### Name:

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

## PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Final Test Report for

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

Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 1 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Facility Information: PPL Montour, LLC
18 McMichael Road

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

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

Air Permit Number: 47-00001 Permitted Source ID/Name: Unit 2 032
Permitted Maximum Process Rate: N/A Max. Normal Operation Process Rate: N/A Target Process Test Rate N/A

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

Sampling Location Information:

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

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

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

Location Round

Duct Diam. Distance from upstream dist. Distance from

downstream dist. Number of

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

Target Parameter Test Method Number of

Test Runs Test Run

Duration Sample

Points Comments Location 

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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2 Target Parameter Test Method Number of

Test Runs Test Run

Duration Sample

Points Comments Location % H2O Method 1 - 4 3 60 0 Ranges between 60 and 240 minutes in duration per test run. Stack Exit

Hydrogen Fluoride Method 26A 3 60 0 The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN using NaOH impingers only.

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Hydrogen Chloride Method 26A 3 60 0 The samples were collected in a combined train with HCN using NaOH impingers only. Chlorine data for Method 26A analysis is not available from the laboratory.

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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

Co2 Method 3A CO2 3 234 0 test run duration between 234 and 261 minutes. Associated with PM and Metals test runs. Stack Exit

O2 Method 3A O2 3 60 0 Associated with HCN, HCl, HF, SO2 and NOx test runs Stack Exit

Co2 Method 3A CO2 3 60 0 Associated with HCN, HCl, HF, SO2 and NOx test runs Stack Exit

O2 Method 3A O2 3 234 0 test run duration between 234 and 261 minutes. Associated with PM and Metals test runs. Stack Exit



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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

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

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

Sulfur Dioxide Method 6C 3 60 0 Stack Exit Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Method 7E 3 60 0 Stack Exit



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Sampling / Stack Data Results Summary



### Location Stack Exit - Method 26A Average Run Number M26A-4 M26A-5 M26A-6
Test Date 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 3/17/2010
Run Start Time 7:10:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:50:00 AM

Run Finish Time 8:24:00 AM 10:22:00 AM 12:35:00 PM

Net Run Time, minutes 60 60 60 Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 33.111 33.092 33.441 33.215 Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 15.23 11.07 17.25 14.517 Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % 12.49 12.49 12.81 12.597 Carbon Dioxide, % 12.1 12 12.1 12.067 Oxygen, % 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.233 Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 123.08 123.08 124.00 123.387 Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 1,764,185.9 1,814,300.1 1,765,019.0 1,781,168.33 3 Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 2,221,089.2 2,246,960.2 2,233,812.7 2,233,954.03 3 Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 106.6 103.6 107.6 105.933 F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 9780 9780 9780 9,780.000
Fw 10640 10640 10640 10,640.000
Fc 1800 1800 1800 1,800.000



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Emissions Summary



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 26A Compound: Hydrogen Chloride Average RunNumber M26A-4 M26A-5 M26A-6 Mass_mg 0.413 0.327 0.338 0.359 lb/mmBtuO2 4.07E-04 3.27E-04 3.35E-04 0.000


### Compound: Hydrogen Fluoride Average RunNumber M26A-4 M26A-5 M26A-6 Mass_mg 0.413 0.327 0.338 0.359 lb/mmBtuO2 4.07E-04 3.27E-04 3.35E-04 0.000



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 29 Compound: Antimony Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.003 0.003 0.0038 0.003 lb/mmBtuO2 5.54E-07 5.74E-07 7.31E-07 0.000


### Compound: Arsenic Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 lb/mmBtuO2 5.54E-07 5.74E-07 5.77E-07 0.000 

### Compound: Beryllium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00075 0.00075 0.00075 0.001 lb/mmBtuO2 1.38E-07 1.44E-07 1.44E-07 0.000


### Compound: Cadmium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00075 0.00075 0.00245 0.001 lb/mmBtuO2 1.38E-07 1.44E-07 4.71E-07 0.000


### Compound: Chromium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.0079 0.00831 0.00821 0.008 lb/mmBtuO2 1.46E-06 1.59E-06 1.58E-06 0.000


### Compound: Cobalt Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00172 0.00001 0.00119 0.001 lb/mmBtuO2 3.17E-07 1.91E-09 2.29E-07 0.000



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Compound: Filterable Particulate Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 140.7 119.9 62.2 107.600 lb/mmBtuO2 2.60E-02 2.29E-02 1.20E-02 0.020 

### Compound: Lead Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00358 0.00222 0.00247 0.003 lb/mmBtuO2 6.61E-07 4.25E-07 4.75E-07 0.000


### Compound: Manganese Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.00686 0.0051 0.00476 0.006 lb/mmBtuO2 1.27E-06 9.76E-07 9.16E-07 0.000


### Compound: Nickel Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.01866 0.02643 0.02036 0.022 lb/mmBtuO2 3.44E-06 5.06E-06 3.92E-06 0.000 

### Compound: Selenium Average RunNumber M29-1 M29-2 M29-3 Mass_mg 0.0318 0.0341 0.0745 0.047 lb/mmBtuO2 5.87E-06 6.52E-06 1.43E-05 0.000



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

### Compound: Filterable Particulate Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 76.1 43.3 65.7 61.700 lb/mmBtuO2 1.61E-02 9.20E-03 1.34E-02 0.013


### Compound: Inorganic (Aqueous) Condensible Pa Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 79.3 36.3 52.3 55.967 lb/mmBtuO2 1.68E-02 7.71E-03 1.07E-02 0.012


### Compound: Organic Condensible Particulate Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 2.6 7.1 2.1 3.933 lb/mmBtuO2 5.50E-04 1.51E-03 4.29E-04 0.001 

### Compound: Total Particulate Average RunNumber OTM28-1 OTM28-2 OTM28-3 Mass_mg 158 86.7 120.1 121.600


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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Process Run Data lb/mmBtuO2 3.34E-02 1.84E-02 2.46E-02 0.025



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 6C Compound: Sulfur Dioxide Average Run 4 5 6 lb/mmBtuO2 2.84E-01 2.82E-01 2.66E-01 0.277 ppm 1.15E+02 1.13E+02 1.07E+02 111.667 ppm@7%O2 1.16E+02 1.15E+02 1.09E+02 113.333



### Location: Stack Exit - Method 7E Compound: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Average Run 4 5 6 lb/mmBtuO2 1.12E-01 1.14E-01 1.16E-01 0.114 ppm 6.35E+01 6.35E+01 6.45E+01 63.833 ppm@7%O2 6.40E+01 6.49E+01 6.59E+01 64.933



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Process Run Data



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


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


### 5 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr
6 Coal Burned 1000 Tons/hr
1 Average Heat Input 6404 MMBtu/hr


### 2 Average Heat Input 6157 MMBtu/hr
3 Average Heat Input 6437 MMBtu/hr
4 Average Heat Input 4451 MMBtu/hr


### 5 Average Heat Input 5578 MMBtu/hr
6 Average Heat Input 6377 MMBtu/hr
1 Steam Output 5589 1000 lb steam/hr


### 2 Steam Output 5599 1000 lb steam/hr
3 Steam Output 5655 1000 lb steam/hr
4 Steam Output 5593 1000 lb steam/hr


### 5 Steam Output 7947 1000 lb steam/hr
6 Steam Output 5605 1000 lb steam/hr
1 Fuel Oil Firing Rate 0 gal/hr


### 2 Fuel Oil Firing Rate 0 gal/hr
3 Fuel Oil Firing Rate 0 gal/hr
4 Fuel Oil Firing Rate 0 gal/hr


### 5 Fuel Oil Firing Rate 0 gal/hr
6 Fuel Oil Firing Rate 0 gal/hr


### 1 Flue Gas Flow Rate 112488 wKscfh
4 Flue Gas Flow Rate 115197 wKscfh
5 Flue Gas Flow Rate 112260 wKscfh


### 6 Flue Gas Flow Rate 113126 wKscfh
1 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.9 in H20
4 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.9 in H20


### 5 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.9 in H20
6 Pressure Drop Across FGD (if applicable) 1.9 in H20
1 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

4 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH


### 5 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH
6 FGD Scrubber Liquor pH 5.4 pH
1 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 304 gal/min


### 4 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 288 gal/min
5 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 264 gal/min
6 FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate 274 gal/min


### 1 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.1 %
4 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.1 %
5 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.1 %


### 6 Flue Gas Oxygen Content 4.1 %
1 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.7 %
4 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.1 %


### 5 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.6 %
6 Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Content 10.7 %
1 Flue Gas Moisture Content %


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


### 1 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 122 Deg F
4 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 121 Deg F


### 5 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 121 Deg F
6 Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature 122 Deg F
1 Flue Gas Pressure 0.96 atm


### 4 Flue Gas Pressure 0.96 atm
5 Flue Gas Pressure 0.96 atm
6 Flue Gas Pressure 0.96 atm


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


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


### 5 Standard Temperature 68 Deg F
6 Standard Temperature 68 Deg F
1 Unit Gross Electrical Output 775 Mwe



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

APCD Run Data

Process Lab Run Data 4 Unit Gross Electrical Output 779 Mwe


### 5 Unit Gross Electrical Output 779 Mwe
6 Unit Gross Electrical Output 778 Mwe
1 Unit Net Electric Generation 744 MWh


### 4 Unit Net Electric Generation 748 MWh
5 Unit Net Electric Generation 748 MWh
6 Unit Net Electric Generation 748 MWh


### 1 SBS Dilute Flow rate 6 gpm 4 SBS Dilute Flow rate 5.3 gpm 5 SBS Dilute Flow rate 5.9 gpm


### 6 SBS Dilute Flow rate 6 gpm 1 ESP status i/s or o/s
4 ESP status i/s or o/s


### 5 ESP status i/s or o/s
6 ESP status i/s or o/s
1 SCR Ammonia flow 546 pph


### 4 SCR Ammonia flow 543 pph
5 SCR Ammonia flow 560 pph
6 SCR Ammonia flow 570 pph

Run Name Value UOM Comments Target Value 1 WET LIMESTONE FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM 0 0

1 SCR (SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION) 0 0


### 1 SODIUM BISULFITE (SBS) SYSTEM 0 0
1 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR 0 0

Run Name Value UOM Comments 

### 1 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15151 Btu/lb 2 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15268 Btu/lb 3 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15243 Btu/lb 4 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15148 Btu/lb 

### 5 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15140 Btu/lb 6 Fuel Higher Heating Value 15165 Btu/lb 1 Fuel Moisture 1.18 %



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

2 Fuel Moisture 1.35 % 

### 3 Fuel Moisture 1.23 % 4 Fuel Moisture 1.45 % 5 Fuel Moisture 1.41 % 6 Fuel Moisture 1.39 % 

### 1 Fuel Mercury Content 74.49 ppb 2 Fuel Mercury Content 71.51 ppb 3 Fuel Mercury Content 134.4 ppb 

### 1 Fuel Cadmium Content 0.05 ppm 2 Fuel Cadmium Content 0.05 ppm 3 Fuel Cadmium Content 0.05 ppm 1 Fuel Nickel Content 5.89 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Nickel Content 6.16 ppm 3 Fuel Nickel Content 6.93 ppm 1 Fuel Arsenic Content 2.53 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Arsenic Content 2.21 ppm 3 Fuel Arsenic Content 3.59 ppm 1 Fuel Chromium Content 14.6 ppm 2 Fuel Chromium Content 15.8 ppm 

### 3 Fuel Chromium Content 16.8 ppm 1 Fuel Beryllium Content 0.04 ppm 2 Fuel Beryllium Content 0.04 ppm 

### 3 Fuel Beryllium Content 0.04 ppm 1 Fuel Lead Content 3.66 ppm 2 Fuel Lead Content 4.11 ppm 3 Fuel Lead Content 5.14 ppm 

### 1 Fuel Manganese Content 14.6 ppm 2 Fuel Manganese Content 12.5 ppm 3 Fuel Manganese Content 12.7 ppm 

### 1 Scrubber Slurry 3E+05 mg/L 2 Scrubber Slurry 2E+05 mg/L 3 Scrubber Slurry 2E+05 mg/L 1 Fuel Cobalt Content 0.25 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Cobalt Content 0.25 ppm 3 Fuel Cobalt Content 0.25 ppm 1 Fuel Antimony Content 4.99 ppm 

### 2 Fuel Antimony Content 4.91 ppm 3 Fuel Antimony Content 4.93 ppm 1 Fuel Ash, as received 8.02 % 2 Fuel Ash, as received 8.06 % 

### 3 Fuel Ash, as received 8.57 % 4 Fuel Ash, as received 8.17 % 5 Fuel Ash, as received 8.03 %



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

6 Fuel Ash, as received 8.18 % 

### 1 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.11 % 2 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.17 % 3 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.68 % 4 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.29 % 

### 5 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.14 % 6 Fuel Ash, dry basis 8.29 % 1 Fuel Volatile, as received 39.01 % 

### 2 Fuel Volatile, as received 36.53 % 3 Fuel Volatile, as received 35.63 % 4 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.42 % 5 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.29 % 

### 6 Fuel Volatile, as received 38.24 % 1 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 39.47 % 2 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 37.02 % 

### 3 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 36.07 % 4 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 38.98 % 5 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 38.83 % 6 Fuel Volatile, dry basis 38.78 % 

### 1 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.661 % 2 Fuel Sulfur, as received 1.892 % 3 Fuel Sulfur, as received 1.813 % 

### 4 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.545 % 5 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.485 % 6 Fuel Sulfur, as received 2.437 % 1 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.693 % 

### 2 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 1.918 % 3 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 1.835 % 4 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.582 % 

### 5 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.521 % 6 Fuel Sulfur, dry basis 2.471 % 1 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.12 % 2 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.12 % 

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

### 6 Fuel Chlorine, as received 0.14 % 1 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 2 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 3 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 

### 4 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.11 % 5 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.12 % 6 Fuel Chlorine, dry basis 0.14 %



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

4 Fuel Fluorine, as received 65 ppm 

### 5 Fuel Fluorine, as received 53 ppm 6 Fuel Fluorine, as received 49 ppm 4 Fuel Fluorine, dry basis 66 ppm 5 Fuel Fluorine, dry basis 54 ppm 

### 6 Fuel Fluorine, dry basis 50 ppm 1 Fuel Selenium Content 0.67 ppm 2 Fuel Selenium Content 0.83 ppm 

### 3 Fuel Selenium Content 0.37 ppm 1 Carbon, as received 75.64 % 2 Carbon, as received 76.19 % 3 Carbon, as received 75.51 % 

### 4 Carbon, as received 75.34 % 5 Carbon, as received 75.15 % 6 Carbon, as received 73.87 % 

### 1 Carbon, dry basis 76.27 % 2 Carbon, dry basis 77.03 % 3 Carbon, dry basis 76.2 % 4 Carbon, dry basis 76.2 % 

### 5 Carbon, dry basis 75.95 % 6 Carbon, dry basis 74.7 % 1 Hydrogen, as received 4.87 % 

### 2 Hydrogen, as received 4.85 % 3 Hydrogen, as received 4.69 % 4 Hydrogen, as received 4.78 % 5 Hydrogen, as received 4.81 % 

### 6 Hydrogen, as received 4.83 % 1 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.91 % 2 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.9 % 

### 3 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.73 % 4 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.84 % 5 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.86 % 6 Hydrogen, dry basis 4.88 % 

### 1 Nitrogen, as received 1.8 % 2 Nitrogen, as received 1.88 % 3 Nitrogen, as received 1.97 % 

### 4 Nitrogen, as received 1.68 % 5 Nitrogen, as received 1.65 % 6 Nitrogen, as received 1.83 % 1 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.81 % 

### 2 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.9 % 3 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.99 % 4 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.7 %



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

5 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.67 % 

### 6 Nitrogen, dry basis 1.85 %

Tuesday, February 01, 2011 Page 32 of 37

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

Sampling / Stack Data Results Detail



### Location Stack Exit - Method 26A Average Run Number M26A-4 M26A-5 M26A-6 Test Date 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 Run Start Time 7:10:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:50:00 AM Run Finish Time 8:24:00 AM 10:22:00 AM 12:35:00 PM Net Traversing Points 12 12 12 Net Run Time, minutes 60 60 60 Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 Pitot Tube Coefficient 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.830 Dry Gas Meter Calibration Factor 1 1 1 1.000 Barometric Pressure, inches of Mercury 30.05 30.06 30.05 30.053 Average Orifice Meter Differential, inches H2O 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.030 Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, cubic feet 33.436 33.711 34.255 33.801 Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature, °F 76.83 81.75 84.58 81.053 Dry Gas Meter Volume Sampled, dscf 33.111 33.092 33.441 33.215 Total Moisture Liquid collected, g 126.4 87.55 148.1 120.683 Volume of Water Vapor, standard cubic feet 5.95 4.12 6.97 5.680 Moisture Content of Stack Gas, % 15.23 11.07 17.25 14.517 Moisture Saturation at Stack Gas Temperature, % 12.49 12.49 12.81 12.597 Dry Mole Fraction 0.8751 0.8893 0.8719 0.879 Carbon Dioxide, % 12.1 12 12.1 12.067 Oxygen, % 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.233 Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen, % 80.8 80.7 80.6 80.700 Fuel Factor 1.14 1.13 1.12 Dry Molecular Weight, lb/lb-Mole 30.22 30.21 30.23 30.220 Wet Molecular weight, lb/lb-Mole 29.19 28.86 29.46 29.170 Flue Gas Static Pressure, inches of H2O -0.84 -0.84 -0.84 -0.840 Absolute Flue Gas Pressure, inches of Mercury 29.99 30.00 29.99 29.993 Average Stack Gas Temperature, °F 123.08 123.08 124.00 123.387 Average Velocity Head, inches of H2O 0.8177830233 91043 0.827717677

477343 0.833521845

974034 0.826

Average Stack Gas Velocity, feet/second 52.37 52.98 52.67 52.673 Stack Cross-Sectional Area, square feet 706.858 706.858 706.858 706.858 Dry Volumetric Flow Rate, dry scfm 1,764,185.9 1,814,300.1 1,765,019.0 1,781,168.3 33 Actual Wet Volumetric Flue Gas Flow Rate, acfm 2,221,089.2 2,246,960.2 2,233,812.7 2,233,954.0 33 Percent Isokinetic of Sampling Rate, % 106.6 103.6 107.6 105.933 Percent Excess Air, % 49.9 52.1 52.2 51.400 F-Factor, dscfm/MMBtu @ %O2 9780 9780 9780 9,780.000 Round Duct Diameter, inches 360 360 360 Rectangular Duct Width, inches 0 0 0 Rectangular Duct Length, inches 0 0 0 Fw 10640 10640 10640 10,640.000 Fc 1800 1800 1800 1,800.000



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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

### PPL Generation, LLC - Montour Station Unit 2

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



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