MEMORANDUM

From: The Office of Air Qu ality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044)

Date: December, 2011

Subject: Control of Total PM Emissions

Introduction

Particulate matter (PM) may be clas sified by particle size and as eith er filterable or condensable PM. Filterable PM originates from ash in the fuel , incomplete combustion products, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) reaction products. Filterable PM consists of in combustible inert matter (ash), and condensable PM consists of gases that will c ondense into a liquid or solid upon reaching ambient temperature. For coal-fired bo ilers, condensable PM may contain sulfuric and nitric acids, high molecular weight organics, and other compounds. To tal suspended particulate (TSP) encompasses all

sizes of filterable PM. Particulate matter that is less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter is generally referred to as PM 10 . All particulate matter emitted from a controlled EGU stack is expected to

be less than 10 microns in size. Particulate matter that is less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter

is referred to as PM 2.5 . Condensable PM is included in this category because it is expected that all condensable PM is less than 2.5 microns in the atmosphere. Filterable PM 2.5 and condensable PM are

considered direct PM 2.5 emissions. In addition to direct PM 2.5 emissions, indirect PM 2.5 , or secondary

PM 2.5 , is formed when precursors such as SO 2 , NO X , VOCs, and ammonia form PM 2.5 through reactions in the atmosphere.

The present subpart Da filt erable PM emissions standard for owners /operators of new facilities is 0.14 lb/MWh gross energy output or 0.015 lb/MMBtu heat input. An owner/opera tor may also elect to comply with an emission limit of 0.030 lb/MMBtu h eat input and a 99.9% reduction in potential PM emissions. This filterable PM standard is approximately equivalent to a total PM standard (filterable + condensable) of 0.30 lb/MWh. The proposed total PM st andard for new and reconstructed facilities is

0.055 lb/MWh.

PM Control Technologies

The following is a brief summary of some of th e PM control technologies , including propriety technologies. This summary is not intended to be a comprehensive list of av ailable technologies. The performance values given here are those that have been provided by the technology provider in publically available sources. Incl usion of a technology in this summa ry is not intended to be an endorsement of that technology by the US EPA the US Government

Mechanical/Inertial Collector s (Cyclones/Multicyclones) . A cyclone is a cylindric al vessel, usually with a conical bottom. The flue gas enters the vessel ta ngentially and sets up a rotary motion whirling in a circular or conical path. The part icles are 'thrown' against the walls by the centrifugal force of the flue gas motion where they impinge and eventually settle into hoppers. The removal efficiency is between 75 and 99% for particle sizes between 1.0 and 100 μm. Cyclones are robust tec hnologies that can deal with the cyclic operation a nd load changes. However, their effici ency is moderate when compared with

an ESP or fabric filter.Wet Scrubber . The basic principle of wet scrubbers desi gned for PM control is to provide sufficient contact between the flue gas and scrubbing liquid to f acilitate removal of the PM. Venturi scrubbers are the most commonly used scrubber for particle co llection and are capable of achieving the highest particle collection efficiency of a ny wet scrubbing system. In a venturi scrubber, water is injected into the flue gas stream at the venturi throat to form fine droplets. Fly ash particles impact with the droplets forming a wet by-product which then generally require s disposal. Many of the wet particulate scrubbers are designed to control both SO 2 and particulates by utilizing the alka line fly ash as sorbent. Lime or

some other sorbent is fr equently used to boost SO 2 removal efficiencies. In general, venturi scrubbers in combination with a mechanical collector are not exp ected to reduce PM emissions to the level required by the NSPS. In addition, venturi scrubbers tend to have relatively high en ergy consumption and do not

control filterable PM 2.5 as well as a comparable ESP or fabric filter.

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) . FGD technologies designed for SO 2 control are also capable of reducing acid gases that are considered condensable particulate matter. An FGD is not a primary PM control technology; however FGD t echnology is a feasible control t echnology for reducing condensable

PM emissions.

Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) . An ESP is a PM control technol ogy that utilizes electrical charges to attract particulate matter present in the gas stre am. An ESP consists of negatively charged discharge electrodes and positively charged collection plates. The negatively charged electrodes create a corona of electrical charges transmitting a negative charge to the particulat e matter in the gas stream. The negatively charged particulate matter is then attracted to the ESP’s positively ch arged collection plate. Particulate matter accumulates on the collection plate un til the plate is mechani cally “rapped” causing the PM to fall into hoppers. The PM that collects in th e hoppers is then removed by the ash handling system. An ESP consists of a series of the electri cal fields described above in order to capture any PM that may be re-entrained in the flue gas stream during rapping. Some emissions during rapping of the

last field are unavoidable. An ESP can be located eith er upstream of the air pre- heater (hot-side ESP) or downstream of the air pre-heater (c old-side ESP). Either location se lected for the ESP operates at a temperature above the dew point of condensable particulate matter. E SPs are intentionally operated at high temperatures to prevent corrosion problems th at can result from condensable acid gases.

Particulate removal efficiencies in ESPs can be improved by flue gas conditioning. Flue gas conditioning involves injecting conditioning agents such as el emental sulphur, ammonia (NH 3 ), and sulphur trioxide (SO 3 ) into the flue gas prior to the ESP. The removal efficiency is between 99.00 and 99.99% for particle sizes between 0.01 and 100 μm.

Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) . A WESP operates in saturate d flue gas conditions, where the flue gas is below the dew point of many acid gases a nd other condensable PM. The collector plates of a WESP are washed with water. The process eliminat es the need for rapping as the liquid film removes any deposited fly ash particles. Thus, problems with re-entrainment, fly ash re sistivity, and capture of fine particles become obsolete. A WESP is a feasib le control technology for reducing fine filterable and condensable PM emissions. However, WESPs require saturation of the flue gas stream with water and generate waste water and sludge. The power required colle cting particulate matter in the WESP and the pressure loss across the WESP are the main operati ng costs of the WESP syst em. A WESP system may increase the amount of waste water that requires treatment and the WESP system auxiliary power will consume approximately 0.5% of th e gross output primarily due to additional power requirements for

collection.

Fabric Filter Baghouse (FF) . A fabric filter baghouse is a PM collect ion device that utilizes fabric filters or “bags” to collect PM. The design for a fabric filter is fairly simple. The flue gas enters an enclosure that contains compartmentalized groups of bags. The bags are operated in a manner to allow for cleaning, maintenance, and repair of one compartm ent (or group of bags) at a time. A compartmentwithin the fabric filter includes th e bags as the filter media, a tube sheet that supports the bags, a PM dislodging mechanism, and a hopper to collect the accumu lated PM. As the flue gas enters the fabric filter enclosure, PM accumulates on the bags and a “filter cake” is formed. The “filter cake” will continue to accumulate on the bags until the pressu re drop across a compartment has increased to a specified limit. Once the specified pressure drop has been attained the PM is removed by placing the compartment in cleaning mode. Several methods fo r cleaning a fabric filter compartment include reverse gas fabric filters (RGFF), reverse air with mech anical shakers, and pulse je t fabric filter (PJFF). Each of the above cleaning methods is capable of removing the PM that has accumulated on the fabric filter. Once removed, the PM is collected by the ash hoppers. In a dry FGD application, the baghouse operates at lower temperatures due to the cooling in the dry FGD. This lower operating temperature may increase the condensation and theoretically in creases control of condensable PM. A FF has a higher pressure drop and greater energy penalty than an ESP.

The specific fabric for an FF is selected based on th e operating parameters, pollutant characteristics, and mechanical operation. The EPA has an Environm ental Technology Verification (ETV) program to verify innovative pollution c ontrol technologies. The verified fabric filter products indicate the fabric

can achieve PM 2.5 emission levels as low as 0.0001 lb/MMBtu. The list of fabric f ilter products include felted bags and high efficiency microfiber felts, in trinsically coated (IC) bags, and membrane bags.

Felted filters are often used on PJFF and do not require an initial filter cake to collect fine particulates. Felted filters are generally 2 to 3 times thicker th an woven filters, which improves fine particle collection. High efficiency microfiber felts are similar to felted fibers, but they use ultra-fine fibers to enhance fine particulate matter control. Intrinsically coated filters are made from fibers that are coated, usually with a fluoro-polymer, such as Teflon®. These filters are highly durable and have a smaller pore size between fibers, which improves filterable PM 2.5 control. Membrane filters have a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) co ating, such as Teflon®, on the fabr ic, as opposed to the individual fibers. This also provides e nhanced control for filterable PM 2.5 . However, the use of either intrinsically coated or membrane bags tends to inhibit the fi lter cake formation. The filter cake formation can increases the effectiveness of the FF for controlling PM 2.5 precursors and condensable PM 2.5

. Reactant/Sorbent Injection . Injection technologies to control conde nsable PM emissions utilize injection of a sorbent or reactant. The most common inj ection chemicals include sodium bisulfite (NaHSO 3 ), sodium carbonate (Na 2 CO 3 ) or trona, and hydrated lime (Ca(OH) 2 ). Ammonia (NH 3 ) and magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH) 2 ) have also been used. The sorbents or r eactants utilize their physical and chemical properties to react with or adsorb condensable PM (e.g., H 2 SO 4 ) to produce a solid byproduct that can be collected in the particulate control system. Sorbent injection is typi cally installed between the SCR and

a fabric filter or ESP.

COHPACTM . The COHPAC TM technology combines an ESP with a high air to cloth ratio FF. The FF is placed in a separate casing downstr eam of the ESP (known as COHPAC I) or within the existing ESP's casing by replacing one or more fields of collect ing plates with FF modules (COHPAC II). The technology is based on the fact that a FF collects higher levels of partic ulate-and finer particulate-than an ESP of equivalent size. The FF acts as a "polishing device".

Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector . The Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector (AHPC) utilizes

both electrostatic collection and filt ration in a unique geometric config uration that achieves PM control

with much less collection area than conventional PM devices. The de sign configuration of AHPC is unique because, instead of placing the ESP and FFB secti ons in series, the filter bags are placed directly between the ESP collection plates. The collection plat es are perforated (45% ope n area) to allow dust to reach the bags. However, since th e particles become charged before they pass through the plates, over

90% of the PM mass is collected on th e plates before it reaches the bags. When pulses of air are used to clean the filter bag surfaces, the disl odged particles are thrown back into the ESP fields where they haveanother opportunity to be collected on the plates . Tests to date show that the AHPC provides over 99.99% particulate collection efficiency for all particle sizes, at a cost that is competitive with or lower than existing technologies.

Max-9TM . The Max-9TM technology is an electrostatic precipitator/pul se-jet baghouse hybrid, employing high voltage discharge electrodes to charge the PM, but with fabric filters instead of collecting plates in the casing. Dust particles in the gas are charged by the discharge elect rodes, and are attracted to the grounded metal cage inside the filter element. The ne gatively charged particle s repel each other on the filter surface, resulting in a highly porous filter cake. The Max-9TM ESFF technology is reported to provide high collection efficiency while operating at significantly lo wer system pressure drop than a comparable FF.

PM Control Performance

Figure 1 shows the total PM emissions reported to EPA as part of the EGU NESHAP information collection request (ICR) for f acilities below the existing NSPS filterable PM standard (0.015 lb/MMBtu), that have some type of SO 2 , control that and use a fabric filter.

Figure 1: Total PM Performance Test Data

Plant Name Boiler ID Total PM (lb/MMBtu) Total PM (lb/MWh)

Manitowoc 9 0.0036 0.042 Springerville 4 0.0037 0.033

Reid Gardner 1 0.0043 0.042

San Juan 3 0.0044 0.045 Northside Generating Station 1A 0.0045 0.041 Northside Generating Station 2A 0.0046 0.042 Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center 4 0.0051 0.042

Clover 2 0.0053 0.052 J K Spruce **1 0.0054 0.057

AES Hawaii BLRA 0.0057 0.041 Chambers Cogeneration LP 1,001 0.0059 0.121 Sunnyside Cogen Associates 1 0.0062 0.066

San Juan 4 0.0063 0.064

Weston 4 0.0068 0.056 Craig C2 0.0070 0.074

AES Hawaii BLRB 0.0073 0.056

Brandon Shores 2 0.0074

Cholla 4 0.0074 0.073

INDIANTOWN COGENERATI ON L.P. 1 0.0081 0.077

San Juan 1 0.0082 0.083

San Juan 2 0.0088 0.086

Hawthorn 5A 0.0088 0.083

Cholla 3 0.0089 0.096 Chambers Cogeneration LP 1,002 0.0089 0.124 Craig C1 0.0092 0.095

PANTHER CREEK ENERGY FACILITY 1 0.0093 0.099

PANTHER CREEK ENERGY FACILITY 2 0.0093 Piney Creek Project 31 0.0102 Spruance Genco, LLC BLR02A 0.0105 0.148Logan Generating Plant 1,001 0.0118 0.112 Southampton Power Station 1 0.0124 0.167

Louisa 101 0.0135 0.111 H L Spurlock Station 3 0.0140 0.128

Sandow Station 5B 0.0140 0.055

Oak Grove 1 0.0160 0.170

Rawhide 101 0.0165 0.143

Seward 1 0.0178 0.156

Seward 2 0.0178 Wygen 1 1 0.0205 0.231 H L Spurlock Station 4 0.0227 0.198 Birchwood Power Facility 1 0.0230 0.204 Morgantown Energy Facility CFB1 0.0240 0.255 AES Warrior Run Cogeneration Facility 1 0.0244 0.246 Northampton Generating Co mpany, L.P. NGC01 0.0244 0.239 Nebraska City 2 0.0246 0.218

Sandow Station 5A 0.0247 0.110 Springerville 3 0.0278 0.246 Cambria Cogen 1 0.0313 Cope COP1 0.0320 0.272

Twin Oaks Power One U2 0.0323 0.283

Clover 1 0.0350 0.318 Cambria Cogen 2 0.0424

Hanford CB1302 0.0584 0.601 Hardin Generator Project U1 0.0820 0.814

Ninety four percent of the 54 fac ilities performance tests in lb/MMBtu are achieving an emissions rate of 0.034 lb/MMBtu for total PM, and we have conclude d that this value is an achievable standard for owners/operators of modified facilities. The rate is also approximately equivale nt in stringency to the existing filterable PM standard, because no specifi c condensable PM controls would necessarily be required. This standard provides amply compliance ma rgin since eighty eight pe rcent of the facilities are achieving an emissions rate of 0.030 lb/MMBtu and seventy five percent are achieving an emissions

rate of 0.023 lb/MMBtu.

We have concluded that new EGUs will factor in condensable PM controls. BDT for new EGUs would

be a fabric filter with coated or membrane filter media bags and FGD in combination with both DSI and a WESP. 48 of the facilities listed in figure 1 repo rted gross electrical out put during the performance test. Because no owners/operators of EGUs are pres ently specifically attempti ng to control condensable PM, beyond eliminating the visible blue plume that can occur from sulfuric acid mist emissions, we concluded it was appropriate to us e the top 20 percentile of the perf ormance test data for the proposed total PM standard. The top 20 percentile of these performance tests is 0.055 lb/MWh.PM Analysis Post ProposalThe following figures show the filterable PM performance data forfacilities that submitted data aspart of the NESHAP ICR andthat reporteda maximum filterable PM emissions rate of less than 0.090 lb/MWh.The first figure includes facilities that reported multiple performance testreports and includes the 99% confidence limit.The other figures include EGUs that only reported a single performance test andare sorted byPM control technology. The amended PM standardhas been demonstrated to be achievablefor all coal types in both fluidized bedsandpulverized coal boilers.Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum MedianNumberof Tests STDEV 99% Confidence ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel TypeAsh Content(lb/MMBtu) PM Control SO 2 controlUncontrolled SO 2Emissions (lb/MMBtu)Martin Drake 6 0.008 0.007 0.007 2.0 0.0007 0.0093 PC BIT 8.32 Fabric Filter 0.9Sandow Station 5A 0.010 0.010 0.010 2.0 0.0003 0.0111 0.0100 CFB LIG Fabric Filter Circulating Dry ScrubberMercer Generating Station 1 0.009 0.001 0.006 3.0 0.0041 0.0166 0.0009 PC BIT 4.70 Fabric Filter 1.2Havana 9 0.010 0.005 0.008 2.0 0.0041 0.0180 0.0047 PC SUB 5.19 ESP Spray Dryer Absorber 0.5Springerville Generating Station 4 0.018 0.008 0.009 3.0 0.0055 0.0233 0.0075 PC SUB 13.26 Fabric Filter Spray dryer typeIndiantown Cogeneration, LP 1 0.018 0.000 0.005 4.0 0.0079 0.0254 0.0000 PC BIT 9.28 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 1.3Mercer Generating Station 2 0.018 0.002 0.005 3.0 0.0085 0.0271 0.0020 PC BIT 4.70 Fabric Filter 1.2Northside 1A 0.027 0.004 0.008 6.0 0.0084 0.0294 0.0061 CFB PC 1.48 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 6.4Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center 4 0.030 0.027 0.029 2.0 0.0024 0.0350 0.0305 PC SUB 6.19 Fabric Filter Circulating Dry Scrubber 0.7J T Deely 1 0.031 0.018 0.025 2.0 0.0095 0.0491 0.0181 PC SUB 6.63 Fabric Filter 0.8J T Deely 2 0.031 0.018 0.025 2.0 0.0095 0.0491 0.0181 PC SUB 6.63 Fabric Filter 0.8Gallatin 3 0.040 0.031 0.035 2.0 0.0065 0.0523 PC SUB 5.81 ESP 0.7Gallatin 4 0.040 0.031 0.035 2.0 0.0065 0.0523 PC SUB 5.81 ESP 0.7Springerville Generating Station TS3 0.041 0.005 0.017 5.0 0.0139 0.0523 0.0055 PC SUB 13.26 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 1.7Salem Harbor 4 0.036 0.024 0.036 3.0 0.0069 0.0540 PC DFO 4.14 ESPNorth Valmy 1 0.042 0.027 0.037 3.0 0.0079 0.0574 PC BIT 9.02 Fabric Filter 0.8Cope Station COP1 0.033 0.015 0.024 2.0 0.0131 0.0577 0.0333 PC BIT 8.26 Fabric Filter Dry Scrubber 1.6Marshall 4 0.044 0.033 0.044 3.0 0.0063 0.0599 PC BIT 8.39 ESP Spray type 2.5Cholla 3 0.043 0.028 0.036 2.0 0.0107 0.0632 0.0281 PC SUB 14.85 Fabric Filter Wet FGD 1.3Widows Creek 6 0.053 0.026 0.034 4.0 0.0117 0.0639 PC BIT 9.36 ESP 3.4Northside 2A 0.041 0.005 0.029 6.0 0.0150 0.0673 0.0045 CFB PC 1.48 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 6.4Allen S King 1 0.062 0.058 0.060 2.0 0.0029 0.0674 Cyclone SUB 5.63 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.8St. Clair 3 0.061 0.028 0.041 7.0 0.0117 0.0707 PC SUB 4.82 ESP 1.2C-E CONTRACT 24687 0.061 0.005 0.018 5.0 0.0216 0.0737 CFB BIT Fabric FilterMilton R Young B1 0.057 0.044 0.051 2.0 0.0093 0.0747 Cyclone LIG 12.62 ESP 2.4Monroe 4 0.061 0.023 0.046 10.0 0.0132 0.0799 PC SUB 6.15 ESP Limestone Forced Oxidation 1.3Pleasant Prairie 1 0.061 0.044 0.053 2.0 0.0116 0.0826 PC SUB 6.30 ESP Spray type 0.7H L Spurlock 3 0.054 0.008 0.029 4.0 0.0215 0.0843 0.0545 CFB BIT 12.71 Fabric Filter Dry Lime Scrubber 3.8Centralia BW21 0.073 0.013 0.041 6.0 0.0193 0.0907 0.0421 PC SUB 12.32 ESP Spray type 0.8St. Clair 1 0.087 0.083 0.085 2.0 0.0026 0.0919 PC SUB 4.82 ESP 0.9Belle River 1 0.071 0.054 0.063 2.0 0.0116 0.0924 PC SUB 4.73 ESP 0.7McMeekin MCM1 0.078 0.018 0.035 6.0 0.0229 0.0941 0.0563 PC BIT 7.80 Fabric Filter 1.7St. Clair 2 0.068 0.007 0.028 4.0 0.0272 0.0976 PC SUB 4.82 ESP 0.7Kammer 1 0.081 0.067 0.074 2.0 0.0096 0.0987 Cyclone BIT 5.36 ESP 2.2Kammer 2 0.081 0.067 0.074 2.0 0.0096 0.0987 Cyclone BIT 5.36 ESP 2.2Kammer 3 0.081 0.067 0.074 2.0 0.0096 0.0987 Cyclone BIT 5.36 ESP 2.2J P Madgett B1 0.082 0.047 0.047 3.0 0.0200 0.0988 PC SUB 5.82 Fabric Filter 0.7Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center 1 0.082 0.029 0.036 4.0 0.0244 0.0991 PC BIT 8.27 ESP Spray type 1.9Holcomb SGU1 0.057 0.025 0.041 2.0 0.0227 0.0995 PC SUB 6.29 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.8New Castle 4 0.078 0.055 0.075 4.0 0.0107 0.1023 PC BIT 9.09 ESP 2.0Northampton Generating Plant NGC01 0.083 0.013 0.036 8.0 0.0262 0.1030 0.0834 CFB WC 50.98 Fabric Filter 1.3McMeekin MCM2 0.079 0.020 0.046 6.0 0.0230 0.1053 0.0374 PC BIT 7.80 Fabric Filter 1.7Laramie River 2 0.089 0.050 0.068 5.0 0.0148 0.1055 PC SUB 6.17 ESP T ray type 0.8Cumberland 2 0.072 0.047 0.060 2.0 0.0179 0.1059 PC BIT 7.18 ESP Spray type 5.1H L Spurlock 4 0.058 0.020 0.039 2.0 0.0269 0.1081 0.0580 CFB BIT 12.71 Fabric Filter Dry Lime ScrubberCarneys Point 1001 0.075 0.005 0.039 6.0 0.0271 0.1082 0.0050 PC BIT 5.27 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 2.8Centralia BW22 0.086 0.010 0.034 6.0 0.0297 0.1100 0.0221 PC SUB 12.32 ESP Spray type 0.8Duck Creek 1 0.087 0.036 0.037 3.0 0.0290 0.1113 0.0368 PC BIT 8.23 ESP Limestone scrubbant 5.7Four Corners Steam Elec Station 5 0.073 0.036 0.064 3.0 0.0190 0.1126 PC SUB 24.94 Fabric Filter Wet FGD 1.8Milton R Young B2 0.082 0.058 0.070 2.0 0.0167 0.1130 Cyclone LIG 12.62 ESP Spray type 2.4Mystic 7 0.080 0.010 0.039 4.0 0.0291 0.1133 PC NG 0.00 ESPCarneys Point 1002 0.088 0.001 0.032 6.0 0.0318 0.1141 0.0015 PC BIT 5.27 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 2.8Gallatin 1 0.073 0.037 0.055 2.0 0.0259 0.1216 PC SUB 5.81 ESP 0.7Roxboro 1 0.072 0.027 0.062 3.0 0.0235 0.1221 0.0273 PC BIT 9.29 ESP New B&W Spray and Tray Design 1.5J K Spruce **1 0.084 0.014 0.031 3.0 0.0367 0.1257 0.0135 PC SUB Fabric Filter Spray typeSandow Station 5B 0.059 0.009 0.034 2.0 0.0358 0.1261 0.0088 CFB LIG Fabric Filter Circulating Dry ScrubberGeorge Neal North 3 0.090 0.054 0.072 2.0 0.0256 0.1381 PC SUB 5.64 ESP 0.7Pleasant Prairie 2 0.088 0.050 0.087 3.0 0.0218 0.1434 PC SUB 6.30 0.7Big Bend BB04 0.074 0.025 0.072 3.0 0.0279 0.1441 PC BIT 6.76 ESP Packed type 2.7Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel TypeAsh Content(lb/MMBtu)PMControl SO2 controlUncontrolled SO 2Emissions (lb/MMBtu)Manitowoc 9 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.0030 CFB PC 2.58 Fabric Filter 8.0NRG Dunkirk Power 1 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0037 PC SUB 5.70 Fabric Filter 0.6Bridgeport Harbor Station BHB3 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0041 PC SUB 1.96 Fabric Filter 0.2Weston 4 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.0049 PC SUB 5.90 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.7Logan Generating Plant 1001 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.0057 PC BIT 7.91 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 2.0Sheldon 2 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.0075 Cyclone SUB 5.40 Fabric Filter 0.6Gerald Gentleman Station 1 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0076 PC SUB 5.89 Fabric Filter 0.7Gerald Gentleman Station 2 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0084 PC SUB 5.89 Fabric Filter 0.7Wygen I 1 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.0099 PC SUB 8.47 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 1.3NRG Dunkirk Power 4 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0107 PC SUB 5.70 Fabric Filter 0.6Hawthorn 5A 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0108 PC SUB 5.98 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.7BLR A 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0109 CFB BIT 8.20 Fabric FilterComanche (470) 2 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.0115 PC SUB 5.37 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.6Sheldon 1 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.0125 Cyclone SUB 5.40 Fabric Filter 0.6San Juan 3 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.0143 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type 1.4Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center 3 0.014 0.014 0.014 PC SUB 6.19 Fabric Filter Circulating Dry Scrubber 0.7BLR B 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.0176 CFB BIT 8.20 Fabric FilterClover Power Station 2 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.0296 PC BIT 9.82 Fabric Filter Spray type 1.7Brandon Shores 2 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.0323 PC BIT 9.18 Fabric Filter Limestone FGD 1.1San Juan 4 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.0332 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type 1.4Elm Road Generating Station 1 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.0337 PC BIT Fabric Filter Spray typeClover Power Station 1 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.0339 PC BIT 9.82 Fabric Filter Spray type 1.7Craig C1 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.0366 PC SUB 7.19 Fabric Filter Spray type 0.8Lamar 4 0.038 0.038 0.038 CFB SUB Fabric FilterHayden H1 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.0377 PC BIT 9.34 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.9San Juan 1 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.0378 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type 1.4Scherer 3 0.042 0.042 0.042 PC SUB 5.37 Fabric Filter 0.7Boswell Energy Center 3 0.042 0.042 0.042 PC SUB 7.26 Fabric Filter wet 1.1Craig C2 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.0428 PC SUB 7.19 Fabric Filter Spray type 0.8AES Warrior Run 1 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.0434 CFB BIT 16.77 Fabric Filter 2.9San Juan 2 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0466 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type 1.4Wheelabrator - Frackville GEN1 0.048 0.048 0.048 CFB WC Fabric FilterLouisa 101 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.0483 PC SUB 6.36 Fabric Filter Circulating Dry Scrubber 0.8Mount Tom 1 0.053 0.053 0.053 PC BIT 5.68 Fabric Filter Circulating Dry Scrubber 1.01 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.0540 CFB WC 68.62 Fabric Filter Limestone Sorbent InjectionHennepin Power Station 1 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.0600 PC SUB 5.77 Fabric Filter 0.5Cambria Cogen 1 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.0617 CFB WC 68.08 Fabric Filter 7.7Hennepin Power Station 2 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.0620 PC SUB 5.77 Fabric Filter 0.5Cambria Cogen 2 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.0684 CFB WC 68.08 Fabric Filter 7.7Cogentrix-Hopewell BLR02A 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.0738 Stoker BIT 7.17 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 1.5Craig C3 0.079 0.079 0.079 PC SUB 7.19 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.8Huntley Power 67 0.085 0.085 0.085 PC SUB 5.71 Fabric Filter Dry Sorbent Injection 0.6Hayden H2 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.0860 PC BIT 9.34 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 0.9Huntley Power 68 0.086 0.086 0.086 PC SUB 5.71 Fabric Filter Dry Sorbent Injection 0.6Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel TypeAsh Content(lb/MMBtu)PMControl SO2 controlUncontrolled SO 2Emissions (lb/MMBtu)Neil Simpson II 1 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0078 PC SUB 8.38 ESP Circulating Dry Scrubber 1.1Norwalk Harbor Station 2 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.0157 PC RFO 0.00 ESPJames H Miller Jr 4 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.0166 PC SUB 5.75 ESP Spray type 0.7Herbert A Wagner 2 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.0170 PC BIT 8.47 ESP 1.3Crist Electric Generating Plant 5 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.0182 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type 1.6Crist Electric Generating Plant 6 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.0182 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type 1.6Crist Electric Generating Plant 7 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.0193 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type 1.6Crist Electric Generating Plant 4 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.0193 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type 1.6St. Johns River Power 1 0.022 0.022 0.022 PC BIT 8.93 ESP Spray/Tray Combination 1.1Harding Street Station (EW Stout) 70 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.0282 PC BIT 7.38 ESP Spray type 4.6Middletown 2 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.0297 PC NG 0.00 ESPSt. Clair 6 0.031 0.031 0.031 PC SUB 4.82 ESP 1.2Sioux 2 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.0314 Cyclone SUB 6.13 ESP Wet FGD 1.8Newington 1 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.0335 PC RFO 0.00 ESPJ H Campbell 3 0.034 0.034 0.034 PC SUB 5.99 ESP 0.6St. Johns River Power 2 0.037 0.037 0.037 PC BIT 8.93 ESP Spray type 1.1Gibson 2 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.0374 PC BIT 8.41 ESP Tray type 4.4Montville 5 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.0393 PC NG 0.00 ESPMarshall 3 0.042 0.042 0.042 PC BIT 8.39 ESP Spray type 2.5Gerald Whelan Energy Center 1 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.0422 PC SUB 5.53 ESP 0.8J B Sims 3 0.045 0.045 0.045 PC BIT 8.56 ESP FGD 3.9Eastlake 3 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.0464 PC BIT 5.59 ESP 1.9Hammond 2 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0466 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type 1.9Homer City 3 0.047 0.047 0.047 PC BIT 14.87 ESP Spray type 4.7Hammond 3 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0467 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type 1.9Hammond 1 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0474 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type 1.9Eastlake 1 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0475 PC BIT 5.59 ESP 1.9Hammond 4 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.0494 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type 1.9Lansing Smith Generating Plant 1 0.050 0.050 0.050 PC BIT 7.08 ESP 1.9Will County 1 0.051 0.051 0.051 Cyclone SUB 5.33 ESP 0.6Gibson 1 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.0565 PC BIT 8.41 ESP Tray type 4.4La Cygne 2 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.0578 PC SUB 6.68 ESP 0.9West Springfield 3 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.0595 PC RFO 0.00 ESPConemaugh 1 0.063 0.063 0.063 PC BIT 7.93 ESP Spray type 4.1R D Green G1 0.064 0.064 0.064 PC BIT 7.66 ESP Spray type 7.3Nelson Dewey 2 0.068 0.068 0.068 Cyclone SUB 3.65 ESP 2.2White Bluff 2 0.072 0.072 0.072 PC SUB 6.05 ESP 0.7Conemaugh 2 0.077 0.077 0.077 PC BIT 7.93 ESP Spray type 4.1Albright Power Station 2 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.0790 PC BIT 13.39 ESP 2.7Newton 2 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.0809 PC SUB 5.78 ESP 0.6IPL Eagle Valley Generating Station 6 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.0813 PC BIT 8.19 ESP 2.1Daniel Electric Generating Plant 1 0.082 0.082 0.082 PC BIT 6.93 ESP 0.8Daniel Electric Generating Plant 2 0.085 0.085 0.085 PC BIT 6.93 ESP 0.8J M Stuart 2 0.086 0.086 0.086 PC BIT 11.12 ESP Jet Bubbling Reactor 2.0Cayuga 2 0.089 0.089 0.089 PC BIT 7.05 ESP Spray type 3.2Sibley 3 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.0899 Cyclone SUB 6.51 ESP 0.9Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel TypeAsh Content(lb/MMBtu) PM Control SO 2 controlUncontrolled SO 2Emissions (lb/MMBtu)Polk **1 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.0124 IGCC PC 0.00Harding Street Station (EW Stout) 09 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.0149 PC 7.38IPL Eagle Valley Generating Station 1 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.0287 PC DFO 8.19IPL Eagle Valley Generating Station 2 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.0287 PC DFO 8.19Mitchell Power Station 3 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.0295 PC DFO 11.27Mitchell Power Station 1 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.0386 PC DFO 11.27Eddystone Generating Station 3 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.0533 PC NG 4.69Eddystone Generating Station 4 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.0533 PC NG 4.69R Gallagher 3 0.055 0.055 0.055 PC BIT 7.20 3.1R Gallagher 4 0.055 0.055 0.055 PC BIT 7.20 3.1Harding Street Station (EW Stout) 10 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.0701 PC NG 7.38Cogentrix-Hopewell BLR02B 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.0738 Stoker BIT 7.17 1.5Cogentrix-Hopewell BLR02C 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.0738 Stoker BIT 7.17 1.5R Gallagher 1 0.075 0.075 0.075 PC BIT 7.20 3.1R Gallagher 2 0.075 0.075 0.075 PC BIT 7.20 3.1Bonanza 1 0.089 0.089 0.089 PC BIT 16.28 0.9