### Instructions for filling in the Emission Test Template

This Information Collection Request (ICR) spreadsheet is intended to collect information about emission data from fossil fuel burning power plants and which test methods were used to do so for cases where the test methods are not currently supported by the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This spreadsheet should only be used if the method is not in the ERT or if you do not have access to a lab which performs methods that are in the ERT. You must complete at least 3 separate runs or sampling events for each of the requested constituents. This spreadsheet is intended to be used for one boiler of one facility. Data for multiple boilers should be handled by using separate copies of this spreadsheet. yellow are required. All cells that are shaded in green are populated using drop

- down lists. You do not need to populate cells shaded in gray, as they are automatically populated from the Boiler Information worksheet. resulting spreadsheet with the following naming convention: [FacilityID]_Unit_[BoilerID]_EmisTestMethods.xls (example: 8100_Unit_2_EmisTestMethods.xls).

Please refer to the following steps when using these spreadsheets.

Boiler Information Worksheet

1. Please enter the EIA Facility Code, Facility Name and Boiler ID of your boiler on the Boiler Information worksheet. 2. Please enter the control device configuration.

Emission Data Worksheets

The emission data worksheets are provided for each constituent or constituent family required for this analysis. On each spreadsheet, you must enter boiler operating information during sampling, fuel input information, and emission test results. There are generally 1 to 3 emission test results records to be entered depending on the constituent or constituent family. For example, CO only requires 1 record with 3 sample events, while Mercury requires that you enter both Hg Hg +2

### , or if the Ontario

- Hydro Method was used, you would need to enter Hg 0

### , HgP, and Hg Volatile Organic HAP and Speciated Semi

-Volatile Organic HAP worksheets allow you to use a drop Constituent field to define as many records as needed to record each HAP that you have results for. General instructions follow for these worksheets:

Boiler Operation Information

1. Please provide the values of all requested parameters for each of test run/sample. 2. Please provide any other supporting information or comments in the Other Supporting Information field.

Fuel Information

1. Please enter what types of fuel are being used in your boiler using the drop

- downs in the Fuel Type Selection field. You may enter up to 4 fuel types. If you are not burning one or more of the fuel types entered in one or more samples, then enter an input rate of zero. 2. Please enter the unit of measure using the drop down provided. 3. Please enter the test method used to determine the fuel input rate. 4. Please provide any other information that you feel may be important in the Other Supporting Information field.

Emission Data

### 1. Some constituents ask for the emission rate results of each run in two different units of measure, while others do not. If emission rate results are requested in two different units of measure (ex. lb/MMBtu (Pounds per million BTU) and ppmvd @ 7% O 2 

### (parts per million by volume dry basis at 7 percent oxygen)), you are required to provide both. 2. Please provide the test method used. This may or may not match the example given in the Test Method Used field. Please ensure that the name includes the owning organization of the test method (ex. U.S. EPA Method 0010). 3. Please provide any other information that you feel may be important in the Other Supporting Information field. 4. If data sheets and QA/QC documentation tables are provided for the test method you are entering data for please also enter these data.

### This Information Collection Request (ICR) spreadsheet is intended to collect information about emission data from fossil fuel burning power plants and which test methods were used to do so for cases where the test methods are not currently supported by the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This spreadsheet should only be used if the method is not in the ERT or if you do not have access to a lab which performs methods that are in the ERT. You must complete at least 3 separate This spreadsheet is intended to be used for one boiler of one facility. Data for multiple boilers should be handled by using separate copies of this spreadsheet. Fields shaded in down lists. You do not need to populate cells shaded in gray, as they are automatically populated from the Boiler Information worksheet. Please name each resulting spreadsheet with the following naming convention: [FacilityID]_Unit_[BoilerID]_EmisTestMethods.xls

1. Please enter the EIA Facility Code, Facility Name and Boiler ID of your boiler on the Boiler Information worksheet.

The emission data worksheets are provided for each constituent or constituent family required for this analysis. On each spreadsheet, you must enter boiler operating information during sampling, fuel input information, and emission test results. There are generally 1 to 3 emission test results records to be entered depending on the constituent or constituent family. For example, CO only requires 1 record with 3 sample events, while Mercury requires that you enter both Hg0 

### and , HgP, and Hg+2 

### . However, both the Speciated Volatile Organic HAP worksheets allow you to use a drop

- down provided in the Constituent field to define as many records as needed to record each HAP that you have results for. General instructions

2. Please provide any other supporting information or comments in the Other Supporting Information field.

downs in the Fuel Type Selection field. You may enter up to 4 fuel types. If you are not burning one or more of the fuel types entered in one or more samples,

4. Please provide any other information that you feel may be important in the Other Supporting Information field.

### 1. Some constituents ask for the emission rate results of each run in two different units of measure, while others do not. If emission rate results are requested in two different units of measure (ex. lb/MMBtu (Pounds per million BTU) and

(parts per million by volume dry basis at 7 percent oxygen)), you are required to provide both. 2. Please provide the test method used. This may or may not match the example given in the Test Method Used field. Please ensure that the name includes the owning organization of the test method (ex. U.S. EPA Method 0010). 3. Please provide any other information that you feel may be important in the Other Supporting Information field. 4. If data sheets and QA/QC documentation tables are provided for the test method you are entering data for please alsoEIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID

963 Dallm an 31.32Control Device Configuraton

Listed (by

boiler) in the Configuration Order Section of the Facility Unit Configurations Section of the Electronic ICRListed (by boiler) in the Configuration Order Section of the Facility Unit Configurations Section of the Electronic ICREIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID

963 Dallm an 31.32

1 4/7/2010 6:59 8:02 2 4/7/2010 8:18 9:24 3 4/7/2010 9:40 10:44 Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DateMe asured Value (ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used
4/7/2010 [<0.205] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod 4/7/2010 [<0.203] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod 4/7/2010 [<0.202] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod Hydrogen Cyanide Emission Test Results Test End TimeData Flag (ADL,

BDL, DDL) Test Method

Comments BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.000212] 1358 1875 16.5 11.3 BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.000205] 1366 1851 16.5 11.6 BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.000212] 1365 1843 16.6 11.5

Steam Output (1000 lb/hr) Total Heat

Input (mmBtu/hr) Calculated Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) Flue Gas Moisture (%) Flue Gas CO 2(%)Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel Input

Rate 7.2 415248 133.2 318000 bitum inous lb/hour Other 6.8 417991 132.7 320000 bitum inous lb/hour Other 7.1 420252 132.8 320000 bitum inous lb/hour Other Flue Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) Flue Gas

Temperature (F) Fuel #1 Flue Gas O 2(%)Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Measurement

Method Fuel Input

Rate Fuel #2 Fuel #3Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method The samples were collected in a combined train with the acid gases

The samples were collected in a combined train with the acid gases The samples were collected in a combined train with the acid gases Fuel #4 Other Supporting InformationEIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID

963 Dallm an 31.32

1 4/7/2010 6:59 8:02 2 4/7/2010 8:18 9:24 3 4/7/2010 9:40 10:44 Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DateMe asured Value (ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used
4/7/2010 [<9.12] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod 4/7/2010 [<9.04] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod 4/7/2010 [<8.97] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod Test End Time Hydrogen Chloride Emission Test ResultsData Flag (ADL,

BDL, DDL) Test Method

Comments BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.012710] 1358 1875 16.5 11.3 BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.012329] 1366 1851 16.5 11.6 BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.012730] 1365 1843 16.6 11.5 Calculated Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) Flue Gas Moisture (%) Flue Gas CO 2(%) Hydrogen Chloride Emission Test Results Steam Output (1000 lb/hr) Total Heat

Input (mmBtu/hr)Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel Input

Rate 7.2 415248 133.2 318000 bitum inous lb/hour Other 6.8 417991 132.7 320000 bitum inous lb/hour Other 7.1 420252 132.8 320000 bitum inous lb/hour Other Flue Gas Temperature (F) Fuel #1 Flue Gas O 2(%) Flue Gas

Flow Rate (dscfm)Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Measurement

Method Fuel Input

Rate Fuel #2 Fuel #3Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN

The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN Fuel #4 Other Supporting InformationEIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID

963 Dallm an 31.32

1 4/7/2010 6:59 8:02 2 4/7/2010 8:18 9:24 3 4/7/2010 9:40 10:44 Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DateMe asured Value (ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used
4/7/2010 [<110.83] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod 4/7/2010 [<54.94] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod 4/7/2010 [<54.55] U.S. EPA Method 26A-Mod Hydrogen Flouride Emission Test Results Test End TimeData Flag (ADL,

BDL, DDL) Test Method

Comments BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.084734] 1358 1875 16.5 BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.041097] 1366 1851 16.5 BDL Based on a discussion with the laboratory, the higher detection limit is due in part to analy tical difficulties caused by the combined acid gas/HCN train. The true values are likely below the reported detection limits. [<0.042435] 1365 1843 16.6 Hydrogen Flouride Emission Test Results Steam Output (1000 lb/hr) Total Heat

Input (mmBtu/hr) Calculated Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) Flue Gas Moisture (%)Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method 11.3 7.2 415248 133.2 318000 bitum inous lb/hour Other 11.6 6.8 417991 132.7 320000 bitum inous lb/hour Other 11.5 7.1 420252 132.8 320000 bitum inous lb/hour Other

Flue Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) Flue Gas

Temperature (F) Fuel #1 Flue Gas CO 2(%) Flue Gas

O 2(%)Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel #2 Fuel #3Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN

The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN Fuel #4 Other Supporting InformationThe samples were collected in a combined train with HCN The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN