 1972 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Transalta CentraliaGeneration BW22 Washington 3845_B_BW22 703 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Trenton Channel 16 Michigan 1745_B_16 53 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Trenton Channel 17 Michigan 1745_B_17 53 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Trenton Channel 18 Michigan 1745_B_18 53 1949 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Trenton Channel 19 Michigan 1745_B_19 53 1950 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Trenton Channel 9A Michigan 1745_B_9A 536 1968 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Trimble County 1 Kentucky 6071_B_1 383 1990 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Tyrone 5 Kentucky 1361_B_5 71 1953 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Urquhart URQ3SouthCarolina 3295_B_URQ3 94 1955 tangential dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Victor J Daniel Jr 1 Mississippi 6073_B_1 507 1977 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Victor J Daniel Jr 2 Mississippi 6073_B_2 507 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1W H Sammis 5 Ohio 2866_B_5 300 1967 wall dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---W H Sammis 6 Ohio 2866_B_6 597 1969 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---W H Sammis 7 Ohio 2866_B_7 600 1971 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---W H Weatherspoon 1NorthCarolina 2716_B_1 48 1949 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4W H Weatherspoon 2NorthCarolina 2716_B_2 49 1950 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4W H Weatherspoon 3NorthCarolina 2716_B_3 76 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4W H Zimmer 1 Ohio 6019_B_1 1300 1991 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---74W S Lee 1SouthCarolina 3264_B_1 98 1951 tangential dry 0 0.1300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1021 ESP-4W S Lee 2SouthCarolina 3264_B_2 98 1951 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4W S Lee 3SouthCarolina 3264_B_3 168 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Wabash River 2 Indiana 1010_B_2 43 1953 wall dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Wabash River 4 Indiana 1010_B_4 43 1955 wall dry 0 0.1100 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0821 ESP-4Wabash River 6 Indiana 1010_B_6 318 1968 tangential dry 0 0.1100 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0821 ESP-4Walter C Beckjord 1 Ohio 2830_B_1 94 1952 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Walter C Beckjord 2 Ohio 2830_B_2 94 1953 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Walter C Beckjord 3 Ohio 2830_B_3 128 1954 wall dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Walter C Beckjord 4 Ohio 2830_B_4 150 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Walter C Beckjord 5 Ohio 2830_B_5 238 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Walter C Beckjord 6 Ohio 2830_B_6 409 1969 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Walter Scott Jr. EnergyCenter 1 Iowa 1082_B_1 45 1954 wall dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Walter Scott Jr. EnergyCenter 2 Iowa 1082_B_2 88 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0221 ESP-4Wansley 1 Georgia 6052_B_1 891 1976 tangential dry 0 0.0620 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0341 ESP-4Wansley 2 Georgia 6052_B_2 892 1978 tangential dry 0 0.0600 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0321 ESP-4Warrick 1 Indiana 6705_B_1 136 1960 wall dry 0 0.1000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0721 ESP-4Warrick 2 Indiana 6705_B_2 136 1964 wall dry 0 0.0900 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0621 ESP-4Warrick 3 Indiana 6705_B_3 136 1965 wall dry 0 0.1500 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1221 ESP-4Warrick 4 Indiana 6705_B_4 300 1970 cell dry 0 0.1400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1121 ESP-4Waukegan 17 Illinois 883_B_17 100 1952 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Waukegan 7 Illinois 883_B_7 327 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0517 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0238 ESP-4Waukegan 8 Illinois 883_B_8 359 1962 tangential dry 0 0.0517 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0238 ESP-4Welsh 1 Texas 6139_B_1 527 1977 wall dry 0 0.0075 0.0279 Yes 0.0075 0.0000 ---Welsh 2 Texas 6139_B_2 524 1980 wall dry 0 0.0075 0.0279 Yes 0.0075 0.0000 ---Welsh 3 Texas 6139_B_3 524 1982 wall dry 0 0.0075 0.0279 Yes 0.0075 0.0000 ---75Weston 1 Wisconsin 4078_B_1 62 1954 wall dry 0 0.0021 0.0279 Yes 0.0021 0.0000 ---Weston 2 Wisconsin 4078_B_2 86 1960 wall dry 0 0.0021 0.0279 Yes 0.0021 0.0000 ---Whelan Energy Center 1 Nebraska 60_B_1 76 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0042 0.0279 Yes 0.0042 0.0000 ---White Bluff 1 Arkansas 6009_B_1 815 1980 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---White Bluff 2 Arkansas 6009_B_2 825 1981 tangential dry 0 0.0070 0.0279 Yes 0.0070 0.0000 ---Widows Creek 7 Alabama 50_B_7 473 1961 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Will County 3 Illinois 884_B_3 250 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0288 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0009 ESP-1Will County 4 Illinois 884_B_4 503 1963 tangential dry 0 0.0288 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0009 ESP-1Williams WIL1SouthCarolina 3298_B_WIL1 606 1973 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Willow Island 1WestVirginia 3946_B_1 54 1949 vertical dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Willow Island 2WestVirginia 3946_B_2 181 1960 cyclone wet 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Winyah 1SouthCarolina 6249_B_1 295 1975 wall dry 0 0.0800 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0521 ESP-4Winyah 2SouthCarolina 6249_B_2 295 1977 wall dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Winyah 3SouthCarolina 6249_B_3 295 1980 wall dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Winyah 4SouthCarolina 6249_B_4 270 1981 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Wood River 4 Illinois 898_B_4 105 1954 tangential dry 0 0.0400 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0121 ESP-3Wood River 5 Illinois 898_B_5 383 1964 tangential dry 0 0.0100 0.0279 Yes 0.0100 0.0000 ---Wyandotte 7 Michigan 1866_B_7 35 1948 wall dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Yates Y1BR Georgia 728_B_Y1BR 99 1950 tangential dry 0 0.2000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1721 ESP-4Yates Y2BR Georgia 728_B_Y2BR 105 1950 tangential dry 0 0.2000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1721 ESP-4Yates Y3BR Georgia 728_B_Y3BR 112 1952 tangential dry 0 0.2000 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.1721 ESP-4Yates Y4BR Georgia 728_B_Y4BR 135 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Yates Y5BR Georgia 728_B_Y5BR 137 1958 tangential dry 0 0.0700 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0421 ESP-4Yates Y6BR Georgia 728_B_Y6BR 346 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0300 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0021 ESP-1Yates Y7BR Georgia 728_B_Y7BR 349 1974 tangential dry 0 0.0200 0.0279 Yes 0.0200 0.0000 ---Yorktown 1 Virginia 3809_B_1 157 1957 tangential dry 0 0.0518 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0239 ESP-476Yorktown 2 Virginia 3809_B_2 164 1959 tangential dry 0 0.0518 0.0279 No 0.0279 0.0239 ESP-4

# 77 Gibsons Creek Power Plant : This unit is listed as only having acce ss to subbituminious coal in NEEDS.

However, since it the unit was originally designed to bur n lignite, as evidenced by historic consumption, in

MATS policy runs it is subjected to the Hg lim it for low Btu virgin coal in the policy case.

Treatment of DSI in Emissions Calculations : DSI is considered when calculating condensable PM for air

quality modeling but not when assigning mercur y EMFs in the power sector modeling.

Accounting for Presence of Fabric Filters in Deri ving Mercury Emission Modification Factors (EMFs) and

Calculating Filterable Particulate Matter (PM) : When fabric filters are added to generating units, the

mercury EMFs are recalculated to account for their pr esence. This is applied in both the base and policy

case v.4.10_MATS runs and in the v.4.10_MATS runs used in air quality modeling. In addition, since the

calculation of filterable PM for air quality modeling is a function of filter effi ciency, the post-processing

procedure, used to prepare model output of air qualit y modeling, was also updated to account for the

presence of FFs

# 78 Chapter 7: Set-Up Parameters and Rules

7.5 MATS Specific Set-Up Rules” (new)

The following set-up features apply in the v.4.10 base and policy cases for MATS:

7.5.1 New Builds and Retrofits in 2012 : Given the short lead time, EPA’s policy analysis has disabled

incremental new capacity and retrofit construction in the 2012 model year. The results presented for the

2012 model year reflect the model’s enactment of in vestment decisions already underway (as opposed to

any investment decisions driven by new policies).

7.5.2 SCR Retrofits in the MATS Policy Scenario : SCR is an advanced post-combustion technology

for NO X 

# control. While SCR can yield mercury control cobenefits, IPM results demonstrate that MATS

alone is insufficient to drive new SCR retrofitti ng by 2015; the results show that other control

technologies, such as ACI, are generally more cost -effective compliance options in the near term for

MATS implementation. It is possible that certain unit s may elect to ‘accelerate’ the installation of SCR

that they may otherwise have considered installin g in the 2020-2050 timeframe, depending on future NO X 

# control requirements. In light of the inherent long-run uncertainty in this type of decision, and the focus of

this analysis on quantifying the incremental impacts of MATS in 2015, EPA conservatively constrained

IPM to prevent the model from “re-locating” (i.e., acce lerating) long-term base case SCR installations from

2020-2050 to the 2015 model year for MATS.

# 79 Chapter 11: Other Fuels and Fuel Emission Factor Assumptions



# 11.5 Fuel Emission Factors

Table 11-4 brings together all the fuel emission fa ctor assumptions as implemented in EPA Base Case

v.4.10_MATS. For sulfur dioxide and mercury in co al, where emission factors vary widely based on the

rank, grade, and supply seam source of the coal, cross references are given to tables that provide more

detailed treatment of the topic. Nitrogen oxides (NO X 

# ) are not included in Table 11-4 because NO X 

# levels

are not primarily fuel based but are a factor of the combustion process.

Table 11-4 Fuel Emission Factor Assumptions in EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS

Fuel Type Heat Content

(Btu/lb) 1 

# Carbon

Dioxide

(lbs/MMBtu) 2 

# Sulfur

Dioxide

(lbs/MMBtu) 3 

# Mercury

(lbs/TBtu) 3



# Coal

Bituminous >10,260 - 13,000 205.2 - 206.6 0.67 - 6.43 1.82 - 34.71

Subbituminous > 7,500 - 10,260 212.7 - 213.1 0.58 - 1.41 4.24 - 6.44

Lignite < 7,500 213.5 - 217.0 1.46 - 3.91 7.51 - 14.88

Natural Gas

-- 117.08 0 0.00014

Fuel Oil

Distillate

-- 161.4 0 0.48

Residual

-- 161.4 - 173.9 0.3 - 2.65 0.48

Biomass

-- 0 0.08 0.57

Waste Fuels

Waste Coal 4 

# 6,175 205.7 5.36 63.9

Petroleum Coke 14,150 225.1 7.27 23.18 2.66

Fossil Waste

-- 321.1 0.08 0

Non-Fossil Waste

-- 0 0 0

Tires

-- 189.5 1.65 3.58

Municipal Solid Waste

-- 91.9 0.35 71.85

Notes:

1 

# Distillate and Residual Oils, Biomass, Fossil Waste, Non-Fossil Waste, Tires, and Municipal Solid

Waste (MSW) are priced at a $/MMBtu basis and he nce heat content is not required for modeling.

2 

# Also see Table 9-9 in EPA Base Case v.4.10 (EPA #430-R-10-010), August 2010 at

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsre gs/epa-ipm/transport.html.

3 

# Also see Table 9-6 and Table 9-7 in EPA Base Case v.4.10 (EPA #430-R-10-010), August 2010

at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.

Biomass fuel is considered to have a net zero im pact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since

the emissions released are equivalent in carbon content to the carbon absorbed during fuel crop

growth. (See, for example, Hughes, E., Role of Renewables in Greenhouse Gas Reduction,

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) : November, 1998. Report TR-111883, p. 28.)

" 

# Biomass Co-firing," Chapter 2 in Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations , U.S.

Department of Energy and Electric Po wer Research Institute (EPRI), 1997.

Analysis of Emissions Reduction Opti on for the Electric Power Industry , Office of Air and

Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1999.

4 

# In EPA Base Case v.4.10_MATS waste coal units are assumed to achieve 99% mercury removal.