### Name:

Title: Company: Sign Date: Name: Thomas F. Mattei Title: Quality Assurance Manager / Techni Company: Avogadro Environmental Corporatio Sign Date: 6/29/2010 Permitted Facility Representative / Date Testing Company Representative / Date 

## PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Final Test Report for

/ / Based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, I certify that the statements and information in this test report are true, accurate, and complete. I have reviewed all testing details and results in this test report and hereby certify that the test report is authentic and accurate.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 1 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Facility Information: PPL Montour, LLC.
18 McMichael Road

Washingtonville PA 17884 Contact: Ms. Kathleen Maylath
Phone: 570-437-1362
Fax: Of above person
Email: kjmaylath@pplweb.com Testing Company: Avogadro Environmental Corporation 1350 Sullivan Trail, Suite A

Easton PA 18040 Contact: Thomas Mattei
Phone: 610-559-8776 x 103
Fax: 610-559-8913
Email: tmattei@avogadro.net

Air Permit Number: 47-00001 Permitted Source ID/Name: UNIT 1 031
Permitted Maximum Process Rate: N/A Max. Normal Operation Process Rate: N/A Target Process Test Rate N/A

Description of the source (including control equipment). Please see the attachments for source or process flow diagram: Located in Derry Township about one mile northeast of Washingtonville, Montour County, Pennsylvania, the Montour plant has two coal-fired, steam-electric generation units. PPL Montour Units 1 and 2 are Combustion Engineering, pulverized, bituminous coal fired boilers. Each boiler supplies steam to separate 800 Megawatt General Electric turbines. Exhaust gas from each unit passes through unique and optional Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Sodium BiSulfite (SBS) systems, before entering the Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs). After passage through the ESPs, exhaust gas is introduced into a recently installed, wet limestone, Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system and finally exits through separate, unit specific fiberglass flues housed inside a single concrete shell. Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1972 and has a nominal generating capacity of 800 MW; Unit 2 came on line the following year with a nominal generating capacity of 800 MW. Industry/SCC/NAIS 221112

Sampling Location Information:

Test Parameter Information: AFS #: 4209300005 FRS #: 110000492324

SCC / Description 10100202 External Combustion Boilers - Electric Generation - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal - Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Bituminous Coal)

The following state and federal regulations that apply to the proposed testing:

Location Round

Duct Diam. Distance from upstream dist. Distance from

downstream dist. Number of

Traverse Ports Equiv. Diam Min.Travers Points Rect. Duct Length /Width Stack Exit 360 2016 4296 4 0 12 0 0

Target Parameter Test Method Number of

Test Runs Test Run

Duration Sample

Points Comments Location
% H2O Method 1 - 4 3 72 0 runs range between 72 Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 2 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

and 240 minutes depending upon parameter being sampled Hydrogen Fluoride Method 26A 3 72 0 The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN using NaOH impingers only.Method 26A & CTM033 The MDLs are determined by the analysis of at least seven replicate standards at a concentration near the expected MDL. To determine the MDL value, the standard deviation of the replicate analyses is calculated and that number is multiplied by the Student t factor that corresponds to the number of replicates analyzed. The MDL value should meet the criteria stated in the CFR Title 40, Part 136 B.

If the MDL determined does not meet these criteria, a default MDL value will be used which is 1/10 of the concentration of the standard used to produce the MDL value.

If the MDL determined does not meet these criteria, a default MDL value will be used which is 1/10 of the concentration of the standard used to produce the MDL value. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 3 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Hydrogen Chloride Method 26A 3 72 0 The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN using NaOH impingers only. Chlorine data for Method 26A analysis is not available from the laboratory.

Method 26A & CTM033 The MDLs are determined by the analysis of at least seven replicate standards at a concentration near the expected MDL. To determine the MDL value, the standard deviation of the replicate analyses is calculated and that number is multiplied by the Student t factor that corresponds to the number of replicates analyzed. The MDL value should meet the criteria stated in the CFR Title 40, Part 136 B.

If the MDL determined does not meet these criteria, a default MDL value will be used which is 1/10 of the concentration of the standard used to produce the MDL value. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 4 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Cobalt Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 5 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Manganese Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 6 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Nickel Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 7 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Selenium Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 8 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Arsenic Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 9 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Beryllium Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 10 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Filterable Particulate Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 11 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Chromium Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 12 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Lead Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 13 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Cadmium Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 14 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Antimony Method 29 3 240 0 Method 29 For Method 29 the analyst takes the statistically determined MDL (Method Detection Limit) value and multiplies it by a “factor” in order to determine the RDL (Reporting Detection Limit). This process is similar to the one employed in Method 23 where the EDL is determined based on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio.

For the ICP/MS this “factor” can vary. The factor is determined by the analyst at the bench and takes into account all relevant factors such as, final volumes, interferences, matrix issues, etc. The RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) reported is the lowest concentration that the lab feels can be reported within the 99% confidence interval. For values below this RDL the uncertainty increases. Section 5.5.5.2.2.1 bullet H refers to the ICP/MS procedure. Stack Exit

Co2 Method 3A CO2 3 229 0 CO2 data for M5/OTM28 and M29 runs raning between 229 and 281 minutes Stack Exit

O2 Method 3A O2 3 120 0 O2 data for M26A, CTM33 and gaseous runs raning between 97 and 111 minutes Stack Exit

Co2 Method 3A CO2 3 120 0 CO2 data for M26A, CTM33 and gaseous runs raning between 97 and 111 minutes Stack Exit

O2 Method 3A O2 3 229 0 O2 data for M5/OTM28 and M29 runs raning between 229 and 281 minutes Stack Exit

Mercury Method 30B 3 120 0 Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 15 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Total Particulate Method 5/OTM-28 3 240 0 Method OTM-028 A portion of reagent water that has been spiked with a known amount of material is extracted 3 times with Methylene Chloride. The solvent is evaporated to dryness. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicate low level spikes. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. The non-extractable portion is determined by the weight difference on a series of 10 vials. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicates. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 16 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Filterable Particulate Method 5/OTM-28 3 240 0 Pursuant to Method 5, no blank filter was analyzed or blank filter correction performed.

Method OTM-028 A portion of reagent water that has been spiked with a known amount of material is extracted 3 times with Methylene Chloride. The solvent is evaporated to dryness. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicate low level spikes. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. The non-extractable portion is determined by the weight difference on a series of 10 vials. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicates. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 17 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Organic Condensible Particulate Method 5/OTM-28 3 240 0 Back half particulate matter (OTM-028) mass was calculated using the maximum allowable blank correction value of 0.002 g. A correction value for each fraction was calculated by dividing the fraction blank amount by the total back half blank amount and multiplying that by the allowable blank correction value of 0.002 g.

Method OTM-028 A portion of reagent water that has been spiked with a known amount of material is extracted 3 times with Methylene Chloride. The solvent is evaporated to dryness. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicate low level spikes. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. The non-extractable portion is determined by the weight difference on a series of 10 vials. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicates. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 18 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

The following describes any modifications and/or deviations to the applicable test methods. If alternative methods were requested, see the attachments for documentation of request AND approval, including dates.

Inorganic (Aqueous) Condensible Part. Method 5/OTM-28 3 240 0 Back half particulate matter (OTM-028) mass was calculated using the maximum allowable blank correction value of 0.002 g. A correction value for each fraction was calculated by dividing the fraction blank amount by the total back half blank amount and multiplying that by the allowable blank correction value of 0.002 g.

Method OTM-028 A portion of reagent water that has been spiked with a known amount of material is extracted 3 times with Methylene Chloride. The solvent is evaporated to dryness. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicate low level spikes. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. The non-extractable portion is determined by the weight difference on a series of 10 vials. Detection Limits are calculated by using the standard deviation from these 10 replicates. The standard deviation is multiplied by the appropriate Student T value to determine the statistically derived reporting limit. Stack Exit

Sulfur Dioxide Method 6C 3 97 0 runs range from 97 to 111 in duration Stack Exit

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Method 7E 3 97 0 runs range from 97 to 111 minutes in duration Stack Exit



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 19 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

The following describes any modifications and/or deviations to the applicable test methods. If alternative methods were requested, see the attachments for documentation of request AND approval, including dates.



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 20 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Sampling / Stack Data Results Summary



### Location Stack Exit - Method 26A Average Run Number M26A-3 M26A-4 M26A-5
Test Date 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 3/18/2010
Run Start Time 7:10:00 AM 9:20:00 AM 11:30:00 AM

Run Finish Time 8:51:00 AM 10:58:00 AM 1:21:00 PM

Net Run Time, minutes 72 72 72 Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 35.486 35.939 35.274 35.566 Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 12.89 15.32 12.91 13.707 Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % 12.27 12.52 12.93 12.573 Carbon Dioxide, % 11.8 12 11.8 11.867 Oxygen, % 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.333 Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 122.29 123.00 124.13 123.140 Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 1,580,558.5 1,589,710.0 1,578,581.0 1,582,949.83 3 Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 1,989,522.5 2,009,880.0 2,012,000.6 2,003,801.03 3 Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 106.3 107.0 105.8 106.367 F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 9780 9780 9780 9,780.000
Fw 10640 10640 10640 10,640.000
Fc 1800 1800 1800 1,800.000



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 21 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Location Stack Exit - Method 29 Average Run Number
Test Date
Run Start Time
Run Finish Time Net Run Time, minutes Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2
Fw
Fc



### Location Stack Exit - Method 5/OTM-28 Average Run Number
Test Date
Run Start Time
Run Finish Time Net Run Time, minutes Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2
Fw
Fc



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 22 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Location Stack Exit - Method 6C Average Run Number
Test Date
Run Start Time
Run Finish Time Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 Moisture, % Fuel Type
Fw
Fc



### Location Stack Exit - Method 7E Average Run Number
Test Date
Run Start Time
Run Finish Time Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 Moisture, % Fuel Type
Fw
Fc



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 23 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Emissions Summary



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 26A Compound: Hydrogen Chloride Average RunNumber M26A-3 M26A-4 M26A-5 Mass_mg 0.328 0.311 0.329 0.323 lb/mmBtuO2 3.09E-04 2.85E-04 3.11E-04 0.000


### Compound: Hydrogen Fluoride Average RunNumber M26A-3 M26A-4 M26A-5 Mass_mg 0.328 0.311 0.329 0.323 lb/mmBtuO2 3.09E-04 2.85E-04 3.11E-04 0.000



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 29 Compound: Antimony Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 lb/mmBtuO2 6.42E-07 6.64E-07 6.40E-07 0.000


### Compound: Arsenic Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 lb/mmBtuO2 6.42E-07 6.64E-07 6.40E-07 0.000


### Compound: Beryllium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00075 0.00075 0.00075 0.001 lb/mmBtuO2 1.61E-07 1.66E-07 1.60E-07 0.000


### Compound: Cadmium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00075 0.00098 0.0051 0.002 lb/mmBtuO2 1.61E-07 2.17E-07 1.09E-06 0.000


### Compound: Chromium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.01372 0.00958 0.02685 0.017 lb/mmBtuO2 2.94E-06 2.12E-06 5.73E-06 0.000


### Compound: Cobalt Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00022 0.00038 0.00101 0.001 lb/mmBtuO2 4.71E-08 8.41E-08 2.15E-07 0.000



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 24 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Compound: Filterable Particulate Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 75.5 62 84.2 73.900 lb/mmBtuO2 1.62E-02 1.37E-02 1.80E-02 0.016


### Compound: Lead Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00403 0.00257 0.00282 0.003 lb/mmBtuO2 8.63E-07 5.68E-07 6.02E-07 0.000


### Compound: Manganese Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.0051 0.0051 0.00426 0.005 lb/mmBtuO2 1.09E-06 1.13E-06 9.09E-07 0.000


### Compound: Nickel Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.03376 0.02153 0.07163 0.042 lb/mmBtuO2 7.23E-06 4.76E-06 1.53E-05 0.000


### Compound: Selenium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.0436 0.0495 0.0655 0.053 lb/mmBtuO2 9.34E-06 1.09E-05 1.40E-05 0.000



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 5/OTM-28 

### Compound: Filterable Particulate Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 19.5 28.5 19.6 22.533 lb/mmBtuO2 4.73E-03 7.04E-03 4.60E-03 0.005


### Compound: Inorganic (Aqueous) Condensible Pa Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 48.3 118.3 45.3 70.633 lb/mmBtuO2 1.17E-02 2.92E-02 1.06E-02 0.017


### Compound: Organic Condensible Particulate Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 3.3 4.3 3.8 3.800 lb/mmBtuO2 8.01E-04 1.06E-03 8.92E-04 0.001


### Compound: Total Particulate Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 71.1 151.1 68.7 96.967


### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 25 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Process Run Data lb/mmBtuO2 1.72E-02 3.73E-02 1.61E-02 0.024



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 6C Compound: Sulfur Dioxide Average Run 3 4 5 lb/mmBtuO2 5.19E-01 4.54E-01 4.01E-01 0.458 ppm 2.06E+02 1.83E+02 1.59E+02 182.667 ppm@7%O2 2.12E+02 1.86E+02 1.64E+02 187.333



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 7E Compound: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Average Run 3 4 5 lb/mmBtuO2 1.25E-01 1.19E-01 1.21E-01 0.122 ppm 6.93E+01 6.71E+01 6.69E+01 67.767 ppm@7%O2 7.14E+01 6.81E+01 6.89E+01 69.467



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 26 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Process Run Data



### Run Name Value UOM Comments Target Value 1 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr


### 2 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr
3 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr
4 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr


### 5 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr
6 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr
1 Average Heat Input 5432 MMBtu/hr


### 2 Average Heat Input 5145 MMBtu/hr
3 Average Heat Input 5048 MMBtu/hr
4 Average Heat Input 5356 MMBtu/hr


### 5 Average Heat Input 5478 MMBtu/hr
6 Average Heat Input 5099 MMBtu/hr
1 Steam Output 4944 1000 lb steam/hr


### 2 Steam Output 4825 1000 lb steam/hr
3 Steam Output 4723 1000 lb steam/hr
4 Steam Output 4871 1000 lb steam/hr


### 5 Steam Output 5025 1000 lb steam/hr
6 Steam Output 4873 1000 lb steam/hr
1 Flue Gas Flow Rate 92655


### 4 Flue Gas Flow Rate 95410
5 Flue Gas Flow Rate 92978
6 Flue Gas Flow Rate 87855


### 1 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.2 in H20
4 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.2 in H20


### 5 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.2 in H20
6 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.2 in H20
1 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.6 pH


### 4 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH
5 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH
6 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH


### 1 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 220 gal/min
4 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 214 gal/min
5 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 235 gal/min



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 27 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

6 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 170 gal/min


### 1 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.2 %
4 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.3 %
5 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.2 %


### 6 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.3 %
1 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.8 %
4 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.7 %


### 5 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.8 %
6 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.7 %
1 Flue Gas Moisture Content %


### 4 Flue Gas Moisture Content %
5 Flue Gas Moisture Content %
6 Flue Gas Moisture Content %


### 1 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 123 Deg F
4 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 120 Deg F
5 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 121 Deg F


### 6 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 122 Deg F
1 Flue Gas Pressure 0.96 atm
4 Flue Gas Pressure 0.95 atm


### 5 Flue Gas Pressure 0.95 atm
6 Flue Gas Pressure 0.95 atm


### 1 Standard Pressure 1 atm
4 Standard Pressure 1 atm
5 Standard Pressure 1 atm


### 6 Standard Pressure 1 atm
1 Standard Temperature 68 Deg F
4 Standard Temperature 68 Deg F


### 5 Standard Temperature 68 Deg F
6 Standard Temperature 68 Deg F
1 Unit Gross Electrical Output 704 Mwe


### 4 Unit Gross Electrical Output 673 Mwe
5 Unit Gross Electrical Output 699 Mwe
6 Unit Gross Electrical Output 692 Mwe


### 1 Unit Net Electric Generation 671 MWh
4 Unit Net Electric Generation 641 MWh
5 Unit Net Electric Generation 666 MWh



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 28 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

APCD Run Data

Process Lab Run Data 6 Unit Net Electric Generation 658 MWh


### 1 SCR Ammonia Flow 567 pph
4 SCR Ammonia Flow 545 pph
5 SCR Ammonia Flow 555 pph


### 6 SCR Ammonia Flow 559 pph
1 SBS Dilute Flow Rate 6 gpm 4 SBS Dilute Flow Rate 6 gpm 

### 5 SBS Dilute Flow Rate 6 gpm
6 SBS Dilute Flow Rate 6 gpm 1 ESP Status i/s or o/s


### 4 ESP Status i/s or o/s
5 ESP Status i/s or o/s
6 ESP Status i/s or o/s


### 1 Flue Oil Firing Rate 88 gal/hr
4 Flue Oil Firing Rate 38 gal/hr
5 Flue Oil Firing Rate 38 gal/hr


### 6 Flue Oil Firing Rate 38 gal/hr

Run Name Value UOM Comments Target Value 1 SCR (SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION) 0


### 1 SODIUM BISULFITE (SBS) SYSTEM 0
1 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR 0
1 WETL LIMESTONE FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM 0

Run Name Value UOM Comments 

### 1 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15148 Btu/lb 2 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15152 Btu/lb 3 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15117 Btu/lb 

### 4 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15207 Btu/lb 5 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15197 Btu/lb 6 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15224 Btu/lb 

### 1 Fuel Moisture 1.62 % 2 Fuel Moisture 1.53 % 3 Fuel Moisture 1.51 % 4 Fuel Moisture 1.16 %



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 29 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

5 Fuel Moisture 1.17 % 

### 6 Fuel Moisture 1.17 % 1 Fuel Mercury Content 69.03 ppb 2 Fuel Mercury Content 73.19 ppb 3 Fuel Mercury Content 67.74 ppb 

### 1 Fuel Cadmium Content 0.05 ppm 2 Fuel Cadmium Content 0.05 ppm 3 Fuel Cadmium Content 0.05 ppm 

### 1 Fuel Nickel Content 4.66 ppm 2 Fuel Nickel Content 5.22 ppm 3 Fuel Nickel Content 6.97 ppm 1 Fuel Arsenic Content 3.28 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Arsenic Content 2.58 ppm 3 Fuel Arsenic Content 2.47 ppm 1 Fuel Chromium Content 15.1 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Chromium Content 14.3 ppm 3 Fuel Chromium Content 16 ppm 1 Fuel Beryllium Content 0.04 ppm 2 Fuel Beryllium Content 0.04 ppm 

### 3 Fuel Beryllium Content 0.04 ppm 1 Fuel Lead Content 4.21 ppm 2 Fuel Lead Content 4.76 ppm 

### 3 Fuel Lead Content 4.79 ppm 1 Fuel Manganese Content 14.4 ppm 2 Fuel Manganese Content 13.8 ppm 3 Fuel Manganese Content 14.8 ppm 

### 1 Scrubber Slurry 2E+05 mg/L 2 Scrubber Slurry 2E+05 mg/L 3 Scrubber Slurry 2E+05 mg/L 

### 1 Fuel Cobalt Content 0.25 ppm 2 Fuel Cobalt Content 0.25 ppm 3 Fuel Cobalt Content 0.25 ppm 1 Fuel Antimony Content 4.96 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Antimony Content 4.98 ppm 3 Fuel Antimony Content 4.94 ppm 1 Fuel Ash, as received 8.74 % 

### 2 Fuel Ash, as received 8.9 % 3 Fuel Ash, as received 8.66 % 4 Fuel Ash, as received 7.56 % 5 Fuel Ash, as received 7.69 % 

### 6 Fuel Ash, as received 7.79 % 1 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.88 % 2 Fuel Ash, dry basis 9.03 %



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 30 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

3 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.79 % 

### 4 Fuel Ash, dry basis 7.65 % 5 Fuel Ash, dry basis 7.78 % 6 Fuel Ash, dry basis 7.88 % 1 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.71 % 

### 2 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.47 % 3 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.86 % 4 Fuel Volatile, as received 39 % 

### 5 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.75 % 6 Fuel Volatile, as received 37.76 % 1 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 39.34 % 2 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 39.06 % 

### 3 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 39.45 % 4 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 39.45 % 5 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 39.21 % 

### 6 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 38.2 % 1 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.425 % 2 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.43 % 3 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.366 % 

### 4 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.694 % 5 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.515 % 6 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.105 % 

### 1 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.465 % 2 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.468 % 3 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.402 % 4 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.726 % 

### 5 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.545 % 6 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.13 % 1 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.12 % 

### 2 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.12 % 3 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.12 % 4 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.1 % 5 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.11 % 

### 6 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.11 % 1 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 2 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 

### 3 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 4 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.1 % 5 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.11 % 6 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.11 % 

### 4 Fuel Fluorine, as received 46 ppm 5 Fuel Fluorine, as received 45 ppm 6 Fuel Fluorine, as received 34 ppm



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 31 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

4 Fuel Fluorine, dry basis 46 ppm 

### 5 Fuel Fluorine, dry basis 45 ppm 6 Fuel Fluorine, dry basis 34 ppm 1 Fuel Selenium Content 0.88 ppm 2 Fuel Selenium Content 0.59 ppm 

### 3 Fuel Selenium Content 0.76 ppm 1 Carbon, as received 74.54 % 2 Carbon, as received 74.38 % 

### 3 Carbon, as received 74.9 % 4 Carbon, as received 75.9 % 5 Carbon, as received 76.09 % 6 Carbon, as received 76.32 % 

### 1 Carbon, dry basis 75.48 % 2 Carbon, dry basis 75.23 % 3 Carbon, dry basis 75.77 % 

### 4 Carbon, dry basis 76.64 % 5 Carbon, dry basis 76.76 % 6 Carbon, dry basis 77.01 % 1 Hydrogen, as received 4.87 % 

### 2 Hydrogen, as received 4.82 % 3 Hydrogen, as received 4.8 % 4 Hydrogen, as received 4.9 % 

### 5 Hydrogen, as received 4.86 % 6 Hydrogen, as received 4.88 % 1 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.93 % 2 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.88 % 

### 3 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.86 % 4 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.95 % 5 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.91 % 

### 6 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.92 % 1 Nitrogen, as received 1.98 % 2 Nitrogen, as received 1.9 % 3 Nitrogen, as received 1.82 % 

### 4 Nitrogen, as received 1.78 % 5 Nitrogen, as received 1.85 % 6 Nitrogen, as received 1.8 % 

### 1 Nitrogen, dry basis 2 % 2 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.92 % 3 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.84 % 4 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.8 % 

### 5 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.87 % 6 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.82 %



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 32 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Sampling / Stack Data Results Detail



### Location Stack Exit - Method 26A Average Run Number M26A-3 M26A-4 M26A-5 Test Date 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 Run Start Time 7:10:00 AM 9:20:00 AM 11:30:00 AM Run Finish Time 8:51:00 AM 10:58:00 AM 1:21:00 PM Net Traversing Points 24 24 24 Net Run Time, minutes 72 72 72 Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 Pitot Tube Coefficient 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.830 Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1 1 1 1.000 Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.93 29.92 29.87 29.907 Average Orifice Meter Differential, inches H2O 0.81 0.84 0.82 0.823 Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 36.194 36.921 36.673 36.596 Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 79.79 83.54 89.13 84.153 Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 35.486 35.939 35.274 35.566 Total Moisture Liquid collected, g 111.6 138.1 111.1 120.267 Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 5.25 6.50 5.23 5.660 Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 12.89 15.32 12.91 13.707 Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % 12.27 12.52 12.93 12.573 Dry Mole Fraction 0.8773 0.8748 0.8709 0.874 Carbon Dioxide, % 11.8 12 11.8 11.867 Oxygen, % 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.333 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.800 Fuel Factor 1.14 1.14 1.14 Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 30.18 30.21 30.18 30.190 Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 28.80 29.19 28.61 28.867 Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -0.72 -0.72 -0.72 -0.720 Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.88 29.87 29.82 29.857 Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 122.29 123.00 124.13 123.140 Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.6458260852 2012 0.667198117

949354 0.652771061

310118 0.655

Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 46.91 47.39 47.44 47.247 Stack Cross-Sectional Area, square feet 706.858 706.858 706.858 706.858 Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 1,580,558.5 1,589,710.0 1,578,581.0 1,582,949.8 33 Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 1,989,522.5 2,009,880.0 2,012,000.6 2,003,801.0 33 Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 106.3 107.0 105.8 106.367 Percent Excess Air, % 53.1 51.0 53.1 52.400 F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 9780 9780 9780 9,780.000 Round Duct Diameter, inches 360 360 360 Rectangular Duct Width, inches 0 0 0 Rectangular Duct Length, inches 0 0 0 Fw 10640 10640 10640 10,640.000 Fc 1800 1800 1800 1,800.000



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 33 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Location Stack Exit - Method 29 Average Run Number Test Date Run Start Time Run Finish Time Net Traversing Points Net Run Time, minutes Nozzle Diameter, inches Pitot Tube Coefficient Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury Average Orifice Meter Differential, inches H2O Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf Total Moisture Liquid collected, g Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % Dry Mole Fraction Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % Fuel Factor Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second Stack Cross-Sectional Area, square feet Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % Percent Excess Air, % F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 Round Duct Diameter, inches Rectangular Duct Width, inches Rectangular Duct Length, inches Fw Fc



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 34 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Location Stack Exit - Method 5/OTM-28 Average Run Number Test Date Run Start Time Run Finish Time Net Traversing Points Net Run Time, minutes Nozzle Diameter, inches Pitot Tube Coefficient Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury Average Orifice Meter Differential, inches H2O Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf Total Moisture Liquid collected, g Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % Dry Mole Fraction Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % Fuel Factor Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second Stack Cross-Sectional Area, square feet Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % Percent Excess Air, % F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 Round Duct Diameter, inches Rectangular Duct Width, inches Rectangular Duct Length, inches Fw Fc



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 35 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Location Stack Exit - Method 6C Average Run Number Test Date Run Start Time Run Finish Time Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Fuel Factor Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 Moisture, % Analyzer Make Analyzer Model Analyzer Serial Number Operating Range Operating Units No. Readings/Avg. Calibration Set Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder ID Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder Bias Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder Drift Calibration Pre High Cylinder ID Calibration Pre High Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Pre High Cylinder Bias Calibration Pre High Cylinder Drift Calibration Post Zero Cylinder ID Calibration Post Zero Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Post Zero Cylinder Bias Calibration Post Zero Cylinder Drift Calibration Post High Cylinder ID Calibration Post High Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Post High Cylinder Bias Calibration Post High Cylinder Drift Cavg Cavg Units Cgas Cgas Units Fuel Type Fw Fc Cgasw Cgasw Units



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 36 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 1

Location Stack Exit - Method 7E Average Run Number Test Date Run Start Time Run Finish Time Carbon Dioxide, % Oxygen, % Fuel Factor Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 Moisture, % Analyzer Make Analyzer Model Analyzer Serial Number Operating Range Operating Units No. Readings/Avg. Calibration Set Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder ID Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder Bias Calibration Pre Zero Cylinder Drift Calibration Pre High Cylinder ID Calibration Pre High Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Pre High Cylinder Bias Calibration Pre High Cylinder Drift Calibration Post Zero Cylinder ID Calibration Post Zero Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Post Zero Cylinder Bias Calibration Post Zero Cylinder Drift Calibration Post High Cylinder ID Calibration Post High Cylinder Instrument Response Calibration Post High Cylinder Bias Calibration Post High Cylinder Drift Cavg Cavg Units Cgas Cgas Units Fuel Type Fw Fc Cgasw Cgasw Units



### Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 37 of 37