### Appendix A-1: Sample Volumes and Oxygen Percentages Used to Estimate TEQ D/F 3x RDL for Existing Sources

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Fuel Category Combustor Design**  **Test ID Test Date**  **Sample Volume (dscf)**  **Sample**

**Volume (dscm)**  **1** 

### Stack Oxygen

**Concentration (%)**  ALIPCourtland No. 3 Combination Boier / 11CU301 Biomass FB Sample #1 7/7/2009 95.216 2.70 11.4 ALIPCourtland No. 3 Combination Boier / 11CU301 Biomass FB Sample #2 7/8/2009 95.55 2.71 11.7 ALIPCourtland No. 3 Combination Boier / 11CU301 Biomass FB Sample #3 7/9/2009 90.609 2.57 11.8 ARAnthonyForestProducts SN-12 Biomass Fuel Cell Sample #1 9/1/2009 91.153 2.58 8 ARAnthonyForestProducts SN-12 Biomass Fuel Cell Sample #2 9/1/2009 90.276 2.56 8.5 ARAnthonyForestProducts SN-12 Biomass Fuel Cell Sample #3 9/1/2009 91.905 2.60 10.3 INPurdueUniverisity Boiler 5 Coal FB Sample #1 7/22/2009 215.259 6.10 4.4 INPurdueUniverisity Boiler 5 Coal FB Sample #2 7/22/2009 204.137 5.78 4.4 INPurdueUniverisity Boiler 5 Coal FB Sample #3 7/22/2009 195.555 5.54 4.4 NDCargillWestFargo Foster Wheeler Boiler (EU43) Biomass FB Sample #1 8/26/2009 124.839 3.54 12.68 NDCargillWestFargo Foster Wheeler Boiler (EU43) Biomass FB Sample #2 8/26/2009 107.126 3.03 12.24 NDCargillWestFargo Foster Wheeler Boiler (EU43) Biomass FB Sample #3 8/26/2009 108.077 3.06 11.94 ORRosboroSpringfield DV 01.1 Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #1 7/23/2009 105.1 2.98 15.1 ORRosboroSpringfield DV 01.1 Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #2 7/23/2009 74.8 2.12 12.8 ORRosboroSpringfield DV 01.1 Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #3 7/23/2009 73.8 2.09 12.6 TNBowaterNewsprint Bubbling Fluidized Bed Boiler Biomass FB Sample #1 8/4/2009 94.937 2.69 7.1 TNBowaterNewsprint Bubbling Fluidized Bed Boiler Biomass FB Sample #2 8/4/2009 96.466 2.73 6.8 TNBowaterNewsprint Bubbling Fluidized Bed Boiler Biomass FB Sample #3 8/4/2009 98.612 2.79 7.6 WVPPGMartinsville R011-Boiler 3 Coal PC Sample #1 7/22/2009 107.78 3.05 7.8 WVPPGMartinsville R011-Boiler 3 Coal PC Sample #2 7/22/2009 167.45 4.74 8.6 WVPPGMartinsville R011-Boiler 3 Coal PC Sample #3 7/22/2009 171.21 4.85 8.03 ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #1 7/17/2009 131.8532 3.73 8.68 ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #2 7/17/2009 101.8301 2.88 9.39 ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #3 7/17/2009 128.1632 3.63 9.95 GATempleInlandRome WF Biomass FB Sample #1 7/27/2009 111.773 3.17 4.6 GATempleInlandRome WF Biomass FB Sample #2 7/27/2009 116.205 3.29 5.4 GATempleInlandRome WF Biomass FB Sample #3 7/27/2009 109.405 3.10 5.1 GATempleInlandRome WF Biomass FB Sample #2 7/27/2009 116.205 3.29 5.4 GATempleInlandRome WF Biomass FB Sample #3 7/27/2009 109.405 3.10 5.1 IDPotlatch PB-1 CE Biomass Fuel Cell Sample #1 7/28/2009 142 4.02 16.2 IDPotlatch PB-1 CE Biomass Fuel Cell Sample #2 7/28/2009 143 4.05 17.2 IDPotlatch PB-1 CE Biomass Fuel Cell Sample #3 7/28/2009 119 3.37 14.7 MSWeyerhaeuserBruce AA-002 No. 2 Boiler Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #1 8/4/2009 99.996 2.83 8.51 MSWeyerhaeuserBruce AA-002 No. 2 Boiler Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #2 8/4/2009 130.016 3.68 8.05 MSWeyerhaeuserBruce AA-002 No. 2 Boiler Biomass Dutch Oven/Pile Burner Sample #3 8/4/2009 127.161 3.60 9.67 ORGeorgiaPacificWaunaMill EU35 - Fluidized Bed Boiler Biomass FB Sample #1 7/14/2009 127.81 3.62 8.5 ORGeorgiaPacificWaunaMill EU35 - Fluidized Bed Boiler Biomass FB Sample #2 7/14/2009 129.899 3.68 8.8 ORGeorgiaPacificWaunaMill EU35 - Fluidized Bed Boiler Biomass FB Sample #3 7/14/2009 135.056 3.82 8.5 NYConEd59thStStationNewYork Boiler 118 Heavy Liquid N/A Sample #1 8/19/2009 175.229 4.96 7.6 NYConEd59thStStationNewYork Boiler 118 Heavy Liquid N/A Sample #2 8/19/2009 177.689 5.03 7.5 NYConEd59thStStationNewYork Boiler 118 Heavy Liquid N/A Sample #3 8/19/2009 172.749 4.89 7.5 WINewPageBiron B24 Coal Stoker/Other Sample #1 9/22/2009 108 3.06 6.7 WINewPageBiron B24 Coal Stoker/Other Sample #2 9/22/2009 109 3.09 7.4 WINewPageBiron B24 Coal Stoker/Other Sample #3 9/22/2009 108 3.06 7.2 WVMountainStateCarbonFollansbee S1 Process Gas N/A Sample #1 10/19/2009 168.087 4.76 4.6 WVMountainStateCarbonFollansbee S1 Process Gas N/A Sample #2 10/19/2009 180.788 5.12 4.6 WVMountainStateCarbonFollansbee S1 Process Gas N/A Sample #3 10/19/2009 174.099 4.93 4.6 GAGPMadisonPly 800 Wood waste boiler Wet Biomass Stoker/Other Sample #1 8/11/2009 155.435 4.40 8.8 GAGPMadisonPly 800 Wood waste boiler Wet Biomass Stoker/Other Sample #2 8/11/2009 151.487 4.29 7.7 GAGPMadisonPly 800 Wood waste boiler Wet Biomass Stoker/Other Sample #3 8/11/2009 153.38 4.34 7.8 ILAbbottAbbottPark Unit 5AP Coal Stoker/Other Sample #1 8/4/2009 141.067 3.99 9.7 ILAbbottAbbottPark Unit 5AP Coal Stoker/Other Sample #2 8/4/2009 140.771 3.99 10 ILAbbottAbbottPark Unit 5AP Coal Stoker/Other Sample #3 8/4/2009 142.269 4.03 9.9 CTElectric Boat EMU 17 Light Liquid N/A Sample #1 8/19/2009 146.09 4.14 6.2 CTElectric Boat EMU 17 Light Liquid N/A Sample #2 8/20/2009 142.44 4.03 4.7 CTElectric Boat EMU 17 Light Liquid N/A Sample #3 8/20/2009 135.72 3.84 6.2 Notes: 1) There is a 1:1 relationship between sample time and sample volume: One dscm of sample gas is equivalent to a sample hour of one hour.

# Appendix A-2: Summary of TEQ D/F 3x RDL for Existing Sources

**Fuel Category Combustor Design**  **Sample Time (hrs) 3x RDL**  **(n g/dscm)**  **Average Stack Oxygen**

**Concentration (%) 3x RDL** 

**(n g/dscm @ 7% O2)**  FB 6 4.20E-02 4.40 **3.54E-02** PC 4 6.30E-02 8.14 **6.86E-02** Stoker/Other 4 6.30E-02 8.48 **7.05E-02** Dutch Oven/Pile Burner 3 8.30E-02 10.53 **1.11E-01**

FB 3 8.30E-02 8.94 **9.64E-02** Fuel Cell 3 8.30E-02 12.48 **1.37E-01** Suspension Burner Suspension/Grate Wet Biomass Stoker/Other 4 6.30E-02 8.10 **6.84E-02** Dry Biomass Stoker/Other Heavy Liquid N/A 5 5.00E-02 7.53 **5.20E-02** Light Liquid N/A 4 6.30E-02 5.70 **5.76E-02** Coal

Biomass No TEQ D/F Data for this subcategory. No TEQ D/F Data for this subcategory. No TEQ D/F Data for this subcategory. Light Liquid N/A 4 6.30E-02 5.70 **5.76E-02** Non-Continental Liquid N/A Process Gas N/A 5 5.00E-02 4.60 **4.27E-02** 1) Represents a subcategory that is different from the promulgated March, 2011 rule. For dutch oven/pile burner, the number of units in March, 2011 Final Rule this included dutch oven and suspension burners. No TEQ D/F Data for this subcategory.

# Appendix A-3: Comparison of TEQ D/F 3x RDL to Test Run Data

**Count of Test Runs**  **Total # of**

**Congeners Total # of** 

**ND Congeners**  **%ND**

**Congeners Count of** 

**Test Runs Total # of** 

**Congeners Total # of** 

**ND Congeners**  **%ND**

**Congeners** FB 6 1 18 306 174 56.9% 3 51 30 58.8% **3.54E-02** 88.9% PC 9 2 27 459 225 49.0% 6 102 65 63.7% **6.86E-02** 85.2% Stoker/Other 10 2 30 510 285 55.9% 6 102 88 86.3% **7.05E-02** 100.0% Dutch Oven/Pile Burner 1 

# 5 5 15 255 128 50.2% 15 255 128 50.2% **1.11E-01** 80.0%

FB 7 5 21 357 190 53.2% 15 255 167 65.5% **9.64E-02** 100.0% Fuel Cell 2 2 6 102 56 54.9% 6 102 56 54.9% **1.37E-01** 100.0% Suspension Burner 1 

# 0 Suspension/Grate 0 Wet Biomass Stoker/Other 1 

# 6 1 21 357 204 57.1% 3 51 34 66.7% **6.84E-02** 100.0% Coal

Biomass **Fuel Category Combustor Design**  **Number of Units with Test**  **Data All Test Runs**  **March, 2011 Rule Top 12% 3x RDL**  **(ng/dscm @ 7% O2)**  **Percent of Test Run**

**Emissions Lower than 3x RDL**  **Number of Units in March, 2011 Final**  **Rule Top 12%**

No TEQ D/F data for this subcategory. No TEQ D/F data for this subcategory. Wet Biomass Stoker/Other 1 

# 6 1 21 357 204 57.1% 3 51 34 66.7% **6.84E-02** 100.0% Dry Biomass Stoker/Other 1 

# 0 Heavy Liquid 1 

# N/A 8 1 24 408 237 58.1% 3 51 31 60.8% **5.20E-02** 95.8% Light Liquid 1 

# N/A 4 1 12 204 155 76.0% 3 51 24 47.1% **5.76E-02** 100.0% Non-Continental Liquid N/A 0 Process Gas N/A 1 1 3 51 15 29.4% 3 51 15 29.4% **4.27E-02** 100.0% Notes: 1) Represents a subcategory that is different from the promulgated March, 2011 rule. For dutch oven/pile burner, the number of units in March, 2011 Final Rule this included dutch oven and suspension burners. No TEQ D/F data for this subcategory.

No TEQ D/F data for this subcategory.

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 2.85E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 J 8.74E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 J 1.25E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 1.81E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 JK 1.75E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 JK 1.01E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 JK 1.24E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 J 4.92E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 J 7.43E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 1.08E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 J 1.96E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 J 1.49E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 5.35E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 JK 8.26E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 1.29E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 8.45E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 J 1.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 3.21E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 8.60E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 6.63E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 J 8.87E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 7.11E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 JK 2.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 1.41E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 7.23E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 JK 1.03E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 1.53E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 5.35E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 J 1.51E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 1.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 7.34E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 J 1.44E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 J 5.57E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 1 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 8.14E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 JK 1.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 1.28E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 5.66E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 8.51E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/3/2009 Sample #1 J 1.97E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #2 JK 1.27E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/4/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 7.31E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9/3/2009 Sample #1 C 2.17E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #2 C 1.97E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9/4/2009 Sample #3 C 4.82E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 B 3.86E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 BJ 1.71E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 B 3.90E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 BJ 5.90E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.56E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 BJ 4.84E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 BJ 1.52E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.32E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 B 2.99E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 BJ 4.62E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 9.96E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 BJ 5.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 J 1.71E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 J 1.04E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 BJ 4.65E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 7.19E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 BJK 6.98E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 ND (U) 7.91E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.29E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 ND (U) 1.29E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 2 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 J 3.65E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.23E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 J 1.20E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 JK 2.55E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 6.85E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 J 5.93E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 JK 1.96E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.37E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 J 1.37E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 J 3.89E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 JK 2.28E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 J 1.71E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 JK 4.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.13E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 J 1.46E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 ND (U) 3.50E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 9.08E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 JK 1.57E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #1 1.25E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.26E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7/20/2009 Sample #3 7.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 2,3,7,8-TCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #1 C 1.83E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 2,3,7,8-TCDF 7/17/2009 Sample #2 ND (U) 1.46E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ARWeyerhaeuserDierksMill SN-45 2,3,7,8-TCDF 7/20/2009 Sample #3 C 6.42E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 2.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 2.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 1.60E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 7.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 7.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 7.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 3 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 7.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 ND 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/19/2009 Sample #1 ND 4.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #2 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/20/2009 Sample #3 ND 3.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 4 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** CTElectric Boat EMU 17 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/19/2009 Sample #1 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #2 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener CTElectric Boat EMU 17 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/20/2009 Sample #3 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 ADL 5.66E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 4.65E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.74E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 2.10E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 4.28E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.66E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 3.38E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.93E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.49E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.39E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 3.07E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.52E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 6.08E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 5.79E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.22E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 5.28E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 1.81E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 4.01E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 4.25E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.19E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 4.53E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 4.99E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 4.76E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 4.17E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 4.22E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 4.09E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 4.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.56E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 5 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 3.42E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 3.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.57E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.57E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 6.14E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 5.85E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.03E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 5.09E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.65E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #1 BDL 3.49E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 3.27E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/12/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.16E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/11/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.89E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAADMCornProcessingCR EU-501B 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/12/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 3.42E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 ADL 3.06E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 ADL 1.38E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 ADL 1.74E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 7.01E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 3.61E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.47E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.54E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.23E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 3.01E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 7.63E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 1.04E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.24E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.41E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 7.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.66E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.25E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 6 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 9.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.06E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 8.55E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.84E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.92E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.33E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 9.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 7.01E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.25E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.12E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.69E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 8.84E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 7.71E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 1.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.26E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.42E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 8.96E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.51E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 5.04E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 8.76E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #3 BDL 6.28E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #1 BDL 3.87E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/24/2009 Sample #2 BDL 6.84E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 3.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 8.64E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 ADL 3.49E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 ADL 6.09E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.85E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.42E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 6.88E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 7 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 6.64E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 3.95E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 ADL 2.99E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 4.90E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.87E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 ADL 2.67E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 BDL 4.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 3.32E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.99E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 3.39E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 ADL 1.65E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 1.34E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 BDL 3.78E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.69E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.91E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 BDL 3.41E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.73E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.27E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 1.65E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 8.91E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.67E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 7.41E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 2.26E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.88E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 BDL 2.91E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.44E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 2.72E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 1.88E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 3.36E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 4.03E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 BDL 2.17E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 7.93E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 3.23E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 8 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #1 BDL 2.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #2 BDL 1.63E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/9/2009 Sample #3 BDL 1.98E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #1 ADL 7.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 7.63E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILBungeDanville CFB Boiler 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9/9/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 1.26E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/24/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/10/2009 1 BDL 1.08E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/11/2009 2 BDL 1.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 9/11/2009 3 BDL 9.38E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/10/2009 1 BDL 4.54E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/11/2009 2 BDL 5.85E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 9/11/2009 3 BDL 5.77E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 9/11/2009 3 BDL 5.77E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/10/2009 1 BDL 6.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/11/2009 2 BDL 9.50E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 9/11/2009 3 BDL 6.14E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/10/2009 1 BDL 6.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/11/2009 2 BDL 7.31E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 9/11/2009 3 BDL 5.77E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/11/2009 2 BDL 7.68E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 9/11/2009 3 BDL 5.41E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/11/2009 2 BDL 6.21E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 9/11/2009 3 BDL 5.41E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/11/2009 2 BDL 8.41E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 9/11/2009 3 BDL 7.94E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/11/2009 2 BDL 1.13E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 9/11/2009 3 BDL 6.14E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/10/2009 1 BDL 6.64E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/11/2009 2 BDL 8.04E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 9/11/2009 3 BDL 8.66E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/10/2009 1 BDL 7.68E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/11/2009 2 BDL 7.31E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect ILPolyOne B1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9/11/2009 3 BDL 7.94E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/16/11 - Review of test report shows congener was not properly denoted as non-detect INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 5.72E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 9.29E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 2.78E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.17E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 6.13E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.39E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.27E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 1.72E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 7.58E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 7.59E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.49E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 4.36E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.29E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 9 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 8.29E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 5.24E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 8.49E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 5.66E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.74E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.25E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 8.13E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 5.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 7.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 4.97E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.01E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 7.13E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.16E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 6.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 9.96E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 8.93E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.38E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 8.92E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 5.97E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 8.54E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 7.88E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 7.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 5.18E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #2 ND 4.78E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 8.03E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 ND 6.62E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 3.70E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener INNotreDame B-4 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 3.61E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 4.90E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 10 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 4.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 6.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 5.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 3.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 1.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 1.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 2.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 9.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.11E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 1.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 1.35E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 8.60E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 9.80E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 7.10E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 2.60E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.30E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 9.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 1.03E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 9.80E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 4.90E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.34E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.08E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.50E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.21E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 8.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 4.90E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 11 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 7.60E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.35E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.70E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #1 ND 5.60E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/17/2009 Sample #2 ND 7.10E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #3 ND 8.30E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 2,3,7,8-TCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #1 2.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 2,3,7,8-TCDF 11/17/2009 Sample #2 6.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener KYISPChemicals 0AA (Riley) 2,3,7,8-TCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #3 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 7/23/2009 1 3.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 7/24/2009 2 1.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 7/24/2009 3 6.86E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 7/23/2009 1 EMPC/ND 4.36E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 7/24/2009 2 EMPC/ND 2.15E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 7/24/2009 3 EMPC/ND 2.66E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 7/23/2009 1 5.99E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 7/24/2009 2 ND 2.76E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.02E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 7/23/2009 1 1.39E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 7/24/2009 2 4.42E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.02E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 7/23/2009 1 ND 7.36E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 7/24/2009 2 ND 3.31E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.57E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 7/23/2009 1 1.09E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 7/24/2009 2 ND 3.04E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.29E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 7/23/2009 1 2.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 7/24/2009 2 ND 3.31E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.02E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 7/23/2009 1 4.90E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 12 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 7/24/2009 2 EMPC/ND 3.86E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 7/24/2009 3 ND 2.74E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 7/23/2009 1 EMPC/ND 1.83E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 7/24/2009 2 ND 3.86E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.02E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 7/23/2009 1 EMPC/ND 4.09E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 7/24/2009 2 ND 2.73E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 7/24/2009 3 ND 2.74E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 7/23/2009 1 ND 3.54E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 7/24/2009 2 ND 4.14E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.57E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7/23/2009 1 ND 3.54E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7/24/2009 2 ND 3.86E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7/24/2009 3 ND 3.29E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 7/23/2009 1 3.84E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 7/24/2009 2 EMPC/ND 2.57E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 7/24/2009 3 EMPC/ND 6.04E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 Total OCDD 7/23/2009 1 4.99E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 Total OCDD 7/24/2009 2 2.73E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 Total OCDD 7/24/2009 3 2.19E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 Total OCDF 7/23/2009 1 2.29E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 Total OCDF 7/24/2009 2 EMPC/ND 8.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener MITBSimonPowerPlant Unit 1 Total OCDF 7/24/2009 3 7.68E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 3.88E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 3.21E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 2.01E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 2.84E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 1.31E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 1.33E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 2.69E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 1.85E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 1.11E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 6.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 13 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 4.60E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 2.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.33E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 8.50E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 4.90E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 4.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 2.60E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 1.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 1.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 4.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 2.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 1.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 1.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 4.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 2.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 1.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 9.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 8.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 6.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 3.60E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 2.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 2.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 8.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 1.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 9.80E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 ND 1.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report shows corrected values for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 6.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report shows corrected values for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/25/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 8.50E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/26/2009 Sample #2 6.70E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/27/2009 Sample #3 ND 9.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report shows corrected values for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/25/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 4.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 14 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/26/2009 Sample #2 3.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener OHMortonSaltRittman B002 - Coal-Fired Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/27/2009 Sample #3 2.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 10/8/2009 1 ADL 7.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 10/8/2009 3 ADL 6.39E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 10/9/2009 4 ADL 5.32E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 10/8/2009 1 EMPC/ND 5.79E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 10/8/2009 3 EMPC/ND 2.90E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 10/9/2009 4 EMPC/ND 1.85E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 10/8/2009 1 ADL 1.56E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 10/8/2009 3 ND 7.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 10/9/2009 4 ND 1.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 10/8/2009 1 ADL 2.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 10/8/2009 3 ADL 1.16E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 10/9/2009 4 ADL 1.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 10/8/2009 1 ND 1.04E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 10/8/2009 3 ND 7.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 10/9/2009 4 ND 8.86E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 10/8/2009 1 ADL 2.38E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 10/8/2009 3 ND 7.98E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 10/9/2009 4 ND 1.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 10/8/2009 1 ADL 2.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 10/8/2009 3 ADL 1.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 10/9/2009 4 ADL 9.67E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 10/8/2009 1 ADL 1.63E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 10/8/2009 3 ND 8.71E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 10/9/2009 4 EMPC/ND 8.86E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 10/8/2009 1 ADL 2.52E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 10/8/2009 3 ADL 1.45E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 10/9/2009 4 ADL 1.13E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 10/8/2009 1 ADL 1.34E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 10/8/2009 3 ND 7.26E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 10/9/2009 4 ND 9.67E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 10/8/2009 1 ND 1.04E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 15 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 10/8/2009 3 ND 1.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 10/9/2009 4 ND 1.05E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/8/2009 1 EMPC/ND 1.04E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/8/2009 3 EMPC/ND 1.02E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/9/2009 4 EMPC/ND 9.67E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 10/8/2009 1 ADL 1.54E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 10/8/2009 3 ADL 6.82E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 10/9/2009 4 ADL 5.64E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 Total OCDD 10/8/2009 1 ADL 9.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 Total OCDD 10/8/2009 3 ADL 3.90E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 Total OCDD 10/9/2009 4 ADL 1.69E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 Total OCDF 10/8/2009 1 ADL 2.90E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 Total OCDF 10/8/2009 3 ADL 3.99E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener SCBowaterCoatedPaper Combination Boiler No. 2 Total OCDF 10/9/2009 4 ADL 3.22E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 9.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 7.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 J 6.60E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 3.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 2.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 1.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 3.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 2.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 J 1.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U/EMPC 7.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U/EMPC 4.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U/EMPC 1.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 5.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U 3.70E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.30E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 2.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 J 5.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U/EMPC 6.60E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 16 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U 3.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.90E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U/EMPC 7.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 5.10E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.60E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 2.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 1.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 J 1.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U/EMPC 4.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U 2.80E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.30E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 1.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 J 7.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 J 8.10E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 J 5.00E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U 3.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.30E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U 4.40E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U 3.70E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.90E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U 3.80E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/18/2009 Sample #2 U 2.80E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 4.20E-04 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 2,3,7,8-TCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #1 U 6.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 2,3,7,8-TCDF 11/18/2009 Sample #2 3.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener TNMilanArmyAmmunitionPlant D88L-1, Source #27-0010-86 2,3,7,8-TCDF 11/19/2009 Sample #3 U 3.90E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 7.35E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 1.01E+00 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 3.97E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 3.07E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 4.33E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,5,7,8 OCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 2.13E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 3.74E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener A-4 page 17 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 4.49E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 1.47E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 3.84E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 3.62E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 2.15E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 4.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.87E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.78E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report showed detection limits for this congener and ng/dscm values were calculated VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 1.07E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 7.71E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 6.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 9.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 1.20E-01 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 3.40E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 5.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 4.76E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report showed detection limits for this congener and ng/dscm values were calculated VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 1.33E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 8.69E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 7.10E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 3.00E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 1.20E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 ND 1.31E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report showed detection limits for this congener and ng/dscm values were calculated VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 8.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 3.94E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 4.80E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 4.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 3.14E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 ND 2.98E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report showed detection limits for this congener and ng/dscm values were calculated VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 6.70E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 6.22E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 EMPC 2.30E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener

A-4 page 18 of 19

### Appendix A-4: Changes to Congener Non-Detect Flags

**Facility ID Combusor ID**  **Congener Test Date**  **Test ID Non**  **Detect? Standardized** 

**Emission Value Standardized** 

**Emission Unit of Measure**  **Summary of Changes** VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #1 1.90E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/4/2009 Sample #2 EMPC 2.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 8/5/2009 Sample #3 ND 1.32E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener; 8/26/11 - 2nd review of test report showed detection limits for this congener and ng/dscm values were calculated VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #1 EMPC 7.50E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/4/2009 Sample #2 2.04E-02 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener VAINVISTAWaynesboro 2-205 (B#2) Boiler #2 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8/5/2009 Sample #3 4.20E-03 ng/dscm @ 7% O28/25/11 - Review of test report shows that detect vs. non-detect was not properly shown for this congener

A-4 page 19 of 19

# Tab **Comment**

A-3 make print ready since it is a summary by repeating right columns and top rows as

necessary. Suggest landscaping on legal. A-3 Footnote the different subcategories b/t March and Now A-1 Add a column for time, or footnote the 1:1 relationship A-2 Clarify what this is, just pick one and say what the column represents.

# Response By... **Response**

GG Done. GG Done. GG Done. GG I went with sample time because that is what is presented in table 2-1 in the memo.