MEMORANDUM 

From: The Office of Air Quality 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 classified by particle size and as either 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 incombustible inert matter (ash), and 

condensable PM consists of gases that will condense into a liquid or solid upon reaching ambient 

temperature. For coal-fired boilers, condensable PM may contain sulfuric and nitric acids, high 

molecular weight organics, and other compounds. Total 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 PM10. 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 PM2.5. 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 PM2.5 and condensable PM are 

considered direct PM2.5 emissions. In addition to direct PM2.5 emissions, indirect PM2.5, or secondary 

PM2.5, is formed when precursors such as SO2, NOX, VOCs, and ammonia form PM2.5 through reactions 

in the atmosphere. 

The present subpart Da filterable 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/operator may also elect to 

comply with an emission limit of 0.030 lb/MMBtu heat 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 standard for new and reconstructed facilities is 

0.055 lb/MWh. 

PM Control Technologies 

The following is a brief summary of some of the PM control technologies, including propriety 

technologies. This summary is not intended to be a comprehensive list of available technologies. The 

performance values given here are those that have been provided by the technology provider in 

publically available sources. Inclusion of a technology in this summary is not intended to be an 

endorsement of that technology by the US EPA the US Government 

Mechanical/Inertial Collectors (Cyclones/Multicyclones). A cyclone is a cylindrical vessel, usually with 

a conical bottom. The flue gas enters the vessel tangentially and sets up a rotary motion whirling in a 

circular or conical path. The particles 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 technologies that can deal 

with the cyclic operation and load changes. However, their efficiency is moderate when compared with 

an ESP or fabric filter. 
Wet Scrubber. The basic principle of wet scrubbers designed for PM control is to provide sufficient 

contact between the flue gas and scrubbing liquid to facilitate removal of the PM. Venturi scrubbers are 

the most commonly used scrubber for particle collection and are capable of achieving the highest 

particle collection efficiency of any 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 requires disposal. Many of the wet particulate scrubbers 

are designed to control both SO2 and particulates by utilizing the alkaline fly ash as sorbent. Lime or 

some other sorbent is frequently used to boost SO2 removal efficiencies. In general, venturi scrubbers in 

combination with a mechanical collector are not expected to reduce PM emissions to the level required 

by the NSPS. In addition, venturi scrubbers tend to have relatively high energy consumption and do not 

control filterable PM2.5 as well as a comparable ESP or fabric filter. 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD). FGD technologies designed for SO2 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 technology is a feasible control technology for reducing condensable 

PM emissions. 

Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). An ESP is a PM control technology that utilizes electrical charges 

to attract particulate matter present in the gas stream. 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 particulate matter in the gas stream. The 

negatively charged particulate matter is then attracted to the ESP’s positively charged collection plate. 

Particulate matter accumulates on the collection plate until the plate is mechanically “rapped” causing 

the PM to fall into hoppers. The PM that collects in the hoppers is then removed by the ash handling 

system. An ESP consists of a series of the electrical 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 either upstream of the air pre-heater (hot-side ESP) or 

downstream of the air pre-heater (cold-side ESP). Either location selected for the ESP operates at a 

temperature above the dew point of condensable particulate matter. ESPs are intentionally operated at 

high temperatures to prevent corrosion problems that 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 elemental sulphur, ammonia (NH3), and 

sulphur trioxide (SO3) 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 saturated flue gas conditions, where the 

flue gas is below the dew point of many acid gases and other condensable PM. The collector plates of a 

WESP are washed with water. The process eliminates the need for rapping as the liquid film removes 

any deposited fly ash particles. Thus, problems with re-entrainment, fly ash resistivity, and capture of 

fine particles become obsolete. A WESP is a feasible 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 collecting particulate matter in the WESP and the 

pressure loss across the WESP are the main operating costs of the WESP system. 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 the gross output primarily due to additional power requirements for 

collection. 

Fabric Filter Baghouse (FF). A fabric filter baghouse is a PM collection 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 compartment (or group of bags) at a time. A compartment 
within the fabric filter includes the bags as the filter media, a tube sheet that supports the bags, a PM 

dislodging mechanism, and a hopper to collect the accumulated 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 pressure 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 for cleaning a fabric filter compartment include 

reverse gas fabric filters (RGFF), reverse air with mechanical shakers, and pulse jet 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 increases 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 the operating parameters, pollutant characteristics, and 

mechanical operation. The EPA has an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to 

verify innovative pollution control technologies. The verified fabric filter products indicate the fabric 

can achieve PM2.5 emission levels as low as 0.0001 lb/MMBtu. The list of fabric filter products include 

felted bags and high efficiency microfiber felts, intrinsically 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 than 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 PM2.5 control. Membrane filters have a 

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating, such as Teflon®, on the fabric, as opposed to the individual 

fibers. This also provides enhanced control for filterable PM2.5. However, the use of either intrinsically 

coated or membrane bags tends to inhibit the filter cake formation. The filter cake formation can 

increases the effectiveness of the FF for controlling PM2.5 precursors and condensable PM2.5. 

Reactant/Sorbent Injection. Injection technologies to control condensable PM emissions utilize injection 

of a sorbent or reactant. The most common injection chemicals include sodium bisulfite (NaHSO3), 

sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) or trona, and hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2). Ammonia (NH3) and magnesium 

hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) have also been used. The sorbents or reactants utilize their physical and chemical 

properties to react with or adsorb condensable PM (e.g., H2SO4) to produce a solid byproduct that can be 

collected in the particulate control system. Sorbent injection is typically installed between the SCR and 

a fabric filter or ESP. 

COHPACTM. The COHPACTM technology combines an ESP with a high air to cloth ratio FF. The FF is 

placed in a separate casing downstream of the ESP (known as COHPAC I) or within the existing ESP's 

casing by replacing one or more fields of collecting plates with FF modules (COHPAC II). The 

technology is based on the fact that a FF collects higher levels of particulate-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 filtration in a unique geometric configuration that achieves PM control 

with much less collection area than conventional PM devices. The design configuration of AHPC is 

unique because, instead of placing the ESP and FFB sections in series, the filter bags are placed directly 

between the ESP collection plates. The collection plates are perforated (45% open area) to allow dust to 

reach the bags. However, since the particles become charged before they pass through the plates, over 

90% of the PM mass is collected on the plates before it reaches the bags. When pulses of air are used to 

clean the filter bag surfaces, the dislodged particles are thrown back into the ESP fields where they have 
another 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/pulse-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 electrodes, and are attracted to the 

grounded metal cage inside the filter element. The negatively charged particles 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 lower 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 facilities below the existing NSPS filterable PM standard (0.015 

lb/MMBtu), that have some type of SO2, 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 COGENERATION 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 0.148 
Logan 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 Company, 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 facilities performance tests in lb/MMBtu are achieving an emissions rate 

of 0.034 lb/MMBtu for total PM, and we have concluded that this value is an achievable standard for 

owners/operators of modified facilities. The rate is also approximately equivalent in stringency to the 

existing filterable PM standard, because no specific condensable PM controls would necessarily be 

required. This standard provides amply compliance margin since eighty eight percent 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 reported gross electrical output during the performance 

test. Because no owners/operators of EGUs are presently specifically attempting to control condensable 

PM, beyond eliminating the visible blue plume that can occur from sulfuric acid mist emissions, we 

concluded it was appropriate to use the top 20 percentile of the performance test data for the proposed 

total PM standard. The top 20 percentile of these performance tests is 0.055 lb/MWh. 
PM Analysis Post Proposal 

The following figures show the filterable PM performance data for facilities that submitted data as part of the NESHa maximum filterable PM emissions rate of less than 0.090 lb/MWh. The first figure includes facilities that reported 

reports and includes the 99% confidence limit. The other figures include EGUs that only reported a single performan

PM control technology. The amended PM standard has been demonstrated to be achievable for all coal types in both 

pulverized coal boilers. 
Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median

Number of Tests STDEV 99% Confidence ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel Type

Ash Content (lb/MMBtu) PM Control SO 2 cont

Martin Drake 6 0.008 0.007 0.007 2.0 0.0007 0.0093 PC BIT 8.32 Fabric Filter Sandow Station 5A 0.010 0.010 0.010 2.0 0.0003 0.0111 0.0100 CFB LIG Fabric Filter Circulating Mercer Generating Station 1 0.009 0.001 0.006 3.0 0.0041 0.0166 0.0009 PC BIT 4.70 Fabric Filter Havana 9 0.010 0.005 0.008 2.0 0.0041 0.0180 0.0047 PC SUB 5.19 ESP Spray DrySpringerville Generating Station 4 0.018 0.008 0.009 3.0 0.0055 0.0233 0.0075 PC SUB 13.26 Fabric Filter Spray dryeIndiantown Cogeneration, LP 1 0.018 0.000 0.005 4.0 0.0079 0.0254 0.0000 PC BIT 9.28 Fabric Filter Spray dryeMercer Generating Station 2 0.018 0.002 0.005 3.0 0.0085 0.0271 0.0020 PC BIT 4.70 Fabric Filter Northside 1A 0.027 0.004 0.008 6.0 0.0084 0.0294 0.0061 CFB PC 1.48 Fabric Filter Spray dryeWalter 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 J T Deely 1 0.031 0.018 0.025 2.0 0.0095 0.0491 0.0181 PC SUB 6.63 Fabric Filter J T Deely 2 0.031 0.018 0.025 2.0 0.0095 0.0491 0.0181 PC SUB 6.63 Fabric Filter Gallatin 3 0.040 0.031 0.035 2.0 0.0065 0.0523 PC SUB 5.81 ESP Gallatin 4 0.040 0.031 0.035 2.0 0.0065 0.0523 PC SUB 5.81 ESP Springerville Generating Station TS3 0.041 0.005 0.017 5.0 0.0139 0.0523 0.0055 PC SUB 13.26 Fabric Filter Spray dryeSalem 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 Cope Station COP1 0.033 0.015 0.024 2.0 0.0131 0.0577 0.0333 PC BIT 8.26 Fabric Filter Dry ScrubbMarshall 4 0.044 0.033 0.044 3.0 0.0063 0.0599 PC BIT 8.39 ESP Spray type Cholla 3 0.043 0.028 0.036 2.0 0.0107 0.0632 0.0281 PC SUB 14.85 Fabric Filter Wet FGD Widows Creek 6 0.053 0.026 0.034 4.0 0.0117 0.0639 PC BIT 9.36 ESP Northside 2A 0.041 0.005 0.029 6.0 0.0150 0.0673 0.0045 CFB PC 1.48 Fabric Filter Spray dryeAllen S King 1 0.062 0.058 0.060 2.0 0.0029 0.0674 Cyclone SUB 5.63 Fabric Filter Spray dryeSt. Clair 3 0.061 0.028 0.041 7.0 0.0117 0.0707 PC SUB 4.82 ESP 

C-E CONTRACT 24687 0.061 0.005 0.018 5.0 0.0216 0.0737 CFB BIT Fabric Filter

Milton R Young B1 0.057 0.044 0.051 2.0 0.0093 0.0747 Cyclone LIG 12.62 ESP Monroe 4 0.061 0.023 0.046 10.0 0.0132 0.0799 PC SUB 6.15 ESP Limestone Pleasant Prairie 1 0.061 0.044 0.053 2.0 0.0116 0.0826 PC SUB 6.30 ESP Spray type H 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 Centralia BW21 0.073 0.013 0.041 6.0 0.0193 0.0907 0.0421 PC SUB 12.32 ESP Spray type St. Clair 1 0.087 0.083 0.085 2.0 0.0026 0.0919 PC SUB 4.82 ESP Belle River 1 0.071 0.054 0.063 2.0 0.0116 0.0924 PC SUB 4.73 ESP McMeekin MCM1 0.078 0.018 0.035 6.0 0.0229 0.0941 0.0563 PC BIT 7.80 Fabric Filter St. Clair 2 0.068 0.007 0.028 4.0 0.0272 0.0976 PC SUB 4.82 ESP Kammer 1 0.081 0.067 0.074 2.0 0.0096 0.0987 Cyclone BIT 5.36 ESP Kammer 2 0.081 0.067 0.074 2.0 0.0096 0.0987 Cyclone BIT 5.36 ESP Kammer 3 0.081 0.067 0.074 2.0 0.0096 0.0987 Cyclone BIT 5.36 ESP J P Madgett B1 0.082 0.047 0.047 3.0 0.0200 0.0988 PC SUB 5.82 Fabric Filter Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center 1 0.082 0.029 0.036 4.0 0.0244 0.0991 PC BIT 8.27 ESP Spray type Holcomb SGU1 0.057 0.025 0.041 2.0 0.0227 0.0995 PC SUB 6.29 Fabric Filter Spray dryeNew Castle 4 0.078 0.055 0.075 4.0 0.0107 0.1023 PC BIT 9.09 ESP Northampton Generating Plant NGC01 0.083 0.013 0.036 8.0 0.0262 0.1030 0.0834 CFB WC 50.98 Fabric Filter McMeekin MCM2 0.079 0.020 0.046 6.0 0.0230 0.1053 0.0374 PC BIT 7.80 Fabric Filter Laramie River 2 0.089 0.050 0.068 5.0 0.0148 0.1055 PC SUB 6.17 ESP T ray type Cumberland 2 0.072 0.047 0.060 2.0 0.0179 0.1059 PC BIT 7.18 ESP Spray type H 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 Carneys Point 1001 0.075 0.005 0.039 6.0 0.0271 0.1082 0.0050 PC BIT 5.27 Fabric Filter Spray dryeCentralia BW22 0.086 0.010 0.034 6.0 0.0297 0.1100 0.0221 PC SUB 12.32 ESP Spray type Duck Creek 1 0.087 0.036 0.037 3.0 0.0290 0.1113 0.0368 PC BIT 8.23 ESP Limestone Four 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 Milton R Young B2 0.082 0.058 0.070 2.0 0.0167 0.1130 Cyclone LIG 12.62 ESP Spray type Mystic 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 dryeGallatin 1 0.073 0.037 0.055 2.0 0.0259 0.1216 PC SUB 5.81 ESP Roxboro 1 0.072 0.027 0.062 3.0 0.0235 0.1221 0.0273 PC BIT 9.29 ESP New B&W J 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 George Neal North 3 0.090 0.054 0.072 2.0 0.0256 0.1381 PC SUB 5.64 ESP Pleasant Prairie 2 0.088 0.050 0.087 3.0 0.0218 0.1434 PC SUB 6.30 Big Bend BB04 0.074 0.025 0.072 3.0 0.0279 0.1441 PC BIT 6.76 ESP Packed ty
Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel Type

Ash Content (lb/MMBtu)

PM Control SO2 control

Manitowoc 9 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.0030 CFB PC 2.58 Fabric Filter NRG Dunkirk Power 1 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0037 PC SUB 5.70 Fabric Filter Bridgeport Harbor Station BHB3 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0041 PC SUB 1.96 Fabric Filter Weston 4 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.0049 PC SUB 5.90 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type Logan Generating Plant 1001 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.0057 PC BIT 7.91 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type Sheldon 2 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.0075 Cyclone SUB 5.40 Fabric Filter Gerald Gentleman Station 1 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0076 PC SUB 5.89 Fabric Filter Gerald Gentleman Station 2 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0084 PC SUB 5.89 Fabric Filter Wygen I 1 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.0099 PC SUB 8.47 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type NRG Dunkirk Power 4 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0107 PC SUB 5.70 Fabric Filter Hawthorn 5A 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0108 PC SUB 5.98 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type 

BLR A 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0109 CFB BIT 8.20 Fabric Filter

Comanche (470) 2 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.0115 PC SUB 5.37 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type Sheldon 1 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.0125 Cyclone SUB 5.40 Fabric Filter San Juan 3 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.0143 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center 3 0.014 0.014 0.014 PC SUB 6.19 Fabric Filter Circulating Dry Scrubb

BLR B 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.0176 CFB BIT 8.20 Fabric Filter

Clover Power Station 2 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.0296 PC BIT 9.82 Fabric Filter Spray type Brandon Shores 2 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.0323 PC BIT 9.18 Fabric Filter Limestone FGD San Juan 4 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.0332 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type Elm 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 Craig C1 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.0366 PC SUB 7.19 Fabric Filter Spray type Lamar 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 San Juan 1 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.0378 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type Scherer 3 0.042 0.042 0.042 PC SUB 5.37 Fabric Filter Boswell Energy Center 3 0.042 0.042 0.042 PC SUB 7.26 Fabric Filter wet Craig C2 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.0428 PC SUB 7.19 Fabric Filter Spray type AES Warrior Run 1 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.0434 CFB BIT 16.77 Fabric Filter San Juan 2 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0466 PC SUB 23.17 Fabric Filter Spray type Wheelabrator - 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 ScrubbMount Tom 1 0.053 0.053 0.053 PC BIT 5.68 Fabric Filter Circulating Dry Scrubb

1 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.0540 CFB WC 68.62 Fabric Filter Limestone Sorbent Inj

Hennepin Power Station 1 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.0600 PC SUB 5.77 Fabric Filter Cambria Cogen 1 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.0617 CFB WC 68.08 Fabric Filter Hennepin Power Station 2 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.0620 PC SUB 5.77 Fabric Filter Cambria Cogen 2 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.0684 CFB WC 68.08 Fabric Filter Cogentrix-Hopewell BLR02A 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.0738 Stoker BIT 7.17 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type Craig C3 0.079 0.079 0.079 PC SUB 7.19 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type Huntley Power 67 0.085 0.085 0.085 PC SUB 5.71 Fabric Filter Dry Sorbent Injection Hayden H2 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.0860 PC BIT 9.34 Fabric Filter Spray dryer type Huntley Power 68 0.086 0.086 0.086 PC SUB 5.71 Fabric Filter Dry Sorbent Injection 
Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel Type

Ash Content (lb/MMBtu)

PM Control SO2 control

Neil Simpson II 1 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0078 PC SUB 8.38 ESP Circulating Dry Scrubber Norwalk 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 Herbert A Wagner 2 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.0170 PC BIT 8.47 ESP Crist Electric Generating Plant 5 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.0182 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type Crist Electric Generating Plant 6 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.0182 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type Crist Electric Generating Plant 7 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.0193 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type Crist Electric Generating Plant 4 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.0193 PC BIT 6.92 ESP Spray type St. Johns River Power 1 0.022 0.022 0.022 PC BIT 8.93 ESP Spray/Tray Combination Harding Street Station (EW Stout) 70 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.0282 PC BIT 7.38 ESP Spray type Middletown 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 Sioux 2 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.0314 Cyclone SUB 6.13 ESP Wet FGD Newington 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 St. Johns River Power 2 0.037 0.037 0.037 PC BIT 8.93 ESP Spray type Gibson 2 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.0374 PC BIT 8.41 ESP Tray type Montville 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 Gerald Whelan Energy Center 1 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.0422 PC SUB 5.53 ESP J B Sims 3 0.045 0.045 0.045 PC BIT 8.56 ESP FGD Eastlake 3 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.0464 PC BIT 5.59 ESP Hammond 2 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0466 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type Homer City 3 0.047 0.047 0.047 PC BIT 14.87 ESP Spray type Hammond 3 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0467 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type Hammond 1 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0474 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type Eastlake 1 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.0475 PC BIT 5.59 ESP Hammond 4 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.0494 PC BIT 8.51 ESP Spray type Lansing Smith Generating Plant 1 0.050 0.050 0.050 PC BIT 7.08 ESP Will County 1 0.051 0.051 0.051 Cyclone SUB 5.33 ESP Gibson 1 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.0565 PC BIT 8.41 ESP Tray type La Cygne 2 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.0578 PC SUB 6.68 ESP West 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 R D Green G1 0.064 0.064 0.064 PC BIT 7.66 ESP Spray type Nelson Dewey 2 0.068 0.068 0.068 Cyclone SUB 3.65 ESP White Bluff 2 0.072 0.072 0.072 PC SUB 6.05 ESP Conemaugh 2 0.077 0.077 0.077 PC BIT 7.93 ESP Spray type Albright Power Station 2 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.0790 PC BIT 13.39 ESP Newton 2 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.0809 PC SUB 5.78 ESP IPL Eagle Valley Generating Station 6 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.0813 PC BIT 8.19 ESP Daniel Electric Generating Plant 1 0.082 0.082 0.082 PC BIT 6.93 ESP Daniel Electric Generating Plant 2 0.085 0.085 0.085 PC BIT 6.93 ESP J M Stuart 2 0.086 0.086 0.086 PC BIT 11.12 ESP Jet Bubbling Reactor Cayuga 2 0.089 0.089 0.089 PC BIT 7.05 ESP Spray type Sibley 3 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.0899 Cyclone SUB 6.51 ESP 
Facility Name Boiler ID Maximum Minimum Median ERT_2010 Unit type Fuel Type

Ash Content (lb/MMBtu) PM Control SO 2 control

UE

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 R Gallagher 4 0.055 0.055 0.055 PC BIT 7.20 Harding 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 Cogentrix-Hopewell BLR02C 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.0738 Stoker BIT 7.17 R Gallagher 1 0.075 0.075 0.075 PC BIT 7.20 R Gallagher 2 0.075 0.075 0.075 PC BIT 7.20 Bonanza 1 0.089 0.089 0.089 PC BIT 16.28