### 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 organi c 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 nu mber 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 uni ts 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 Existin g 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 Sources4.1 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 Existi ng 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 tha t 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 boiler s 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 cate gories 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 devi ce 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 th e 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 differ ent combustors or levels of add

‐ on control devices, the MACT floor and GACT were determinedby 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) appr oved 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 mer cury, 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 ad d

‐ 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

stringen t 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 num ber 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 dat a from units that indicated they were permanently shut down. For units with a mix of detectionlevels 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 th e 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 addi tional 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 th e 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 typ es 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 le ast 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 bu rn 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 subcate gorize 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 comb ustor 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 perce nt 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 use d 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 conjun ction 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 re presentative

material for other boilers in the biomass subcategory.

Statistical Variability 7, 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, EP A 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 Up per Limit (UL) is roughly equivalent to the 99 th 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 th e 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 de termined 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

‐ specifie d)

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 inde pendent 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 cal culated using aUPL. 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 a ppropriate 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 distri bution 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 indica tes 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 statis tic (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 (les s) 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, th e 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 SE K, 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

distribu tion 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 th e 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 distri bution 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

‐ statisti c = 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 se tting 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 distri bution: 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 deter mined 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 pp m, 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 pp m. 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 doe s 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. Th e 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 th e 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

subcate gory for existing sources was used as the basis for the floor for new sources. Although the minimumaverage 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. Si milar 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, th e 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 en sure 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 performi ng 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, w hich 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 we re

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 indi cate 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 li mits 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 19 96 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 facili ties

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 th e 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 consider ed 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 an d 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 ofPennsylvania, 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 na me 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 ty pically 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 we re 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 deter mining 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 facili ty 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 com mercial 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 far ms.



### 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 largerparticles 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 perce nt. 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, whil e 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 fue l 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 me tallic 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 multi clones 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 det ermined 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 propos ed 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 sta ndard.

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 limi ts for the three subcategories, wecompared 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 boiler s.

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 li mit 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 ge nerally

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 s ubcategories 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. 19 77. 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 TypeTable 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 TypeTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 YESTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOTable 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 NOAppendix 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 1Appendix 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 4Appendix 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 15MACT Floor by Fuel Typ e 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 Typ e 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 Typ e 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 Typ e 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 Typ e 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 Typ e 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 Typ e 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 Typ e 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 BiomassFACILITY IDFACILITY NAMEDEVICE SCC_5digit Unit TypeSectorFuelFuel CategoryRated Heat InputCapacity(mmBtu/hr) ControlCategory Area Source Boilers (less than 10 mmBtu/hr Heat Input) Area Source Boilers (greater than 10 mmBtu/hr Heat Input)SIC Code632105430 SCHROEDERS FLOWERS,INC. B01 103009External CombustionBoilersCommercial/Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 8 X241472770 FRANTZ COMPANY, INC. B1 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 6.6 X 2421632105430 PARK FALLS HIGH SCHOOL B01 103009External CombustionBoilersCommercial/Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 8.4 multiclone X802036950 BAYSIDE TIMBER CORPORATION B21 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 12 X 2421125012360 WALNUT HOLLOW FARM B04 103009External CombustionBoilersCommercial/Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 11.3 multiclone X603010870 BARRON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL B20 103009External CombustionBoilersCommercial/Institutional Wood/Bark Waste solidB 16.1 multiclone X764123360 PUKALL LUMBER CO., INC. B01 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 10 multiclone X 2421858009460 JOHNSON TIMBER CORPORATION B20 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 12 multiclone X 2421610046690NORTHWEST HARDWOODSDorchester B21 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 15.7 multiclone X 2421627024970 FOREMOST FARMS USA B24 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 18 multiclone X 2022764048780 NAGEL LUMBER CO INC B20 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 52 multiclone X 2421851034800 BIEWER WISCONSIN SAWMILL B20 102009External CombustionBoilers Industrial Wood/Bark Waste solidB 55.6 multiclone X 2421Appendix D-1: Permitted Biomass Boilers in PA and WI with Mechanical Control DevicesAppendix D-1: Permitted Biomass Boilers in PA and WI with Mechanical Control DevicesPennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: List of Area Source Boilers firing BiomassPrimaryFacility Name County Name Fuel Category Source IdSource name Rated Input mmBTU/HrControlCategory Area Source Boilers (less than 10 mmBtu/hr Heat Input) Area Source Boilers (greater than 10 mmBtu/hr Heat Input) Major Source by SICSICSectorDEER PARKLUMBER/DEERPARK MFG PLT Wyoming solidB 31 WOODFIRED BOILER 8.7 cycloneX2421 IndustrialALLEGHENYWOODPRODUCTS Clarion solidB 31 WOOD FIRED BOILER 25 multicloneX2421 IndustrialPADPW/WARRENSTATE HOSP Warren solidB 31 BOILER: WOOD-FIRED 30 multicloneXInstitutionalWEABERINC/SOUTHANNVILLE TWP Lebanon solidB 31 BOILER 46 multicloneX2421 IndustrialPercent 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 CoalPrimary Facility NameCountyName Fuel Category Source IdSourcenameRated InputmmBTU/HrControlCategoryArea SourceBoilers (lessthan 10mmBtu/hrHeat Input)Area SourceBoilers(greaterthan 10mmBtu/hrHeat Input) Major Source by SICSectorPA DEPT OF MILITARY /FTINDIANTOWN GAP Lebanon solidC 032A84 RESANTHRACITE BOILERS 9.6 XCONEMAUGH VALLEYMEM/JOHNSTOWN Cambria solidC 031CNB TRIFUELBOILER 1 14.9BRESLOVESEPARATOR XInstitutionalCONEMAUGH VALLEYMEM/JOHNSTOWN Cambria solidC 032CNB TRIFUELBOILER 2 14.9BRESLOVESEPARATOR XInstitutionalGROVE CITY COLL/GROVECITY solidC 032TRI-FUELBOILER233B 20.9X InstitutionalGROVE CITY COLL/GROVECITY solidC 031TRI-FUELBOILER234B 20.9X InstitutionalPA DEPT OFCORR/GRATERFORD SCI Montgomery solidC 041ANTHRACITE BOILER 1 21.2X InstitutionalPA DEPT OFCORR/GRATERFORD SCI Montgomery solidC 042ANTHRACITE BOILER 2 21.2X InstitutionalPA DPW/ALLENTOWNSTATE HOSP Lehigh solidC 031KEELERBOILER 13.4 collectorX InstitutionalPA DPW/ALLENTOWNSTATE HOSP Lehigh solidC 034KEELERBOILER 13.4 collectorX InstitutionalPA DPW/ALLENTOWNSTATE HOSP Lehigh solidC 032KEELERBOILER 13.4 collectorX InstitutionalPA DPW/CLARKS SUMMITSTATE HOSP Lackawanna solidC 031 BOILER 1 24.6X InstitutionalPA DPW/CLARKS SUMMITSTATE HOSP Lackawanna solidC 032 BOILER 2 24.6X InstitutionalST VINCENTCOLL/LATROBE CAMPUSWestmoreland solidC 031TRI-FUELBOILER #1 -DOES NOTBURN OIL. 16.7BRESLOVESEPARATORX InstitutionalST VINCENTCOLL/LATROBE CAMPUSWestmoreland solidC 032TRI-FUELBOILER #2 -DOES NOTBURN OIL 16.7BRESLOVESEPARATORX InstitutionalSUSQUEHANNAUNIV/SELINSGROVECAMPUS Snyder solidC 031E KEELERBOILER 1 20X InstitutionalSUSQUEHANNAUNIV/SELINSGROVECAMPUS Snyder solidC 032E KEELERBOILER 2 20X InstitutionalAppendix D-2: Permitted Area Source Coal Boilers in PA with Mechanical Control DevicesTable 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 boilersFacility ID Unit ID Fuel Category Control Device

A RAnthonyTimberlandBearde

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

A RAnthonyTimberlandBearde

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

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

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

A RAnthonyTimberlandBeirne Boiler #1 (SN-13A) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e
A RAnthonyTimberlandBeirne Boiler #2 (SN-13B) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e
A RAnthonyTimberlandBeirne Boiler #3 (SN-13C) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e

ARAnthonyTimberlandMalvern Wood-Fired Boiler #1 (SN-18) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ARAnthonyTimberlandMalvern Wood-Fired Boiler #2 (SN-19) Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

A RArmstrongWarren SN-13 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e
A RTravisLumberMansfield Boiler No. 1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e
A RTravisLumberMansfield Boiler No. 2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e IABertchCabine t Boiler- BAT Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e IABertchCabine t Boiler- FM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e IABertchCabine t Boiler- PL Y Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e IABertchCabine t Boiler- PM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e IABertchCabine t Boiler- RM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e IABertchCabine t Boiler- TIM Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e INKoetterWoodworking EU-01C Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e KYArmstrong 01 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e KYArmstrong 02 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e MNMarvin Boiler 3, EU 012 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e MNPolyFoam EU003 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e NCArmstrongStatesville ES-B-2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon eNCThomasvilleFurnitureC-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 Multiclon e

ORBlueMountainLumber Wellons Wood Fired

Boiler Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORColumbiaForestKlamathFal

ls BLR-S Biomass Cyclone or Multiclone

ORInterforPacificGilchrist B-1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e ORInterforPacificGilchrist B-2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e ORMalheurLumber Boiler 1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e ORMalheurLumber Boiler 2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e 

## Appendix D-4: Control Device Configurations Reported for Area Source Boilers in the 2008 Combustion SurveyFacility 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 Multiclon e TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #4 - idle Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #5 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #6 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TNLaZBoyTN 72-0049-01 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TNLaZBoyTN 72-0049-02 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TXClemsa BLR1 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TXClemsa BLR2 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TXClemsa HURSTBLR Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e TXSniderIndustriesMarshall BLR-13 Biomass Cyclone or Multiclon e

KYCoxInterior WB1 Biomass Cyclone or

Multiclone/Electrified Filter Bed (EFB)

KYCoxInterior WB2 Biomass Cyclone or

Multiclone/Electrified Filter Bed (EFB)

A RArmstrongWarren SN-41 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r IDPotlatchForestProductsCorp

PostFalls Sanderdust Fired Boiler Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator
IDStimsonLumberCoPriestRiv er HFB-1 (EPI) Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator

MEBoralexAshland Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MEBoralexFortFairfield Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r

MEBoralexShermanStacyville Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator
MEGreenvilleSteamCo 1 A Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MEWorcesterEnergy Boiler 3 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MICadillacRenewableEnerg y Main Boile r Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MIGraylingGeneratingStation Boiler1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MIVikingEnergyMcBain 19313 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MIVikingEnergyofLincoln Boiler1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MNMarvin Boiler 5, EU 014 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r MNMarvin Boiler 6, EU 015 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r NYBoralexChateauga y Boiler #1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r ORBiomassOneWhiteCity NBLR1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r ORBiomassOneWhiteCity SBLR1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r ORDouglasCount y HOG FUEL BOILER Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r ORStimsonLumberTillamook Boiler 1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r ORStimsonLumberTillamook Boiler 2 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r TNArmstrongHardwood Boiler #7 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato rFacility 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 Precipitato r TNJackDaniels Boiler #7 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r WABoiseKettleFallsLumber B1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r

WAInterforPacificPortAngeles BLR-3012 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitator WAPortAngelesHardwood 1 Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r WAStimsonLumber Hog Fuel Boile r Biomass Electrostatic Precipitato r
A RIdahoTimber 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-01 A 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

ORCollinsPineCoLakevie w Boiler 1 Biomass No HAP APCD Control

ORCollinsPineCoLakevie w 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 A CD 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 Scrubbe r IDBAFRexburg Kipper Boile r Biomass Wet Scrubber

ORPacificWoodLaminatesBro okings Riley Hogged Fuel Boiler (PH2) Biomass Wet Scrubber

INCrawfordsvilleElectri c Boiler #5 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon eFacility 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 Multiclon e INMuscatatuckUTC Boiler 2 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e MITRWSaginaw EUBOILER3 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e MNWillmarMunicipal EU 003 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon eNCThomasvilleFurnitureC-MW-SB ESBL2 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

NCThomasvilleFurnitureLenoir ESBL2 Coal Cyclone or Multiclone

PARieterAuto 034 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e PARieterAuto 035 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e VAMohawkLees B7 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e WIHillsFarmMadison 600332 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e WIHillsFarmMadison 600336 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e WIUWRiverFalls B0001853 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e WIUWRiverFalls B0001854 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e WIUWSuperior B1826 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e WIUWSuperior B1827 Coal Cyclone or Multiclon e

ILSouthernIllinoisPowerCoop Marion Unit 04 Coal Dry ScrubberElectrostatic Precipitator IAMidAmericanEnergyRiversid

e393 Boilers 7 & 8 Coal Electrostatic Precipitator
INCrawfordsvilleElectri c Boiler #6 Coal Electrostatic Precipitato r INLawrenceburgDistillers EU-96, # 6 Boile r Coal Electrostatic Precipitato r 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 Boile r Coal Electrostatic Precipitato r NYAESGreenidgeDresden Boiler 4 Coal Electrostatic Precipitato r NYAESGreenidgeDresden Boiler 5 Coal Electrostatic Precipitato rFacility 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 Precipitato r WIBlountGeneratingStation Boiler 8 Coal Electrostatic Precipitato r WIBlountGeneratingStation Boiler 9 Coal Electrostatic Precipitato r
A KClearAirForceStation EU ID 1 Coal Fabric Filte r
A KClearAirForceStation EU ID 2 Coal Fabric Filte r
A KClearAirForceStation EU ID 3 Coal Fabric Filte r CACAPortlandCementColton Cogen Coal Fabric Filte r COWNClarkStation Unit 1 Coal Fabric Filte r COWNClarkStation Unit 2 Coal Fabric Filte r GAMohawk BL06 Coal Fabric Filte r GAMohawk BL07 Coal Fabric Filte r ILWesternILUniv Boiler #2 Coal Fabric Filte r ILWesternILUniv Boiler #3 Coal Fabric Filte r INFritoLa y CP-10 A Coal Fabric Filte r MASaintGobain EU-523-01 Coal Fabric Filte r MNOrderofStBenedict EU004 Boiler 4 Coal Fabric Filte r NELonDWrightStation 6B Coal Fabric Filte r NELonDWrightStation 7B Coal Fabric Filte r OHCollegeofWooster B003 Coal Fabric Filte r OHDenisonUniversit y B&W Boiler (B001) Coal Fabric Filte r OHKyklosBearing B001 Coal Fabric Filte r OHKyklosBearing B002 Coal Fabric Filte r TNTennesseeTech B-01 Coal Fabric Filte r TNTennesseeTech B-05 Coal Fabric Filte r VAUofRichmond #1 Coal Fabric Filte r VAUofRichmond #2 Coal Fabric Filte r VAUofRichmond #3 Coal Fabric Filte r VAUofRichmond #4 Coal Fabric Filte r WIWinnebagoMHI 600426 Coal Fabric Filte r WIWinnebagoMHI 625719 Coal Fabric Filte r WIWinnebagoMHI 625720 Coal Fabric Filte r

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 KYConstellationSpiritsBardst o

wn Boiler 2 Coal Fabric FilterDry Sorbent Injection

KYUnionUnderwea r 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 ControlFacility 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 Boile r Coal Venturi Scrubbe r OHWausauPaperTowel No. 2 Boile r Coal Venturi Scrubbe r OHWausauPaperTowel No. 3 Boile r Coal Venturi Scrubbe r OHWausauPaperTowel No. 4 Boile r Coal Venturi Scrubbe r WIProctorGamble BoHo #6 Coal Venturi Scrubbe r 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 Multiclon e MAMultiLayerCoating NB2-1 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclon e MAMultiLayerCoating NB2-2 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclon e WIUWRiverFalls B0001911 Liquid Cyclone or Multiclon e GAMohawk BL03 Liquid Fabric Filte r GAMohawk BL04 Liquid Fabric Filte r GAMohawk BL05 Liquid Fabric Filte r
A KAlaskanBrewingCo Cleaver-Brooks Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KAlaskanBrewingCo McKenna Boile r 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 ControlFacility 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 ControlFacility 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 ControlFacility 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

A KClearAirForceStation EU ID 23 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KClearAirForceStation EU ID 24 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KClearAirForceStation 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

A KHeclaGreensCreekJuneau Volcano Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KHeclaGreensCreekJuneau WB-01 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KHeclaGreensCreekJuneau WB-02 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KHeclaGreensCreekJuneau WB-03 Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KMarathonKenai11 Rig Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KPeakOilfield CB 5000 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KPeakOilfield CB 5000 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KPeakOilfield Model 200 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KPeakOilfield Model 400 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 10 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 11 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 12 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 13 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 15 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 23 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 24 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 4 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A KUnisea37 EU ID 9 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A LBFGoodrich T108 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A LBFGoodrich T16493 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

A LBFGoodrich 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 ControlFacility 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 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control ILACHFoodChampaign #4 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control ILACHFoodChampaign #5 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

ILExelonGeneration 1AS01B Unit 1 Aux

Boiler Liquid No HAP APCD ControlFacility 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 INDukeEnergyNoblesville79 9 Heating Boile r 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 1 A Liquid No HAP APCD Control

INMuscatatuckUTC Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

KYUnionUnderwea r 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control MDViennaPowerOperations V-20 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #1 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #2 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #3 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #4 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIGMPTWarren #5 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control

MIWesternMichiganUniversity EUBOILER9 Liquid No HAP APCD ControlFacility 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 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control MSCooperTire1340 Springfield Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control NCAllensCanning1414 ES-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NCAllensCanning1414 ES-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NCBridgestoneWilson No. 1 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control NCBridgestoneWilson No. 2 Boile r 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 - Ne w 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 NHPhillipsExete r Boiler #3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NHPhillipsExete r Boiler #5 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NHPhillipsExete r Boiler #6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NJBristol-MyersSquibb161 5 PAB-1 and PAB-2 Liquid No HAP APCD ControlFacility 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 Boile r 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 Boile r 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 A ux Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control NJMontclair2968 Temporary Boile r 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 Superio r 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

NYAMRIRennselae r 07E01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBarkerBros Steam Boiler 1666 - Oil Liquid No HAP APCD Control

NYBASFPeerskill B24 Boile r 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 ControlFacility 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 NYBronxPsychiatri c 00S01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYBronxPsychiatri c 00S02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYBronxPsychiatri c 00S03 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYBuffaloStateCollege 0001 A 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 Boile r Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYKerryBioScienc e Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYKerryBioScienc e Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYKerryBioScienc e Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYKinderMorganLiquid s L-76656 Liquid No HAP APCD Control NYKinderMorganLiquid s 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&GMiamiValle y B001 - boiler #1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

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

OHP&GMiamiValle y B004 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHP&GMiamiValle y B005 Liquid No HAP APCD Control OHPerstorpPolyols B001 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

OHTitanTire B003 Liquid No HAP APCD ControlFacility 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 ORVigo r 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

PABucknellUniversit y 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

PADartContaine r Boiler #1: ID: L78071 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PADartContaine r 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 PAHaleyPain t 031Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PAKovatch Ford Service Liquid No HAP APCD Control PAKovatch Plant 1, 031 Liquid No HAP APCD ControlFacility 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, standb y 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
PAPQCheste r 2 Furnace Liquid No HAP APCD Control
PAPQCheste r 4 Furnace Liquid No HAP APCD Control
PAPQCheste r Cleaver Brooks Boile r 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

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 10 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 3 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 6 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 7 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 8 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

PASanofiPastuerSwiftwate r Boiler 9 Liquid No HAP APCD ControlFacility 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

PASealedAirModen a 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 PAValleyProtein s B-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control PAValleyProtein s B-2 Liquid No HAP APCD Control SCCopeStationSC A B-1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCRBard B01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCCRBard B02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control SCCryova c BL04 Liquid No HAP APCD Control SCCryova c 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

SCMillikenCedarHillPlan t BL01 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCMillikenCedarHillPlan t BL02 Liquid No HAP APCD Control SCTeknorApexCarolinaCoFou

ntainInn Boiler 1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCWatereeStation A XB1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCWilliamsStation A XB1 Liquid No HAP APCD Control

SCWilliamsStation A XB2 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 ControlFacility 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 ScrubberFacilityID 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 SurveyFacilityID 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 noFacilityID 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 yesFacilityID 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 noAppendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationcommentstest date load vol. flow moisture f-factor total pm method time PM filterableBismarck, MTlow fire3/12/2008 0.9 378 4.969242 0.23 5/202 48Bismarck, MTlow fire3/12/2008 1 356 8.989242 0.198 5/202 48Bismarck, MTlow fire3/12/2008 1.13 366 8.199242 0.182 5/202 48Bismarck, MThigh fire3/12/2008 1.5 454 7.849242 0.169 5/202 48Bismarck, MThigh fire3/12/2008 1.38 468 7.469242 0.098 5/202 48BHSmill end chips2/22/08 5.5 1611 14.89616 0.197 5 60BHSmill end chips2/22/08 7.6 1821 16.69616 0.189 5 60BHSmill end chips2/22/08 6.5 1743 16.49616 0.174 5 60Townsend, MThigh fire2/21/2008 0.56 431 3.569739 0.255 5/202 48BHSbole tree chips2/21/08 4.5 1380 18.79674 0.24 5 75BHSbole tree chips2/21/08 3.9 1505 12.89674 0.221 5 65Townsend, MThigh fire2/21/2008 0.64 446 3.159739 0.186 5/202 48Townsend, MThigh fire2/21/2008 0.64 443 3.169739 0.179 5/202 48Townsend, MTlow fire2/20/2008 0.39 453 2.239739 0.576 5/202 48Townsend, MTlow fire2/20/2008 0.4 464 1.959739 0.341 5/202 48Townsend, MTlow fire2/20/2008 0.4 462 2.089739 0.289 5/202 48Darby, MThigh fire2/14/2008 2.78 996 13.869399 0.174 5/202 48Darby, MThigh fire2/14/2008 2.57 914 22.339399 0.173 5/202 48Darby, MThigh fire2/14/2008 2.04 880 21.419399 0.17 5/202 48Darby, MTlow fire2/13/2008 1.76 550 10.539399 0.215 5/202 48Victor, MThigh fire2/13/2008 2.28 776 12.279399 0.212 5/202 48Darby, MTlow fire2/13/2008 1.77 515 10.589399 0.208 5/202 48Victor, MThigh fire2/13/2008 2.69 746 11.579399 0.173 5/202 48Victor, MTlow fire2/12/2008 1.04 503 12.599399 0.161 5/202 48Victor, MTlow fire2/12/2008 0.99 507 12.619399 0.118 5/202 48Dillon, MThigh fire12/8/07 8.45 3062 11.54 10399Dillon, MThigh fire12/7/07 8.54 3101 11.78 10399Dillon, MThigh fire12/6/07 5.41 1997 12.18 10399Dillon, MTlow fire10/26/07 2.07 1433 8.42 10399Dillon, MTlow fire10/25/07 2.14 1492 9.34 10399Dillon, MTlow fire10/24/07 6 2219 8.4 10399NCHsystem optimized8/23/07 8.3 1950 15.28900 0.335 5/202 64 0.13NCHsystem optimized8/23/07 8.9 2100 158900 0.319 5/202 64 0.16NCHsystem optimized8/23/07 9.2 2135 15.68900 0.27 5/202 64 0.16Council, IDhigh fire - PM3/29/2007 2.46 6969401Council, IDnormal fire - PAH3/29/2007 2.669086Council, IDnormal fire - PAH3/29/2007 1.779048Council, IDnormal fire - PAH3/29/2007 2.018887Council, IDnormal fire - formaldehyde 3/29/2007 2.299086Council, IDnormal fire - formaldehyde 3/29/2007 2.1659086Council, IDnormal fire - formaldehyde 3/29/2007 2.219086Council, IDnormal fire - metals3/29/2007 2.979086Council, IDnormal fire - metals3/29/2007 1.969048Council, IDnormal fire - metals3/29/2007 2.048887Council, IDnormal fire - boiler upset 3/28/2007 2.32 4898991 1.148 5/202 60 1.061Council, IDhigh fire - PM3/28/2007 2.70 6279215 0.711 5/202 60 0.67Council, IDnormal fire - PM3/28/2007 1.96 5888991 0.324 5/202 60 0.298Council, IDhigh fire - PM3/28/2007 2.70 6419215 0.321 5/202 60 0.294Council, IDhigh fire - PM3/28/2007 2.70 5169215 0.293 5/202 60 0.262Council, IDnormal fire - PM3/28/2007 2.53 5848991 0.239 5/202 60 0.219Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDmethod time pm 2.5 method time PM condensablesmethod time Nox method time CO method0.19 CTM040 48 0.316 7E 48 0.518 100.165 CTM040 48 0.285 7E 48 0.318 100.15 CTM040 48 0.273 7E 48 0.226 100.169 CTM040 48 0.287 7E 48 0.132 100.098 CTM040 48 0.29 7E 48 0.26 100.011 202 60 0.0028 100.007 202 60 0.0011 100.008 202 60 0.0025 100.093 CTM040 48 0.15 7E 48 1.26 100.011 202 75 0.002 100.012 202 65 0.13 100.098 CTM040 48 0.16 7E 48 0.93 100.078 CTM040 48 0.15 7E 48 0.98 100.241 CTM040 48 0.18 7E 48 2.77 100.148 CTM040 48 0.15 7E 48 2.8 100.14 CTM040 48 0.14 7E 48 2.68 100.086 CTM040 48 0.138 7E 48 0.276 100.095 CTM040 48 0.138 7E 48 0.285 100.091 CTM040 48 0.172 7E 48 0.367 100.117 CTM040 48 0.117 7E 48 0.218 100.105 CTM040 48 0.137 7E 48 0.15 100.142 CTM040 48 0.11 7E 48 0.224 100.094 CTM040 48 0.121 7E 48 0.254 100.119 CTM040 48 0.154 7E 48 0.401 100.075 CTM040 48 0.151 7E 48 0.49 100.161 CTM040 100 202 100 0.173 7E 100 0.269 100.185 CTM040 100 202 100 0.22 7E 100 0.274 100.172 CTM040 90 202 90 0.118 7E 90 0.279 100.182 CTM040 73 0.025 202 73 0.31 7E 73 0.14 100.179 CTM040 61 0.016 202 61 0.2 7E 61 0.079 10- CTM040 60 - 202 60 0.11 7E 60 0.038 105 64 0.20 202 6416.8 ppm105 64 0.16 202 6436 ppm105 64 0.11 202 6432.9 ppm100.14 CTM040/202 605 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 60Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDtime CO2 method time O2 method time SO2 method time formaldehyd method time benzene48 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 48100 8.3 3A 100 10.8 3A 100100 8.3 3A 100 10.8 3A 10090 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 640.0008 323 600.0013 323 600.0009 323 60Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDmethod time Acrolein method timeAcetaldehydemethod time dioxin/furan method time hex chromeAppendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDmethod time metals methotime silver barium beryllium cadmium Cr total copper manganese1.76E-05 1.54E-055.75E-06 5.40E-062.55E-07 2.55E-07Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDzinc arsenic nickel lead selenium PAH method time Total PAH napthalene6.86E-061.15E-059.55E-06bdl 1.60E-05bdl 6.12E-067.96E-06 5.31E-07Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, ID2-methylnapthaleneAcenaphthen2-chloronapthalene Acenaphthylene fluorene phenanthrene anthracene2.97E-06 4.40E-065.60E-06 7.32E-06Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDfluoranthene pyrene benzo(a)anthracene chrysene perylenebenzo(b)fluoranthene3.37E-061.58E-05Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDbenzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(a)pyrene benso(e)pyrene benzo(g,h,i)perylene Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyreneAppendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationBismarck, 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, IDdibenz(a,h)anthraceneAppendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationcommentstest date load vol. flow moisture f-factor total pm method time PM filterableCouncil, IDnormal fire - Nox/CO3/28/2007 1.968991Council, IDnormal fire - Nox/CO3/28/2007 2.668991Council, IDnormal fire - Nox/CO3/28/2007 1.728991Council, IDhigh fire - all but PM3/27/2007 2.468951Council, IDhigh fire - all but PM3/27/2007 2.469401Council, IDhigh fire - all but PM3/27/2007 2.469417NCH2/1/07 11.4 2443 18.291900.089NCHprocess upset2/1/07 8.6 2810 15.691900.160NCH2/1/07 5.7 2053 1891900.087CVUsystem optimized12/21/05 5.71 1642 15.39843 0.289 5 64 0.28CVUsystem optimized12/21/05 5.46 1329 16.79843 0.258 5 64 0.26CVUsystem optimized12/21/05 6.69 1414 199843 0.25 5 64 0.24CVUoptimized for firing rates 12/20/05 6.44 1502 18.59843 0.358 5 64 0.35CVUsystem optimized12/20/05 6.97 1487 21.19843 0.319 5 64 0.31CVUsystem optimized12/20/05 7.36 1478 20.59843 0.319 5 64 0.31Thompson Falls4/29/04 high fire 3550.142Thompson Falls4/29/04 high fire 3550.153Thompson Falls4/29/04 high fire 3610.132DarbyApr-04 75% 964 10.70.2493DarbyApr-04 75% 920 11.30.20666DarbyApr-04 75% 787 110.168MWCC1/22/03 10.1 3328 13.410.161MWCC1/22/03 10.3 3419 10.560.174MWCC1/22/03 12.4 3719 15.540.147MWCC1/22/03 9.4 3120 14.390.172VT Tubbsdry wood fuel1/15/98 5.45 16720.2 5VT Tubbsdry wood fuel1/15/98 5.5 15200.18 5VT Tubbsdry wood fuel1/15/98 5.11 12050.17 5Brattleboro, VTCoreSeparator inlet1/7/1997 6.4 1601 18.880.112Brattleboro, VTCoreSeparator outlet1/7/1997 6.4 1658 19.330.059Brattleboro, VTCoreSeparator inlet1/6/1997 6.2 1594 20.250.25Brattleboro, VTCoreSeparator outlet1/6/1997 6.2 1664 19.710.072Brattleboro, VTCoreSeparator inlet1/2/1997 6.2 1445 21.530.155Brattleboro, VTCoreSeparator outlet1/2/1997 6.2 1350 21.120.078Hazen Unionformaldehyde/benzene3/25/95 1.02 324 13.259416Hazen UnionCr +63/24/95 1.04 318 13.029416Hazen Unionformaldehyde/benzene3/24/95 0.99 303 13.269416Hazen Unionformaldehyde/benzene3/24/95 1.19 338 13.389416Hazen UnionPM/metals3/23/95 0.85 303 11.8294160.09605Hazen UnionCr +63/23/95 0.9 289 12.559416Hazen UnionCr +63/23/95 1.09 321 13.519416Hazen UnionPAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/22/95 0.87 309 13.849416Hazen UnionPM/metals3/22/95 0.89 296 11.9594160.1062Hazen UnionPM/metals3/22/95 0.97 315 12.8794160.09106Hazen UnionPAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/21/95 1.38 360 14.269416Hazen UnionPAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/21/95 0.78 318 13.029416Green AcresPAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/11/95 1.36 621 7.779891Green AcresPAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/10/95 1.48 619 7.299891Green AcresPAH/dioxin/furan/NOx/CO 3/10/95 1.87 640 8.359891Green Acresformaldehyde/benzene3/9/95 1.23 610 7.639891Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acresmethod time pm 2.5 method time PM condensablesmethod time Nox method time CO method0.170.020.17 0.050.34 0.070.38 7E 60 0.04 100.43 7E 60 0.05 100.42 7E 60 0.05 105 605 1555 605 64303105 64118105 641019105 6420.5105 6414.1105 6497.5105 600.1997E 600.037105 600.1947E 600.031105 600.1987E 600.028105 600.179 7E 60134.65105 600.167 7E 60134.45105 600.141 7E 60117.071050.184 0.108 1050.186 0.066 1050.174 0.147 1050.178 0.089 100.65 100.48 100.41 105 1355 1355 1375 1375 1805 1805 1800.213 7E 254 0.435 105 1805 1800.21 7E 215 1.425 100.21 7E 277 0.847 100.139 7E 223 2.267 100.156 7E 181 1.989 100.142 7E 239 2.114 10Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acrestime CO2 method time O2 method time SO2 method time formaldehyd method time benzene9.211.210.99.511.78.460 13.3 3A60 6.7 3A600.0012 323 6060 13.3 3A60 6.7 3A600.0008 323 6060 13.1 3A60 6.8 3A600.0009 323 6014.0%6.0%1.80E-08 430 609.0%11.0%2.40E-08 430 1507.7%12.0%3.60E-08 430 6064 11.6% 3 64 9.0% 3A6464 13.7% 3 64 6.9% 3A6464 16.2% 3 64 4.7% 3A6464 14.4% 3 64 6.3% 3A6464 15.8% 3 64 4.9% 3A6464 16.9% 3 64 3.8% 3A6460 11.90% 3 60 8.40% 3A6060 11.90% 3 60 8.50% 3A6060 11.90% 3 60 8.40% 3A606060609.511.29.311.210.310.19.311.211.88 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 1809.8% 3 120 10.8% 3A120430 120 2.12E-0610.3% 3 120 10.4% 3A12010.2% 3 120 10.4% 3A120430 120 1.69E-0410.8% 3 120 9.6% 3A120430 120 2.12E-068.6% 3 180 12.0% 3A1809.4% 3 120 11.0% 3A12010.4% 3 120 10.0% 3A120254 8.6% 3 240 8.6% 3A2409.0% 3 180 11.4% 3A1809.5% 3 180 11.1% 3A180215 11.9% 3 240 8.3% 3A240277 7.0% 3 240 8.0% 3A240223 7.3% 3 240 13.1% 3A240181 8.0% 3 240 13.1% 3A240239 9.1% 3 240 11.8% 3A2406.5% 3 120 14.0% 3A1203.57E-03 430 120 1.29E-04Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acresmethod time Acrolein method timeAcetaldehydemethod time dioxin/furan method time hex chrome2.44E-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 6018 1208.83E-0718 12018 1208.03E-078.25E-076.48E-12 23 2401.13E-11 23 2401.18E-11 23 2404.15E-12 23 2402.16E-11 23 2408.1E-12 23 24018 120Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acresmethod time metals methotime silver barium beryllium cadmium Cr total copper manganese2.80E-05 3.87E-057.76E-05 8.05E-051.27E-07 1.27E-07425 12029 180 1.62E-06 3.62E-05 2.68E-07 4.03E-06 6.97E-06 4.40E-05 8.64E-05425 120425 12029 180 1.54E-06 4.02E-05 1.35E-07 3.75E-06 8.64E-06 5.28E-05 9.21E-0529 180 1.38E-06 3.55E-05 1.07E-07 4.00E-06 3.91E-06 4.99E-05 8.86E-05Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acreszinc arsenic nickel lead selenium PAH method time Total PAH napthalene9.10E-06 2.69E-0500101207.85E-066.21E-06 8.23E-0500111202.23E-063.95E-06 2.64E-0700121201.32E-068.79E-04 4.95E-07 3.04E-06 2.27E-05 6.46E-07429 240 4.55E-04 1.05E-041.07E-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-07429 240 2.90E-04 3.05E-05429 240 1.88E-03 8.82E-05429 240 2.43E-04 1.27E-04429 240 2.23E-04 1.36E-04429 240 2.51E-04 1.15E-04Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acres2-methylnapthaleneAcenaphthen2-chloronapthalene Acenaphthylene fluorene phenanthrene anthracene7.29E-062.88E-06 2.06E-07 1.25E-08 3.10E-05 1.24E-06 1.31E-04 3.62E-069.54E-06 2.43E-07 2.35E-08 2.47E-05 1.11E-06 1.15E-04 1.53E-062.72E-05 9.46E-07 4.12E-08 5.55E-04 6.35E-06 5.47E-04 3.76E-051.52E-05 1.01E-06 5.91E-09 3.17E-05 8.51E-07 2.94E-05 2.78E-061.23E-05 7.85E-07 5.71E-09 2.61E-05 6.24E-07 2.10E-05 1.31E-061.21E-05 4.68E-07 3.93E-09 4.20E-05 3.93E-07 2.97E-05 3.23E-06Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acresfluoranthene pyrene benzo(a)anthracene chrysene perylenebenzo(b)fluoranthene7.85E-066.70E-05 5.76E-05 4.48E-06 1.49E-05 4.89E-07 1.31E-054.61E-05 3.85E-05 1.73E-06 8.62E-06 1.28E-07 4.96E-061.72E-04 1.47E-04 4.26E-05 4.92E-05 7.81E-06 5.72E-051.03E-05 8.90E-06 1.09E-06 3.18E-06 1.77E-07 3.70E-068.04E-06 7.06E-06 7.43E-07 2.53E-06 6.94E-08 2.59E-061.41E-05 1.22E-05 2.77E-06 3.74E-06 3.79E-07 4.68E-06Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acresbenzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(a)pyrene benso(e)pyrene benzo(g,h,i)perylene Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene1.51E-062.57E-06 3.74E-06 8.95E-06 3.79E-06 2.96E-061.04E-06 8.54E-07 3.38E-06 9.69E-07 7.70E-078.84E-06 3.57E-05 3.48E-05 3.85E-05 4.57E-068.79E-07 7.27E-07 2.45E-06 2.29E-06 1.57E-065.89E-07 4.63E-07 1.53E-06 8.48E-07 6.38E-078.69E-07 1.78E-06 3.16E-06 2.65E-06 1.62E-06Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationCouncil, 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 Acresdibenz(a,h)anthracene2.65E-076.18E-082.06E-051.55E-076.94E-081.74E-07Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationcommentstest date load vol. flow moisture f-factor total pm method time PM filterableGreen Acresformaldehyde/benzene3/9/95 1.23 611 7.539891Green Acresformaldehyde/benzene3/9/95 1.23 611 7.559891Green AcresCr +63/8/95 0.49 485 8.049891Green AcresCr +63/8/95 0.59 538 7.39891Green AcresCr +63/8/95 0.49 539 8.249891Green AcresPM/metals3/7/95 1.18 702 6.498910.1444Green AcresPM/metals3/7/95 1.44 644 8.1498910.1005Green AcresPM/metals3/6/95 1.09 657 7.6598910.1151mmbtu/hrdscfm % dscf/mmbtu lb/mmbtumin lb/mmbtuAP-4292400.33AP-4292400.56AP-4292400.4AP-4292400.22AP-4292400.35AP-4292400.3Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42method time pm 2.5 method time PM condensablesmethod time Nox method time CO method5 1805 1805 180min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu0.25 0.017 0.22 0.60.43 0.220.31 0.490.12 0.220.19 0.220.16 0.49Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42time CO2 method time O2 method time SO2 method time formaldehyd method time benzene6.5% 3 120 14.0% 3A1204.16E-04 430 120 3.04E-066.5% 3 120 14.0% 3A1201.59E-04 430 120 3.04E-062.9% 3 85 17.5% 3A853.0% 3 125 17.2% 3A1252.8% 3 134 17.8% 3A1345.4% 3 180 15.1% 3A1807.2% 3 180 13.2% 3A1805.6% 3 180 15.2% 3A180min %min %min lb/mmbtumin lb/mmbtumin lb/mmbtu0.0254.40E-034.20E-030.0250.0250.0250.0250.025Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42method time Acrolein method timeAcetaldehydemethod time dioxin/furan method time hex chrome18 12018 1201.36E-061.99E-065.82E-07min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu4.00E-03 8.30E-04 3.50E-06Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42method time metals methotime silver barium beryllium cadmium Cr total copper manganese425 85425 125425 13429 180 1.96E-06 1.12E-04 2.59E-07 1.23E-05 2.49E-05 4.83E-05 7.25E-0429 180 3.12E-06 8.40E-05 1.17E-07 1.09E-05 1.81E-05 4.96E-05 4.28E-0429 180 2.97E-06 1.25E-04 3.77E-07 3.02E-05 3.61E-05 9.36E-05 5.19E-04min min lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu1.70E-03 1.70E-04 1.10E-06 4.10E-06 2.10E-05 4.90E-05 1.60E-03Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42zinc arsenic nickel lead selenium PAH method time Total PAH napthalene7.49E-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-06lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu min lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu4.20E-04 2.20E-05 3.30E-05 4.80E-05 2.80E-06 1.25E-04 9.70E-05Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-422-methylnapthaleneAcenaphthen2-chloronapthalene Acenaphthylene fluorene phenanthrene anthracenelb/mmbtulb/mmbtu lb/mmbtulb/mmbtulb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu1.60E-07 9.10E-072.40E-095.00E-06 3.40E-06 7.00E-06 3.00E-06Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42fluoranthene pyrene benzo(a)anthracene chrysene perylenebenzo(b)fluoranthenelb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtulb/mmbtu lb/mmbtulb/mmbtu1.60E-06 3.70E-066.50E-08 3.80E-085.20E-101.00E-07Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42benzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(a)pyrene benso(e)pyrene benzo(g,h,i)perylene Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrenelb/mmbtulb/mmbtulb/mmbtu lb/mmbtulb/mmbtu3.60E-082.60E-062.60E-099.30E-088.70E-08Appendix F-1: Area Source Boiler EmissionData from Fuels for Schools ProgramLocationGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresGreen AcresAP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42AP-42dibenz(a,h)anthracenelb/mmbtu9.10E-09