MEMORANDUM 

TO: Jim Eddinger, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS/SPPD

FROM: Amanda Singleton, ERG

DATE: April 2010

SUBJECT: MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Boilers National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Area Source

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the methodology and results of the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT) floor determinations for mercury (Hg) and polycyclic organic matter

(POM) at area source boilers.  This memo also discusses generally achievable control technologies (GACT) for

non‐Hg metallic urban hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and organic urban HAP.  Emissions data for area source

boilers is limited, as these units often fall below permitting thresholds.  

We determined the MACT floors using data obtained from three sources: state operating permits,

emission test results reported at area sources in the recently implemented Information Collection Request

(ICR) approved under OMB Control No. 2060‐0616 ICR number 2286.01, and test data received from the U.S.

National Forest Service Fuels for Schools Program.1, 2, 3 We ranked emission test averages for each boiler,

calculated MACT floor averages, and conducted emissions data variability analyses.  We determined the MACT

floor emission limits based on the results of these analyses.   

We determined GACT based on a review of state regulations and common work practices for existing

units. For new units we reviewed related combustion regulations under the New Source Performance

Standards program. The following sections address the methodology used to calculate pollutant limits for

existing and new sources. The memorandum is organized as follows:

1.0 Background on MACT Floor and GACT Methodology

2.0 Data Available to Estimate MACT Floors

3.0 MACT Floors for Existing Sources

3.1 Methodology for Floors for Existing Sources

3.2  Incorporating Data Variability

3.3  Calculating Emission Limits

4.0 MACT Floors for New Sources
4.1 Methodology for Floors for New Sources

4.2  Incorporating Data Variability

4.3  Calculating Emission Limits

5.0 Determining GACT Limits for Particulate Matter  

5.1 Methodology for Floors at Existing Sources

5.2   Methodology for Floors at New Sources

Appendix A: Ranked Emission Data for MACT Floor Analysis

Appendix B: Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) Calculations for Existing Sources

Appendix C: UPL Calculations for New Sources

Appendix D: Control Device Data used to Establish GACT for Particulate Matter at Existing Sources

Appendix E: Emission Data used to Establish GACT for Particulate Matter at New Sources

1.0 Background on MACT Floor and GACT Methodology 

Industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers were two different source categories included

in the area source list published on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38721).  In addition, both industrial boilers and

institutional/commercial boilers are on the list of section 112(c)(6) source categories published on April 10,

1998 (63 FR 17830).  Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to list categories of sources

accounting for not less than 90 percent of emissions of each of seven listed pollutants.  These two categories

are on the 112(c)(6) list because of emissions of mercury and polycyclic organic matter (POM).  Section

112(c)(6) also requires that source categories accounting for emissions of the HAP listed in section 112(c)(6) be

subject to standards under sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(4).   

EPA estimates that they have subjected to regulation or propose to regulate 90.3 percent of the 172.3

tons in the 1990 emissions inventory for mercury.  Coal‐fired area source boilers would provide an additional

0.72 percent.  Regulation of these boilers under MACT would provide an anticipated margin to ensure that the

obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6) are met.  Consequently, both GACT and MACT level of controls were

evaluated for mercury from biomass and liquid area source boilers.  

This NESHAP covers the source categories defined as industrial boilers and institutional and

commercial boilers at locations identified as an area source of HAP.  Both of the source categories included in

this proposal are on the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List.   

A boiler is defined as an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion and having the primary

purpose of recovering thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water. An area source of HAP emissions is

any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common

control that does not emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or

any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more a year.

Because facilities could have multiple boilers on‐site that are different capacities, burn different fuels,

or have different combustors or levels of add‐on control devices, the MACT floor and GACT were determined
by grouping boilers designed to fire similar fuel types, coal, biomass, and liquid, and evaluating reported

emission data for each particular subcategory.   

2.0 Data Available to Estimate MACT Floors 

The affected inventory of area source boilers was estimated using a boiler inspector inventory from 13

states, extrapolated nationwide.4 This boiler inspector dataset is focused on boiler safety items and contact

information and it does not contain emission data for any of the units. To analyze numerical emission data,

EPA identified three viable data sources: state operating permits, emission test results reported at area

sources in the recently implemented Information Collection Request (ICR) approved under OMB Control No.

2060‐0616 ICR number 2286.01, and test data received from the U.S. National Forest Service Fuels for Schools

Program. Based on the three data sources considered for the analysis, the following data were available:

‐ No emission data for POM

‐ limited emission data (9 coal, 2 biomass) for mercury, and no emission data available for liquid

boilers

‐ No state regulations applicable for mercury or POM

‐ No state permits specific for mercury or POM

‐ No surrogate for Hg, but CO as a surrogate for POM

‐ A few (7 coal, 2 biomass) area source boilers using add‐on control technology for mercury

‐ Limited emission data for CO (5 coal boilers, 30 wood‐fired, 68 oil‐fired boilers)

3.0 MACT Floors for Existing Sources 

3.1 Methodology for Floors for Existing Sources 

Using the average nation‐wide projections from the 13‐state boiler inspector inventory, there are

182,671 boilers at area sources of HAP. Of these, 10,958 boilers are designed to fire biomass, 3,710 boilers are

designed to fire coal, 168,003 boilers are designed to fire liquids. For existing sources, MACT cannot be less

stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources

(for which data is available) for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5

sources for subcategories with less than 30 sources.  The size of the subcategory was determined according to

the number of units in the boiler inventory, not the number of units within each subcategory that had

emission data available, and all subcategories contain more than 30 sources.

We identified the lowest emission test average (mean) for each pollutant at each boiler. We did not

include any data from units that indicated they were permanently shut down. For units with a mix of detection
levels and measured values we used the average of the measured values and the reported numerical

detection level to calculate an average. If a boiler reported three non‐detect levels, we averaged the

numerical detection levels. If a source reported ‘zero’ or simply “ND” as the value for a test run, that run was

not used to calculate the average of the test. Similarly, if a unit reported data that was not standardized to the

appropriate units of measure, or did not provide operating and stack test parameters necessary to standardize

the emissions data, the data was not used in the MACT floor analysis. The ICR responses were reviewed to

identify additional mercury fuel analysis data from uncontrolled coal, biomass or liquid boilers at area sources,

but none were identified.  

Next, we ranked the minimum stack test means for each pollutant in each subcategory. We conducted

this ranking according to the fuels the unit was designed to burn (coal, biomass, or liquid). Because emissions

of fuel‐based HAP (e.g., mercury) depend on the fuel used rather than the design of the combustion chamber,

MACT floors for fuel‐based HAP were based on data from all boilers designed to burn the same type of fuel.

For boilers burning multiple fuel types we reviewed the emission database to determine the relative heat

input percentages each fuel category contributed during the test. If a test was fired with at least 10 percent of

the heat input from coal, the unit was classified as designed to burn coal. If the test was fired with at least 10

percent biomass, and less than 10 percent coal, the unit was classified as designed to burn biomass. If the test

was fired with at least 10 percent liquid, and less than 10 percent coal or biomass, the unit was classified as

designed to burn liquid.  

Emissions of POM and CO fluctuate according to the design of the combustion chamber. Although

combustor design subcategorization was considered in the proposed NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at major sources of HAP, there is not enough emission data available

to further subcategorize according to combustor design. Further, the 13‐state boiler inspector inventory does

not include information on the combustor designs of these units and we are unable to identify the distribution

of combustor designs at area source boilers. Given the limited emission data available to calculate a MACT

floor limit, the boiler combustor design was not a factor in developing the subcategories for the MACT floor.

We then identified minimum emission test averages in the best performing 12 percent for each

subcategory. To determine the number of boilers in the best‐performing 12 percent, we multiplied the

number of sources with emission data in each subcategory by 12 percent and rounded up to the nearest

whole integer. For example, 12 percent of a category with 103 emission test averages is 12.36, so we would

have averaged the emission test data from the top 13 boilers. This roundup approach is consistent with the

approach used by statisticians in survey sampling.5  
3.2 Incorporating Data Variability 

This section discusses the statistical variability incorporated into the MACT floor analysis. Fuel

variability was considered, similar to the discussion contained in the MACT floor methodology for major

sources, but no fuel analysis data for coal units were available for units in the top 12 percent that had

conducted fuel analysis in conjunction with a stack test.6 There were mercury fuel analysis data available for

MIVikingEnergyofLincoln. However this facility is a qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section

3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), and burns homogeneous waste. Fuel variability of

homogeneous waste material was not considered in the variability analysis since it is not a representative

material for other boilers in the biomass subcategory.  

Statistical Variability7, 8

After identifying the units with minimum emission test averages in the top 12 percent (or top 5 units),

we identified all the emission test runs reported for those top‐performing boilers to be in the same

subcategory. By including multiple emission tests from units with a test average in the top 12 percent, EPA can

evaluate intra‐unit variability of emission tests over time, considering variability in control device

performance, unit operations, and fuels fired during the test. We evaluated two statistical options based on

statistical methods used in previous EPA rulemakings, the 99% upper limit and the 99% UPL.   

The Upper Limit (UL) is roughly equivalent to the 99th percentile of the actual data distribution for the

sample. While the UL has been utilized by EPA in some of its analyses (see Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators rulemaking), it assumes that the data used represent the population rather than a random sample

from that population. The data used to calculate statistical variability on the MACT floor analysis do not

represent data from the entire population of affected boilers in this source category. Instead, EPA has

collected a sample of emission data from random units in each subcategory. Since the data used to calculate

the MACT floor represents a sample of the population of affected units, EPA determined that the upper limit

was not an appropriate interval to use for assessing variability.   

Instead, EPA selected the upper prediction limit (UPL). A prediction interval for a future observation is

an interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or some other pre‐specified)

randomly selected observation from a population. In other words, the prediction interval estimates what

future values will be, based on present or past background samples taken. Given this definition, the UPL

represents the value we can expect the mean of three future observations (three‐run average) to fall below,

based on the results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same population. In other words, if we

were to randomly select a future test condition from any of these sources (i.e., average of three runs), we can

be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall below a MACT floor emission limit calculated using a
UPL. Since a source must demonstrate compliance with the MACT floor using the average of a three‐run test,

the appropriate test condition to use to assess variability is 3.  If a source had to demonstrate compliance by

showing that each individual test run was below the MACT floor emission limit, it would be appropriate to use

a future test condition of 1.

In light of comments made during the Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator rulemaking, we

first determined the distribution of the test run data for the best‐performing 12 percent of units within each

subcategory prior to calculating UPL values. To evaluate the distribution of the best performing dataset, we

computed the skewness and kurtosis statistics and then conducted the appropriate small‐sample hypothesis

tests.

The skewness statistic (S) characterizes the degree of asymmetry of a given data distribution. Normally

distributed data have a skewness of 0. A skewness statistic that is greater (less) than 0 indicates that the data

are asymmetrically distributed with a right (left) tail extending toward positive (negative) values. Further, the

standard error of the skewness statistic (SES) is given by SES = SQRT(6/N) where N is the sample size.

According to the small sample skewness hypothesis test, if the skewness statistic (S) is greater than two times

the SES, the data distribution can be considered non‐normal.  

The kurtosis statistic (K) characterizes the degree of peakedness or flatness of a given data distribution

in comparison to a normal distribution. Normally distributed data have a kurtosis of 0. A kurtosis statistic that

is greater (less) than 0 indicates a relatively peaked (flat) distribution. Further, the standard error of the

kurtosis statistic (SEK) is given by SEK = SQRT(24/N) where N is the sample size. According to the small sample

kurtosis hypothesis test, if K is greater than two times the SEK, the data distribution is typically considered to

be non‐normal.

We applied the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests to both the reported test values and the

lognormal values of the reported test values. If the S and K statistics of the reported dataset were both less

than twice the SES and SEK, respectively, the dataset was classified as normally distributed. If neither of the S

and K statistics or only one of these statistics was less than twice the SES or SEK, respectively, then the

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were conducted for the natural log‐transformed data. Then the

distribution most similar to a normal distribution was selected as the basis for calculating the UPL. If both the

reported values and the natural‐log transformed reported values had S and K statistics that were greater than

twice the SES or SEK, respectively, the normally distributed dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to be

conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values

and the natural log‐transformed reported values, we also chose the normal distribution to be conservative.

We believe this approach is more accurate and obtained more representative results than a more simplistic

normal distribution assumption.
After determining the distribution of each dataset, a student’s t‐test statistic was used. The t‐test was

used in the promulgated Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators rulemaking and proposed Portland

Cement rulemaking, and it is more appropriate for smaller sample sizes. The t‐statistic is calculated using the

following Excel equation:

t‐statistic = TINV(2*(1‐0.99),n‐1)

Where:

n = the number of test runs from units in the top 12 percent

Next, the average (or sample mean) and sample standard deviation of the test runs were calculated. We

calculated the 99% UPL values (which was determined to be the appropriate percentile to use in setting MACT

limits in the Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators NSPS) based on the test run data for those units in

the best‐performing 12 percent. Since the compliance with the MACT floor emission limit is based on the

average of a three‐run test, the UPL is calculated by:

Where:

n = the number of test runs

m = the number of test runs in the compliance average

s = standard deviation of emission data

t (0.99, n‐1) = the t‐statistic

x = mean of emissions test data

This calculation was performed using the following two Excel functions:

Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE (Test Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 *

0.99, n‐1 degrees of freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+(1/3))], for a one‐tailed t‐value (with 2 x probability), probability of

0.01, and sample size of n  

Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log Values of Test Runs in Top 12%) +

[STDEV(Natural Log Values of Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 * 0.99, n‐1 degrees of freedom) *

SQRT((1/n)+(1/3))]}, for a one‐tailed t‐value (with 2 x probability), probability of 0.01, and sample size of n
3.3 Calculating Emission Limits 

We determined emission limits for each MACT floor option and pollutant by rounding up the UPL

values less than 100 to one significant figure, rounding the UPL values between 100 and 1,000 to two

significant figures. This approach allows for an appropriate level of precision depending on the scale of the

measured value. For example, we determined the MACT floor emission limit for Hg at coal boilers by rounding

up the 99 percent UPL value, from 2.42E‐06 pounds per million Btu [lb/mmBtu]) to 3.0E‐06 lb/mmBtu.  For CO

emissions, calculated ppm values less than 1 ppm were rounded up to 1 ppm, since measurements of CO

emissions less than 1 ppm were expected to be difficult at all sources. For CO emissions between 1 and 10

ppm, the emissions were rounded up to the nearest whole integer. For CO emissions above 10 ppm, CO

emissions were rounded up to the nearest 10 ppm. It should be noted that if the UPL values were rounded

down, then the possibility exists that the best‐performing units that comprise the MACT floor may not be able

to achieve the emission limit on an ongoing basis.  In all cases, the significant figure approach and associated

rounding does not meaningfully change the emission limits.  The emission limits are summarized for each

subcategory in Table 1 below. For mercury emissions from liquid boilers, there was no data available to

calculate a MACT floor. The MACT floor for liquid units at major sources was used as the basis for the floor for

area source boilers.  The data ranked and analyzed for the MACT floor at existing units is shown in Appendix A,

the UPL floor calculations for each subcategory and each pollutant are shown in Appendix B.  

Table 1: MACT Floor Emission Limits for Existing Units

 Subcategory 

Hg 

(lb/mmBtu) 

CO 

(ppm @3% O2) 

COAL 3.0E-06 390 

BIOMASS 4.0E-07* 200 

LIQUID 4.0E-06* 2 

Notes:  

 Liquid fuel floor limit for mercury represents the MACT floor emission limit for existing boilers designed to burn

liquid fuels at major sources of HAP.  

 Red text indicates at least one test run used to calculate the MACT floor is based on a reported detection limit.

 Under the proposed options 3E and 3N there are no mercury emission limits for biomass and liquid units.

4.0 Floors for New Sources 

4.1 Methodology for Floors for New Sources 

The same methodology used to calculate the MACT floors for existing sources, as discussed in Section

3.0, was used to calculate the floor for new sources, with two exceptions. First, if the calculated floor for new

sources was less stringent than the calculated floor for existing sources, the floor corresponding to the same

subcategory for existing sources was used as the basis for the floor for new sources. Although the minimum
average test run for the best performing source resulted in the lowest three‐run average test, the 99% UPL‐

based limit incorporated variability between test runs. As the sample size—in this case the number of test

runs—gets smaller, the t‐statistic increases. When the sample size of test runs is small, and there is a large

variability between test runs, the calculated limit using the UPL approach can be larger than the variability

among a larger set of test runs from units in the best performing 12 percent. Similar to the approach used in

the HMIWI rulemaking, if the emission limit for new sources was less stringent than the emission limit for

existing sources in the same subcategory, we decided to use existing source limits for new sources.  

Second, if the lowest emitting unit had less than three test runs, the unit with the next lowest

emissions based on at least a three‐run test average was used as the basis for the MACT floor from new units.

Using the lowest emitting unit with three test runs ensures that adequate variability can be incorporated into

the limit to ensure that future sources can repeatedly meet the limit during their compliance tests. The next

lowest unit was used in four instances:   

1) Coal, Hg – top performing unit only had one test run. Used test data from second

best unit, which had 3 runs.

2) Coal, CO – top performing unit only had one test run. Second best unit only had two  

test runs. Used test data from third best unit, which had 3 runs.

3) Biomass, CO – top performing unit only had one test run. Used test data from  

second best unit, which had 3 runs.  

4) Liquid, CO – top 3 units only had one test run each. Used test data from fourth best  

unit, which had 3 runs.

Table 2 summarizes the MACT floor emission limits for new sources and the light green highlighted

cells represent the limits where the corresponding limit for existing sources in the same subcategory were

used as a basis for the limit at new sources.  The UPL floor calculations for each subcategory and each

pollutant for new sources are shown in Appendix C.  
Table 2: MACT Floor Emission Limits for New Units

 

Hg 

(lb/mmBtu) 

CO 

(ppm @3% O2) 

COAL 3.0 E-06 390 

BIOMASS 4.0 E-07* 120 

LIQUID 3.0 E-07* 1 

Notes:  

 Liquid fuel floor limit for mercury represents the MACT floor emission limit for new boilers designed to burn

liquid fuels at major sources of HAP.

 Red text indicates at least one test run used to calculate the MACT floor is based on a reported detection limit.

 Light green shaded cells indicate limits where the calculated limit for new sources was less stringent than the

calculated limit for existing sources and so the limit for existing sources was used as the basis for the limit at new

sources.

 Under the proposed options 3E and 3N there are no mercury emission limits for biomass and liquid units.

5.0 Determining GACT Limits for Particulate Matter 

5.1 Additional Data Sources Available for Assessing GACT 

Of the 13 states for which we had boiler inspector data, EPA was able to gather information from one

state environmental agency on air pollution control devices for permitted boilers in the state.  EPA obtained

an additional permit database from the state of Pennsylvania, although EPA did not have boiler inspector data

for this state.

EPA had a 1996 document from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),

which provided a list of facilities in Pennsylvania with permitted boilers.  This list included information on fuel

type, unit capacity, and control devices.  Given the age of this document, EPA made several calls to facilities

that were considered to be potential area sources affected by this rule.  As a result of this data gathering

effort, it was determined none of the coal‐fired boilers in several of the school districts on the list were still in

operation.  The contacts indicated that due to increased insurance rates on the old boilers, and additional

recordkeeping requirements from the state DEP, the boilers have been replaced with natural gas units.  

Additionally, these contacts stated that this switchover was common practice for several other school districts

in similar situations.  Since many of the solid fuel boilers on this list were no longer operating, this data source

was considered obsolete for identifying GACT levels of control for boilers at area sources.   

EPA requested that Pennsylvania DEP provide an updated version of the list of facilities with permitted

boilers, and EPA used this list to identify control devices for various fuel and size combinations.  This list

contained data for approximately 4,000 permitted boiler records.9

  The Pennsylvania database contained

information on the facility name and location, fuel, rated heat input capacity, and air pollution control device.  

This database consists of units at facilities that would potentially require a permit to operate in the state of
Pennsylvania, which included data on 93 facilities with permitted solid fuel boilers.   

A second state permit data base from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

contained approximately 1,731 permitted boiler records, which included data on 108 facilities with permitted

solid fuel boilers.  The Wisconsin database incorporated information on the facility name and location, unit

installation date, SCC code, fuel, rated heat input capacity, and air pollution control device.  This database only

consisted of units at facilities that are large enough to potentially require a permit from Wisconsin DNR. 10

One weakness of the state permit databases was that neither of these data sources contained

information on boilers at potential area source facilities with only one or two small boilers used to heat the

building.  Whereas these boilers fall under this industrial, commercial, and institutional area source category,

these small commercial or institutional types of facilities typically do not require a permit, and are thus not

represented by the state permit data.  However, it is unlikely that small boilers such as the aforementioned

would have any type of air pollution control device.  A second weakness of these datasets was that the boilers

in each list were a combination of boilers at major sources and area sources.  For example, a boiler located at

pulp and paper mill might have an ESP level of control, however this boiler is at a major source of HAP and so

this control cannot be used in the analysis for determining the MACT floor level of control for boilers at area

sources.  In order to correct for this, EPA had to determine which boilers were at area source facilities versus

major source facilities using the size of the boiler and industry classification of the facility.  The details of the

assumptions used in assigning boilers to an area source or major source facility are described in another

memorandum.11  

One strength of the permit databases used in this MACT floor determination is that among the 13

states in the boiler inspector datasets, Pennsylvania represents a state with local coal resources and heavy

coal consumption.  The Energy Information Administration indicated that Pennsylvania uses the largest

amount of coal of any state for commercial or residential uses.   The prevalent use of coal in these sectors

provides for a large dataset of coal boilers, and their various control devices.  EPA considers Wisconsin to be a

leading state for biomass fuels, and the biomass dataset includes units that are at likely area sources of HAP,

including  schools, greenhouses, and farms.

5.2 GACT for Existing Units 

For existing coal and biomass area source boilers, the add‐on control technology generally being used

for removing HAP other than mercury and POM is multiclones.  We found that this technology is minimally

effective in controlling such metallic HAP emissions.

Multiclones are mechanical separators that use velocity differential across the cyclones to separate

particles.  A multiclone uses several smaller diameter cyclones to improve efficiency.  Multiclones have a

control efficiency for PM emissions of about 75 percent.  Multiclones are more efficient in collecting larger
particles and their collection efficiency falls off at small particle sizes.  This is a disadvantage because non‐

mercury metallic HAP tend to be on small size particles (i.e., fine particle enrichment).  Based on emission data

obtained during the major source NESHAP development, multiclones have a control efficiency for non‐

mercury metallic HAP of only about 10 percent. 12   

Upon review of the area source boilers in the ICR database, 45% of boilers firing biomass, 16% of

boilers firing coal, and 1% of boilers firing liquid had a multiclone installed. Further, the two permit databases

from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin indicate that 53 percent of coal‐fired boilers in Pennsylvania have no

control, while the remaining boilers have multiclones installed and 8 percent of biomass boilers in the

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania permit databases have no control and the remaining 92 percent of biomass

boilers have a multiclone or other mechanical control device installed. Based on the presence of mechanical

control devices at solid fuel units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr, GACT for existing units was

determined to be a multiclone.  However, although multiclones can achieve reductions in filterable particulate

(primarily larger particles), these controls re not effective at reducing mercury emissions, and only minimally

effective at reducing other non‐Hg metallic HAP. Installation of a multiclone is expected to be comparable or

perhaps even less effective than other pollution prevention GACT such as tune‐ups. Tune‐ups can improve

combustion efficiency and, as a result reduce fuel consumption and emissions of fuel‐based HAP including Hg.  

As a result, although multiclones are a GACT for boilers greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr, they are not a

suggested GACT for this NESHAP due to their limited ability to reduce emissions of Hg.  

For the organic urban HAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein, dioxins, and formaldehyde), the most effective

control technology identified is minimizing CO emissions and we determined that this control is generally

available and cost effective for new area source boilers.  This determination is based on the fact there is no

additional costs associated with proposing a CO emission limit (as a surrogate for the urban organic HAP) as

GACT because it is the same as the MACT standard being proposed for these subcategories for POM.  

5.3 GACT for New Units 

The control technologies currently used by facilities in the source categories that reduce non‐mercury

metallic HAP and PM are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP).  We determined that these controls

are generally available and cost effective for new area source boilers.  New area source boilers with heat input

capacity of 10 million Btu/hr or greater are subject to the NSPS for boilers (either subpart Db or Dc of part 60)

which regulate emissions of PM and require performance testing.  Furthermore, new coal and biomass area

source boilers will likely require a PM control device to comply with the proposed mercury MACT standard.

The emissions database contains PM test data for 75 area source boilers obtained from the ICR survey

conducted for major sources.  All of the boilers were greater than 10 million Btu per hour in size.  In order to

develop PM (as a surrogate for non‐mercury metallic HAP) emission limits for the three subcategories, we
compared the PM limits in NSPS subpart Dc with the obtained PM emission data.  We considered this to be an

appropriate methodology because many new area source boilers will be subject to NSPS subpart Dc.  

Consequently, we determined that the PM limits in the NSPS could be used to establish the PM emission limit

for new area source boilers.

The proposed GACT PM emission levels based on NSPS subpart Dc for new area source boilers is 0.03

lb/mmBtu for all fuel types. Of the 20 biomass boilers for which we have PM emission data, six of these are

below that limit. For coal, 5 out of 23 are below the limit and for liquid, 22 of the 32 are below the limit for

PM.   

For the organic urban HAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein, dioxins, and formaldehyde), the most effective

control technology identified is minimizing CO emissions and we determined that this control is generally

available and cost effective for new area source boilers.  This determination is based on the fact there is no

additional costs associated with proposing a CO emission limit (as a surrogate for the urban organic HAP) as

GACT because it is the same as the MACT standard being proposed for these subcategories for POM.  

6.0 REFERENCES 

1.  See Docket Entries (EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2006‐0790) for State Operating Permits for NY, RI, VT, NH, OH, ME,

Area Sources of HAP with Boilers.

2. Phase I ICR 2008 Combustion Survey. [ICR No. 2286.01]. OMB Control No. 2060‐0616 ‐ Information

Collection Effort for Facilities with Combustion Units. Approved by OMB on August 1, 2008. contain

ICR Survey.

3. U.S. National Forest Service. Test Data from Fuels for Schools Program. 2008.

4. Thirteen‐state Boiler Inspector Inventory. Data compiled 2005‐2006. For a description of the dataset see

April 2010 Memorandum: Development of Model Units for Area Source Boilers. ERG.

5. Cochran, William G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons. Pages 72‐87.

6. Singleton, A. ERG. MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and

Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Major Source. April 2010.

7. Hahn GJ & Meeker WQ. 1991. Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:

New York.

8. NIST/SEMATECH. 2009. NIST/SEMATECH e‐Handbook of Statistical Methods,

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, August 4.

9. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Permitted boilers in the State of Pennsylvania as

of 4/13/2006.  
10. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Permitted Boilers in the State of Wisconsin as of 7/15/2004.

11. Singleton, A. ERG. Developing Model Units for Area Source Boilers. 2006.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP‐42), Fifth

Edition, Volume 1: Stationary and Point Sources, Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources. January, 1996.
Table 1 - Hg Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID Hg Average 

(lb/mmBtu)

Rank In Top 12%?

MA – Saint 

Gobain (FF)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MASaintGob

ain 1.00E-06

1

YES

WI – Blount 

Generating 

(ESP)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WIBlountGe

neratingStati

on 1.40E-06

2

YES

VA – U. of 

Richmond 

(FF)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VAUofRichm

ond 1.42E-06

3

NO

AK – Clear 

AF Station 

(FF)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

AKClearAirF

orceStation 1.45E-06

4

NO

IA – Mid 

Atlantic 

Energy 

(ESP)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

IAMidAmeric

anEnergyRiv

erside393 5.59E-06

5

NO

OH – 

Denison U. 

(FF)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHDenisonU

niversity 2.95E-06

6

NO

IN – 

Lawrencebur

g Distillers 

(ESP)

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

INLawrenceb

urgDistillers 4.30E-06

7

NO

Permit Data - 

IN 

Crawfordsvill

e Electric

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey INCrawfords

villeElectric 1.18E-02 8 NO

Permit Data - 

IN 

Crawfordsvill

e Electric

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey INCrawfords

villeElectric 1.29E-02 9 NO

MI – Viking 

Energy - 

Lincoln 

(ESP)

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey MIVikingEner

gyofLincoln 3.55E-07

1

YES

ME – Boralex 

(ESP)

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MEBoralexA

shland 9.97E-07

2

NO

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

Proctor 

Gamble

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WIProctorGa

mble 1.21E+01 1 YES

Saint Cobain Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MASaintGob

ain 1.56E+02 2 YES

Western 

Illinois U. #2

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ILWesternIL

Univ 2.16E+02 3 YES

Western 

Illinois U. #3

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ILWesternIL

Univ 2.16E+02 4 NO

Danville 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review

2.70E+02 5 NO

Danville 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review 2.70E+02 6 NO

Danville 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review

2.70E+02 7 NO

Logan 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review

2.70E+02 8 NO

Logan 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review

2.70E+02 9 NO

Logan 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review

2.70E+02 10 NO

Vienna 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review 2.70E+02 11 NO

Vienna 

Correctional 

Center

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review 2.70E+02 12 NO

Portland 

Cemend

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CACAPortlan

dCementColt

on 4.00E+02 13 NO

Erie Coke

Coal 2008 

Combustion 

Survey PAEriecoke 4.43E+02 14 NO

Cedar Lane 

Farms 2

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review 4.80E+02 15 NO

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Cedar Lane 

Farms 5

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review 4.80E+02 16 NO

Cedar Lane 

Farms 9

Coal Operating 

Permit 

Review 6.00E+02 17 NO

Simpson 

Door, WA

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WASimpson

DoorCompan

y 2.92E+01 1 YES

NCH

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 3.86E+01 2 YES

Thompson 

Falls

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 6.65E+01 3 YES

BHS

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 7.95E+01 4 YES

Columbia N, 

OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORColumbia

ForestKlamat

hFalls 8.16E+01 5 YES

Travis 

Lumber #2, 

AR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ARTravisLu

mberMansfie

ld 9.61E+01 6 YES

Council, ID

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 9.86E+01 7 YES

Douglas 

County, OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORDouglasC

ounty 1.04E+02 8 YES

Darby

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 1.10E+02 9 NO

Sinder, TX Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TXSniderInd

ustriesMarsh

all 1.35E+02 10 NO

Port 

Angeles, WA

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WAPortAnge

lesHardwood 1.43E+02 11 NO

Travis 

Lumber #1, 

AR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ARTravisLu

mberMansfie

ld 1.46E+02 12 NO

Anthony 

Timber, AR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ARAnthonyTi

mberlandBeir

ne 1.52E+02 13 NO

Malheur #1, 

OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORMalheurL

umber 1.59E+02 14 NO

Armstrong, 

AR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ARArmstron

gWarren 1.65E+02 15 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Stimson #1, 

ID

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

IDStimsonLu

mberCoPries

tRiver 1.69E+02 16 NO

Biomass 

One N, OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORBiomass

OneWhiteCit

y 1.90E+02 17 NO

Interfor, WA Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WAInterforP

acificPortAng

eles 2.10E+02 18 NO

MWCC

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 2.14E+02 19 NO

Biomass 

One S, OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORBiomass

OneWhiteCit

y 2.20E+02 20 NO

CVU

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 2.25E+02 21 NO

FosterGlocester 

School

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 2.30E+02 22 NO

Stimson #2, 

ID

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

IDStimsonLu

mberCoPries

tRiver 2.36E+02 23 NO

Boralex, ME Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MEBoralexA

shland 2.53E+02 24 NO

Bridgewater 

Power

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 2.90E+02 25 NO

Ryegate 

Power

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 3.80E+02 26 NO

Armstrong, 

AR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ARArmstron

gWarren 3.91E+02 27 NO

Maine Wood Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 4.20E+02 28 NO

Malheur #2, 

OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORMalheurL

umber 4.23E+02 29 NO

Boralex, ME Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MEBoralexF

ortFairfield 4.49E+02 30 NO

Kettle Falls, 

OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WABoiseKett

leFallsLumbe

r 4.68E+02 31 NO

Stimson, OR Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORStimsonL

umberTillam

ook 4.79E+02 32 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Cox Interior, 

KY

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

KYCoxInterio

r 4.98E+02 33 NO

Columbia 

Forest 

Products

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 5.00E+02 34 NO

Dillon, MT

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 5.03E+02 35 NO

Armstrong, 

TN

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNArmstrong

Hardwood 5.36E+02 36 NO

BAF, ID Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

IDBAFRexbu

rg 5.73E+02 37 NO

VT Tubbs

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 6.20E+02 38 NO

3 Boilers Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 6.20E+02 39 NO

Armstrong, 

TN

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNArmstrong

Hardwood 6.46E+02 40 NO

Armstrong, 

TN

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNArmstrong

Hardwood 6.46E+02 41 NO

11 Boilers Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 7.80E+02 42 NO

2 Boilers Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 7.80E+02 43 NO

Darby, MT

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 7.85E+02 44 NO

Bismarck, 

MT

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 8.80E+02 45 NO

Sonoco 

Products

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 9.20E+02 46 NO

Columbia S, 

OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORColumbia

ForestKlamat

hFalls 9.61E+02 47 NO

Idaho 

Timber, AR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ARIdahoTim

ber 9.99E+02 48 NO

Blue 

Mountain, 

OR

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORBlueMoun

tainLumber 1.03E+03 49 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Armstrong, 

KY

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey KYArmstrong 1.05E+03 50 NO

Armstrong, 

KY

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey KYArmstrong 1.05E+03 51 NO

Victor, MT

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 1.13E+03 52 NO

Hazen Union

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 1.13E+03 53 NO

Collins, OR Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ORCollinsPin

eCoLakeview 1.15E+03 54 NO

3 Boilers Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 1.30E+03 55 NO

Geneva 

Energy

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 1.30E+03 56 NO

Potlatch, ID Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

IDPotlatchFo

restProducts

CorpPostFall

s 1.76E+03 57 NO

Green Acres

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 2.55E+03 58 NO

Stimson, WA Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WAStimsonL

umber 2.84E+03 59 NO

Jack Daniels, 

TN

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNJackDani

els 3.27E+03 60 NO

American 

Papermills

Biomass Operating 

Permit 

Review 3.80E+03 61 NO

Jack Daniels, 

TN

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNJackDani

els 4.70E+03 62 NO

Armstrong 

#2, MS

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MSArmstron

gVicksburg 1.40E+04 63 NO

Townsend, 

MT

Biomass US Fuels for 

Schools 

Program 1.47E+04 64 NO

Armstrong 

#1, MS

Biomass 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MSArmstron

gVicksburg 1.53E+04 65 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey NJRebtex 6.43E-02 1 YES
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WAEmerald

Kalama 1.51E-01 2 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PABucknellU

niversity 6.41E-01 3 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 6.43E-01 4 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUSGypsu

mCo 6.82E-01 5 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey NJRebtex 8.49E-01 6 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey MATextron 1.00E+00 7 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CTYaleSterli

ng 1.11E+00 8 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey RIClariant 1.26E+00 9 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJHoffmanL

aRoche 1.33E+00 10 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJICLCarter

et 1.41E+00 11 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUSGypsu

mCo 1.49E+00 12 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CTYaleSterli

ng 1.50E+00 13 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey PASartomer 1.59E+00 14 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CTYaleSterli

ng 1.75E+00 15 YES

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 1.86E+00 16 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 1.99E+00 17 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUSGypsu

mCo 2.08E+00 18 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 2.15E+00 19 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUnionCarb

ide 2.31E+00 20 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 2.58E+00 21 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUnionCarb

ide 2.69E+00 22 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NYUofRoche

ster 2.86E+00 23 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey RIClariant 2.94E+00 24 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJScheringP

lough1681 3.18E+00 25 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CTYaleSterli

ng 3.72E+00 26 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PAValleyProt

eins 3.93E+00 27 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey NJNovartis 4.05E+00 28 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey TNConAgra 4.50E+00 29 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

DEEIDupont

Wilmington 4.83E+00 30 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NYUofRoche

ster 5.96E+00 31 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHPerstorpP

olyols 6.75E+00 32 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJScheringP

lough1681 7.47E+00 33 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PAAltadisMc

Adoo 8.00E+00 34 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MIGMWillow

Run 8.55E+00 35 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VAMerckElkt

on 9.23E+00 36 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJHoffmanL

aRoche 9.87E+00 37 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJHoffmanL

aRoche 1.04E+01 38 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 1.17E+01 39 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 1.17E+01 40 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CTYaleCentr

alPower 1.19E+01 41 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJPrinceton

University 1.22E+01 42 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CTUCONNStorrs 1.23E+01 43 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NYUofRoche

ster 1.34E+01 44 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PASanofiPas

tuerSwiftwate

r 1.43E+01 45 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey OHLubrizol 1.45E+01 46 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJScheringP

lough1681 1.49E+01 47 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey MATextron 1.55E+01 48 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey NJNovartis 1.61E+01 49 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJPrinceton

University 1.66E+01 50 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PAAltadisMc

Adoo 1.70E+01 51 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NYUofRoche

ster 1.88E+01 52 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey NJNovartis 1.90E+01 53 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MOWUSMSt

Louis 2.17E+01 54 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VAMerckElkt

on 2.45E+01 55 NO

St. Mary 

Academy

Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

2.60E+01

56 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJScheringP

lough 2.81E+01 57 NO

2 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

3.30E+01

58 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJMontclair2

968 3.38E+01 59 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MIGMWillow

Run 3.55E+01 60 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJScheringP

lough1681 3.84E+01 61 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MIGMWillow

Run 3.89E+01 62 NO

Pliant Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

4.20E+01

63 NO

11 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

4.50E+01

64 NO

2 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

4.50E+01

65 NO

7 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

4.50E+01

66 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJNJAshlan

d 4.59E+01 67 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJNJAshlan

d 4.59E+01 68 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey NJNovartis 4.59E+01 69 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNBridgesto

neLaVergne 4.60E+01 70 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHP&GMia

miValley 4.62E+01 71 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHP&GMia

miValley 4.62E+01 72 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VADuPontFr

ontRoyal 4.85E+01 73 NO

EHV 

Weidman 3

Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

5.00E+01

74 NO

EHV 

Weidman 3N

Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

5.00E+01

75 NO

3 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

5.00E+01

76 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJBristolMyersSquibb

1615 5.60E+01 77 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VADuPontFr

ontRoyal 5.66E+01 78 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUMDNew

arkNJ 6.17E+01 79 NO

2 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

6.20E+01

80 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUMDNew

arkNJ 6.66E+01 81 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJUMDNew

arkNJ 8.31E+01 82 NO

6 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

8.80E+01

83 NO

EHV 

Weidman 1

Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

9.50E+01

84 NO

3 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

9.50E+01

85 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

WASimpson

DoorCompan

y 1.00E+02 86 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Bunge Oils Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

1.00E+02

87 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey TNSIGroup 1.02E+02 88 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey TNSIGroup 1.02E+02 89 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PABucknellU

niversity 1.03E+02 90 NO

2 Boilers Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

1.05E+02

91 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

TNJackDani

els 1.10E+02 92 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey TNConAgra 1.11E+02 93 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PANRGEner

gyCenterPitt

sburgh 1.11E+02 94 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PANRGEner

gyCenterPitt

sburgh 1.11E+02 95 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PANRGEner

gyCenterPitt

sburgh 1.11E+02 96 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJMeridianH

ealth1656 1.12E+02 97 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJMeridianH

ealth1656 1.12E+02 98 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJMonmouth

CountyRecla

mation 1.15E+02 99 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJNewWinC

upMetuchen 1.29E+02 100 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VAVCUMCV

CampusStea

mPlant 1.34E+02 101 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VAVCUMCV

CampusStea

mPlant 1.34E+02 102 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

VAVCUMCV

CampusStea

mPlant 1.34E+02 103 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Providence 

College

Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

1.40E+02

104 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJMeridianH

ealth1656 1.49E+02 105 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey TNConAgra 1.56E+02 106 NO

Riverpoint 

Lace Works

Liquid Operating 

Permit 

Review

1.90E+02

107 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MAMultiLaye

rCoating 2.00E+02 108 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

MAMultiLaye

rCoating 2.00E+02 109 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

NJMontclair2

968 2.06E+02 110 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHBluegrass

Mills 2.17E+02 111 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHBluegrass

Mills 2.17E+02 112 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey AKUnisea37 2.22E+02 113 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ILACHFoodC

hampaign 2.57E+02 114 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ILACHFoodC

hampaign 2.57E+02 115 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

ILACHFoodC

hampaign 2.57E+02 116 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey PACroda 3.00E+02 117 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PADartConta

iner 4.00E+02 118 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PADartConta

iner 4.00E+02 119 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PAMackTruc

ks 4.00E+02 120 NO
Table 2 - CO Fuel by Floor

Location Fuel Data Source Facility ID CO (ppm@ 

3%O2)

Rank In Top 12%?

APPENDIX A-1: Emission Test and Permit Data Ranked for MACT Floor Analysis According to 

Fuel Type

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CAHitachiGS

T 4.00E+02 121 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

CAHitachiGS

T 4.00E+02 122 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PAAshlandN

evilleIsland 5.62E+02 123 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

PAAshlandN

evilleIsland 8.22E+02 124 NO

Liquid 2008 

Combustion 

Survey

OHBluegrass

Mills 3.25E+03 125 NO
Appendix A-2: Emission Test and Permit Run Data Used for Hg MACT Floor Analysis

In top 12 

pct?

MACT 

Floor 

FuelCat FacilityID CombustorID TestID

TestDate_

common

Pollutant_

Name

NonDetect?Hg 

(lb/MMBtu) ln(value) Rank

YES Coal MASaintGobain EU-523-01

Sample 

#1 3/8/2006

Mercury 

(Hg) 1.00E-06 -1.38E+01 1

YES Coal

WIBlountGenerati

ngStation Boiler 8

Sample 

#1 11/8/2006

Mercury 

(Hg) 1.46E-06 -1.34E+01 2

YES Coal

WIBlountGenerati

ngStation Boiler 8

Sample 

#2 11/8/2006

Mercury 

(Hg) 1.07E-06 -1.37E+01 2

YES Coal

WIBlountGenerati

ngStation Boiler 8

Sample 

#3 11/8/2006

Mercury 

(Hg) 1.68E-06 -1.33E+01 2

YES Biomass

MIVikingEnergyof

Lincoln Boiler1

Sample 

#1 8/23/2005

Mercury 

(Hg) ND 3.57E-07 -1.48E+01 1

YES Biomass

MIVikingEnergyof

Lincoln Boiler1

Sample 

#2 8/24/2005

Mercury 

(Hg) ND 3.54E-07 -1.49E+01 1

YES Biomass

MIVikingEnergyof

Lincoln Boiler1

Sample 

#3 8/25/2005

Mercury 

(Hg) ND 3.54E-07 -1.49E+01 1
Appendix A-3: Emission Test and Permit Run Data Used for CO MACT Floor Analysis

In top 12 

pct?

MACT 

Floor 

FuelCat FacilityID CombustorID TestID

TestDate_

common

Pollutant_

Name

NonDetect?CO (ppm 

@ 3% O2) ln(value) Rank Note

YES Coal WIProctorGamble BoHo #6 Sample #1 3/18/2008 CO 1.21E+01 2.49E+00 1

YES Coal MASaintGobain EU-523-01 Sample #2 2/20/2008 CO 1.57E+02 5.06E+00 2

YES Coal MASaintGobain EU-523-01 Sample #1 2/7/2007 CO 1.55E+02 5.04E+00 2

YES Coal ILWesternILUniv Boiler #2 Sample #1 6/29/2000 CO 2.49E+02 5.52E+00 3

YES Coal ILWesternILUniv Boiler #2 Sample #2 6/29/2000 CO 2.68E+02 5.59E+00 3

YES Coal ILWesternILUniv Boiler #2 Sample #3 6/29/2000 CO 1.32E+02 4.88E+00 3

YES Biomass

WASimpsonDoor

Company EU-1 Sample #1

10/12/200

6 CO 2.92E+01 3.37E+00 1

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data NCH Run 1 CO 2.28E+01 3.13E+00 2

Values reported as ppm, standardized 

to 3% O2

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data NCH Run 2 CO 4.88E+01 3.89E+00 2

Values reported as ppm, standardized 

to 3% O2

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data NCH Run 3 CO 4.42E+01 3.79E+00 2

Values reported as ppm, standardized 

to 3% O2

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Thompson Falls Run 1 CO 7.67E+01 4.34E+00 3

no fuel data in detail sheet, used 

average of reported f-factors with 

school data

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Thompson Falls Run 2 CO 6.48E+01 4.17E+00 3

no fuel data in detail sheet, used 

average of reported f-factors with 

school data

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Thompson Falls Run 3 CO 5.80E+01 4.06E+00 3

no fuel data in detail sheet, used 

average of reported f-factors with 

school data

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data BHS Run 1 CO 6.23E+00 1.83E+00 4 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data BHS Run 2 CO 2.03E+00 7.06E-01 4 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data BHS Run 3 CO 5.16E+00 1.64E+00 4 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data BHS Run 4 CO 4.62E+00 1.53E+00 4 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data BHS Run 5 CO 3.79E+02 5.94E+00 4 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

ORColumbiaFore

stKlamathFalls BLR-N Sample #1

11/15/200

7 CO 3.32E+01 3.50E+00 5

YES Biomass

ORColumbiaFore

stKlamathFalls BLR-N Sample #2

11/15/200

7 CO 7.02E+01 4.25E+00 5

YES Biomass

ORColumbiaFore

stKlamathFalls BLR-N Sample #3

11/15/200

7 CO 1.42E+02 4.95E+00 5

YES Biomass

ARTravisLumber

Mansfield Boiler No. 2 Sample #1

11/10/199

4 CO 1.15E+02 4.74E+00 6

YES Biomass

ARTravisLumber

Mansfield Boiler No. 2 Sample #2

11/10/199

4 CO 9.43E+01 4.55E+00 6

YES Biomass

ARTravisLumber

Mansfield Boiler No. 2 Sample #3

11/10/199

4 CO 7.91E+01 4.37E+00 6

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Council, ID Run 1 CO 5.64E+01 4.03E+00 7 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Council, ID Run 2 CO 1.20E+02 4.79E+00 7 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Council, ID Run 3 CO 1.53E+02 5.03E+00 7 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Council, ID Run 4 CO 7.74E+01 4.35E+00 7 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Council, ID Run 5 CO 9.22E+01 4.52E+00 7 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

Fuels for Schools 

Data Council, ID Run 6 CO 9.27E+01 4.53E+00 7 Site F-factor reported in detail sheet

YES Biomass

ORDouglasCount

y

HOG FUEL 

BOILER Sample #1 9/7/2006 CO 6.51E+01 4.18E+00 8

YES Biomass

ORDouglasCount

y

HOG FUEL 

BOILER Sample #2 9/7/2006 CO 1.23E+02 4.81E+00 8

YES Biomass

ORDouglasCount

y

HOG FUEL 

BOILER Sample #3 9/7/2006 CO 1.23E+02 4.81E+00 8

YES Liquid NJRebtex Superior Sample #1 7/22/2005 CO 6.43E-02 -2.74E+00 1

YES Liquid

WAEmeraldKala

ma U-17 Sample #1

12/12/200

6 CO 1.51E-01 -1.89E+00 2

YES Liquid

PABucknellUniver

sity B-301 Sample #2 7/29/1998 CO 6.41E-01 -4.44E-01 3

YES Liquid

PASanofiPastuer

Swiftwater Boiler 1 Sample #1 3/16/2005 CO 6.50E-01 -4.31E-01 4

YES Liquid

PASanofiPastuer

Swiftwater Boiler 1 Sample #2 3/17/2005 CO 6.80E-01 -3.86E-01 4

YES Liquid

PASanofiPastuer

Swiftwater Boiler 1 Sample #3 3/17/2005 CO 6.00E-01 -5.11E-01 4
Appendix A-3: Emission Test and Permit Run Data Used for CO MACT Floor Analysis

In top 12 

pct?

MACT 

Floor 

FuelCat FacilityID CombustorID TestID

TestDate_

common

Pollutant_

Name

NonDetect?CO (ppm 

@ 3% O2) ln(value) Rank Note

YES Liquid NJUSGypsumCo BOILER #1 Sample #1

10/19/200

5 CO 6.56E-01 -4.21E-01 5

YES Liquid NJUSGypsumCo BOILER #1 Sample #2

10/19/200

5 CO 6.05E-01 -5.03E-01 5

YES Liquid NJUSGypsumCo BOILER #1 Sample #3

10/19/200

5 CO 7.85E-01 -2.42E-01 5

YES Liquid NJRebtex Kewanee Sample #1 7/21/2005 CO 8.24E-01 -1.94E-01 6

YES Liquid NJRebtex Kewanee Sample #2 7/21/2005 CO 7.98E-01 -2.26E-01 6

YES Liquid NJRebtex Kewanee Sample #3 7/21/2005 CO 9.27E-01 -7.63E-02 6

YES Liquid MATextron CB1 Sample #1 4/9/2008 CO 1.00E+00 0.00E+00 7

YES Liquid MATextron CB1 Sample #3 4/9/2008 CO 1.00E+00 0.00E+00 7

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB8 Sample #1

10/15/200

4 CO 1.28E+00 2.49E-01 8

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB8 Sample #2

10/15/200

4 CO 1.41E+00 3.44E-01 8

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB8 Sample #3

10/15/200

4 CO 6.41E-01 -4.44E-01 8

YES Liquid RIClariant B2 Sample #1 2/12/2008 CO 7.16E-01 -3.34E-01 9

YES Liquid RIClariant B2 Sample #2 2/12/2008 CO 1.42E+00 3.53E-01 9

YES Liquid RIClariant B2 Sample #3 2/12/2008 CO 1.63E+00 4.87E-01 9

YES Liquid

NJHoffmanLaRoc

he

E1022, BOILER 

#7 Sample #1 1/17/2008 CO 1.29E+00 2.52E-01 10

YES Liquid

NJHoffmanLaRoc

he

E1022, BOILER 

#7 Sample #2 1/17/2008 CO 1.42E+00 3.47E-01 10

YES Liquid

NJHoffmanLaRoc

he

E1022, BOILER 

#7 Sample #3 1/17/2008 CO 1.29E+00 2.52E-01 10

YES Liquid NJICLCarteret No.3 Boiler Sample #1 4/4/2006 CO ND 1.40E+00 3.34E-01 11

YES Liquid NJICLCarteret No.3 Boiler Sample #2 4/4/2006 CO ND 1.42E+00 3.48E-01 11

YES Liquid NJICLCarteret No.3 Boiler Sample #3 4/4/2006 CO ND 1.42E+00 3.48E-01 11

YES Liquid NJUSGypsumCo BOILER #2 Sample #1

10/20/200

5 CO 1.99E+00 6.90E-01 12

YES Liquid NJUSGypsumCo BOILER #2 Sample #2

10/21/200

5 CO 1.20E+00 1.80E-01 12

YES Liquid NJUSGypsumCo BOILER #2 Sample #3

10/21/200

5 CO 1.27E+00 2.42E-01 12

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB9 Sample #1

10/21/200

4 CO 2.82E+00 1.04E+00 13

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB9 Sample #2

10/21/200

4 CO 7.70E-01 -2.62E-01 13

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB9 Sample #3

10/21/200

4 CO 8.98E-01 -1.08E-01 13

YES Liquid PASartomer B-902 Sample #1 8/27/2008 CO 1.06E+00 5.73E-02 14

YES Liquid PASartomer B-902 Sample #3 8/27/2008 CO 2.12E+00 7.50E-01 14

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB11 Sample #1

10/22/200

4 CO 1.67E+00 5.11E-01 15

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB11 Sample #2

10/22/200

4 CO 1.80E+00 5.85E-01 15

YES Liquid CTYaleSterling SPB11 Sample #3

10/22/200

4 CO 1.80E+00 5.85E-01 15
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Coal

No. of sources = 9 9

No. in MACT floor = 2 2

Avge of top 12% = 1.30E-06 -1.36E+01

Std Deviation of top 12% = 3.22E-07 2.47E-01

Skewness = 0.34 0.20

Kurtosis = -3.62 -4.13

SE Skewness 1.22 1.22

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.45 2.45

Kurtosis Test normal normal

Number of test runs = 4 4

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 1.68E-06 -1.33E+01

99% t-statistic for UPL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 3.75E+00 3.75E+00

99% UPL of top 12% (test runs) = 2.42E-06 3.00E-06

99% UL of top 12% (test runs) = 2.51E-06 3.21E-06

Biomass

No. of sources = 2 2

No. in MACT floor = 1 1

Avge of top 12% = 3.55E-07 -1.49E+01

Std Deviation of top 12% = 1.82E-09 5.13E-03

Skewness = 1.73 1.73

Kurtosis = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

SE Skewness 1.41 1.41

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.83 2.83

Kurtosis Test #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Number of test runs = 3 3

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

3 3

Highest test run = 3.57E-07 -1.48E+01

99% t-statistic for UPL 6.96E+00 6.96E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% UPL of top 12% (test runs) = 3.65E-07 3.66E-07

99% UL of top 12% (test runs) = 3.63E-07 3.63E-07

Appendix B-1: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for Hg for Existing 

Units

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Appendix B-1: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for Hg for Existing 

Units

Liquid

No. of sources =

No. in MACT floor =

Avge of top 12% =

Std Deviation of top 12% = 

Skewness =

Kurtosis =

SE Skewness

Skewness Test

SE Kurtosis

Kurtosis Test

Number of test runs =

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

Highest test run =

99% t-statistic for UPL

99% t-statistic for UL

99% UPL of top 12% (test runs) =

99% UL of top 12% (test runs) =

No data available, floor was set to be equivalent to 

MACT floor for existing boilers and process 

heaters at major sources

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

Coal

No. of sources = 17 17

No. in MACT floor = 3 3

Avge of top 12% = 1.62E+02 4.76E+00

Std Deviation of top 12% = 9.21E+01 1.15E+00

Skewness = -0.60 -2.11

Kurtosis = 0.50 4.80

SE Skewness 1.00 1.00

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.00 2.00

Kurtosis Test normal non-normal

Number of test runs = 6 6

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 2.68E+02 5.59E+00

99% t-statistic for UPL 3.36E+00 3.36E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 3.14E+00 3.14E+00

99% UPL of top 12% (test runs) = 3.81E+02 1.80E+03

99% UL of top 12% (test runs) = 4.52E+02 4.34E+03

Biomass

No. of sources = 65 65

No. in MACT floor = 8 8

Avge of top 12% = 8.06E+01 3.92E+00

Std Deviation of top 12% = 7.35E+01 1.21E+00

Skewness = 2.64 -1.27

Kurtosis = 10.19 1.31

SE Skewness 0.47 0.47

Skewness Test non-normal normal

SE Kurtosis 0.94 0.94

Kurtosis Test non-normal normal

Number of test runs = 27 27

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 3.79E+02 5.94E+00

99% t-statistic for UPL 2.48E+00 2.48E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 2.47E+00 2.47E+00

99% UPL of top 12% (test runs) = 1.92E+02 3.12E+02

99% UL of top 12% (test runs) = 2.62E+02 1.00E+03

Appendix B-2: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for CO for Existing 

Units

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

Appendix B-2: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for CO for Existing 

Units

Liquid

No. of sources = 125 125

No. in MACT floor = 15 15

Avge of top 12% = 1.14E+00 -3.41E-02

Std Deviation of top 12% = 5.56E-01 6.90E-01

Skewness = 0.68 -2.11

Kurtosis = 1.15 6.68

SE Skewness 0.40 0.40

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 0.81 0.81

Kurtosis Test normal non-normal

Number of test runs = 37 37

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

3 3

Highest test run = 2.82E+00 1.04E+00

99% t-statistic for UPL 2.43E+00 2.43E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 2.43E+00 2.43E+00

99% UPL of top 12% (test runs) = 1.95E+00 2.65E+00

99% UL of top 12% (test runs) = 2.49E+00 5.17E+00

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Coal

No. of sources = 1 1

No. in MACT floor = 1 1

Avge of top performing unit = 1.40E-06 -1.35E+01

Std Deviation of top performing unit = 3.07E-07 2.30E-01

Skewness = -0.80 -1.04

Kurtosis = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

SE Skewness 1.41 1.41

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.83 2.83

Kurtosis Test #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Number of test runs = 3 3

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 1.68E-06 -1.33E+01

99% t-statistic for UPL 6.96E+00 6.96E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% UPL of top performing unit (test runs) = 3.15E-06 5.09E-06

99% UL of top performing unit (test runs) = 2.80E-06 3.91E-06

Biomass

No. of sources = 1 1

No. in MACT floor = 1 1

Avge of top performing unit = 3.55E-07 -1.49E+01

Std Deviation of top performing unit = 1.82E-09 5.13E-03

Skewness = 1.73 1.73

Kurtosis = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

SE Skewness 1.41 1.41

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.83 2.83

Kurtosis Test #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Number of test runs = 3 3

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

3 3

Highest test run = 3.57E-07 -1.48E+01

99% t-statistic for UPL 6.96E+00 6.96E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% UPL of top performing unit (test runs) = 3.65E-07 3.66E-07

99% UL of top performing unit (test runs) = 3.63E-07 3.63E-07

Appendix C-1: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for Hg at NEW 

Units

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Hg

(lb/mmBtu)

Appendix C-1: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for Hg at NEW 

Units

Liquid

No. of sources =

No. in MACT floor =

Avge of top performing unit =

Std Deviation of top performing unit = 

Skewness =

Kurtosis =

SE Skewness

Skewness Test

SE Kurtosis

Kurtosis Test

Number of test runs =

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

Highest test run =

99% t-statistic for UPL

99% t-statistic for UL

99% UPL of top performing unit (test runs) =

99% UL of top performing unit (test runs) =

No data available, floor was set to be equivalent to 

MACT floor for existing boilers and process 

heaters at major sources

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

Coal

No. of sources = 1 1

No. in MACT floor = 1 1

Avge of top performing unit = 2.16E+02 5.33E+00

Std Deviation of top performing unit = 7.40E+01 3.91E-01

Skewness = -1.60 -1.66

Kurtosis = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

SE Skewness 1.41 1.41

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.83 2.83

Kurtosis Test #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Number of test runs = 3 3

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 2.68E+02 5.59E+00

99% t-statistic for UPL 6.96E+00 6.96E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% UPL of top performing unit (test runs) = 6.37E+02 1.91E+03

99% UL of top performing unit (test runs) = 5.53E+02 1.22E+03

Biomass

No. of sources = 1 1

No. in MACT floor = 1 1

Avge of top performing unit = 3.86E+01 3.60E+00

Std Deviation of top performing unit = 1.39E+01 4.15E-01

Skewness = -1.53 -1.62

Kurtosis = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

SE Skewness 1.41 1.41

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.83 2.83

Kurtosis Test #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Number of test runs = 3 3

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 4.88E+01 3.89E+00

99% t-statistic for UPL 6.96E+00 6.96E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% UPL of top performing unit (test runs) = 1.18E+02 3.87E+02

99% UL of top performing unit (test runs) = 1.02E+02 2.41E+02

Appendix C-2: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for CO at NEW 

Units

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
MACT Floor by Fuel Type Reported Values LN(reported values)

Parameters

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

CO

(ppm @ 3% O2)

Appendix C-2: UPL Calculated Emission Limits for CO at NEW 

Units

Liquid

No. of sources = 1 1

No. in MACT floor = 1 1

Avge of top performing unit = 6.43E-01 -4.42E-01

Std Deviation of top performing unit = 4.04E-02 6.34E-02

Skewness = -0.72 -0.80

Kurtosis = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

SE Skewness 1.41 1.41

Skewness Test normal normal

SE Kurtosis 2.83 2.83

Kurtosis Test #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Number of test runs = 3 3

Number of test runs that contained non-detect 

values

0 0

Highest test run = 6.80E-01 -3.86E-01

99% t-statistic for UPL 6.96E+00 6.96E+00

99% t-statistic for UL 4.54E+00 4.54E+00

99% UPL of top performing unit (test runs) = 8.73E-01 9.21E-01

99% UL of top performing unit (test runs) = 8.27E-01 8.57E-01

Yellow highlight indicates the distribution (either normal or lognormal)
Percent of Area Source boilers >10 mmBtu/hr with multiclone control: 92%

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Permit Database: List of Area Source Boilers firing Biomass 

FACILITY ID FACILITY NAME DEVICE SCC_5digit Unit Type Sector Fuel Fuel Category

Rated Heat Input 

Capacity 

(mmBtu/hr)

ControlCategory

Area Source Boilers 

(less than 10 

mmBtu/hr Heat Input)

632105430 SCHROEDERS FLOWERS,INC. B01 103009

External Combustion Boilers

Commercial /Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 8 X

241472770 FRANTZ COMPANY, INC. B1 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 6.6 X 

632105430 PARK FALLS HIGH SCHOOL B01 103009

External Combustion Boilers

Commercial /Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 8.4 multiclone X

802036950 BAYSIDE TIMBER CORPORATION B21 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 12 X 

125012360 WALNUT HOLLOW FARM B04 103009

External Combustion Boilers

Commercial /Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 11.3 multiclone X

603010870 BARRON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL B20 103009

External Combustion Boilers

Commercial /Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 16.1 multiclone X

764123360 PUKALL LUMBER CO., INC. B01 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 10 multiclone X 

858009460 JOHNSON TIMBER CORPORATION B20 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 12 multiclone X 

610046690

NORTHWEST HARDWOODSDorchester B21 102009 External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 15.7 multiclone X 

627024970 FOREMOST FARMS USA B24 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 18 multiclone X 

764048780 NAGEL LUMBER CO INC B20 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 52 multiclone X 

851034800 BIEWER WISCONSIN SAWMILL B20 102009

External Combustion Boilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 55.6 multiclone X 

Appendix D-1: Permitted Biomass Boilers in PA and WI with Mechanical Control Devices
Appendix D-1: Permitted Biomass Boilers in PA and WI with Mechanical Control Devices

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: List of Area Source Boilers firing Biomass 

Primary 

Facility Name County Name

Fuel Category

Source Id Source name

Rated Input 

mmBTU/Hr ControlCategory Area Source Boilers 

(less than 10 

mmBtu/hr Heat 

Input)

Area Source Boilers 

(greater than 10 

mmBtu/hr Heat 

Input)

Major Source by SIC SIC S

DEER PARK LUMBER/DEER PARK MFG PLT Wyoming solidB 31 WOODFIRED BOILER 8.7 cyclone X 2421 IndusALLEGHENY WOOD PRODUCTS Clarion solidB 31 WOOD FIRED BOILER 25 multiclone X 2421 IndusPA DPW/WARREN STATE HOSP Warren solidB 31 BOILER: WOOD-FIRED 30 multiclone X InstituWEABER INC/SOUTH ANNVILLE TWP Lebanon solidB 31 BOILER 46 multiclone X 2421 Indus
Percent of Area Source boilers >10 mmBtu/hr with mechanical collector, cyclone, multiclone control: 47%

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: List of Area Source Boilers firing Coal

Primary Facility Name

County 

Name

Fuel Category

Source Id Source name Rated Input mmBTU/Hr Control Category

Area Source Boilers (less than 10 mmBtu/hr Heat Input)

Area Source Boilers (greater than 10 mmBtu/hr Heat Input)

Major Source by SIC Sector

PA DEPT OF MILITARY /FT INDIANTOWN GAP Lebanon solidC 032A

84 RES ANTHRACITE BOILERS 9.6 X

CONEMAUGH VALLEY MEM/JOHNSTOWN Cambria solidC 031

CNB TRI FUEL BOILER 1 14.9

BRESLOVE SEPARATOR X Institutional

CONEMAUGH VALLEY MEM/JOHNSTOWN Cambria solidC 032

CNB TRI FUEL BOILER 2 14.9

BRESLOVE SEPARATOR X Institutional

GROVE CITY COLL/GROVE CITY solidC 032

TRI-FUEL BOILER 233B 20.9 X Institutional

GROVE CITY COLL/GROVE CITY solidC 031

TRI-FUEL BOILER 234B 20.9 X Institutional

PA DEPT OF CORR/GRATERFORD SCI Montgomery solidC 041

ANTHRACITE BOILER 1 21.2 X Institutional

PA DEPT OF CORR/GRATERFORD SCI Montgomery solidC 042

ANTHRACITE BOILER 2 21.2 X Institutional

PA DPW/ALLENTOWN STATE HOSP Lehigh solidC 031

KEELER BOILER 13.4 collector X Institutional

PA DPW/ALLENTOWN STATE HOSP Lehigh solidC 034

KEELER BOILER 13.4 collector X Institutional

PA DPW/ALLENTOWN STATE HOSP Lehigh solidC 032

KEELER BOILER 13.4 collector X Institutional

PA DPW/CLARKS SUMMIT STATE HOSP Lackawanna solidC 031 BOILER 1 24.6 X InstitutionalPA DPW/CLARKS SUMMIT STATE HOSP Lackawanna solidC 032 BOILER 2 24.6 X InstitutionalST VINCENT COLL/LATROBE CAMPUS

Westmoreland solidC 031

TRI-FUEL BOILER #1 - DOES NOT BURN OIL. 16.7

BRESLOVE SEPARATOR X Institutional

ST VINCENT COLL/LATROBE CAMPUS

Westmoreland solidC 032

TRI-FUEL BOILER #2 - DOES NOT BURN OIL 16.7

BRESLOVE SEPARATOR X Institutional

SUSQUEHANNA UNIV/SELINSGROVE CAMPUS Snyder solidC 031

E KEELER BOILER 1 20 X Institutional

SUSQUEHANNA UNIV/SELINSGROVE CAMPUS Snyder solidC 032

E KEELER BOILER 2 20 X Institutional

Appendix D-2: Permitted Area Source Coal Boilers in PA with Mechanical Control Devices
Table 1 - Small Area Source Boilers (< 10 mmBtu/hr)

Fuel Category Control Device

Number of Units with 

Control Device

% of Total Units in 

Subcategory with Control 

Device

# of Units with 

Common Stack

Cyclone or Multiclone 4 36% 0

Cyclone or Multiclone/Electrified 

Filter Bed (EFB) 0 0% 0

Electrostatic Precipitator 0 0% 0

No HAP APCD Control 7 64% 2

Venturi Scrubber 0 0% 0

Wet Scrubber 0 0% 0

Cyclone or Multiclone 0 - 0

Dry ScrubberElectrostatic 

Precipitator 0 - 0

Electrostatic Precipitator 0 - 0

Fabric Filter 0 - 0

Fabric Filter/Dry Srubber (Lime 

Injection)/SNCR 0 - 0

Fabric FilterDry Sorbent Injection 0 - 0

Fabric FilterWet Scrubber 0 - 0

No HAP APCD Control 0 - 0

Venturi Scrubber 0 - 0

Wet Scrubber 0 - 0

Cyclone or Multiclone 0 0% 0

Fabric Filter 0 0% 0

No HAP APCD Control 113 100% 11

Wet Scrubber 0 0% 0

Table 2 - Large (>= 10 mmBtu/hr) and Unknown Size Area Source Boilers

Fuel Category Control Device

Number of Units with 

Control Device

% of Total Units in 

Subcategory with Control 

Device

# of Units with 

Common Stack

Cyclone or Multiclone 43 46% 5

Cyclone or Multiclone/Electrified 

Filter Bed (EFB) 2 2% 2

Electrostatic Precipitator 27 29% 4

No HAP APCD Control 18 19% 2

Venturi Scrubber 1 1% 0

Wet Scrubber 2 2% 0

Cyclone or Multiclone 16 16% 6

Dry ScrubberElectrostatic 

Precipitator 1 1% 0

Electrostatic Precipitator 19 20% 13

Fabric Filter 28 29% 11

Fabric Filter/Dry Srubber (Lime 

Injection)/SNCR 1 1% 0

Fabric FilterDry Sorbent Injection 3 3% 0

Fabric FilterWet Scrubber 1 1% 0

No HAP APCD Control 20 21% 11

Venturi Scrubber 5 5% 5

Wet Scrubber 3 3% 2

Cyclone or Multiclone 4 1% 1

Fabric Filter 3 1% 0

No HAP APCD Control 322 98% 78

Wet Scrubber 1 0% 1

Liquid

330 boilers

Coal

0 boilers

Liquid

113 boilers

Appendix D-3: Distribution of Control Devices at Area Source Boilers in the 

2008 Combustion Survey

Biomass

11 boilers

Biomass

93 boilers

Coal

97 boilers
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

ARAnthonyTimberlandBearde

n

Babcock-Wilcox #1 (SN02) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandBearde

n

Babcock-Wilcox #2 (SN03) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandBearde

n Hurst #4 (SN-22) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandBearde

n Hurst Hybrid #3 (SN-01) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandBeirne Boiler #1 (SN-13A) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandBeirne Boiler #2 (SN-13B) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandBeirne Boiler #3 (SN-13C) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandMalvern

Wood-Fired Boiler #1 

(SN-18) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandMalvern

Wood-Fired Boiler #2 

(SN-19) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARArmstrongWarren SN-13 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARTravisLumberMansfield Boiler No. 1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARTravisLumberMansfield Boiler No. 2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

IABertchCabinet Boiler- BAT Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

IABertchCabinet Boiler- FM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

IABertchCabinet Boiler- PLY Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

IABertchCabinet Boiler- PM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

IABertchCabinet Boiler- RM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

IABertchCabinet Boiler- TIM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

INKoetterWoodworking EU-01C Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

KYArmstrong 01 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

KYArmstrong 02 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

MNMarvin Boiler 3, EU 012 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

MNPolyFoam EU003 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

NCArmstrongStatesville ES-B-2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

NCThomasvilleFurnitureC-MW-SB ESBL1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

NCThomasvilleFurnitureC-MW-SB ESBL3 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

NCThomasvilleFurnitureLenoir ESBL1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

OHHartzell B101 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORBlueMountainLumber

Wellons Wood Fired 

Boiler Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORColumbiaForestKlamathFal

ls BLR-S Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORInterforPacificGilchrist B-1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORInterforPacificGilchrist B-2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORMalheurLumber Boiler 1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORMalheurLumber Boiler 2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

ORSouthCoastLumberBrookin

gs

Wellons Hogged Fuel 

Boiler Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

SCCouncilEnergyOrangeburg Boiler 1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

SCCouncilEnergyOrangeburg Boiler 2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

SCJohnstonLumberMill 06 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #4 - idle Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #5 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #6 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TNLaZBoyTN 72-0049-01 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TNLaZBoyTN 72-0049-02 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TXClemsa BLR1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TXClemsa BLR2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TXClemsa HURSTBLR Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

TXSniderIndustriesMarshall BLR-13 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

KYCoxInterior WB1 Biomass

Cyclone or 

Multiclone/Electrified Filter 

Bed (EFB)

KYCoxInterior WB2 Biomass

Cyclone or 

Multiclone/Electrified Filter 

Bed (EFB)

ARArmstrongWarren SN-41 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

IDPotlatchForestProductsCorp

PostFalls Sanderdust Fired Boiler Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

IDStimsonLumberCoPriestRiv

er HFB-1 (EPI) Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MEBoralexAshland Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MEBoralexFortFairfield Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MEBoralexShermanStacyville Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MEGreenvilleSteamCo 1A Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MEWorcesterEnergy Boiler 3 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MICadillacRenewableEnergy Main Boiler Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MIGraylingGeneratingStation Boiler1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MIVikingEnergyMcBain 19313 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MIVikingEnergyofLincoln Boiler1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MNMarvin Boiler 5, EU 014 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MNMarvin Boiler 6, EU 015 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

NYBoralexChateaugay Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

ORBiomassOneWhiteCity NBLR1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

ORBiomassOneWhiteCity SBLR1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

ORDouglasCounty HOG FUEL BOILER Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

ORStimsonLumberTillamook Boiler 1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

ORStimsonLumberTillamook Boiler 2 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #7 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

TNJackDaniels Boiler #6 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

TNJackDaniels Boiler #7 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

WABoiseKettleFallsLumber B1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

WAInterforPacificPortAngeles BLR-3012 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

WAPortAngelesHardwood 1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

WAStimsonLumber Hog Fuel Boiler Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

ARIdahoTimber Wood Fired Boiler Biomass No HAP APCD Control

GASierraPineAdel SPADBL01 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

IDStimsonLumberCoPriestRiv

er HFB-2 (Wellons) Biomass No HAP APCD Control

INJasperDesk UB 1 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

INKoetterWoodworking EU-01A Biomass No HAP APCD Control

INKoetterWoodworking EU-01B Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MEWorcesterEnergy Boiler 1 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MEWorcesterEnergy Boiler 2 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MOArmstrong1278

1000 HP Wood Fired 

Boiler Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MOArmstrong1278

150 HP Wood Fired 

Boiler Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MOArmstrong1278

350 HP Wood Fired 

Boiler Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MOImperial Products Royal 

Oak EP24 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MSArmstrongVicksburg Hurst Boiler #1 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MSArmstrongVicksburg Hurst Boiler #2 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MSOrleansFurnitureColumbia Boiler Biomass No HAP APCD Control

MSTriCWood Kewanee Biomass No HAP APCD Control

ORCollinsPineCoLakeview Boiler 1 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

ORCollinsPineCoLakeview Boiler 2 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

ORColumbiaForestKlamathFal

ls BLR-N Biomass No HAP APCD Control

SCCarolinaFurnitureWorks 001 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

SCCarolinaFurnitureWorks 003 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

SCIFCOSystems ACD Biomass No HAP APCD Control

WASimpsonDoorCompany EU-1 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

WVArmstrongHardwoodFloori

ngWV Boiler 01 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

WVArmstrongHardwoodFloori

ngWV Boiler 02 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

GARayonierWood317 PB01 Biomass Venturi Scrubber

IDBAFRexburg Kipper Boiler Biomass Wet Scrubber

ORPacificWoodLaminatesBro

okings

Riley Hogged Fuel Boiler 

(PH2) Biomass Wet Scrubber

INCrawfordsvilleElectric Boiler #5 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

INGriffinIndustries Boiler 02 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

INMuscatatuckUTC Boiler 2 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

MITRWSaginaw EUBOILER3 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

MNWillmarMunicipal EU 003 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

NCThomasvilleFurnitureC-MW-SB ESBL2 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

NCThomasvilleFurnitureLenoir ESBL2 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

PARieterAuto 034 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

PARieterAuto 035 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

VAMohawkLees B7 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

WIHillsFarmMadison 600332 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

WIHillsFarmMadison 600336 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

WIUWRiverFalls B0001853 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

WIUWRiverFalls B0001854 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

WIUWSuperior B1826 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

WIUWSuperior B1827 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

ILSouthernIllinoisPowerCoop Marion Unit 04 Coal

Dry ScrubberElectrostatic 

Precipitator

IAMidAmericanEnergyRiversid

e393 Boilers 7 & 8 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

INCrawfordsvilleElectric Boiler #6 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

INLawrenceburgDistillers EU-96, # 6 Boiler Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER1 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER11 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER12 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER13 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER14 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER2 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER3 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER4 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER5 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEckertMooresStationLansin

g EUBOILER6 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

MIEricksonStationLansing Erickson Main Boiler Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

NYAESGreenidgeDresden Boiler 4 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

NYAESGreenidgeDresden Boiler 5 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

WIBlountGeneratingStation Boiler 7 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

WIBlountGeneratingStation Boiler 8 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

WIBlountGeneratingStation Boiler 9 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator

AKClearAirForceStation EU ID 1 Coal Fabric Filter

AKClearAirForceStation EU ID 2 Coal Fabric Filter

AKClearAirForceStation EU ID 3 Coal Fabric Filter

CACAPortlandCementColton Cogen Coal Fabric Filter

COWNClarkStation Unit 1 Coal Fabric Filter

COWNClarkStation Unit 2 Coal Fabric Filter

GAMohawk BL06 Coal Fabric Filter

GAMohawk BL07 Coal Fabric Filter

ILWesternILUniv Boiler #2 Coal Fabric Filter

ILWesternILUniv Boiler #3 Coal Fabric Filter

INFritoLay CP-10A Coal Fabric Filter

MASaintGobain EU-523-01 Coal Fabric Filter

MNOrderofStBenedict EU004 Boiler 4 Coal Fabric Filter

NELonDWrightStation 6B Coal Fabric Filter

NELonDWrightStation 7B Coal Fabric Filter

OHCollegeofWooster B003 Coal Fabric Filter

OHDenisonUniversity B&W Boiler (B001) Coal Fabric Filter

OHKyklosBearing B001 Coal Fabric Filter

OHKyklosBearing B002 Coal Fabric Filter

TNTennesseeTech B-01 Coal Fabric Filter

TNTennesseeTech B-05 Coal Fabric Filter

VAUofRichmond #1 Coal Fabric Filter

VAUofRichmond #2 Coal Fabric Filter

VAUofRichmond #3 Coal Fabric Filter

VAUofRichmond #4 Coal Fabric Filter

WIWinnebagoMHI 600426 Coal Fabric Filter

WIWinnebagoMHI 625719 Coal Fabric Filter

WIWinnebagoMHI 625720 Coal Fabric Filter

NYAESGreenidgeDresden Boiler 6 Coal

Fabric Filter/Dry Srubber 

(Lime Injection)/SNCR

ILSouthernIllinoisPowerCoop Marion Unit 123 Coal

Fabric FilterDry Sorbent 

Injection

INGriffinIndustries Boiler 01 Coal

Fabric FilterDry Sorbent 

Injection

KYConstellationSpiritsBardsto

wn Boiler 2 Coal

Fabric FilterDry Sorbent 

Injection

KYUnionUnderwear 2 Coal Fabric FilterWet Scrubber

INMuscatatuckUTC Boiler 4 Coal No HAP APCD Control

INStJoseph

Boiler #1 266 HP Erie 

City Boiler Coal No HAP APCD Control

INStJoseph

Boiler #2 375 HP Keeler 

Boiler Coal No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

INStJoseph

Boiler #3 400 HP Wicks 

Boiler Coal No HAP APCD Control

MNOrderofStBenedict EU001 Boiler 1 Coal No HAP APCD Control

MNOrderofStBenedict EU002 Boiler 2 Coal No HAP APCD Control

MNWillmarMunicipal EU 002 Coal No HAP APCD Control

PAEriecoke #1 Coal No HAP APCD Control

PAEriecoke #2 Coal No HAP APCD Control

PALockheedMartin 36 Coal No HAP APCD Control

PALockheedMartin 38 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WICapitolHPMadison 600328 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WICapitolHPMadison 600340 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WINorthernWisconsinCenterCi

ppewaFalls 600618 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WINorthernWisconsinCenterCi

ppewaFalls 600619 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WINorthernWisconsinCenterCi

ppewaFalls 600644 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WIUWPlattevilleCentralHeatin

g B0001057 (#3 Boiler) Coal No HAP APCD Control

WIUWPlattevilleCentralHeatin

g B0001058 (#2 Boiler) Coal No HAP APCD Control

WIUWStoutMenmon 600611 Coal No HAP APCD Control

WIUWStoutMenmon 600623 Coal No HAP APCD Control

OHWausauPaperTowel No. 1 Boiler Coal Venturi Scrubber

OHWausauPaperTowel No. 2 Boiler Coal Venturi Scrubber

OHWausauPaperTowel No. 3 Boiler Coal Venturi Scrubber

OHWausauPaperTowel No. 4 Boiler Coal Venturi Scrubber

WIProctorGamble BoHo #6 Coal Venturi Scrubber

COWesternSugarCo-op B&W Coal Boiler #1 Coal Wet Scrubber

COWesternSugarCo-op B&W Coal Boiler #2 Coal Wet Scrubber

OHCantonForge B001 Coal Wet Scrubber

CTPfizer Permit # 0001 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclone

MAMultiLayerCoating NB2-1 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclone

MAMultiLayerCoating NB2-2 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclone

WIUWRiverFalls B0001911 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclone

GAMohawk BL03 Liquid Fabric Filter

GAMohawk BL04 Liquid Fabric Filter

GAMohawk BL05 Liquid Fabric Filter

AKAlaskanBrewingCo Cleaver-Brooks Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKAlaskanBrewingCo McKenna Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 14 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 14 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 141 Drill Rig 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 141 Drill Rig 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 15 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 15 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 16 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 16 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 19 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon 19 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon Arctic Fox Drill 

Rig Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Doyon Arctic Fox Drill 

Rig Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 14E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 14E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 16E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 16E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 17E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 17E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 18E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 18E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 19E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 19E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 22E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 22E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 245 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 245 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 27E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 27E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 28E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 28E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 2ES 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 2ES 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 33E 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 33E 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 3S 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 3S 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 429 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 429 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 4ES 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 4ES 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 7ES 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 7ES 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 9ES 

Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nabors Drill Rig 9ES 

Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nordic 1 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nordic 1 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nordic 2 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nordic 2 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKBPXATDR

Nordic 3 Drill Rig Boiler 

1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

AKBPXATDR

Nordic 3 Drill Rig Boiler 

2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKClearAirForceStation EU ID 23 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKClearAirForceStation EU ID 24 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKClearAirForceStation EU ID 34 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKCookInletPipeline-DriftRiver EU ID 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKCookInletPipeline-DriftRiver EU ID 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKCookInletPipeline-DriftRiver EU ID 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKCookInletPipeline-DriftRiver

Small Crude Oil Boiler 

#1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKCookInletPipeline-DriftRiver

Small Crude Oil Boiler 

#2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKHeclaGreensCreekJuneau Volcano Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKHeclaGreensCreekJuneau WB-01 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKHeclaGreensCreekJuneau WB-02 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKHeclaGreensCreekJuneau WB-03 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKMarathonKenai11 Rig Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKPeakOilfield CB 5000 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKPeakOilfield CB 5000 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKPeakOilfield Model 200 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKPeakOilfield Model 400 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 10 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 11 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 12 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 13 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 15 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 23 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 24 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

AKUnisea37 EU ID 9 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ALBFGoodrich T108 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ALBFGoodrich T16493 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ALBFGoodrich T16501 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CAHitachiGST Source 307 - Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CAHitachiGST Source 320 - Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CAHitachiGST Source 5 - Boiler 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

COClearSpringRanch 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

COClearSpringRanch 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

COClearSpringRanch 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

COClearSpringRanch 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

CTJacobsVehicleSystemInc

EMU-020 / (S/N 

OL05317) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTJacobsVehicleSystemInc

EMU-021 / (S/N 

OL05318) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTUCONN-Storrs EMU-011 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTUCONN-Storrs EMU-012 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTUCONN-Storrs EMU-013 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTUCONN-Storrs EMU-017 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTUCONN-Storrs EMU-558 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTYaleSterling

4 Small #2 Fuel Oil 

Boilers <10MMBTU/Hr Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTYaleSterling SPB5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTYaleSterling SPB6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

CTYaleSterling SPB7 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

DEEIDupontWilmington Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

DEEIDupontWilmington Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

DEEIDupontWilmington Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

DEEIDupontWilmington Boiler #4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

DEEIDupontWilmington Boiler #6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GApowerpartners B001 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GApowerpartners B002 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GARhodiaIncWinder BR01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GARhodiaIncWinder BR02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GASpringsGlobalGriffin

#1 BOILER CLEVER 

BROOKS #5585 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GASpringsGlobalGriffin #3 BOILER Liquid No HAP APCD Control

GASpringsGlobalGriffin #5 Nebraska Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IAJohn Deere-Waterloo 6130-03 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IARockwellCollinsCedarRapids 105-069 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IARockwellCollinsCedarRapids 105-193 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IARockwellCollinsCedarRapids 106-150 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IAStLukes B-4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IAStLukes B-5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IAStLukes B-6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IL3MCordova Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IL3MCordova Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

IL3MCordova Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILACHFoodChampaign #2 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILACHFoodChampaign #4 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILACHFoodChampaign #5 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILExelonGeneration

1AS01B Unit 1 Aux 

Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

ILExelonGeneration

2AS01B Unit 2 Aux 

Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILOlinCorpEastAlton B-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILOlinCorpEastAlton B-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILOlinCorpEastAlton B-3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILOlinCorpEastAlton B-4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILOlinCorpEastAlton B-5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILOlinCorpEastAlton B-6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILWesternILUniv Boiler #5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILWesternILUniv Boiler #6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILWesternILUniv Boiler #7 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INBFGoodrich Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INBFGoodrich Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INBFGoodrich Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INBFGoodrich Boiler #5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INBHMMEnergyIMCCentralEn

ergyPlant 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INBHMMEnergyIMCCentralEn

ergyPlant 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INConopcoIncUnileverHammo

nd Boiler 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INConopcoIncUnileverHammo

nd Hydrotherm #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INConopcoIncUnileverHammo

nd Powerhouse Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INCovanceLabsGreenfield 254-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INCovanceLabsGreenfield 254-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INCovanceLabsGreenfield 254-3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INCovanceLabsGreenfield 254-4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INCPConnersville Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INDukeEnergyNoblesville799 Heating Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INFoamexFortWayne 138706 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INFoamexFortWayne 138707 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INGoodSamaritnHospital SEU2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INGoodSamaritnHospital SEU3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INMuscatatuckUTC Boiler 1A Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INMuscatatuckUTC Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

KYUnionUnderwear 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MDViennaPowerOperations V-20 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #1 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #2 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #3 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #4 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #5 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIWesternMichiganUniversity EUBOILER9 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

MNWaldorfCorp EU001 (Boiler #1) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MNWaldorfCorp EU002 (Boiler #2) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MNWaldorfCorp EU003 (Boiler #3) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MNWillmarMunicipal EU 004 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MO3MSpringfield EU0010 Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MO3MSpringfield EU0020 Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MOImperial Products Royal 

Oak EP27 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MSCooperTire1340 Cleaver-Brooks Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MSCooperTire1340 Springfield Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCAllensCanning1414 ES-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCAllensCanning1414 ES-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCBridgestoneWilson No. 1 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCBridgestoneWilson No. 2 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-03 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-04 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-12 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-13 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-14 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-27 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-28 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-31 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-32 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-39 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-41 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-42 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU ES-45 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCNCSU SEE WORKSHEETS Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCRFMICRO ESB31 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCRFMICRO ESB32 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCThomasvilleFurnitureLenoir ESBL3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCVopakRiverRd ES-15 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCVopakRiverRd ES-21 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NCWadeMfg B-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHDartmouthCollege EU 1 Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHDartmouthCollege EU 2 Boiler 2 - New Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHDartmouthCollege EU 3 Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHDartmouthCollege EU 4 Boiler 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHPhillipsExeter Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHPhillipsExeter Boiler #5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NHPhillipsExeter Boiler #6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJBristol-MyersSquibb1615 PAB-1 and PAB-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

NJButlerPrinting

U1- Leo's Bldg. Power 

Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJButlerPrinting

U-24 Cleaver Brooks 

Process Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJHoffmanLaRoche E1026, BOILER #11 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJHomasote Boiler # 7 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJICLCarteret No.3 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMcGuireAFB Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMcGuireAFB Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMcGuireAFB Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMcGuireAFB Boiler #4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMcWilliamsForge Main Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMeridianHealth1656 E1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMeridianHealth1656 E2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMeridianHealth1656 E3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMonmouthCountyReclamati

on U5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMontclair2968 Aux Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJMontclair2968 Temporary Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJNationalMfg Burnham Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJNationalMfg Whirl-Power Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJNewWinCupMetuchen Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJNJAshland E1001 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJNJAshland E1002 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJNovartis 105 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJOrtho-ClinicalDiagnostics 6801 (Keeler - West) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJRebtex Kewanee Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJRebtex Superior Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJStarGlo Industries Cleaver Brooks Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJStarGlo Industries Cyclotherm - 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJStarGlo Industries Cyclotherm - 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJSunocoNewark

IS4-Boilers for Office 

Heat-4 < 1 MMBtu/hr 

each Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJVeolia NJ 00005076 95 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJWilliamSteinenMfg H B Smith Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NJWilliamSteinenMfg Kewanee Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYAMRIRennselaer 07E01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBarkerBros Steam Boiler 1666 - Oil Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBASFPeerskill B24 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBigSixTowers 000B1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBigSixTowers 000B2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBigSixTowers 000B3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonFulton1727 FR1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonFulton1727 FR2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

NYBronxLebanonFulton1727 FR3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonFulton1727 FT1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonFulton1727 FT2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonGrandConco

urse1726 GC1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonGrandConco

urse1726 GC2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonGrandConco

urse1726 GC3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonGrandConco

urse1726 GC4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonGrandConco

urse1726 GC5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxLebanonGrandConco

urse1726 GC6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxPsychiatric 00S01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxPsychiatric 00S02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBronxPsychiatric 00S03 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBuffaloStateCollege 0001A Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBuffaloStateCollege 0001B Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBuffaloStateCollege 0001C Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBuffaloStateCollege 0001D Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYInterfaceSolutions # 5 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYKerryBioScience Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYKerryBioScience Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYKerryBioScience Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYKinderMorganLiquids L-76656 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYKinderMorganLiquids L-76657 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYUofRochester 0BLR3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYUofRochester 0BLR9 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHAlcoaClevelandWorks Boiler #8 (B008) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHAlcoaClevelandWorks Boiler #9 (B009) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHBluegrassMills B004 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHBluegrassMills B005 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHBluegrassMills B006 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHCantonForge B003 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHDP&LJMStaurtStation Unit 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHDP&LKillen B002 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHDP&LKillen B003 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHLubrizol B003 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHP&GMiamiValley B001 - boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHP&GMiamiValley B001- Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHP&GMiamiValley B004 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHP&GMiamiValley B005 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHPerstorpPolyols B001 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHTitanTire B003 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

OHVeyanceTechnologies B001 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHVeyanceTechnologies B004 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHVeyanceTechnologies B005 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHWestLorainPlant B003 auxiliary boiler A Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHWestLorainPlant B006 auxiliary boiler B Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ORHJHeinz Boiler 7 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ORHJHeinz Boiler 8 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ORVigor National Bd # 6553 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ORWestLinn B1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAAltadisMcAdoo 031 Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAAltadisMcAdoo 034 Boiler 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAAltadisMcAdoo 035 Boiler 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAArmstrngWorld-Lancaster Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAArmstrngWorld-Lancaster Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAArmstrngWorld-Lancaster Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAAshlandNevilleIsland B401 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAAshlandNevilleIsland B403 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PABucknellUniversity B-037 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACalumetPenreco #1 BOILER Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACalumetPenreco #2 BOILER Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACalumetPenreco #3 BOILER Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACarlisleTire Brooks D52 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACarlisleTire BrooksD34 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACroda 003 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PACroda 008 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADartContainer Boiler #1: ID: L78071 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADartContainer Boiler #2: ID: L84268 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADDSPNewCumberland

031 Erie Boiler #1, Bldg. 

86 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADDSPNewCumberland

032 Erie Boiler #2, Bldg. 

86 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADDSPNewCumberland

033 Erie Boiler #3, Bldg. 

86 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADDSPNewCumberland

034 Trane Boiler #4, 

Bldg. 86 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADel MonteBloomsburg

Cleaver Brooks Boiler 

#1 (031) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADel MonteBloomsburg

Cleaver Brooks Boiler 

#2 (032) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADel MonteBloomsburg

Cleaver Brooks Boiler 

#4 (034) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADel MonteBloomsburg

Cleaver Brooks Boiler 

#5 (035) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAHaleyPaint 031Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Ford Service Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 1, 031 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

PAKovatch Plant 1, standby Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 10 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 3, 032 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 4, 033 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 7, 034 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 7, 035 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Plant 8 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAMackTrucks 34 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAMerisol Boiler #4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANevilleChem B013 - Boiler 6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGEnergyCenterPittsburg

h B001 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGEnergyCenterPittsburg

h B002 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGEnergyCenterPittsburg

h B003 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGHarrisburg Boiler #12 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGHarrisburg Boiler #13 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGHarrisburg Boiler #14 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PANRGHarrisburg Boiler #15 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAPPGIndustriesCarlisle

Orr & Sembower Boiler 

1, Source ID 031 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAPPGIndustriesCarlisle

Orr & Sembower Boiler 

2, Source ID 032 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAPPGIndustriesCarlisle

Orr & Sembower Boiler 

3, Source ID 033 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAPQChester 2 Furnace Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAPQChester 4 Furnace Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAPQChester Cleaver Brooks Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PARieterAuto 032 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PARieterAuto 033 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PARohmHaasSpringHouse Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PARohmHaasSpringHouse Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PARohmHaasSpringHouse Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PARohmHaasSpringHouse Boiler 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASamAdamsBrewingCo 031 - Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASamAdamsBrewingCo 032 - Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASamAdamsBrewingCo 033 - Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 10 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 7 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 8 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwater Boiler 9 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

PASartomer B-902 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASealedAirModena 031 Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASealedAirReading 031 Boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASealedAirReading 033 Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASuperiorTubeCoCollegeville 031 B1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASuperiorTubeCoCollegeville 032 B2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAValleyProteins B-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAValleyProteins B-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCopeStationSC AB-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCRBard B01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCRBard B02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCryovac BL04 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCryovac BL05 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCGatesCorp2292 EU 01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCGatesCorp2292 EU 02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCIP-2301 B-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCMillikenCedarHillPlant BL01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCMillikenCedarHillPlant BL02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCTeknorApexCarolinaCoFou

ntainInn Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCWatereeStation AXB1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCWilliamsStation AXB1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCWilliamsStation AXB2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNBridgestoneLaVergne B1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNBridgestoneLaVergne B2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNBridgestoneLaVergne B3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNConAgra

Boiler #3 (50.3 MM 

BTU/hr) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNConAgra

Boiler #4 (50.3 MM 

BTU/hr) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNConAgra

Boiler #6 (30.3 MM 

BTU/hr) Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNJackDaniels Boiler #8 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNRohmHaasChemicalsLLC Boiler 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNRohmHaasChemicalsLLC Boiler 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNSIGroup FH 9001-A Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TNSIGroup FH 9001-B Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TXSamsungSemi Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TXSamsungSemi Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TXSamsungSemi Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TXSamsungSemi Boiler 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

TXSamsungSemi Boiler 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

VADuPontFrontRoyal PH-B1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

VADuPontFrontRoyal PH-B2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control
Facility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source 

Boilers in the 2008 Combustion Survey

VAMerckElkton B-4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

VAMohawkLees B5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

VAMohawkLees B6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WAEmeraldKalama U-17 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WAFortLewisArmy 1034 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WAFortLewisArmy 1036 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WAFortLewisArmy 1037 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WAFortLewisArmy 11D47 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WAFortLewisArmy 14A51 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WASimpsonDoorCompany EU-3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WICelluTissueNeenah Boiler No. 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WICelluTissueNeenah Boiler No. 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WICelluTissueNeenah Boiler No. 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WIHurdWindows&DoorsMedfo

rd Main Boiler - B20 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WIMuleHideMfg B21 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WINorthernWisconsinCenterCi

ppewaFalls 600608 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WIUWStoutMenmon 1082431 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WIUWStoutMenmon 604683 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WIWausauBrokaw Boiler #5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

WVKoppersFollansbee Boiler #2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHCantonForge B002 Liquid Wet Scrubber
FacilityID UnitID Control Device 10% Fuel Category

Average Emission Test 

Result (lb/mmBtu)

Number of 

Test Runs 

in Average

Below NSPS 

Limit 

(GACT)?

IDPotlatchFo

restProducts

CorpPostFall

s

Sanderdust 

Fired Boiler

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 2.11E-03 3 yes

MEBoralexA

shland Boiler #1

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 2.81E-03 3 yes

WABoiseKett

leFallsLumbe

r B1

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 3.56E-03 3 yes

MEBoralexF

ortFairfield Boiler #1

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 5.05E-03 3 yes

WAStimsonL

umber

Hog Fuel 

Boiler

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 7.52E-03 1 yes

MICadillacRe

newableEner

gy Main Boiler

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 2.33E-02 3 yes

ORInterforPa

cificGilchrist B-2 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 5.81E-02 3 no

IDStimsonLu

mberCoPries

tRiver HFB-1 (EPI)

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Biomass 6.88E-02 2 no

ORInterforPa

cificGilchrist B-1 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 8.01E-02 3 no

ARTravisLu

mberMansfie

ld Boiler No. 2 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 1.04E-01 3 no

IDBAFRexbu

rg Kipper Boiler Wet Scrubber Biomass 1.30E-01 6 no

ORMalheurL

umber Boiler 1 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 1.53E-01 6 no

ORMalheurL

umber Boiler 2 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 1.57E-01 6 no

ARTravisLu

mberMansfie

ld Boiler No. 1 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 1.64E-01 3 no

GARayonier

Wood317 PB01 Venturi Scrubber Biomass 1.83E-01 6 no

WASimpson

DoorCompan

y EU-1 No HAP APCD Control Biomass 1.98E-01 1 no

MSArmstron

gVicksburg

Hurst Boiler 

#1 No HAP APCD Control Biomass 2.28E-01 1 no

MSArmstron

gVicksburg

Hurst Boiler 

#2 No HAP APCD Control Biomass 2.28E-01 1 no

MNMarvin

Boiler 3, EU 

012 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 3.03E-01 3 no

Appendix E-1: PM Emission Data Reported at Area Source Boilers 

in the 2008 Combustion Survey
FacilityID UnitID Control Device 10% Fuel Category

Average Emission Test 

Result (lb/mmBtu)

Number of 

Test Runs 

in Average

Below NSPS 

Limit 

(GACT)?

Appendix E-1: PM Emission Data Reported at Area Source Boilers 

in the 2008 Combustion Survey

TNArmstrong

Hardwood Boiler #5 Cyclone or Multiclone Biomass 3.07E-01 3 no

NYAESGree

nidgeDresde

n Boiler 6

Fabric Filter/Dry 

Srubber (Lime 

Injection)/SNCR Coal 1.00E-04 3 yes

WIBlountGe

neratingStati

on Boiler 7

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Coal 8.13E-03 3 yes

PAEriecoke #2 No HAP APCD Control Coal 1.10E-02 3 yes

OHDenisonU

niversity

B&W Boiler 

(B001) Fabric Filter Coal 1.63E-02 3 yes

KYConstellat

ionSpiritsBar

dstown Boiler 2

Fabric FilterDry 

Sorbent Injection Coal 2.08E-02 3 yes

OHCantonFo

rge B001 Wet Scrubber Coal 4.67E-02 3 no

WIWinnebag

oMHI 600426 Fabric Filter Coal 4.87E-02 3 no

WIBlountGe

neratingStati

on Boiler 9

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Coal 7.03E-02 3 no

COWesternS

ugarCo-op

B&W Coal 

Boiler #1 Wet Scrubber Coal 7.46E-02 3 no

COWesternS

ugarCo-op

B&W Coal 

Boiler #2 Wet Scrubber Coal 7.46E-02 3 no

INCrawfords

villeElectric Boiler #6

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Coal 7.67E-02 3 no

WIBlountGe

neratingStati

on Boiler 8

Electrostatic 

Precipitator Coal 1.04E-01 3 no

MITRWSagin

aw EUBOILER3 Cyclone or Multiclone Coal 1.67E-01 3 no

INMuscatatu

ckUTC Boiler 4 No HAP APCD Control Coal 1.81E-01 3 no

PAEriecoke #1 No HAP APCD Control Coal 2.72E-01 1 no

WIUWRiverF

alls B0001854 Cyclone or Multiclone Coal 3.28E-01 3 no

WICapitolHP

Madison 600328 No HAP APCD Control Coal 3.70E-01 3 no

WICapitolHP

Madison 600340 No HAP APCD Control Coal 3.93E-01 3 no

INCrawfords

villeElectric Boiler #5 Cyclone or Multiclone Coal 3.96E-01 3 no
FacilityID UnitID Control Device 10% Fuel Category

Average Emission Test 

Result (lb/mmBtu)

Number of 

Test Runs 

in Average

Below NSPS 

Limit 

(GACT)?

Appendix E-1: PM Emission Data Reported at Area Source Boilers 

in the 2008 Combustion Survey

MNOrderofSt

Benedict

EU001 Boiler 

1 No HAP APCD Control Coal 4.13E-01 3 no

MNOrderofSt

Benedict

EU002 Boiler 

2 No HAP APCD Control Coal 4.77E-01 3 no

WINorthern

WisconsinCe

nterCippewa

Falls 600618 No HAP APCD Control Coal 5.13E-01 3 no

OHCantonFo

rge B002 Wet Scrubber Coal 7.70E-01 3 no

NJScheringP

lough Boiler #5 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.37E-04 3 yes

NJScheringP

lough1681 Boiler No. 5 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 6.73E-04 3 yes

NJPrinceton

University Aux Boiler 2 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.00E-03 3 yes

NJScheringP

lough1681 Boiler No. 4 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.01E-03 3 yes

IAJohn 

DeereWaterloo 6130-03 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.83E-03 1 yes

OHAlcoaCle

velandWorks

Boiler #8 

(B008) No HAP APCD Control Liquid 2.56E-03 3 yes

OHAlcoaCle

velandWorks

Boiler #9 

(B009) No HAP APCD Control Liquid 3.85E-03 3 yes

NJPrinceton

University Aux Boiler 1 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 4.00E-03 3 yes

NJNovartis 98 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 4.28E-03 3 yes

NJNovartis 121 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 4.40E-03 3 yes

NJNovartis 94 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 5.54E-03 3 yes

NJMontclair2

968 Aux Boiler No HAP APCD Control Liquid 6.24E-03 3 yes

VAMerckElkt

on B-8 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.17E-02 3 yes

VAMerckElkt

on B-7 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.33E-02 3 yes

NJRebtex Kewanee No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.49E-02 3 yes

NJRebtex Superior No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.49E-02 3 yes

NJUSGypsu

mCo BOILER #2 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.98E-02 3 yes

NJHoffmanL

aRoche

E1022, 

BOILER #7 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 2.10E-02 3 yes
FacilityID UnitID Control Device 10% Fuel Category

Average Emission Test 

Result (lb/mmBtu)

Number of 

Test Runs 

in Average

Below NSPS 

Limit 

(GACT)?

Appendix E-1: PM Emission Data Reported at Area Source Boilers 

in the 2008 Combustion Survey

NJUSGypsu

mCo BOILER #1 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 2.16E-02 3 yes

NJUSGypsu

mCo BOILER #3 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 2.19E-02 3 yes

NJHoffmanL

aRoche

E1023, 

BOILER #8 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 2.47E-02 3 yes

NJHoffmanL

aRoche

E1024, 

BOILER #9 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 2.87E-02 3 yes

ORWestLinn B1 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 5.83E-02 3 no

MNWaldorfC

orp

EU002 

(Boiler #2) No HAP APCD Control Liquid 6.00E-02 3 no

NYBigSixTo

wers 000B1 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 6.13E-02 3 no

MNWaldorfC

orp

EU003 

(Boiler #3) No HAP APCD Control Liquid 6.20E-02 3 no

NYBuffaloSt

ateCollege 0001D No HAP APCD Control Liquid 7.51E-02 3 no

NYBuffaloSt

ateCollege 0001B No HAP APCD Control Liquid 7.53E-02 3 no

NYBuffaloSt

ateCollege 0001A No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.10E-01 3 no

NYBuffaloSt

ateCollege 0001C No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.25E-01 3 no

OHCantonFo

rge B003 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.43E-01 3 no

OHLubrizol B003 No HAP APCD Control Liquid 1.91E-01 3 no
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

Location comments test date load vol. flow moisture f-factor total Bismarck, MT low fire 3/12/2008 0.9 378 4.96 9242 Bismarck, MT low fire 3/12/2008 1 356 8.98 9242 Bismarck, MT low fire 3/12/2008 1.13 366 8.19 9242 

Bismarck, MT high fire 3/12/2008 1.5 454 7.84 9242 Bismarck, MT high fire 3/12/2008 1.38 468 7.46 9242 

BHS mill end chips 2/22/08 5.5 1611 14.8 9616 BHS mill end chips 2/22/08 7.6 1821 16.6 9616 BHS mill end chips 2/22/08 6.5 1743 16.4 9616 Townsend, MT high fire 2/21/2008 0.56 431 3.56 9739 BHS bole tree chips 2/21/08 4.5 1380 18.7 9674 BHS bole tree chips 2/21/08 3.9 1505 12.8 9674 Townsend, MT high fire 2/21/2008 0.64 446 3.15 9739 Townsend, MT high fire 2/21/2008 0.64 443 3.16 9739 Townsend, MT low fire 2/20/2008 0.39 453 2.23 9739 Townsend, MT low fire 2/20/2008 0.4 464 1.95 9739 Townsend, MT low fire 2/20/2008 0.4 462 2.08 9739 Darby, MT high fire 2/14/2008 2.78 996 13.86 9399 Darby, MT high fire 2/14/2008 2.57 914 22.33 9399 Darby, MT high fire 2/14/2008 2.04 880 21.41 9399 Darby, MT low fire 2/13/2008 1.76 550 10.53 9399 Victor, MT high fire 2/13/2008 2.28 776 12.27 9399 

Darby, MT low fire 2/13/2008 1.77 515 10.58 9399 Victor, MT high fire 2/13/2008 2.69 746 11.57 9399 

Victor, MT low fire 2/12/2008 1.04 503 12.59 9399 Victor, MT low fire 2/12/2008 0.99 507 12.61 9399 Dillon, MT high fire 12/8/07 8.45 3062 11.54 10399Dillon, MT high fire 12/7/07 8.54 3101 11.78 10399Dillon, MT high fire 12/6/07 5.41 1997 12.18 10399Dillon, MT low fire 10/26/07 2.07 1433 8.42 10399

Dillon, MT low fire 10/25/07 2.14 1492 9.34 10399

Dillon, MT low fire 10/24/07 6 2219 8.4 10399

NCH system optimized 8/23/07 8.3 1950 15.2 8900 

NCH system optimized 8/23/07 8.9 2100 15 8900 

NCH system optimized 8/23/07 9.2 2135 15.6 8900 

Council, ID high fire - PM 3/29/2007 2.46 696 9401Council, ID normal fire - PAH 3/29/2007 2.66 9086Council, ID normal fire - PAH 3/29/2007 1.77 9048Council, ID normal fire - PAH 3/29/2007 2.01 8887Council, ID normal fire - formaldehyde 3/29/2007 2.29 9086Council, ID normal fire - formaldehyde 3/29/2007 2.165 9086Council, ID normal fire - formaldehyde 3/29/2007 2.21 9086Council, ID normal fire - metals 3/29/2007 2.97 9086

Council, ID normal fire - metals 3/29/2007 1.96 9048

Council, ID normal fire - metals 3/29/2007 2.04 8887

Council, ID normal fire - boiler upset 3/28/2007 2.32 489 8991 

Council, ID high fire - PM 3/28/2007 2.70 627 9215 Council, ID normal fire - PM 3/28/2007 1.96 588 8991 Council, ID high fire - PM 3/28/2007 2.70 641 9215 Council, ID high fire - PM 3/28/2007 2.70 516 9215 Council, ID normal fire - PM 3/28/2007 2.53 584 8991 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

method time pm 2.5 method time PM condensables method time Nox me

0.19 CTM040 48 0.316 7E 

0.165 CTM040 48 0.285 7E 

0.15 CTM040 48 0.273 7E 

0.169 CTM040 48 0.287 7E 0.098 CTM040 48 0.29 7E 

0.011 202 60 0.007 202 60 0.008 202 60 

0.093 CTM040 48 0.15 7E 

0.011 202 75 0.012 202 65 

0.098 CTM040 48 0.16 7E 0.078 CTM040 48 0.15 7E 0.241 CTM040 48 0.18 7E 0.148 CTM040 48 0.15 7E 

0.14 CTM040 48 0.14 7E 

0.086 CTM040 48 0.138 7E 0.095 CTM040 48 0.138 7E 0.091 CTM040 48 0.172 7E 0.117 CTM040 48 0.117 7E 0.105 CTM040 48 0.137 7E 0.142 CTM040 48 0.11 7E 0.094 CTM040 48 0.121 7E 0.119 CTM040 48 0.154 7E 0.075 CTM040 48 0.151 7E 0.161 CTM040 100 202 100 0.173 7E 0.185 CTM040 100 202 100 0.22 7E 0.172 CTM040 90 202 90 0.118 7E 0.182 CTM040 73 0.025 202 73 0.31 7E 0.179 CTM040 61 0.016 202 61 0.2 7E 

- CTM040 60 - 202 60 0.11 7E 

5 64 0.20 202 64 

5 64 0.16 202 64 5 64 0.11 202 64 

0.14 CTM040/202 60

5 60 1.95 CTM040/202 60 0.087 202 605 60 0.121 CTM040/202 60 0.041 202 605 60 0.25 CTM040/202 60 0.026 202 605 60 0.126 CTM040/202 60 0.027 202 605 60 0.031 202 605 60 0.204 CTM040/202 60 0.02 202 60
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

time CO2 method time O2 method time SO2 method time 

48 7.75 3A 48 13.25 3A 4848 9.11 3A 48 11.89 3A 4848 9.99 3A 48 11.01 3A 4848 10.75 3A 48 10.25 3A 4848 9.59 3A 48 11.41 3A 4860 11 3A 60 9.4 3A 6060 13.4 3A 60 7 3A 6060 11.9 3A 60 8.5 3A 6048 5 3A 48 16.5 3A 4875 10.7 3A 75 9.9 3A 7565 8.3 3A 65 12.2 3A 6548 5 3A 48 16 3A 4848 5 3A 48 16 3A 4848 5 3A 48 18 3A 4848 5 3A 48 18 3A 4848 5 3A 48 18 3A 4848 9.25 3A 48 11.75 3A 4848 9.3 3A 48 11.7 3A 4848 7.7 3A 48 13.3 3A 4848 10.6 3A 48 10.4 3A 4848 9.7 3A 48 11.3 3A 4848 11.33 3A 48 9.67 3A 4848 11.9 3A 48 9.1 3A 4848 6.9 3A 48 14.1 3A 4848 6.5 3A 48 14.5 3A 48

100 8.3 3A 100 10.8 3A 100100 8.3 3A 100 10.8 3A 100

90 8.3 3A 90 11 3A 9073 5.2 3A 73 15.7 3A 7361 5.2 3A 61 15.7 3A 6160 9.8 3A 60 11.1 3A 6064 13.0% 3 64 7.7% 3A 6464 13.0% 3 64 7.7% 3A 6464 13.1% 3 64 7.6% 3A 64
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

method time Acrolein method time Acetaldehydemethod time dioxin/fura
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

method time metals methotime silver barium beryllium cadmium C

1.76E-05 5.75E-06 2.55E-07 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

zinc arsenic nickel lead selenium PAH method time Tota

bdl 1.60E-05bdl 6.12E-06

7.96E-06 5.31E-07
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

2-methylnapthalene Acenaphthen2-chloronapthalene Acenaphthylene fluorene 

2.97E-06 5.60E-06 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

fluoranthene pyrene benzo(a)anthracene chrysene perylene be

3.37E-061.58E-05
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

benzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(a)pyrene benso(e)pyrene benzo(g,h,i)perylene 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Pro

gram

LocationBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBismarck, MTBHSBHSBHSTownsend, MTBHSBHSTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTTownsend, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTDarby, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTVictor, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTDillon, MTNCHNCHNCHCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, ID

dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

Location comments test date load vol. flow moisture f-factor total Council, ID normal fire - Nox/CO 3/28/2007 1.96 8991Council, ID normal fire - Nox/CO 3/28/2007 2.66 8991Council, ID normal fire - Nox/CO 3/28/2007 1.72 8991Council, ID high fire - all but PM 3/27/2007 2.46 8951

Council, ID high fire - all but PM 3/27/2007 2.46 9401

Council, ID high fire - all but PM 3/27/2007 2.46 9417

NCH 2/1/07 11.4 2443 18.2 9190 

NCH process upset 2/1/07 8.6 2810 15.6 9190 

NCH 2/1/07 5.7 2053 18 9190 

CVU system optimized 12/21/05 5.71 1642 15.3 9843 

CVU system optimized 12/21/05 5.46 1329 16.7 9843 CVU system optimized 12/21/05 6.69 1414 19 9843 CVU optimized for firing rates 12/20/05 6.44 1502 18.5 9843 CVU system optimized 12/20/05 6.97 1487 21.1 9843 CVU system optimized 12/20/05 7.36 1478 20.5 9843 Thompson Falls 4/29/04 high fire 355 

Thompson Falls 4/29/04 high fire 355 

Thompson Falls 4/29/04 high fire 361 

Darby Apr-04 75% 964 10.7 Darby Apr-04 75% 920 11.3 Darby Apr-04 75% 787 11 

MWCC 1/22/03 10.1 3328 13.41 MWCC 1/22/03 10.3 3419 10.56 MWCC 1/22/03 12.4 3719 15.54 MWCC 1/22/03 9.4 3120 14.39 VT Tubbs dry wood fuel 1/15/98 5.45 1672 

VT Tubbs dry wood fuel 1/15/98 5.5 1520 

VT Tubbs dry wood fuel 1/15/98 5.11 1205 

Brattleboro, VT CoreSeparator inlet 1/7/1997 6.4 1601 18.88 

Brattleboro, VT CoreSeparator outlet 1/7/1997 6.4 1658 19.33 Brattleboro, VT CoreSeparator inlet 1/6/1997 6.2 1594 20.25 

Brattleboro, VT CoreSeparator outlet 1/6/1997 6.2 1664 19.71 Brattleboro, VT CoreSeparator inlet 1/2/1997 6.2 1445 21.53 

Brattleboro, VT CoreSeparator outlet 1/2/1997 6.2 1350 21.12 Hazen Union formaldehyde/benzene 3/25/95 1.02 324 13.25 9416Hazen Union Cr +6 3/24/95 1.04 318 13.02 9416Hazen Union formaldehyde/benzene 3/24/95 0.99 303 13.26 9416Hazen Union formaldehyde/benzene 3/24/95 1.19 338 13.38 9416Hazen Union PM/metals 3/23/95 0.85 303 11.82 9416 Hazen Union Cr +6 3/23/95 0.9 289 12.55 9416Hazen Union Cr +6 3/23/95 1.09 321 13.51 9416Hazen Union PAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/22/95 0.87 309 13.84 9416Hazen Union PM/metals 3/22/95 0.89 296 11.95 9416 

Hazen Union PM/metals 3/22/95 0.97 315 12.87 9416 Hazen Union PAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/21/95 1.38 360 14.26 9416Hazen Union PAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/21/95 0.78 318 13.02 9416Green Acres PAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/11/95 1.36 621 7.77 9891Green Acres PAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/10/95 1.48 619 7.29 9891Green Acres PAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/10/95 1.87 640 8.35 9891Green Acres formaldehyde/benzene 3/9/95 1.23 610 7.63 9891
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

method time pm 2.5 method time PM condensables method time Nox me

0.17 0.17 0.34 0.38 7E 0.43 7E 0.42 7E 

5 605 1555 605 64 5 64 5 64 

5 64 

5 64 

5 64 

5 60 0.199 7E 

5 60 0.194 7E 

5 60 0.198 7E 

5 60 0.179 7E 

5 60 0.167 7E 5 60 0.141 7E 5 0.184 5 0.186 5 0.174 5 0.178 5 1355 1355 1375 1375 1805 1805 180

0.213 7E 

5 1805 180

0.21 7E 0.21 7E 

0.139 7E 0.156 7E 0.142 7E 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

time CO2 method time O2 method time SO2 method time 

9.2 11.2

10.9 9.511.7 8.4

60 13.3 3A 60 6.7 3A 60 

60 13.3 3A 60 6.7 3A 60 

60 13.1 3A 60 6.8 3A 60 

14.0% 6.0% 

9.0% 11.0% 

7.7% 12.0% 

64 11.6% 3 64 9.0% 3A 6464 13.7% 3 64 6.9% 3A 6464 16.2% 3 64 4.7% 3A 6464 14.4% 3 64 6.3% 3A 6464 15.8% 3 64 4.9% 3A 6464 16.9% 3 64 3.8% 3A 6460 11.90% 3 60 8.40% 3A 6060 11.90% 3 60 8.50% 3A 6060 11.90% 3 60 8.40% 3A 60606060

9.5 11.29.3 11.2

10.3 10.1

9.3 11.2

11.88 3 135 8.51 3 13511.88 3 135 8.51 3 13510.68 3 137 8.94 3 13710.68 3 137 8.94 3 13714.25 3 180 6.04 3 18014.25 3 180 6.04 3 180

9.8% 3 120 10.8% 3A 120 

10.3% 3 120 10.4% 3A 12010.2% 3 120 10.4% 3A 120 10.8% 3 120 9.6% 3A 120 

8.6% 3 180 12.0% 3A 1809.4% 3 120 11.0% 3A 120

10.4% 3 120 10.0% 3A 120

254 8.6% 3 240 8.6% 3A 240

9.0% 3 180 11.4% 3A 1809.5% 3 180 11.1% 3A 180

215 11.9% 3 240 8.3% 3A 240277 7.0% 3 240 8.0% 3A 240223 7.3% 3 240 13.1% 3A 240181 8.0% 3 240 13.1% 3A 240239 9.1% 3 240 11.8% 3A 240

6.5% 3 120 14.0% 3A 120 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

method time Acrolein method time Acetaldehydemethod time dioxin/fura

2.44E-07 430 60 3.50E-08 430 601.94E-04 430 150 4.70E-08 430 1505.18E-07 430 60 7.10E-08 430 60

18 12018 12018 120

6.48E1.13E1.18E4.15E2.16E

8.1E

18 120
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

method time metals methotime silver barium beryllium cadmium C

2.80E-05 7.76E-05 1.27E-07 

425 120

29 180 1.62E-06 3.62E-05 2.68E-07 4.03E-06 

425 120425 120

29 180 1.54E-06 4.02E-05 1.35E-07 3.75E-06 29 180 1.38E-06 3.55E-05 1.07E-07 4.00E-06 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

zinc arsenic nickel lead selenium PAH method time Tota

9.10E-06 2.69E-05 0010 120 

6.21E-06 8.23E-05 0011 120 

3.95E-06 2.64E-07 0012 120 

8.79E-04 4.95E-07 3.04E-06 2.27E-05 6.46E-07

429 240 

1.07E-03 6.88E-07 5.02E-06 2.66E-05 6.17E-077.80E-04 5.29E-07 2.65E-06 2.08E-05 5.53E-07

429 240 429 240 429 240 429 240 429 240 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

2-methylnapthalene Acenaphthen2-chloronapthalene Acenaphthylene fluorene 

2.88E-06 2.06E-07 1.25E-08 3.10E-05 1.24E-06 9.54E-06 2.43E-07 2.35E-08 2.47E-05 1.11E-06 2.72E-05 9.46E-07 4.12E-08 5.55E-04 6.35E-06 1.52E-05 1.01E-06 5.91E-09 3.17E-05 8.51E-07 1.23E-05 7.85E-07 5.71E-09 2.61E-05 6.24E-07 1.21E-05 4.68E-07 3.93E-09 4.20E-05 3.93E-07 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

fluoranthene pyrene benzo(a)anthracene chrysene perylene be

7.85E-066.70E-05 5.76E-05 4.48E-06 1.49E-05 4.89E-07 4.61E-05 3.85E-05 1.73E-06 8.62E-06 1.28E-07 1.72E-04 1.47E-04 4.26E-05 4.92E-05 7.81E-06 1.03E-05 8.90E-06 1.09E-06 3.18E-06 1.77E-07 8.04E-06 7.06E-06 7.43E-07 2.53E-06 6.94E-08 1.41E-05 1.22E-05 2.77E-06 3.74E-06 3.79E-07 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

benzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(a)pyrene benso(e)pyrene benzo(g,h,i)perylene 

1.51E-06

2.57E-06 3.74E-06 8.95E-06 3.79E-06 1.04E-06 8.54E-07 3.38E-06 9.69E-07 8.84E-06 3.57E-05 3.48E-05 3.85E-05 8.79E-07 7.27E-07 2.45E-06 2.29E-06 5.89E-07 4.63E-07 1.53E-06 8.48E-07 8.69E-07 1.78E-06 3.16E-06 2.65E-06 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Pro

gram

LocationCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDCouncil, IDNCHNCHNCHCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUCVUThompson FallsThompson FallsThompson FallsDarbyDarbyDarbyMWCCMWCCMWCCMWCCVT TubbsVT TubbsVT TubbsBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTBrattleboro, VTHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionHazen UnionGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen Acres

dibenz(a,h)anthracene

2.65E-076.18E-082.06E-051.55E-076.94E-081.74E-07
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

Location comments test date load vol. flow moisture f-factor total Green Acres formaldehyde/benzene 3/9/95 1.23 611 7.53 9891Green Acres formaldehyde/benzene 3/9/95 1.23 611 7.55 9891Green Acres Cr +6 3/8/95 0.49 485 8.04 9891Green Acres Cr +6 3/8/95 0.59 538 7.3 9891Green Acres Cr +6 3/8/95 0.49 539 8.24 9891Green Acres PM/metals 3/7/95 1.18 702 6.4 9891 

Green Acres PM/metals 3/7/95 1.44 644 8.14 9891 

Green Acres PM/metals 3/6/95 1.09 657 7.65 9891 

mmbtu/hrdscfm % dscf/mmbtu lb/m

AP-42 9240 

AP-42 9240 

AP-42 9240 AP-42 9240 

AP-42 9240 

AP-42 9240 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

method time pm 2.5 method time PM condensables method time Nox me

5 1805 1805 180

min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu 

0.25 0.017 0.22 0.43 0.220.31 0.490.12 0.220.19 0.220.16 0.49
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

time CO2 method time O2 method time SO2 method time 

6.5% 3 120 14.0% 3A 120 

6.5% 3 120 14.0% 3A 120 2.9% 3 85 17.5% 3A 853.0% 3 125 17.2% 3A 1252.8% 3 134 17.8% 3A 1345.4% 3 180 15.1% 3A 1807.2% 3 180 13.2% 3A 1805.6% 3 180 15.2% 3A 180

min % min % min lb/mmbtu min 

0.025 

0.0250.0250.0250.0250.025
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

method time Acrolein method time Acetaldehydemethod time dioxin/fura

18 12018 120

min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu 

4.00E-03 8.30E-04 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

method time metals methotime silver barium beryllium cadmium C

425 85425 125425 134

29 180 1.96E-06 1.12E-04 2.59E-07 1.23E-05 29 180 3.12E-06 8.40E-05 1.17E-07 1.09E-05 29 180 2.97E-06 1.25E-04 3.77E-07 3.02E-05 

min min lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb

1.70E-03 1.70E-04 1.10E-06 4.10E-06 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

zinc arsenic nickel lead selenium PAH method time Tota

7.49E-04 3.27E-06 1.49E-05 4.76E-05 1.15E-064.98E-04 2.42E-06 1.83E-05 4.00E-05 3.14E-065.92E-04 2.28E-06 3.02E-05 6.73E-05 5.07E-06

lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu min lb/m

4.20E-04 2.20E-05 3.30E-05 4.80E-05 2.80E-06 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

2-methylnapthalene Acenaphthen2-chloronapthalene Acenaphthylene fluorene lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu 

1.60E-07 9.10E-07 2.40E-09 5.00E-06 3.40E-06 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

fluoranthene pyrene benzo(a)anthracene chrysene perylene belb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb

1.60E-06 3.70E-06 6.50E-08 3.80E-08 5.20E-10 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Program

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

benzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(a)pyrene benso(e)pyrene benzo(g,h,i)perylene lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu 

3.60E-08 2.60E-06 2.60E-09 9.30E-08 
Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler Emission 

Data from Fuels for Schools Pro

gram

LocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42

dibenz(a,h)anthracenelb/mmbtu

9.10E-09