### Date : September 30 , 2011

**Subject:** National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

for Coal

- and Oil Response to Comment Regarding 98 Facilities Lacking Part II Mercury Testing Data in the MACT Floor Analysis
**From:** Shelly

Johnson, RTI

International **To:** William Maxwell

EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG **Background** The EPA proposed National Emission Standards for Coal

- and Oil

-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating EGUs on May 3, 2011. The public comment period ended on August 4, 2011. The company , CONSOL Energy, Inc., submitted comments on the proposed rule. CONSOL states

“EPA did not use all the data available to it in calculating the MACT floor. There are 98 plants . . . that submitted Part II Hg emission data, but these plants are not in the list of 202 plants (338 units) in the MACT floor spreadsheet. . . EPA has exclude the data from 98 plants, nor discussed this data in any way. . . EPA failed to provide any reason for excluding these 98 plants. . . It is incumbent upon EPA to evaluate those data and explain why they were not used, and t explanation if data were excluded for the other HAPs and HAP surrogates. . . The statue [sic] requires EPA to use all available emissions information. Since EPA cannot simply exclude those data without explanation, and sin comment upon the Agency’s bases for that exclusion, EPA is obligated to provide that information and to take comment on it before it finalizes this rule.” 

### This memorandum addresses provided by the above

-mentioned 98 **Discussion** In order to process the large amount of emission test data submitted in response to the I CR, RTI developed a Microsoft Access and developed a series of database queries to calculate the emission factors (lb/MMBtu) necessary to conduct the MACT floor analysis. In the data analysis process (database queries), many stipulatio ns were placed on the test data to ensure that the analysis included only those tests reports representing current EGU configurations. The five bullets listed

, 2011 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Oil

-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating EGUs Response to Comment Regarding 98 Facilities Lacking Part II Mercury Testing Data in the MACT Floor Analysis Shelly Johnson, RTI

International William Maxwell OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

The EPA proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for

Fired Electric Utility

Steam Generating EGUs on May 3, 2011. The public comment period ended on August 4, 2011. The company , CONSOL Energy, Inc., submitted comments on the proposed rule. CONSOL states , in part :

“EPA did not use all the data available to it in calculating the MACT floor. There are 98 plants . . . that submitted Part II Hg emission data, but these plants are not in the list of 202

units) in the MACT floor spreadsheet. . . EPA has not provided a reason to exclude the data from 98 plants, nor discussed this data in any way. . . EPA failed to provide any reason for excluding these 98 plants. . . It is incumbent upon EPA to evaluate those data and explain why they were not used, and t o do similar analyses and provide explanation if data were excluded for the other HAPs and HAP surrogates. . . The statue [sic] requires EPA to use all available emissions information. Since EPA cannot simply exclude those data without explanation, and sin ce the public is entitled to view and comment upon the Agency’s bases for that exclusion, EPA is obligated to provide that information and to take comment on it before it finalizes this rule.” 

### This memorandum addresses the reason(s) for exclusion of the mercury emission test data mentioned 98 facilities from the MACT floor analysis for mercury.
In order to process the large amount of emission test data submitted in response to the I CR, RTI developed a Microsoft Access database to store the raw data provided by the companies, and developed a series of database queries to calculate the emission factors (lb/MMBtu) necessary to conduct the MACT floor analysis. In the data analysis process (database

ns were placed on the test data to ensure that the analysis included only those tests reports representing current EGU configurations. The five bullets listed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

Fired Electric Utility

Steam Generating EGUs

- Response to Comment Regarding 98 Facilities Lacking Part II Mercury

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Fired Electric Utility

Steam Generating EGUs on May 3, 2011. The public comment period ended on August 4, 2011. The company , CONSOL Energy, Inc., submitted
“EPA did not use all the data available to it in calculating the MACT floor. There are 98 plants . . . that submitted Part II Hg emission data, but these plants are not in the list of 202 not provided a reason to exclude the data from 98 plants, nor discussed this data in any way. . . EPA failed to provide any reason for excluding these 98 plants. . . It is incumbent upon EPA to evaluate o do similar analyses and provide explanation if data were excluded for the other HAPs and HAP surrogates. . . The statue [sic] requires EPA to use all available emissions information. Since EPA cannot simply ce the public is entitled to view and comment upon the Agency’s bases for that exclusion, EPA is obligated to provide that



### rcury emission test data facilities from the MACT floor analysis for mercury.
In order to process the large amount of emission test data submitted in response to the I CR, database to store the raw data provided by the companies, and developed a series of database queries to calculate the emission factors (lb/MMBtu) necessary to conduct the MACT floor analysis. In the data analysis process (database

ns were placed on the test data to ensure that the analysis included only those tests reports representing current EGU configurations. The five bullets listed

### 2



### below describe the criteria by which some emission tests were excluded from the MACT floor analys is spreadsheets. There are instances, noted below, where some data were not included in the MACT floor output for the EGU proposal, but are included in the current MACT floor output for the promulgated rule. The database queries used to develop the emission factors have been refined to include additional emission tests, as appropriate.

 **Emission rate, but no process data.** An emission test was excluded if the pollutant emissions were provided in units of an emission rate (e.g., pounds per hour), but the necessary process information was not provided to calculate an emission factor. Either the unit load (MW) during testing or the fuel flow rate (lb/hour) and fuel heating value (Btu/lb) during testing were needed in addition to the emission rate.

 **Concentr ation, but insufficient flue gas parameters.**  An emission test was excluded if the pollutant emissions were provided in units of concentration, but not enough sampling run data was provided to calculate an emission factor. The equations contained in EPA Method 19 were used to convert concentrations to emission factors. The additional pieces of data necessary to make the conversion included fuel type, concentration units that could be converted to pounds per dry standard cubic foot, percent oxygen or percent carbon dioxide, and moisture content of the flue gas. Additionally, facilities that burned exactly a 50/50 split of the fuels during testing were excluded, as the automated process was developed to consider just one primary fuel.

 **Test data prior to install ation of current emission controls.**  An emission test was excluded if the test report end date was not provided by the company. In order to accurately represent the emissions from EGUs as they are currently configured and operating, any emission tests that were completed prior to the latest air pollution control device installation date were excluded. For example, if a company provided emission test reports from March 2006 and March 2009, and installed an activated carbon injection system in 2008, then only the March 2009 test would appear in the MACT floor output. In the process for the February output, the test date was chosen from one field in the ICR database. If this field was not populated, then the test report was excluded. Since the February output, the process has been modified to include more reports by pulling in dates from more fields (there are several fields from which the test date can be determined). As a result, additional tests are now included in the MACT floor output.

### 3



### Additionally, for the February output, for facilities that have no add

- on emission control devices, there is no control installation date, so these reports were excluded. Since the February output, the output queries have been modified to include these reports. Since the February output was created, another change to the database has been to denote future controls as any control with a start date of 1/1/2010 or later. These controls were not considered in determining the latest configuration control date.

 **Sampling port not after last control.**  Multiple sampling ports could have been selected for a test; however, results from only one sampling port were selected. The sampling port selected had to be located after the last emission control device and had to be the last port for which data were provided. For example, if a company provided test results for the inlet to their wet scrubber (the last control in their configuration), a sampling port at the bottom of the stack, and a sampling port at the top of their stack, then only the test results from the sampling port at the top of their stack would be used. An emission test was excluded if the sampling port chosen for the test was not part of the configuration chosen for the test (i.e., the sampling port was not included in the “current” configuration for the unit). In the electronic ICR, there was a mandatory field for the sampling port to be selected and an optional field for the configuration to be selected for each test. In tests from a few facilities, the company did not select a sampling port that was part of the configuration they selected. These test results were excluded.

 **Yellowstone Energy (specific facility cited**  **by commenter )**  **.** The Yellowstone Energy LP facility (ORIS Code 50931) results are , in fact, included in the MACT floor analys is. The data are included in the petroleum coke spreadsheet because the primary

fuel during testing was reported to be petroleum coke. **Conclusion** Table 1 presents a summary of the reasons emissions tests were excluded from the MACT floor analys is at proposal, and provides counts of facilities excluded for each reason. Table 1 also presents the number of previously excluded facilities that have been added to the MACT floor analys is for promulgation due to refinements in the database queries

. The attached Table A

- 1 (in Attachment 1) lists the 98 facilities that were excluded from the mercury MACT floor analysis at proposal

. Table A

- 1 includes the reason each of these emission tests was excluded from the MACT floor analysis at proposal

. An additional column identifies the emission tests that are now included in the MACT floor analysis due to refinements in the database queries since proposal.

### 4 

### Table **1 : MACT Floor Facility Exclusion Summary** 
**Re ason**  **Fa ci**  **lit ies** **e xc**  **lu de**  **d in**  **Feb ru**  **ary output Fa**  **ci lit**  **ies that are**  **now in**  **cl ude**  **d** Emi ssi on rate , but no proces s data 11 Concen trati on, but in suffic ien t flu e gas parame te rs 58
Te st data pri or

to in sta lla ti on of cu rre nt em is si on co ntrol s 33 13
Te st data f ro m ol d co nf ig urati on, or not at the sta ck 1
Ye llo wstone En ergy 1 **Th e sum of fa ci lit iese xc lu de d is104, i nste ad o f 98, b ecause 6 fa ci lit iesfal l unde r m ul ti pl e re asons.

### 5 

### Attachment 1**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 6

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy**
2 0 7 HgTest_0 6_2 00 6_AppK x 2 0 7 HgTest_0 6_2 00 6_OH x 2 0 7 HgTest_0 6_2 00 6_SCEM x 5 0 8 3 x 594 Unit 3
- 1 00 % Bituminous Test
-

Trace Metals x 594 Unit 3 6 0 % PRB Test
- Trace

Metals x 7 0 3 Unit 3 Scrubber Mercury testing x 856 1 x x 856 1 0 x x 856 11 x x 856 2 x x 856 3 x x 856 4 x x 856 5 x x 856 6 x x 856 7 x x 856 8 x x 856 9 x x 861 1 x x 863 1 x 863 2 x 863 3 x 876 2 00 9Hg x x 898 14 x 898 16 x 976 1 x 976 1 0 x 976 11 x 976 12 x 976 13 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 7

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 976 14 x 976 15 x 976 16 x 976 17 x 976 18 x 976 19 x 976 2 x 976 2 0 x 976 21 x 976 22 x 976 23 x 976 24 x 976 25 x 976 26 x 976 27 x 976 28 x 976 29 x 976 3 x 976 3 0 x 976 31 x 976 32 x 976 33 x 976 34 x 976 35 x 976 36 x 976 37 x 976 38 x 976 39 x 976 4 x 976 4 0 x 976 41 x 976 42 x 976 43 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 8

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 976 44 x 976 45 x 976 5 x 976 6 x 976 7 x 976 8 x 976 9 x 1 00 8 U2 0 914 0 9
- BAGOUT x 1 00 8 U2 0 914 0 9
- BASE x 1122 3 x x 1122 4 x x 1122 5 x x 1122 6 x x 1122 7 x x 1217 2 00 7 Stack (Hg) x x 1217 2 00 9 Stack (Hg) x x 1239 2 x 1239 4 x 1381 Baseline Mercury Test Study x 1382 Baseline Mercury Test Study x 1382 Baseline Mercury Test Study 2 00 7

H1 x 1382 Baseline Mercury Test Study 2 00 7

H2 x 1383 Baseline Mercury Test Study x 1552 1 x 1552 1 0 x 1552 11 x 1552 12 x 1552 13 x 1552 14 x 1552 2 x 1552 3 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 9

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 1552 4 x 1552 5 x 1552 6 x 1552 7 x 1552 8 x 1552 9 x 1554 1 x 1554 1 0 x 1554 11 x 1554 12 x 1554 13 x 1554 14 x 1554 15 x 1554 2 x 1554 3 x 1554 4 x 1554 5 x 1554 6 x 1554 7 x 1554 8 x 1554 9 x 1571 E1 Hg 1qtr 0 9 x x 1571 E1 HG 2QTR 0 8 x 1571 E1 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x x 1571 E1 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1571 E1 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x 1571 E1 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1571 E1 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x 1571 E2 HG 1QTR 0 8 x 1571 E2 HG 2qtr 0 8 x 1571 E2 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x x 1571 E2 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1571 E2 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 10

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 1571 E2 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1571 E2 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x 1572 D1 HG 1QTR 0 8 x 1572 D1 Hg 1qtr 0 9 x 1572 D1 Hg 2qtr 0 8 x 1572 D1 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x 1572 D1 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1572 D1 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x 1572 D1 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1572 D1 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x 1572 D2 HG 1QTR 0 8 x 1572 D2 Hg 2qtr 0 8 x 1572 D2 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x 1572 D2 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1572 D2 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x 1572 D2 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1572 D2 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x 1572 D3 HG 1QTR 0 8 x 1572 D3 Hg 1qtr 0 9 x 1572 D3 Hg 2qtr 0 8 x 1572 D3 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x 1572 D3 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1572 D3 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x 1572 D3 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1572 D3 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x 1573 F1 HG 1QTR 0 8 x 1573 F1 Hg 1qtr 0 9 x 1573 F1 Hg 2qtr 0 8 x 1573 F1 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x 1573 F1 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1573 F1 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x 1573 F1 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1573 F1 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 11

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 1573 F2 HG 1QTR 0 8 x 1573 F2 Hg 1qtr 0 9 x 1573 F2 Hg 2qtr 0 8 x 1573 F2 Hg 2qtr 0 9 x 1573 F2 HG 3QTR 0 7 x 1573 F2 Hg 3qtr 0 8 x 1573 F2 HG 4QTR 0 7 x 1573 F2 Hg 4qtr 0 8 x 16 0 6 Hg CEM certification 2 00 8 x 16 0 6 Hg CEMS certification 2 00 9 x x 16 0 6 Hg emissions 2 00 6 x 16 0 6 Hg emissions Jan. 2 00 7 x 16 0 6 Hg emissions Sept 2 00 7 x 16 0 6 Jan 2 00 8 initial Hg CEMS

certification x 16 0 6 Turbosorp
- initial compliance test x 1619 2 00 7FebHg x 1619 2 00 7OctHg x 1695 BCC4
- Hg CEMs Performance x 1695 BCC5
- Hg CEMs Performance

Guarentee x 17 0 2 DEK1
- Hg Cems Performance

Test x 17 0 2 DEK2
- Hg CEMs performance

guarantee x 172 0 JCW7 8
- Hg CEMs Performance

Test x 1769 PIPP
-TracePM
- F7
- 0 5.2 00 9 x 1831 Hg
- 1
-- 7/0 5 x x 1831 Hg
-2
- 7/0 5 x x 1831 Hg
- 3
- 7/0 5 x x 1831 Hg
-4
- 7/0 5 x x 1891 GE
- Hg
- 7
-2 00 9 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 12

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 1891 Platt_HG
- 6
-2 00 8 x 2 00 8 Results of Unit 4 Compliance

Testing #9 0 2546 (Hg) x 2168 Catalyst Mercury Test x 2168 Catalyst Mercury Test U2 x 2168 Catalyst Mercury Test U3 x 2187 Dec2 00 5Hg x 2187 June2 00 8Hg x 2187 Nov2 00 7Hg x 2187 Sept2 00 8Hg x 2367 sr-4
- 0 37
- Hg
-2 x 2367 SR
-4
- 0 7
- 0 37
- Hg
- 1 x 2367 SR4
- 0 7
- 0 37
- Hg
- 3 x 2367 SR4
-- 0 7
- 0 37
- Hg
-4 x 2367 SR4
- 0 7
- 0 37
- Hg
- 5 x 2367 SR4
- 0 7
- 123
- M3 0 B x 2367 SR4
- 0 8
- 0 3 0
- M29 x 2367 SR4
- 0 8
- 0 93
- M29 x 2367 SR4
- 0 8
- 0 93
- M3 0 B x 2367 SR4
- 0 9
- 0 38
- M29 x 2367 SR4
- 0 9
- 042
- M29 x 2367 SR5
- Startup Testing x 2367 SR6
- 0 8
- 124
-Test Burn x 2549 Stack
- Hg
- 0 6 0 9 x 2549 Stack
- Hg
- 0 7 0 7 x 2549 Stack
- Hg
- 0 7 0 8 x 2554 Hg
- 0 6/0 8
- 1 x 2554 Hg
- 0 6/0 8
-2 x 2554 Hg
- 0 6/0 9
- 1 x 2554 Hg
- 0 6/0 9
-2 x 2554 Hg
- 0 6/0 9
- 3 x 2554 Hg
- 0 6/0 9
-4 x 2554 Hg
- 0 7/0 7
- 1 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 13

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 2554 Hg
- 0 7/0 7
-2 x 2554 Hg
- 0 7/0 7
- 3 x 2554 Hg
- 0 7/0 7
-4 x 2554 Hg
- 0 7/0 8
- 3 x 2554 Hg
- 0 7/0 8
-4 x 272 0 BLR5(9/12/0 7) x 272 0 BLR9(3/5/0 8) x 272 0 BLR9(8/11/0 9) x 2721 UNIT2(1 0/3/0 7) x 2721 UNIT4(1 0/2/0 7) x 2721 UNIT5(9/16/0 8) x 2723 UNIT2(9/14/0 7) x 2727 CS 00 1 0 11 00 8 x 2727 CS 00 1 0 111 0 8 x 2727 CS 00 1 0 8 04 0 9 x 2727 U3 0 116 0 8 x 2727 U3 0 116 0 8RemovalIN x 2727 U3 0 116 0 8RemovalOUT x 2727 U3 0 117 0 8 x 2727 U3 0 122 0 8 x 2727 U3 0 8 0 3 0 9 x 2727 U4 0 123 0 8 x 2727 U4 0 124 0 8 x 2727 U4 0 125 0 8 x 2727 U4 0 8 0 5 0 9 x 2823 2 00 8 HG Testing x 2835 Hg Testing (June 2 00 6) x 2838 Unit 18 Hg Testing (Jun 2 00 6) x 285 0 MS4W EngineerHg x 2864 Unit 8 Hg Testing (Dec 2 00 5) x 2866 Unit 4 Hg Testing (July 2 00 5) x 2866 Unit 5 Hg Testing (July 2 00 5) x 2866 Unit 6 Hg Testing (July 2 00 5) x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 14

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 2878 Unit 1 Hg Testing (Sept 2 00 6) x 2878 Unit 2 Hg Testing (Sept 2 00 6) x 2878 Unit 3 Hg Testing (Sept 2 00 6) x 2878 Unit 4 Hg Testing (Sept 2 00 6) x 3131 SH
- 181 x 3131 SH
- 181A x 3131 SH
- 181B x 3131 Unit 1 Baseline HG x 3131 Unit 1 Boiler performance x 3131 Unit 2 Baseline Hg x 3131 Unit 2 Boiler Performance x 3131 Unit 3
-4 Baseline Hg x 3136 K179 x 3136 K1792 x 3298 Hg
- 0 3/0 9 x x 3298 Hg
- 11/0 5 x x 3298 Hg
- 12/0 8 x x 3298 Hg
- 12/0 9 x x 3298 PM
- HCL
- HF
- Hg
- 0 6/0 6 x x 3317 G1LME2 00 8 x x 3317 G2LME2 00 8 x x 3319 J3LME2 00 8 x x 3319 J4LME2 00 8 x x 3497 14
- Mercury Measurements at Unit

1 x 3497 5
-The Effect of ACI on Mercury

Control at Unit 1 x 3497 7
- Field Testing of ACI Options for

Mercury Control x 3644 CRB1 Mercury CEM Certification x 3644 CRB2 Mercury CEM Certification x 3944 9 x 3982 Mercury Diagnostic Test 2 00 6 x x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 15

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 4 0 5 0 EDG3
- HG
-2 00 71 00 3 x 4 0 5 0 EDG4
- Hg
-2 00 711 0 1 x 4 0 5 0 EDG4
- Hg
-2 00 8 0 73 0 x 4 0 5 0 EDG4
- Hg
-2 00 8 0 731 x 4 0 5 0 EDG5
- Hg
-2 00 6 0 9 0 7 x 4 0 5 0 EDG5
- HgPM
-2 00 8 0 226 x 4 0 5 0 EDG5
- HgPM
-2 00 8 0 3 0 6 x 4 0 5 0 EDG5
- Metals
-2 00 6 0 615 x 4 0 54 ND1
- Inlet
- Metals
-2 00 5 0 222 x 4 0 54 ND1
- Outlet
- Metals
-2 00 5 0 222 x 4 0 54 ND2
- Hg
-2 00 711 0 1 x 4 0 54 ND2
- Inlet
- Metals
-2 00 5 0 224 x 4 0 54 ND2
- Outlet
- Metals
-2 00 5 0 224 x 414 0 3 x x 414 0 4 x 4143 5 x 4158 BW 41 Mercury CEM Certification Testing x 4158 BW 42 Mercury CEM Certification Testing x 4158 BW 43 Mercury CEM Certification Testing x 4158 BW 44 Mercury CEM Certification Testing x 4162 Mercury CEM Certification Testing x 4162 Mercury CEM RATA Testing Unit 3 x 4162 Mercury CEM RATA Testing Units

1&2 x 4271 5 x 4941 2 00 6
- Hg x 6 0 31 Hg Test 2 00 7 Stack x 6 0 31 Hg Test 2 00 8 Port 1 x 6 0 65 MercuryCEMSRATA2 00 9 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 16

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 6 0 68 MERC 0 7 0 9/3 x 6 0 73 Hg Control using Sorbent Injection

2 00 5 x 6 0 89 5 x 6 0 89 8 x 6 0 89 9 x 6 0 94 Unit 1 Hg Certification (Nov 2 00 8) x 6 0 94 Unit 1 Hg Testing (May 2 00 7) x 6 0 94 Unit 2 Hg Certification (Nov 2 00 8) x 6 0 94 Unit 2 Hg Certification (Nov 2 00 9) x 6 0 94 Unit 3 Hg Certification 1 (Nov

2 00 8) x 6 0 94 Unit 3 Hg Certification 2 (Nov

2 00 8) x 6 0 94 Unit 3 Hg Testing (Jul 2 00 5) x 61 0 1 Mercury CEM Certification Testing

2 00 8 x 61 0 1 Mercury CEM RATA Testing 2 00 9 x 6136 1 x 6146 13b
- Multi
- Method Hg

Speciation \Acid Gas for Unit 2 x x 6146 4
- Optimizing ACI for Mercury

Em ission Control x x 6165 PST2 00 8HGU1 x 6165 PST2 00 9HGU3 x 6165 PST2 00 9HHU2 x 617 0 PPPP
- Hg
- U1
- 0 1.2 00 7 x 617 0 PPPP
- Hg
- U2
- 5.2 00 7 x 6178 Stack
- 6/0 6 x 6178 Stack
- 8/0 8 x 6193 Sorbent Injection for Mercury

Control x 6194 Sorbent Injection for Mercury x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 17

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** Control at Tolk Sta 6195 Hg Emissions\ 181
- 0 15 x 62 04 Pre
- Sorbent Injection Evaluation 1 x 62 04 Pre
- Sorbent Injection Evaluation 2 x 62 04 U2 Mercury Em issions Report x 62 04 U3 Mercury T est Report x 6249 W1 LME2 00 8 x x 6249 W2 LME2 00 8 x x 6249 W3 LME2 00 8 x x 6249 W4 LME2 00 8 x x 6257 3 0 B and Ontario Hydro Single

Point Test Results x 6257 Mercury Emission Results Unit 2;

Jan 2 00 9 x 6257 Unit 3 Baghouse Performance (Hg

only) x 6288 00 1 x 6481 Hg CEM Acceptance Test x 6772 Hg
-2 00 5 x 6823 Baseline Mercury Test Study x 8 00 2 NT
-x9
- 113
- PM x 8 042 UNIT1(8/24/0 9) x 8 042 UNIT1(9/11/0 8) x 8 042 UNIT1(9/12/0 8) x 8 042 UNIT2(1 0/21/0 8) x 8 042 UNIT2(8/26/0 9) x 8 042 UNIT2(9/1 0/0 8) x 8 042 UNIT2(9/9/0 8) x 8 0 69 U1 Mercury CEM Certification Test x 8 0 69 Unit 2 Mercury CEMS Certification

Test x 8222 Mercury Emission Test x 8226 CH
- 63 x**Table A -**  **1. Excluded Test Reports**



### 18

**F acility**  **ID (ORIS**  **Code) R** **eport ID Provided by** 

**Respondent Emission**  **rate w/o process**  **data Concentration** 

**w/o flue gas parameters**  **Test data prior**

**current emission**  **controls Included in** 

**current output**  **Test data from old**  **configuration Yellowstone** 

**Energy** 1 0 113 2 00 9 Hg 1 x 10 113 2 00 9 Hg 2 x 1 0 675 4 x x 1 0 675 5 x x 1 0 675 6 x x 10 784 2 00 8 RATA x 1 0 784 2 00 9 RATA x 5 00 39 1 x 5 00 39 3 x 5 0 879 StackTest
- 1 x 5 0 879 StackTest
-2 x 5 0 931 2/15/0 5 to 2/17/0 5 testing x 54626 6 x x