Fly Sheets 3655BL D Appendix B Air Quality Data
User Manual: 3655BL
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 154
| Download | |
| Open PDF In Browser | View PDF |
Appendix B
Air Quality Data
Appendix B
Air Quality Data
List of Attachments
Attachment A
Windrose Figures
Attachment B
Supporting Information on Estimation of Project Construction Emissions
Attachment C
Supporting Information on Estimation of Project Operation Emissions
Attachment D
Modeling Protocol
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
Attachment F
Certificates for Banked Emission Reduction Credit to Offset Project
Emissions
Attachment G
Letter from Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Regarding
Approval of Emission Reduction Package
B-1
Attachment A
Windrose Figures
N
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 9.94%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
Figure A-1
Windrose for All Months 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
11-16
17-21
+ 21
N
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 13.34%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
Figure A-2
Windrose for Winter Months (December – February) 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
+ 21
N
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 7.90%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
Figure A-3
Windrose for Spring Months (March – May) 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
+ 21
N
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 6.42%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
Figure A-4
Windrose for Summer Months (June – August) 1991 - 1995
Imperial County Airport
+ 21
N
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 12.18%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
Figure A-5
Windrose for Autumn Months (September – November) 1991 - 1995
Imperial County Airport
+ 21
Attachment B
Supporting Information on Estimation
of Project Construction Emissions
Equipment Type
Air Compressor 185 CFM
Air Compressor 750 CFM
Articulating Boom Platform
Bulldozer D10R
Bulldozer D4C
Concrete Pumper Truck
Concrete Trowel Machine
Concrete Vibrators
Crane - Mobile 65 ton
Cranes - Mobile 35 ton
Cranes - Mobile 45 ton
Diesel Powered Welder
Dump Truck
Excavator - Backhoe/loader
Excavator - Earth Scraper 623
Excavator - loader
Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H)
Excavator - Trencher (CAT320)
Forklift
Pile Driver Truck
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Plate
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram
Portable Compaction Roller
Portable Power Generators
Pumps
Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton
Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton
Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton
Unit
Count
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
Range
25-50
25-50
300-600
500
75-100
300-600
25-50
25-50
175-300
100-175
100-175
25-50
175-300
50-100
175-300
50-100
100-175
50-100
50-100
375
11-16
25-50
175-300
25-50
3-6
175-300
175-300
100-175
HC
0.2789
0.2789
0.1669
0.1669
0.3672
0.1669
0.2789
0.2789
0.3085
0.3384
0.3384
0.2789
0.3085
0.3672
0.3085
0.3672
0.3384
0.3672
0.3672
0.1669
4.16
0.2789
0.3085
0.2789
6.13
0.3085
0.3085
0.3384
CO
1.5323
1.5323
0.8425
0.8425
2.3655
0.8425
1.5323
1.5323
0.7475
0.8667
0.8667
1.5323
0.7475
2.3655
0.7475
2.3655
0.8667
2.3655
2.3655
0.8425
352.57
1.5323
0.7475
1.5323
351.16
0.7475
0.7475
0.8667
NOx
4.7279
4.7279
4.3351
4.3351
4.7
4.3351
4.7279
4.7279
4
4.1
4.1
4.7279
4
4.7
4
4.7
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.3351
2.77
4.7279
4
4.7279
1.83
4
4
4.1
PM
0.3389
0.3389
0.1316
0.1316
0.24
0.1316
0.3389
0.3389
0.1316
0.18
0.18
0.3389
0.1316
0.24
0.1316
0.24
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.1316
0.06
0.3389
0.1316
0.3389
0.06
0.1316
0.1316
0.18
HC
(Base-T3)
1
1
1
1.05
1.05
1
1.05
1.05
1
1
1
2.29
1.05
2.29
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1
1
1.05
1
1
1
1
1.05
TAF (Table A-3)
CO
NOx
PM
(Base-T3) (Base-T2) (Base-T2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.04
1
1
1
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.57
1.1
1.97
1.53
0.95
1.04
2.57
1.1
1.97
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.23
1.53
0.95
1.23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.53
0.95
1.23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.53
0.95
1.23
D - diesel
1. Emission factors are estimated following the methodology described in the U.S. EPA NONROAD model technical document NR-009c, "Exhaust and Crankcase
Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling -- Compression - Ignition", EPA420-P-04-009, April 2004.
The following assumptions are used in the calculation:
Fraction of useful life expended
0.5
Default Diesel Sulfur Content (wt%)
0.2 Tier 2 default (NR-009c)
Actual Diesel Sulfur Content (wt%)
0.0015 15 ppm
Diesel Density (lbs/gal)
7.1
2. Adjusted emission factor was calculated using the following equation: EF (HC, CO, NOx) = EFss x TAF x DF (NR-009c, Equation 1)
3. SPM (PM sulfur adjusting factor) = BSCF x 453.6 x 7.0 x soxcov x 0.01 x (soxbas - soxdsl); (NR-009c, Equation 5)
Where: soncov = grams PM sulfur/grams fuel sulfur consumed, 0.02247 for Tier 2.
soxbas = default certification fuel sulfur weight percent, 0.2% for Tier 2 fuel.
soxdsl = episodic fuel sulfur weight percent, 0.01% for this project.
4. Adjusted PM emission factor = EFss x TAF x DF - SPM (NR-009c, Equation 2)
5. Adjusted SO2 emission factor = BSFC x 453.6 x (1 - soxcov) - HC) x 0.01 x soxdsl x 2 (NR-009c, Equation 7)
Where: soncov = grams PM sulfur/grams fuel sulfur consumed, 0.02247 for Tier 2..
HC = the in-use adjusted emission factor for hydrocarbons
soxdsl = episodic fuel sulfur weight percent, 0.01 % for this project.
6. Adjusted EF (lbs/gal) = Adjusted EF (g/hp-hr) / Adjusted BSFC (lbs-fuel/hp-hr) x 7.1 (lbs/gal-fuel) / 453.6 (g/lb)
Fuel
Type
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
BSFC
(lb/hp-hr)
Average (Table A-2)
40
0.408
40
0.408
398
0.367
500
0.367
88
0.408
398
0.408
40
0.408
40
0.408
240
0.367
140
0.367
140
0.367
40
0.408
244
0.367
75
0.408
240
0.367
75
0.408
140
0.367
75
0.408
75
0.408
375
0.367
13
0.74
40
0.408
240
0.367
40
0.408
5
0.781
240
0.367
240
0.367
140
0.367
Horsepower
EFss (Zero Hour Steady State Emission
Factor) - Tier 2
(g/hp-hr) (Table A-2)
TABLE B-1 EMISSION FACTOR FOR DIESEL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION 1
EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION
BSFC
(Base-T2)
1
1
1
1.01
1.01
1
1.01
1.01
1
1
1
1.18
1.01
1.18
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1
1
1.01
1
1
1
1
1.01
HC
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.266
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.266
0.34
0.34
0.34
CO
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.231
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.231
0.101
0.101
0.101
NOx
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0
0.009
0.009
0.009
0
0.009
0.009
0.009
PM
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.266
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.266
0.473
0.473
0.473
"A" Factor (For Deterioration
Factor)
- Tier 2 (Table A-4)
HC
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.13
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.13
1.17
1.17
1.17
CO
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.12
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.12
1.05
1.05
1.05
NOx
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PM
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.13
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.13
1.24
1.24
1.24
DF (= 1 + A x Fraction
of Useful Life)
HC
0.3263
0.3263
0.1953
0.2050
0.4511
0.1953
0.3426
0.3426
0.3609
0.3959
0.3959
0.7473
0.3790
0.9838
0.3790
0.4511
0.4157
0.4511
0.4511
0.2050
4.7133
0.3263
0.3790
0.3263
6.9453
0.3609
0.3609
0.4157
CO
1.6097
1.6097
0.8850
1.3541
3.8020
0.8850
2.4628
2.4628
0.7852
0.9105
0.9105
4.1369
1.2014
6.3863
1.2014
3.8020
1.3930
3.8020
3.8020
1.3541
393.2918
1.6097
1.2014
1.6097
391.7190
0.7852
0.7852
1.3930
NOx
4.7492
4.7492
4.3546
4.1369
4.4851
4.3546
4.5117
4.5117
4.0180
4.1185
4.1185
5.2241
3.8171
5.1933
3.8171
4.4851
3.9125
4.4851
4.4851
4.1369
2.7700
4.7492
3.8171
4.7492
1.8300
4.0180
4.0180
3.9125
Adjusted EF (g/hp-hr) 2
Adjusted
Adjusted
SO2 EF
PM Adj.
PM EF
Factor 3 (g/hp-hr) 4 (g/hp-hr) 5
0.0578
0.3613
0.0054
0.0578
0.3613
0.0054
0.0520
0.1107
0.0049
0.0525
0.1477
0.0049
0.0584
0.2503
0.0055
0.0578
0.1049
0.0054
0.0584
0.4571
0.0055
0.0584
0.4571
0.0055
0.0520
0.1107
0.0049
0.0520
0.1706
0.0049
0.0520
0.1706
0.0049
0.0682
0.7573
0.0064
0.0525
0.1167
0.0049
0.0682
0.5164
0.0064
0.0525
0.1477
0.0049
0.0584
0.3067
0.0055
0.0525
0.2213
0.0049
0.0584
0.3067
0.0055
0.0584
0.3067
0.0055
0.0525
0.1477
0.0049
0.1048
0.0368
0.0097
0.0578
0.3613
0.0054
0.0525
0.1477
0.0049
0.0578
0.3613
0.0054
0.1106
0.0426
0.0102
0.0520
0.1107
0.0049
0.0520
0.1107
0.0049
0.0525
0.2213
0.0049
HC
0.0125
0.0125
0.0083
0.0087
0.0171
0.0075
0.0130
0.0130
0.0154
0.0169
0.0169
0.0243
0.0160
0.0320
0.0160
0.0171
0.0176
0.0171
0.0171
0.0087
0.0997
0.0125
0.0160
0.0125
0.1392
0.0154
0.0154
0.0176
CO
0.0618
0.0618
0.0377
0.0572
0.1444
0.0340
0.0935
0.0935
0.0335
0.0388
0.0388
0.1345
0.0507
0.2076
0.0507
0.1444
0.0588
0.1444
0.1444
0.0572
8.3189
0.0618
0.0507
0.0618
7.8507
0.0335
0.0335
0.0588
NOx
0.1822
0.1822
0.1857
0.1747
0.1704
0.1671
0.1714
0.1714
0.1714
0.1757
0.1757
0.1698
0.1612
0.1688
0.1612
0.1704
0.1652
0.1704
0.1704
0.1747
0.0586
0.1822
0.1612
0.1822
0.0367
0.1714
0.1714
0.1652
PM
0.0139
0.0139
0.0047
0.0062
0.0095
0.0040
0.0174
0.0174
0.0047
0.0073
0.0073
0.0246
0.0049
0.0168
0.0062
0.0116
0.0093
0.0116
0.0116
0.0062
0.0008
0.0139
0.0062
0.0139
0.0009
0.0047
0.0047
0.0093
Adjusted EF (lbs/gal) 6
SO2
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
Equipment
Total =
Air Compressor 185 CFM
Air Compressor 750 CFM
Articulating Boom Platform
Bulldozer D10R
Bulldozer D4C
Concrete Pumper Truck
Concrete Trowel Machine
Concrete Vibrators
Crane - Mobile 65 ton
Cranes - Mobile 35 ton
Cranes - Mobile 45 ton
Diesel Powered Welder
Dump Truck
Excavator - Backhoe/loader
Excavator - Earth Scraper 623
Excavator - loader
Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H)
Excavator - Trencher (CAT320)
Forklift
Fusion Welder
Light Plants
Pile Driver Truck
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Plate
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram
Portable Compaction Roller
Portable Power Generators
Pumps
Service Truck - 1 ton
Tractor Truck 5th Wheel
Truck - Fuel/Lube
Truck - Water
Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton
Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton
Trucks - 3 ton
Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton
Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton
Total =
Air Compressor 185 CFM
Articulating Boom Platform
Bulldozer D4C
Concrete Pumper Truck
Concrete Trowel Machine
Concrete Vibrators
Cranes - Mobile 45 ton
Diesel Powered Welder
Dump Truck
Excavator - Backhoe/loader
Excavator - loader
Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H)
Excavator - Trencher (CAT320)
Forklift
Pile Driver Truck
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Plate
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram
Portable Compaction Roller
Portable Power Generators
Pumps
Tractor Truck 5th Wheel
Truck - Fuel/Lube
Truck - Water
Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton
Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton
Trucks - 3 ton
Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
8
8
8
4
8
8
4
4
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
8
4
4
2
2
1.27
0.25
3.00
3.13
1.27
0.25
4.00
1.27
3.13
2.50
5.00
6.00
6.60
2.50
7.50
0.25
0.25
10.00
1.27
0.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
5.00
7.50
1.56
0.78
10.16
4.00
24.00
12.52
10.16
2.00
16.00
20.32
25.04
40.00
40.00
48.00
39.60
40.00
60.00
2.00
2.00
80.00
20.32
2.08
12.52
12.52
25.04
20.00
30.00
6.24
6.24
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
G
D
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
8
4
4
2
2
8
1.27
1.27
0.25
22.25
3.00
3.13
1.27
0.25
4.00
4.00
4.00
1.27
3.13
2.50
9.00
5.00
6.00
6.60
2.50
1.27
1.27
7.50
0.25
0.25
10.00
1.27
0.13
1.56
3.13
3.13
3.13
5.00
7.50
1.56
0.78
10.00
10.16
10.16
4.00
178.00
24.00
12.52
10.16
2.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
20.32
25.04
40.00
144.00
40.00
48.00
39.60
40.00
10.16
10.16
60.00
2.00
2.00
80.00
20.32
2.08
6.24
12.52
12.52
25.04
20.00
30.00
6.24
6.24
80.00
Gasoline/ Number Hrs/Day Gals/Hr
Daily
Diesel
of Units Per Unit Per Unit Fuel Use
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
D
D
D
G
5
20
2
10
10
10
20
5
20
20
10
2402 203.96
11th month
102 10.16
0
80
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
320 16.00
0
0
200 40.00
0
0
0
0
800 40.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
200 20.00
300 30.00
0
125
6.24
0
167.92
902
1st month
51
10.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
102 20.32
5
125 25.04
5
200 40.00
0
0
5
198 39.60
0
0
0
0
0
5
102 20.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
62
6.24
10
62
6.24
Days
Days
Gasoline/ Number Hrs/Day Gals/Hr
Daily
Diesel
of Units Per Unit Per Unit Fuel Use
Gal/Month
Equipment
Gal/Month
TABLE B-2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT USAGE
Gal/Day
Gal/Day
10
10
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
20
2
10
5
5
20
5
20
20
10
1107 183.92
2nd month
51
10.16
0
0
0
0
0
80
16.00
102 20.32
250 25.04
200 40.00
0
0
198 39.60
0
0
0
0
0
102 20.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
6.24
62
6.24
Gal/Month
2152 203.96
12th month
102 10.16
0
80
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
320 16.00
0
0
200 40.00
0
0
0
0
800 40.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
100 20.00
150 30.00
0
125
6.24
0
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
Gal/Day
10
10
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
20
10
10
5
10
5
5
20
2
10
10
5
10
20
10
3291 426.00
3rd month
51
10.16
0
120 24.00
0
0
0
80
16.00
102 20.32
501 25.04
400 40.00
400 40.00
240 48.00
396 39.60
0
0
0
0
400 80.00
102 20.32
0
63
12.52
63
12.52
250 25.04
0
0
62
6.24
62
6.24
Gal/Month
1342 153.96
13th month
102 10.16
0
80
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
160 16.00
0
0
200 40.00
0
0
0
0
400 40.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
0
0
0
125
6.24
0
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
Gal/Day
10
10
5
20
10
5
10
5
5
20
10
20
10
10
5
10
10
5
20
2
10
10
5
5
20
10
5460 515.56
4th month
51
10.16
0
240 24.00
0
0
0
80
16.00
102 20.32
501 25.04
400 40.00
800 40.00
480 48.00
396 39.60
200 40.00
600 60.00
0
0
800 80.00
102 20.32
21
2.08
0
63
12.52
501 25.04
0
0
62
6.24
62
6.24
Gal/Month
10
20
5
20
5
5
20
10
20
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
10
5
6062 519.56
5th month
51
10.16
0
240 24.00
0
0
0
80
16.00
102 20.32
501 25.04
400 40.00
800 40.00
480 48.00
396 39.60
400 40.00
900 60.00
20
2.00
20
2.00
800 80.00
102 20.32
21
2.08
0
63
12.52
501 25.04
0
0
62
6.24
125
6.24
1262 153.96
10
20
10
10
5
5
10
5
5
10
5
5
20
10
10
5
10
20
5
5
4214 472.08
6th month
51
10.16
0
120 24.00
0
0
0
80
16.00
102 20.32
501 25.04
400 40.00
400 40.00
240 48.00
396 39.60
800 40.00
0
20
2.00
20
2.00
400 80.00
102 20.32
21
2.08
63
12.52
63
12.52
250 25.04
0
0
62
6.24
125
6.24
924
16th month
10.16 10 102
0
4.00
20
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.00
5
80
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.52
1
13
25.04
5
125
0
0
0
6.24
20 125
0
1262 153.96
14th month
th month
102 10.16 10 102
0
0
80
4.00
20
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
16.00
5
80
0
0
0
0
200 40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400 40.00 10 400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
2
25
250 25.04 10 250
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
6.24
20 125
0
0
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
Gal/Day
Gal/Month
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
Gal/Day
Gal/Month
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
10
20
2
10
10
10
10
5
5
20
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
2677 331.60
7th month
102 10.16
0
0
63
12.52
51
10.16
10
2.00
80
16.00
0
250 25.04
200 40.00
0
0
198 39.60
800 40.00
0
20
2.00
20
2.00
400 80.00
0
21
2.08
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
0
0
62
6.24
125
6.24
153.96
844
17th month
10.16 10 102
0
4.00
20
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.00
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.52
1
13
25.04
5
125
0
0
0
6.24
20 125
0
Gal/Day
Gal/Month
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
2
10
5
5
10
20
10
10
5
20
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
2624 303.52
8th month
102 10.16
40
4.00
0
125 12.52
102 10.16
20
2.00
160 16.00
0
125 25.04
200 40.00
0
0
198 39.60
800 40.00
0
20
2.00
20
2.00
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
100 20.00
150 30.00
62
6.24
125
6.24
137.96
844
18th month
10.16 10 102
0
4.00
20
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.52
1
13
25.04
5
125
0
0
0
6.24
20 125
0
Gal/Day
Gal/Month
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
2
10
5
5
10
20
20
5
10
10
10
20
10
10
2421 234.88
9th month
102 10.16
40
4.00
0
125 12.52
102 10.16
20
2.00
320 16.00
0
0
200 40.00
0
0
0
800 40.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
100 20.00
150 30.00
62
6.24
125
6.24
137.96
742
19th month
10.16 10 102
0
4.00
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.52
1
13
25.04
5
125
0
0
0
6.24
10
62
0
Gal/Day
Gal/Month
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
2
10
10
10
10
20
20
5
5
5
5
20
10
20
2588 234.88
10th month
102 10.16
80
4.00
0
63
12.52
51
10.16
10
2.00
320 16.00
0
0
200 40.00
0
0
0
800 40.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
12.52
250 25.04
200 20.00
300 30.00
62
6.24
125
6.24
137.96
742
20th month
10.16 10 102
0
4.00
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
40.00
5
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.52
1
13
25.04
5
125
0
0
0
6.24
10
62
0
Gal/Day
Gal/Month
Gal/Month
Days
Days
Gal/Day
137.96
6.24
12.52
25.04
40.00
40.00
4.00
10.16
Gal/Day
28759
609.6
0
80
0
720
313
254
50
0
0
960
609.6
2754.4
2600
0
2400
1440
2376
3800
0
0
1500
80
80
2800
609.6
83.2
0
125.2
325.52
2253.6
200
300
561.6
873.6
0
Total
Fuel
Usage
11444
480
0
320
0
240
100
200
200
0
0
240
480
880
1040
0
480
240
360
1520
0
0
200
320
320
280
480
640
0
40
104
720
40
40
360
1120
0
Total
Operating
Hours
Equipment
Air Compressor 185 CFM
Air Compressor 750 CFM
Articulating Boom Platform
Bulldozer D10R
Bulldozer D4C
Concrete Pumper Truck
Concrete Trowel Machine
Concrete Vibrators
Crane - Mobile 65 ton
Cranes - Mobile 35 ton
Cranes - Mobile 45 ton
Diesel Powered Welder
Dump Truck
Excavator - Backhoe/loader
Excavator - Earth Scraper 623
Excavator - loader
Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H)
Excavator - Trencher (CAT320)
Forklift
Pile Driver Truck
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram
Portable Compaction Roller
Portable Power Generators
Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton
Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton
Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton
Total
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
none
none
none
none
none
none
High
High
none
none
none
Low
High
NR-009c
Load
Factor 2
none
none
SCAQMD
CEQA Typical
Load Factor 3 Fuel Type
0.43
D
0.43
D
0.46
D
0.59
D
0.59
D
D
0.59
D
D
0.43
D
0.43
D
0.43
D
0.21
D
D
0.21
D
0.59
D
0.59
D
0.59
D
0.59
D
0.59
D
0.59
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
Number
of Units
1
Hrs/Day
Per Unit
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
8
Gals/Hr
Per Unit
1.27
1.27
0.25
22.25
3.00
3.13
1.27
0.25
4.00
4.00
4.00
1.27
3.13
2.50
9.00
5.00
6.00
6.60
2.50
7.50
0.25
10.00
1.27
5.00
7.50
10.00
Daily
Fuel
Usage
(gal)
10.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.00
20.32
25.04
40.00
0.00
40.00
48.00
39.60
40.00
60.00
2.00
80.00
20.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
HC
0.0125
0.0125
0.0083
0.0051
0.0101
0.0000
0.0130
0.0130
0.0154
0.0169
0.0169
0.0243
0.0160
0.0320
0.0094
0.0101
0.0104
0.0101
0.0171
0.0087
0.0125
0.0160
0.0125
0.0154
0.0154
0.0176
LF Adjusted EF (lbs/gal fuel) 4
CO
NOx
PM
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0377
0.1857
0.0047
0.0572
0.1747
0.0062
0.1444
0.1704
0.0095
0.0340
0.1671
0.0040
0.0935
0.1714
0.0174
0.0935
0.1714
0.0174
0.0335
0.1714
0.0047
0.0388
0.1757
0.0073
0.0388
0.1757
0.0073
0.1345
0.1698
0.0246
0.0507
0.1612
0.0049
0.2076
0.1688
0.0168
0.0299
0.0951
0.0037
0.0852
0.1005
0.0069
0.0347
0.0975
0.0055
0.0852
0.1005
0.0069
0.1444
0.1704
0.0116
0.0572
0.1747
0.0062
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0507
0.1612
0.0062
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0335
0.1714
0.0047
0.0335
0.1714
0.0047
0.0588
0.1652
0.0093
SO2
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
Emission Rate for 1-HR Standards (lbs/hr) 5
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SO2
0.02
0.08
0.23
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.43
0.51
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.16
0.70
0.03
0.00
0.12
0.68
0.86
0.13
0.00
0.05
0.16
0.50
0.02
0.00
0.16
1.04
0.84
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.43
0.50
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.21
0.58
0.03
0.00
0.07
0.56
0.66
0.05
0.00
0.09
0.72
0.85
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.43
1.31
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.51
1.61
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.16
0.46
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TABLE B-3 MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION
EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION
Equipment
Air Compressor 185 CFM
Air Compressor 750 CFM
Articulating Boom Platform
Bulldozer D10R
Bulldozer D4C
Concrete Pumper Truck
Concrete Trowel Machine
Concrete Vibrators
Crane - Mobile 65 ton
Cranes - Mobile 35 ton
Cranes - Mobile 45 ton
Diesel Powered Welder
Dump Truck
Excavator - Backhoe/loader
Excavator - Earth Scraper 623
Excavator - loader
Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H)
Excavator - Trencher (CAT320)
Forklift
Pile Driver Truck
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram
Portable Compaction Roller
Portable Power Generators
Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton
Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton
Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton
Total
Daily Emissions (lbs) 6
CO
NOx
PM
0.63
1.85
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.47
4.09
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
2.81
0.12
2.73
3.45
0.50
1.27
4.04
0.12
8.31
6.75
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.41
4.02
0.27
1.67
4.68
0.26
3.37
3.98
0.27
5.78
6.81
0.47
3.43
10.48
0.37
0.12
0.36
0.03
4.06
12.90
0.50
1.25
3.70
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.12
69.93
4.24
SO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
Emission Rate for 24-HR Standards (lbs/hr) 7
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SO2
0.005
0.026
0.077
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.144
0.170
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.026
0.117
0.005
0.000
0.021
0.114
0.144
0.021
0.000
0.017
0.053
0.168
0.005
0.000
0.053
0.346
0.281
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.142
0.168
0.011
0.000
0.021
0.069
0.195
0.011
0.000
0.017
0.141
0.166
0.011
0.000
0.029
0.241
0.284
0.019
0.000
0.022
0.143
0.437
0.016
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.015
0.001
0.000
0.053
0.169
0.537
0.021
0.001
0.011
0.052
0.154
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Modeled Emission Rates for 1-HR Standards (g/s)
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SO2
0.0020
0.0099
0.0292
0.0022
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0038
0.0546
0.0644
0.0036
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0085
0.0196
0.0885
0.0037
0.0001
0.0156
0.0861
0.1087
0.0158
0.0001
0.0063
0.0200
0.0636
0.0019
0.0001
0.0202
0.1308
0.1064
0.0106
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0064
0.0537
0.0633
0.0043
0.0001
0.0078
0.0262
0.0737
0.0042
0.0001
0.0084
0.0709
0.0836
0.0057
0.0001
0.0108
0.0910
0.1073
0.0073
0.0001
0.0082
0.0540
0.1651
0.0059
0.0002
0.0004
0.0019
0.0057
0.0004
0.0000
0.0202
0.0639
0.2031
0.0079
0.0003
0.0040
0.0198
0.0583
0.0044
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1225
0.7024
1.2209
0.0779
0.0015
D - Diesel
1. Hourly emission rate used for short-term impact analysis were developed based on the projected highest activity level during the
fifth month grading period.
2. Table A-3 of NR-009c document ""Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling -- Compression - Ignition",
EPA420-P-04-009, April 2004. A "high" load factor is taken to be 100%.
3 Appendix A, Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling,
EPA420-P-04-005, April 2004. These load factors are assumed to be representative for the El Centro site.
4. The emission rate for diesel nonroad equipment as determined using methods in NR-009c were for certain load factor
conditions. Emission rate is adjusted based on representative load condition at the El Centro site .
5. Hourly emission rate (lb/hr) = hourly fuel usage (gals) x EF (lbs/gal).
6. Daily emission (lbs) = daily fuel usage (gals) x EF (lbs/gal)
7. 24-HR Emission Rate = Daily Emissions / 24
HC
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.49
0.40
1.28
0.00
0.40
0.50
0.40
0.69
0.52
0.03
1.28
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.88
Modeled Emission Rates for 24-HR Standards (g/s)
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SO2
0.0007
0.0033
0.0097
0.0007
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0013
0.0182
0.0215
0.0012
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0014
0.0033
0.0148
0.0006
0.0000
0.0026
0.0143
0.0181
0.0026
0.0000
0.0021
0.0067
0.0212
0.0006
0.0000
0.0067
0.0436
0.0355
0.0035
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0021
0.0179
0.0211
0.0014
0.0000
0.0026
0.0087
0.0246
0.0014
0.0000
0.0021
0.0177
0.0209
0.0014
0.0000
0.0036
0.0303
0.0358
0.0024
0.0000
0.0027
0.0180
0.0550
0.0020
0.0001
0.0001
0.0006
0.0019
0.0001
0.0000
0.0067
0.0213
0.0677
0.0026
0.0001
0.0013
0.0066
0.0194
0.0015
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0361
0.2106
0.3671
0.0223
0.0005
TABLE B-3 CONTINUED MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION
Equipment
Air Compressor 185 CFM
Air Compressor 750 CFM
Articulating Boom Platform
Bulldozer D10R
Bulldozer D4C
Concrete Pumper Truck
Concrete Trowel Machine
Concrete Vibrators
Crane - Mobile 65 ton
Cranes - Mobile 35 ton
Cranes - Mobile 45 ton
Diesel Powered Welder
Dump Truck
Excavator - Backhoe/loader
Excavator - Earth Scraper 623
Excavator - loader
Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H)
Excavator - Trencher (CAT320)
Forklift
Fusion Welder
Light Plants
Pile Driver Truck
Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram
Portable Compaction Roller
Portable Power Generators
Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton
Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton
Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton
Total
HC
0.0125
0.0125
0.0083
0.0051
0.0101
0.0000
0.0130
0.0130
0.0154
0.0169
0.0169
0.0243
0.0160
0.0320
0.0094
0.0101
0.0104
0.0101
0.0171
0.0000
0.0000
0.0087
0.0125
0.0160
0.0125
0.0154
0.0154
0.0176
1
LF Adjusted EF (lbs/gal fuel)
CO
NOx
PM
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0377
0.1857
0.0047
0.0572
0.1747
0.0062
0.1444
0.1704
0.0095
0.0340
0.1671
0.0040
0.0935
0.1714
0.0174
0.0935
0.1714
0.0174
0.0335
0.1714
0.0047
0.0388
0.1757
0.0073
0.0388
0.1757
0.0073
0.1345
0.1698
0.0246
0.0507
0.1612
0.0049
0.2076
0.1688
0.0168
0.0299
0.0951
0.0037
0.0852
0.1005
0.0069
0.0347
0.0975
0.0055
0.0852
0.1005
0.0069
0.1444
0.1704
0.0116
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0572
0.1747
0.0062
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0507
0.1612
0.0062
0.0618
0.1822
0.0139
0.0335
0.1714
0.0047
0.0335
0.1714
0.0047
0.0588
0.1652
0.0093
SO2
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
HC
7.6314
0.0000
0.6663
0.0000
7.2789
0.0000
3.3057
0.6507
0.0000
0.0000
16.2109
14.8101
44.0814
83.1650
0.0000
24.2630
14.9148
24.0204
65.1126
0.0000
0.0000
12.9874
1.0015
44.8112
7.6314
3.0789
4.6183
0.0000
380.2
Project Emissions (lbs) 2
CO
NOx
PM
37.6452
111.0678
8.4489
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.0198
14.8579
0.3779
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
103.9793
122.6613
6.8446
10.6276
52.2900
1.2601
23.7612
43.5291
4.4098
4.6774
8.5687
0.8681
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
37.2782
168.6259
6.9848
81.9900
103.5378
15.0100
139.7409
443.9749
13.5779
539.8444
438.9924
43.6547
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
204.4925
241.2339
16.4936
49.9768
140.3685
7.9383
202.4476
238.8216
16.3287
548.7794
647.3792
44.2626
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
85.7722
262.0365
9.3527
4.9403
14.5758
1.1088
142.0544
451.3250
17.4583
37.6452
111.0678
8.4489
6.6982
34.2736
0.9447
10.0473
51.4103
1.4170
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2275.4
3700.6
225.2
1. The emission rate for diesel nonroad equipment as determined using methods in NR-009c were for certain load factor conditions.
Emission rate is adjusted based on representative load condition at the El Centro site .
2. Project Total Emissions (lbs) = Project Total Fuel Usage (gals) x EF (lbs/gal).
3. Emission Rate for annual impact (lbs/hr) = Project Total Emissions (lbs) / 8760 (hrs/yr)
Total Fuel
Usage (gal)
610
0
80
0
720
313
254
50
0
0
960
610
2,754
2,600
0
2,400
1,440
2,376
3,800
0
0
1,500
80
2,800
610
200
300
0
TABLE B-4 EMISSION RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION - ANNUAL
EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION
SO2
0.1267
0.0000
0.0166
0.0000
0.1495
0.0651
0.0528
0.0104
0.0000
0.0000
0.1994
0.1265
0.5722
0.5389
0.0000
0.2941
0.1765
0.2912
0.7893
0.0000
0.0000
0.3119
0.0166
0.5817
0.1267
0.0416
0.0623
0.0000
4.5
HC
0.0009
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0008
0.0000
0.0004
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0019
0.0017
0.0050
0.0095
0.0000
0.0028
0.0017
0.0027
0.0074
0.0000
0.0000
0.0015
0.0001
0.0051
0.0009
0.0004
0.0005
0.0000
Emission Rate - Annual (lbs/hr) 3
CO
NOx
PM
0.0043
0.0127
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0003
0.0017
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0119
0.0140
0.0008
0.0012
0.0060
0.0001
0.0027
0.0050
0.0005
0.0005
0.0010
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0043
0.0192
0.0008
0.0094
0.0118
0.0017
0.0160
0.0507
0.0015
0.0616
0.0501
0.0050
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0233
0.0275
0.0019
0.0057
0.0160
0.0009
0.0231
0.0273
0.0019
0.0626
0.0739
0.0051
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0098
0.0299
0.0011
0.0006
0.0017
0.0001
0.0162
0.0515
0.0020
0.0043
0.0127
0.0010
0.0008
0.0039
0.0001
0.0011
0.0059
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
SO2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
HC
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0006
0.0012
0.0000
0.0003
0.0002
0.0003
0.0009
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
0.0006
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0055
Modeled Annual Emission Rate (g/s)
CO
NOx
PM
0.0005
0.0016
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0015
0.0018
0.0001
0.0002
0.0008
0.0000
0.0003
0.0006
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0005
0.0024
0.0001
0.0012
0.0015
0.0002
0.0020
0.0064
0.0002
0.0078
0.0063
0.0006
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0029
0.0035
0.0002
0.0007
0.0020
0.0001
0.0029
0.0034
0.0002
0.0079
0.0093
0.0006
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0012
0.0038
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0000
0.0020
0.0065
0.0003
0.0005
0.0016
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0000
0.0001
0.0007
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0327
0.0532
0.0032
SO2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
Total
0.0204
0.0138
0.0138
0.9100
0.2847
0.2847
CO
1
2
G
G
TOG
Number of
Units
Fuel
0.0061
0.0074
0.0074
NOx
8
8
Daily Op.
Hours
0.0002
0.0005
0.0005
PM10
0.25
0.13
0.0360
0.0187
3.03
0.0074
0.0004
0.0004
0.0068
0.0046
0.0046
0.3033
0.0949
0.0949
ER For 24-HR Standards (g/s)
TOG
SO2
CO
1.78
0.92
TOG
0.0020
0.0025
0.0025
NOx
62.7
CO
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
PM10
1.63
NOx
EF (lb/MMBtu)
320
640
Daily Op.
Hours
8
8
0.9
1.3
2.2
TOG
1. Daily emissions = ER (lbs/hr) x No. of Units x Daily Op. Hours/unit
2. Project emission = ER (lbs/hr) x Total Op. Hours of all units
Equipment
Portable Compaction Vibratory Plate
Pumps
Total
Total Op.
Hours /
Project
18.1
57.8
75.8
CO
0.5
0.4
0.9
NOx
0.03
0.01
0.04
PM10
Daily Emissions (lbs) 1
0.02
0.5
0.5
SO2
34.9
103.6
138.6
TOG
0.0025
0.0001
0.0001
SO2
0.1
PM10
0.0000
0.0005
0.0005
TOG
0.084
SO2
723.0
4622.0
5345.0
CO
18.8
31.0
49.8
NOx
1.2
0.8
1.9
PM10
Project Emissions (lbs) 2
TABLE B-6 EMISSION CALCULATION FOR GASOLINE POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
1. Hourly emission rate is determined using AP-42 emission factors in Table 3.3-1 and the heat input of the vibratory plate.
2. Hourly emission rate is determined by using Table 4, Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling --Spark Ignition, EPA420-P-04-010, April 2004.
3. Based on the gasoline density of 7.1 lbs/gal.
4. Back calculated from fuel usage and gasoline heat value of 20,300 Btu/lb, AP-42, Table 3.3-1, footnote "c".
5. 24-HR emission rate = Daily emissions (lbs) / 24 (hrs/day)
6. Hourly emission rate for annual impact = project total emissions (lbs) / 8760 (hrs/yr).
Pumps
Portable Compaction Vibratory Plate
Equipment
Equipment
Portable Compaction Vibratory Plate
Pumps2
Total
Actual Fuel Input
lbs/hr/ Unit MMBtu /hr/
3
gal/hr/ Unit
Unit 4
TABLE B-5 EMISSION RATES FOR GASOLINE POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1
EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION
2.259
7.222
CO
0.059
0.048
NOx
1.0
37.5
38.5
SO2
0.0000
0.0104
0.0104
0.0000
0.0003
0.0003
0.0000
0.00002
0.00002
ER For Annual Standards (g/s) 6
CO
NOx
PM10
0.109
0.162
TOG
0.0000
0.00001
0.00001
SO2
0.004
0.001
PM10
ER For 1-HR Standards (lbs/hr)
0.003
0.059
SO2
0.036
0.054
TOG
0.753
2.407
CO
0.020
0.016
NOx
0.001
0.000
PM10
ER For 24-HR Standards (lbs/hr) 5
0.001
0.020
SO2
5
0.75
7.4
90%
Mean Vehicle Speed (S) (mph)
PM10 Scaling Factor
Mean Wind Speed (mph)
Water Suppression Control Efficiency
No. Of Unit
1
2
1
1
1
1
Hrs/Day/ Unit
6
8
8
8
8
8
Total Op.
Hours
360
1040
480
240
880
240
PM10
Controlled EF Daily PM10 EM Emission/
(lbs/ton) 2
(lbs)
Project (lbs)
2.67716E-05
0.013605325
0.544
ER for 24-HR
Standard
(lbs/hr)
5.67E-04
1
Mean Vehicle
Weight (tons)
22.7
4
1
29
5
10
0.67
0.65
60
No. Of Unit
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
Round Trips
3
/Day/ Unit
8
2
2
16
1
1
24-HR (lbs/hr)
0.0114
0.0303
0.0152
0.0152
0.0152
0.0152
0.50
Round Trip
Distance
(mile)4
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.30
0.30
Water
Suppression
Efficiency
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Daily VMT (all
units)
4.24
1.06
4.24
8.48
0.30
0.30
30.00
6. Average number of workers (75)/1.25 persons per vehicle.
0.084
Controlled ER for
24-HR Standard
(lbs/hr)
0.048
0.006
0.012
0.108
0.002
0.002
ER for Annual
Standard (g/s)
7.828E-06
PM10 Emission Rate
24-HR (g/s)
Annual (g/s)
0.0014
0.0002
0.0038
0.0007
0.0019
0.0003
0.0019
0.0002
0.0019
0.0006
0.0019
0.0002
0.0129
0.0021
No. Of Days ER for Annual
ER for
during
Standard
24-Hr Standard
project
(lbs/hr)
(g/s)
40
6.21248E-05
7.14E-05
Project
Emission
(lbs)
16.38
47.33
21.84
10.92
40.05
10.92
147.44
1. AP-42, Section 13.2.2, Equation 1a.
2. AP-42, Section 13.2.2, Equation 2. Estimated 12 days with precipitation > 0.01 inch, according to historical precipitation data
collected at Niland, CA, Western Regional Climate Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmsca.html, accessed 1/17/06.
3. Round trips/day uses 1 trip per hour for dump trucks and pickups. Water trucks operate 2 times per hour. Delivery trucks use 1 trips per day. Service trucks use 2 trips per day.
4. Distances measured from plot plan from highway along access road to center of construction area and parking lot.
5. Number of delivery trucks estimated.
Vehicle Type
Dump trucks
Service trucks
Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton
Water Truck
5
Light Delivery Trucks
5
Heavy Delivery Trucks
Total Unpaved Road
Worker's Vehicles in Parking lot 6
Adj. PM10 EF
(lbs/VMT) -For
Uncontr. PM10 Annual Impact
1
2
EF (lbs/VMT)
2.73
2.64
1.25
1.21
0.67
0.65
3.05
2.95
1.38
1.34
1.89
1.83
TABLE B-9 EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROAD AND PARKING LOT
1. Calculated using AP-42 Section 13.2.4, Equation. 1
2. Based on the control efficiency of 90% for daily water suppression.
Daily Dirt Handled (tons)
508.2
Uncontrolled EF
1
(lbs/ton)
0.0003
TABLE B-8 EMISSIONS FROM AGGREGATE HANDLING AND STORAGE
1. Using bulldozer equation in AP-42, Table 11.9-1 for all equipment with the 90% control efficiency of water suppression .
Equipment
Excavator - Trencher
Excavator - Backhoe/Loader
Excavator - Loader
Bulldozer (D4c)
Dump Truck
Excavator - Motor Grader
Total
Controlled PM10
1
EF (lbs/hr)
0.0455
0.0455
0.0455
0.0455
0.0455
0.0455
Daily
Emissions
(lbs)
0.27
0.73
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
2.46
For bulldozing and grading only. AP-42, Table 11.9-1.
2005 Annual average wind speed measured at the Imperial County Airport, California Climate Data Archive,
http://www.calclim.dri.edu/ccda/stationlist.html, accessed 1/18/2006.
Daily multiple watering
AP-42, Table 13.2.2-1 for construction site, used for emission calculation of material handling.
This value is between the moisture content for moist and dry condition listed in SCAQMD CEQA Table A9-9-F2. The moisture
content during the fall-winter season is expected to be higher than during the dry seasons due to higher precipitation.
TABLE B-7 EMISSIONS FROM BULLDOZING AND DIRT PUSHING OPERATION
8.5
8
Material silt content (s) (%)
Material moisture content (M) (%)
Constants:
EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE FUGITIVE DUST (PM10)
6.276
2.012
Daily
Emissions
(lbs)
1.159
0.133
0.284
2.589
0.042
0.057
430
12900
1501.90
836.90
Total No. of
Days
Project ER
Operated VMT/ Project
(lbs)
110
466.4
123.33
43
45.58
5.52
340
1441.6
93.52
175
1484.00
438.12
65
19.35
2.59
35
10.50
1.92
Controlled ER
for Annual Controlled ER Controlled ER
Standard
for 24-HR
for Annual
(lbs/hr)
Standard (g/s) Standard (g/s)
0.0141
0.0061
0.0018
0.0006
0.0007
0.0001
0.0107
0.0015
0.0013
0.050
0.014
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0224
0.0096
0.0955
0.0106
0.0120
1
1
1
4
60
1
1
Fuel Type
D
D
D
G
G/D
D
D
2000
10000
20000
58000
45400
8000
2000
Weight (lbs)
LDA/LDT
LDH
MDH
HHD
HHD
LHD
LHD
Vehicle
Type
2.30E-03
2.10E-03
2.10E-03
2.10E-03
2.10E-03
2.10E-03
2.10E-03
TOG
1.96E-02
8.40E-03
8.40E-03
8.40E-03
8.40E-03
8.40E-03
8.40E-03
CO
2.20E-03
3.58E-02
3.58E-02
3.58E-02
3.58E-02
3.58E-02
3.58E-02
EF (lbs/VMT)
NOx
1
8.16E-05
9.00E-04
9.00E-04
9.00E-04
9.00E-04
9.00E-04
9.00E-04
PM10
16
8
2
2
1
1
1
Trips or
Hours / Day
/ Unit
16
8
2
2
720
880
104
1,120
Total Days
430
65
35
Total Op.
Hours /
Project
720
880
104
1,120
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
Round Trip
Distance
(mile)
20
15
15
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
Round Trip
Distance
(mile)
8.48
4.24
1.06
4.24
Total
Daily Total
VMT
1200
15
15
Total
8.48
4.24
1.06
4.24
Total
Daily Total
VMT
1.40E-04
1.40E-04
1.40E-04
5.61E-04
9.82E-04
TOG
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.03 lbs
1.78E-02
8.90E-03
2.23E-03
8.90E-03
0.04 lbs
TOG
1
45
30
[18]
60
1
1
0.0138
0.0893
0.0709
PM10 EF
(lbs/VMT) 1
20
15
15
1200
15
15
Round Trip
Distance
Daily VMT
(mile)
(all units)
2.6
0.5
0.5
0.54 lbs
0.1
0.014
0.014
0.01 lbs
7.63E-03
3.82E-03
9.54E-04
3.82E-03
0.02 lbs
430
65
35
Total No.
of Days
Operated
5.61E-04
5.61E-04
5.61E-04
2.24E-03
3.93E-03
CO
516000
967.5
525
VMT/
Project
2.39E-03
2.39E-03
2.39E-03
9.56E-03
1.67E-02
NOx
16.5041
1.3391
1.0641
19
Daily
Emissions
(lbs)
6.01E-05
6.01E-05
6.01E-05
2.40E-04
4.21E-04
PM10
1-HR Emission Rate (g/s)
23.5
0.1
0.1
0.13 lbs
3.04E-01
1.52E-01
3.79E-02
1.52E-01
0.65 lbs
Daily Emissions (lbs) 1
NOx
PM10
7.12E-02
3.56E-02
8.90E-03
3.56E-02
0.15 lbs
CO
1. EF are calculated using equations in AP-42, Section 13.2.2. Equation 1b is used for passenger cars; equation 1a is used for heavy duty delivery trucks.
EF calculations are based on the following assumptions:
Paved road silt content (%)
0.1348 SCAQMD CEQA Table A-9-C-1, 5% local, 5% collector, 90% freeway
2
2
Silt Loading
0.04 oz/yr
1.356 g/m
SCAQMD CEQA Table A9-9-C-1.
Vehicle Type
Worker's Vehicles 1
Light Delivery Trucks
Heavy Duty Delivery Trucks
Total
Mean Vehicles
Speed (mph)
[Vehicles
Total No. Of
Weight (tons)] Trips / Day
TABLE B-12 EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON PAVED ROAD
1. Based on equipment usage for grading phase on the fifth construction month, which is the peak activity month.
2. The emission factors for worker's vehicles are a weighted average, assuming 50% passenger cars and 50% light duty trucks.
Onroad Vehicles (Access Road)
On-Site Vehicles
Truck - Water
Dump Truck
Service Truck - 1 ton
Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton
Total
Onroad Vehicles (Access Road)
On-Site Vehicles
Truck - Water
Dump Truck
Service Truck
Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton
Total
Highway Vehicles (Off-site)
2
Worker's Vehicles
Light Delivery Trucks
Heavy Duty Delivery Trucks
Total
Trips or
Hours / Day
/ Unit
Total Op.
Hours /
Project
TABLE B-11 EMISSION CALCULATION FOR ONROAD VEHICLES
1. To obtain the emission factors, EMFAC2002 was run in the "planning inventory" mode for the modeling year of 2008. The Imperial County average fleet information
was chosen, and the inventory was run for winter. The emission factor for a given vehicle category was back calculated using the daily emissions and daily VMT for that
vehicle category.
2. The emission factors for worker's vehicles are a weighted average, assuming 50% passenger cars and 50% light duty trucks.
Onroad Vehicle
On-Site Vehicles
Truck - Water
Dump Truck
Service Truck - 1 ton
Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton
Highway Vehicles (Off-site)
2
Worker's Vehicles
Light Delivery Trucks
Heavy Duty Delivery Trucks
Vehicle
Count
TABLE B-10 EMISSION FACTOR FOR ONROAD VEHICLES
EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED ONROAD VEHICLES
7096.74
86.37
37.24
7,220
Project
Emissions
(lbs)
3.18E-06
3.18E-06
3.18E-06
1.27E-05
2.23E-05
SO2
4.72E-03
7.14E-04
7.14E-04
0.00 lbs
4.04E-04
2.02E-04
5.05E-05
2.02E-04
0.00 lbs
SO2
3.93E-06
4.76E-05
4.76E-05
4.76E-05
4.76E-05
4.76E-05
4.76E-05
SO2
3.74E-04
1.87E-04
4.67E-05
1.87E-04
7.95E-04
CO
1,135
35
19
1,189 lbs
0.6 tons
0.0443
0.6877
42
1
0
43 lbs
0.0 tons
4.33E-02
5.29E-02
6.25E-03
2.69E-01
0.37
1.59E-03
7.97E-04
1.99E-04
7.97E-04
3.39E-03
NOx
0.0043
Total
0.8101
0.0056
0.0922
0.0866
0.0005
0.1026
0.1021
ER for
Annual
Standard
(g/s)
4.01E-05
2.00E-05
5.01E-06
2.00E-05
8.51E-05
PM10
24-HR Emission Rate (g/s)
10,114
8
4
10,126 lbs
5.1 tons
1.72E+00
2.10E+00
2.49E-01
1.07E+01
14.78
Project Emissions (lbs)
NOx
PM10
4.04E-01
4.94E-01
5.83E-02
2.51E+00
3.47
CO
ER for 24HR
ER for Annual ER for 24-HR
Standard
Standard
Standard
(lbs/hr)
(lbs/hr)
(g/s)
9.35E-05
4.67E-05
1.17E-05
4.67E-05
1.99E-04
TOG
1,187
2
1
1,190 lbs
0.6 tons
1.01E-01
1.23E-01
1.46E-02
6.28E-01
0.87
TOG
2.12E-06
1.06E-06
2.65E-07
1.06E-06
4.50E-06
SO2
2
0
0
2 lbs
0.001 tons
2.29E-03
2.80E-03
3.31E-04
1.42E-02
0.02
SO2
1.45E-06
1.78E-06
2.10E-07
9.04E-06
1.25E-05
TOG
5.81E-06
7.10E-06
8.39E-07
3.61E-05
4.99E-05
CO
2.48E-05
3.03E-05
3.58E-06
1.54E-04
2.13E-04
NOx
6.22E-07
7.61E-07
8.99E-08
3.87E-06
5.35E-06
PM10
Annual Emission Rate (g/s)
3.29E-08
4.02E-08
4.76E-09
2.05E-07
2.83E-07
SO2
Construction
Area Total
0.00326
0.0535
0.0431
7.937E-05
Annual
Service Road
(ROADC1Gasoline Equip.
ROADC6)
1.66E-05
5.35E-06
0.0003
2.126E-04
0.0104
4.990E-05
1.393E-05
2.827E-07
Diesel Equip.
0.0779
1.2209
0.7024
0.0015
Diesel Equip.
0.0032
0.0532
0.0327
6.544E-05
Pollutant
PM10
NOx
CO
SO2
Pollutant
PM10
NOx
CO
SO2
Annual
8.14E-04
1.34E-02
1.08E-02
1.98E-05
Diesel Equip.
0.0223
0.3671
0.2106
0.0005
Construction Area LongTerm ER
(MAIN1C - MAIN4C)
(g/s)
Unpaved
Parking Lots
0.0106
0.0120
Total ER w/o
Parking Lots
(g/s)
0.01297
2.129E-03
1. total divided by number of volume sources for all construction roads.
20 number of volume sources for road (6 east, 6 west, 6 north, 2 south)
4 number of volume sources for main construction area
2 number of area sources for parking lots
Activity
24-HR
Annual
Bulldozing/ Dirt
Pushing
0.0129
0.0021
Aggregate
Handling/
Storage
7.14E-05
7.82772E-06
1
Service Road ER
(ROADD1-ROADD6)
1.12E-03
4.78E-04
24-HR
1-HR/3-HR/8-HR
1.96E-02
3.07E-01
2.47E-01
4.69E-04
Construction
Area Total
0.0224
0.3696
0.3055
5.78E-04
Construction Area Construction Area Short- Parking Lot ER
(PKLOT1D Long-Term ER Term ER - (MAIND1 PKLOT2D)
(MAIN1D - MAIN4D)
MAIND4)
(g/s)
(g/s)
(g/s)
0.0032
0.0053
5.321E-04
0.0060
24-HR
5.60E-03
9.24E-02
7.64E-02
1.44E-04
(MAINC1 -
Service Road
(ROADC1-ROADC6)
4.257E-06
1.693E-04
3.973E-05
2.252E-07
Construction Area Short-Term ER
MAINC4) (g/s)
Gasoline Equip.
0.0002
0.0025
0.0949
1.271E-04
TABLE B-14 FUGITIVE DUST (PM10) EMISSION RATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (g/s)
Construction
Area Total
0.0784
1.2283
0.9870
0.0019
1-HR/3-HR/8-HR
Service Road
(ROADC1Gasoline Equip.
ROADC6)
0.0005
2.104E-05
0.0074
8.368E-04
0.2847
1.963E-04
0.0004
1.113E-06
TABLE B-13 COMBUSTION EMISSION RATE FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES IN CONSTRUCTION MODELING
EMISSION INVENTORY
TABLE B-15 On-Site Daily Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO2
Construction - Diesel
6.88
40.12
69.93
4.24
0.09
Construction - Gasoline
2.17
75.85
0.86
0.04
0.49
Construction - Trucks
0.04
0.15
0.65
0.02
0.00
Construction Combustion Subtotal
Unpaved Road Travel/Parking Area Fugitive
PM Emissions
Grading /Bulldozing Fugitive PM Emissions
9.09
116.12
71.43
4.30
0.58
Activities
Combustion Emissions
Earth Loading/Storage Fugitive PM Emissions
Total Max. Daily Emissions (lbs)
6.28
2.46
9.09
116.12
71.43
0.014
13.04
0.58
TABLE B-16 On-Site Project Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions
Activities
Combustion Emissions
Construction - Diesel
Construction - Gasoline
Construction - Trucks
Construction Combustion Subtotal
Unpaved Road Travel / Parking Area Fugitive
PM Emissions
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO2
380.2
138.6
0.9
519.7
2,275.4
5,345.0
3.5
7,623.9
3,700.6
49.8
14.8
3,765.1
225.2
1.9
0.4
227.5
4.5
38.5
0.0
43.1
1,501.9
Grading /Bulldozing Fugitive PM Emissions
147.4
Earth Loading/Storage Fugitive PM Emissions
0.5
Total Project Emissions (lbs)
519.7
7,623.9
3,765.1
1,877.4
43.1
Total Project Emissions (tons)
0.260
3.812
1.883
0.939
0.022
TABLE B-17 Daily Regional On-Highway Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Activities
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO2
Passenger Vehicle - Combustion Emissions
2.76
23.52
2.64
0.10
0.00
Delivery Truck - Combustion Emissions
0.03
0.13
0.54
0.03
0.00
Passenger Vehicle - Paved Road Dust
16.50
Delivery Truck - Paved Road Dust
Total (lbs)
2.40
19.03
2.79
23.65
3.18
0.01
TABLE B-18 Project Regional On-Highway Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Activities
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO2
Passenger Vehicle - Combustion Emissions
1,186.8
10,113.6
1,135.2
42.1
2.0
Delivery Truck - Combustion Emissions
1.1
4.4
18.8
1.3
0.0
Passenger Vehicle - Paved Road Dust
Delivery Truck - Paved Road Dust
Total (lbs)
Total (tons)
7,096.7
123.6
1,187.9
0.6
10,118.0
5.1
1,154.0
0.6
7,263.8
3.6
2.1
0.001
TABLE B-19 WINTER EMISSIONS
Diurnal
Hot Soak
Running
Resting
Total Exhaust (tons/day)
EF (lbs/VMT)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
CO Emissions
Run Exhaust
Idle Exhaust
Start Exhaust
Total Exhaust (tons/day)
EF (lbs/VMT)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
NOx Emissions
Run Exhaust
Idle Exhaust
Start Exhaust
Total Exhaust (tons/day)
EF (lbs/VMT)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
CO2 Emissions (1000)
Run Exhaust
Idle Exhaust
Start Exhaust
Total Exhaust (tons/day)
EF (lbs/VMT)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
PM10 Emissions
Run Exhaust
Idle Exhaust
Start Exhaust
Subtotal Exhaust
TireWear
BrakeWear
Total Exhaust (tons/day)
EF (lbs/VMT)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
Lead Emissions
Lead Exhaust (tons/day)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
SOx Emissions
SOx (tons/day)
EF (lbs/VMT)
Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)
Fuel Consumption (x1000 gal)
Gasoline
Diesel
VMT/1000
TOG Emissions
Run Exhaust
Idle Exhaust
Start Exhaust
Vehicle Info
Vehicle Class
Tech Group
0.0023
106.37
0.16
3.93E-06
50.35
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00001
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.0001
0.46
0.00
0.02
0.48
0.0010
0.96
0.00
0.11
1.07
0.0024
0.00
0.00
8.16E-05
0.0009
0.0022
0.020
8.58
0.00
2.08
10.66
0.0216
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.0001
0.97
0.00
0.03
1.00
0.0008
2.16
0.00
0.34
2.50
0.0020
16.25
0.00
6.16
22.41
0.0176
0.07
0.12
0.41
0.02
1.25
0.0025
0.44
0.00
0.19
0.98
0.00
0.65
0.17
0.26
0.63
0.06
2.75
0.0022
1005
2543
0.00
1.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
28
LHDT1-DSL
Scen Year: 2008 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2008
Season : Winter
Area : Imperial County Average
Worker Commuter
Passenger Car (50%)
Light-Duty Trucks (50%)
LDA-TOT
LDT1-TOT
Title : Imperial County Avg 2008 Winter El Centro version 2
Version : Emfac2002 V2.2 Apr 23 2003
Run Date : 03/11/06 11:06:52
0.00
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
11
4.76E-05
0.00
0.0009
0.0044
0.036
0.0084
0.0021
0.00
8.89
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.70
0.01
0.00
0.71
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
59
Delivery Truck
Heavy Duty Trucks - Diesel
LHDT2-DSL
MHDT-DSL
0.00
71.43
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.01
0.00
0.14
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.77
0.03
0.00
0.79
6.08
0.50
0.00
6.58
1.39
0.16
0.00
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.4
0.37
0.03
0.00
322
HHDT-DSL
I/M Stat : No I and M program in effect
Emissions: Tons Per Day
TABLE B-20 WINTER EMISSIONS DETAILS
Season : Winter
Area : Imperial County Average
I/M Stat : No I and M program in effect
Emissions: Tons Per Day
1.8
0.11
0.17
0.62
0.04
------0.01
---------
0
0
0
0
16.25
2.74
12.27
0.02
0
0
0
0
6.16
0.19
3.52
0
------------------------0
22.41
2.93
15.79
0.02
---------- ----------------------------
0
0
0
0.17
0.02
0.26
0.03
0.63
0.07
0.06
0.01
------------------0
2.75
0.39
---------- --------------------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.03
------------------0
0.09
----------- ---------- --------0
0
0
0.01
----------- ---------- ---------
-------
0.03
0
0
------------0
0.03
0
0
0
0.96
0
0.03
------------------0.01
0.99
----------- ---------- ---------
0.01
0
0
0.02
0.04
------------0
0.09
---------- ----------0
0
0
0.01
---------- -----------
0
0
0.03
0
0
------------0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0
0
-------
0.12
0.2
0.69
0.04
------2.19
--------Carbon
15.03
0
3.71
------18.74
--------Oxides
1.88
0
0.25
------2.12
--------Carbon
0.8
0
0.03
------0.83
---------
0
0
0.03
0
0
------0
0.04
0
0
0
0.97
0.02
0.77
0.01
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0.03
0
------------------------0
1
0.02
0.8
0.01
---------- ----------------------------
0
0
0
2.08
0.01
2.16
0.19
1.64
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.33
0
0.34
0.01
0.24
0
------------------------------------------0.08
2.41
0.01
2.5
0.2
1.88
0.04
----------- ---------- ------------------ ----------------------------
0.07
0
0.01
15.24
0
6.02
------------------1.14
21.27
----------- ---------- ---------
1.01
0
0.13
0.16
0.24
0.54
0.05
------------------0.24
2.51
----------- ---------- ---------
0.01
0.02
0.09
0
1.02
0.88
0
0.14
0.1
-----------of Nitrogen
0.06
0
0
------0.06
-----------Dioxide
0
0
0
------0
-----------PM10
0
0
0
------0
-------
-----------Monoxide
-------
0
0
0.02
0
-------
--------Emissions
-------
--------Emissions
-------
--------Emissions
-------
--------Emissions
-------
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.3
0.29
0
0.01
0.61
0.41
0
0.2
------0
0
0
0
------0
0
0
0
-------
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.02
0
0
------------------0
0.17
0.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0.32
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.88
0.93
0.04
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
------------------------------------------------0.33
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.9
0.96
0.04
---------- ----------- ---------- ------------------- ---------------------------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
------0.25
0.23
0.02
0.01
3.16
---------
-------
3.06
0.03
0.08
0.69
0.05
0.47
0.52
6.85
7.38
0.32
0.03
12.46
0
0
0
0
0.51
0.51
0
0
0.52
0.2
0.03
0.22
0.24
0
0.24
0
0
1.04
------------------------------------------------------0.9
0.08
0.69
0.77
7.37
8.13
0.33
0.03
14.01
---------- ----------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------------- ---------
0.01
0
0
------------0
0.01
0
0
0
0.23
0
0
------0.23
---------(000)
0.02
0
0
------0.02
----------
0.06
2.98
1.62
2.21
3.83
1.57
5.4
1.51
0.73
41.9
0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.18
0
0
0.21
0
1.15
1.58
1.58
3.16
0
3.16
0.07
0.05
14.29
------------------------------------------------------------3.08
0.06
4.15
3.2
3.8
7
1.74
8.74
1.57
0.78
56.4
---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------------- ---------
2.04
0.02
1.01
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.33
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0
0.02
0
0.01
0.53
0.17
0.06
0.13
0.2
0
0.2
0.01
0.02
1.71
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.11
------------------------------------------------------------0.45
0.02
0.58
0.33
0.4
0.73
0.43
1.16
0.21
0.12
7
---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------------- ---------
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.01
0.4
0.61
0.19
0.06
2.85
0.03
0.03
0
0
0.04
0
0.29
0.01
0.01
1.43
------------------------------0.43
0.94
0.2
0.08
4.33
Trucks
Trucks
Buses
cycles
Vehicles
********** ********* *********
*********** *********
4768
8157
248
2470 133265
387
452
29
18
5184
50800
97426
991
4940 936799
---------- --------------------------- ---------
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.06
0.02
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
0
0.07
0
0.08
0
0.02
0
0.02
0
0
0
0.19
0.19
0
0
0.38
---------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------------- --------Lead
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOx
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.03
---------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------------- --------Fuel
Consumption (000 gallons)
Gasoline
0.97
105.39
0
106.37
2.5
84.92
0
87.42
0.67
31.04
0
31.71
1.46
5.22
6.69
0
6.69
1.96
0.41
234.55
Diesel
0
0
0.16
0.16
0
0
1.01
1.01
0
0
2.23
2.23
0
0
0
81.27
81.27
2.59
0
87.26
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
TireWear
BrakeWr
Total Ex
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
Total Ex
---------
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
Total Ex
---------
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
Total Ex
---------
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
Total
---------
Diurnal
Hot Soak
Running
Resting
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
---- Heavy Duty Trucks --- - - Light Duty Passenger Cars - - - - - - - - Light Duty Trucks - - - - - - - - - - Medium Duty Trucks - - - - ----- Gasoline Trucks ------ Diesel Total HD Urban Motor- All
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Total
*********
*********** ********** *********
********** ***********
**********
********* ********* ************
*********
********** ********** *********** ********** **********
Vehicles
885
65236
185
66305
1228
44477
845 46550
262
8453
820
9535
647
2743
3389
VMT/1000
13
2525
4
2543
35
1669
29
1734
7
357
45
408
7
58
65
Trips
3697 408635
1014 413346
5186
277823
5078 288087
2483
120209
9317 132009
12400
34225
46626
------------------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------Total
Organic Gas Emissions
Run Exh
0.09
0.9
0
0.98
0.24
0.55
0.01
0.79
0.06
0.13
0.02
0.21
0.07
0.14
0.21
Idle Exh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Start Ex
0.02
0.62
0
0.65
0.03
0.31
0
0.35
0.02
0.11
0
0.13
0.18
0.12
0.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Ex
0.11
1.52
0
1.63
0.27
0.86
0.01
1.14
0.08
0.24
0.02
0.34
0.25
0.26
0.51
Title : Imperial County Avg 2008 Winter El Centro version 2
Version : Emfac2002 V2.2 Apr 23 2003
Run Date : 03/11/06 11:06:52
Scen Year: 2008 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2008
TABLE B-20 CONTINUED WINTER EMISSIONS DETAILS
Gasoline
Diesel
Total
---------Lead
SOx
----------
TireWear
BrakeWr
Total Ex
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
1.39
0
0
0
48.96
0
50.35
0.75
0.01
0.01
------------0
0.04
------------------0
0
0
0
-------------------
0
0
0.01
0
0
------------0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.75
0.01
0.01
------------------0
0.04
--------------------------0
0
0
0
---------------------------
-------
0.01
0
0
------------0
0.01
0
0
0
1.11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
35.96
0
-----------
-----------
-------
-------
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
----------
----------
-------
-------
0.45
0.01
0.46
0.01
0.33
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0.02
0
0.01
------------------------------------------0.01
0.46
0.01
0.48
0.01
0.34
--------------------------- --------------------------------------
0.01
0
0
Total Ex
---------(00
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.82
0.03
0.96
0.09
0.82
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.11
0
0.11
0
0.13
0
------------------------------------------0.11
0.93
0.03
1.07
0.09
0.95
0.01
--------------------------- --------------------------------------
0.11
0
0
Total Ex
----------
0.07
0.01
0.04
0.12
0.01
0.07
0.41
0.03
0.25
0.02
0
0.02
------------------------0
1.25
0.17
0.77
--------------------------------------
0
0
0
0
7.04
0.01
8.58
1.22
5.23
0
0
0
0
0
1.98
0
2.08
0.08
1.54
------------------------------------------1.63
9.01
0.01
10.66
1.3
6.78
--------------------------- --------------------------------------
1.52
0
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.37
0.02
------------------0.22
1.03
---------------------------
0.01
0.02
0.04
0
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
Total Ex
----------
Run Exh
Idle Exh
Start Ex
Total
----------
Diurnal
Hot Soak
Running
Resting
0.01
0.01
------0.04
--------0
0
--------Fuel
37.07
0.26
0.05
0.08
0.28
0.02
------0.94
--------Carbon
6.46
0
1.62
------8.08
--------Oxides
0.92
0
0.14
------1.05
--------Carbon
0.34
0
0.01
------0.35
--------PM10
0.02
0
0
------0.02
0.88
0.82
0
0.06
0.07
0
0
0
---------
-------
-------
---------
-------
--------Emissions
-------
--------Emissions
-------
--------Emissions
-------
-------
-------
0.15
0
0.01
------------0.15
---------- -----------
0.41
0
0.05
------------0.46
---------- -----------
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
------------0
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
------0.01
---------(000)
0
0
0
------0
----------
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0.13
0.02
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
------------------------0
0.13
0.02
0.15
------------------- ------------------
0
0
0
0.05
0.16
0.21
0
0
0
0.13
0
0.13
------------------------0
0.18
0.16
0.34
------------------- ------------------
0
0
0
16.14
0.2
0.1
0
13.88
0
0
1.47
13.99
1.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0.01
0.05
0
0
0.01
0.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.18
0.01
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.01
------------- -----------------0.4
0.02
0
0.19
0.01
0.22
0.37
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
-------
0
0
1.58
0
-------
-------
0
0.57
1.58
0.57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0.08
0
0.02
-------
-------
1.01
0
0
0
0
-------
3.84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
------------------------0
0
0.02
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0.01
1.02
0
0.73
0.01
0
0.14
0.13
0.01
0
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
------- -
0
0
0
0
0
0
------
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
------0
0.01
0
0
0
0
8.89
4.85
8.89
0
71.43
0.28
0
0
0.94
1.96
0
0
2.59
2.24
3.53
------------------------- -----------------0.02
0.02
0.16
0
0
0
0
0.01
---------- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- ------0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
---------- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- ------0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0.07
0
0
0.09
0
0.09
0.03
0.1
0.14
0.77
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.06
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------0
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.1
0.14
0.79
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.06
----------- ------------------ ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.02
0.02
0
0
0.19
0.7
0.92
6.08
0.01
0.07
0.13
0.19
0.41
0
0.01
0.01
0.5
0
0.01
0
0
0.01
0.1
0
0.11
0
0
0
0
0
0
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------0
0.04
0.07
0.1
0.04
0.29
0.71
1.04
6.58
0.01
0.08
0.13
0.19
0.42
----------- ------------------ ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------
0
0
0
0.08
0
0.09
------------0.03
0.01
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.03
0.47
0.4
0.02
0
0.19
0.01
0.23
----------- ------------------ ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------
-------
0
0
0.02
0
0.14
0
0.17
------------0.32
Total
Diesel Trks Gas
Diesel
Gas
Diesel
Buses
********* ************ ********* ************ ********* ********** *******
4355
3308
63
153
166
82
463
108
322
3
6
20
10
38
67145
16742
252
611
662
328
1854
--------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------
1.31
0.16
2.49
1.39
0.25
0.02
1.47
0.04
1.78
0.01
0
0.01
0.16
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0.83
0
1.56
0
0.02
0
0.07
0
0.09
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------0
0.17
0.02
0.19
1.75
2.15
0.16
4.06
1.55
0.28
0.02
1.53
0.04
1.87
----------- ------------------ ----------- --------- ----------- --------- -------------------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
------------------------------------------------0.01
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
---------- ---------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------- --------0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
---------- ---------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------- ---------
0.01
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.15
0.14
0
0.01
0.39
0.35
0
0.05
0
0
0
2.63
0.06
0.16
0.04
0.25
0
0
0.02
0
0.02
0.64
0.08
0.34
0
0.41
------------------------------------------2.39
0
3.28
0.14
0.51
0.04
0.69
---------- ---------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------
1.81
0
0.58
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.04
0
0.05
0.01
0
0
0
0
------------------------------------------0.32
0
0.39
0.03
0.1
0.01
0.14
---------- ---------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------
0.02
0.03
0.1
0.01
------------------Consumption (000 gallons)
0.57
15.58
0
0
-----------
-------
0
0
----------of Nitrogen
0.05
0
0
------0.06
----------Dioxide
0
0
0
------0
----------Emissions
0
0
0
------0
-------
----------Monoxide
-------
0
0
0.01
0
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
- - Light Duty Trucks 1 (T1) - - - - - Light Duty Trucks 2 (T2) - - - Medium Duty Trucks (T3) -- Light-Heavy Duty Trucks 1 (T4) Light-Heavy Duty Trucks 2 (T5) Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (T6) - HH Duty
School Buses Urban Buses Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat Cat
Diesel
Total
Non-cat
Cat
Diesel
**********
********** ********
*********** ********* ***********
***********
********** ********* ***********
*********
********** ********** *********** ********* *********** ********* ********** *********** *********
********** *********** ********* ***********
Vehicles
684
25688
635
27008
544
18789
210 19542
215
5938
157
6309
46
2229
453
2728
0
287
211
498
562
2487
1306
VMT/1000
20
964
22
1005
16
705
7
728
6
222
6
234
0
121
28
150
0
14
11
24
6
43
59
Trips
2879 160300
3828 167007
2307
117523
1249 121080
945
37034
972
38951
1534
73692
5695
80922
4
9482
2650
12136
9540 24158
33448
------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- --------- ---------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------- ------------------ ----------- --------- ----------Total
Organic Gas Emissions
Run Exh
0.13
0.3
0
0.44
0.11
0.25
0
0.35
0.06
0.11
0
0.16
0
0.02
0.01
0.03
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.07
0.03
Idle Exh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Start Ex
0.02
0.17
0
0.19
0.02
0.14
0
0.16
0.01
0.06
0
0.07
0.01
0.04
0
0.05
0
0.01
0
0.01
0.12
0.06
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Ex
0.15
0.47
0
0.63
0.12
0.39
0
0.51
0.06
0.17
0
0.23
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.09
0
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.12
0.03
Title : Imperial County Avg 2008 Winter El Centro versioSeason : Winter
Version : Emfac2002 V2.2 Apr 23 2003
Area : Imperial County Average
Run Date : 03/11/06 11:06:52
I/M Stat : No I and M program in effect
Scen Year: 2008 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2008
Emissions: Tons Per Day
Project Emissions Data Files
Submitted on Separate DVDs
Attachment C
Supporting Information on Estimation
of Project Operation Emissions
TABLE C-1 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
1
115
15
2240000
100%
ON
2
115
15
2077000
100%
OFF
Area =
3
73
15
2358000
100%
ON
176.71
4
73
15
2302000
100%
OFF
ft2
(Reference: Emission Summary GE PG7121 Turbine/Site Specific Information
Heat Consumed (MMBTU/hr)
824.3
748.4
877.4
Turbine Outlet Temperature (°F)
1016
1043
1006
HRSG Stack Outlet Temperature (°F)
320
320
322
Exhaust Flow @ T stack (acfm)
751916
694103
790219
Stack Exit Velocity, ft/m
4255.0
3927.8
4471.7
Stack Exit Velocity, m/s
21.62
19.95
22.72
Nitrogen, % Vol
73.58
74.46
74.44
Oxygen, % Vol
13.64
13.99
13.77
Carbon Dioxide, % Vol
3.13
3.08
3.18
Argon, % Vol
0.89
0.90
0.90
Water Vapor, % Vol
8.77
7.58
7.72
28.28
28.41
28.40
Molecular Weight
Data from Vendor
850.1
1014
322
770302
4359.0
22.14
74.76
13.91
3.16
0.89
7.28
28.44
TABLE C-3 Expected Operation of New Unit 3 Gas Turbine - Normal Operation
Ambient Temperature (°F)
Stack Diameter (ft)
Exhaust Flow (lb/hr)
CTG Load Level
Evap. Cooler
Data from Vendor
TABLE C-2 Case Parameters
Case
928.5
990
326
832859
4713.0
23.94
75.15
13.91
3.21
0.90
6.83
28.50
40
15
2481000
100%
OFF
5
ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios
NOX at 9 ppmvd pre-BACT level
30.00
27.00
32.00
31.00
5.78
5.20
6.29
6.09
NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
CO at 25 ppmvd pre BACT level
51.00
47.00
54.00
53.00
CO at 4.0 ppmvd BACT level
7.90
7.28
8.41
8.25
UHC at 7 ppmvd pre-BACT level
9.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
VOC at 7 ppmvd BACT level
1.80
1.60
1.80
1.80
VOC at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
1.08
0.96
1.08
1.08
1.72
1.57
1.84
1.78
SO2
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
PM10
12.39
11.41
13.11
12.87
NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level
NH3 at 5 ppmvd BACT level
6.19
5.71
6.56
6.44
Sulfur content in fuel basis for above:
0.75
grain total S/100 scf
Data from Vendor
Full load cases assume evap cooling and duct firing
Part load cases assume no evap cooling and no duct firing
VOC emissions are based upon 20% of UHC and 40% SCR removal rate (less than BACT achieved).
34.00
6.73
57.00
8.89
10.00
2.00
1.20
1.94
5.00
13.84
6.92
TABLE C-5 Average Emission Rates from New Unit 3 Gas Turbine (lbs/hr) - Normal Operations with No Duct Firing
NOX at pre-BACT level
34.62
31.62
36.20
35.20
10.39
10.39
10.18
10.18
NOx ppmvd
6.67
6.09
7.11
6.91
NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
CO at pre BACT level
52.65
48.65
55.50
54.50
CO ppmvd
25.81
25.81
25.69
25.69
CO at 4.0 ppmvd BACT level
8.16
7.54
8.64
8.48
UHC at pre-BACT level
9.20
8.20
9.18
9.18
VOC at pre-BACT level
1.84
1.64
1.84
1.84
VOC ppmvd
7.16
7.16
7.14
7.14
VOC at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
1.10
0.98
1.10
1.10
1.72
1.57
1.84
1.78
SO2
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
PM10
12.39
11.44
13.11
12.88
NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level
NH3 at 5 ppmvd BACT level
6.19
5.72
6.56
6.44
Sulfur content in fuel basis for above:
0.75
grain total S/100 scf
Data from Vendor
Full load cases assume evap cooling and duct firing
Part load cases assume no evap cooling and no duct firing
VOC emissions are based upon 20% of UHC and 40% SCR removal rate (less than BACT achieved).
ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios
TABLE C-4 Average Emission Rates from New Unit 3 Gas Turbine (lbs/hr) - Normal Operations with Duct Firing
20
20
CTG Purge Startup
Emissions Emissions
lb/event
lb/event
0.00
21.00
0.00
38.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.65
0.00
1.67
30
30
60
ShutdownTG Load RamTotal Shutdown
Emissions Emissions
Emissions
lb/event
lb/event
lb/hour
25.00
39.33
64.33
45.00
28.25
73.25
0.65
0.72
1.37
0.89
0.89
1.78
2.50
2.50
5.00
CTG No Load Testing
CTG/HRSG Load Testing
Uncontrolled Operations
CTG No Load Testing
CTG/HRSG Load Testing
Uncontrolled Operations
Commissioning Emissions
Hours
40
200
120
Total Pounds Emitted
CO
VOC
3600.00
50.00
15000.00
400.00
6480.00
216.00
Maximum Emission Rates lb/hr
CO
VOC
90.00
1.25
75.00
2.00
54.00
1.80
NOx
1600.00
20000.0
3840.00
NOx
40.00
100.00
32.00
SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Assumptions:
Shutdown Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.
Shutdown
duration in minutes
SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.
PM10
5.00
5.00
5.00
PM10
200.00
1000.00
600.00
Average
Startup
Emissions
lb/hour
41.13
52.87
1.38
1.64
4.23
ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios
30
45
15
130
CTG Rampup HRSG Warmup SCR Warmup Total Startup
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
lb/event
lb/event
lb/event
lb/event
39.33
24.00
4.79
89.12
28.25
40.50
7.80
114.55
0.72
1.35
0.36
2.98
0.97
1.46
0.49
3.56
2.5
3.75
1.25
9.17
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Assumptions:
Startup Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.
Startup
duration in minutes
TABLE C-6 Startup / Shutdown Emissions from Turbine
34.62
52.65
1.84
1.72
5.00
115F
31.62
48.65
1.64
1.57
5.00
3
1.94
Emissions per turbine
Total Hours of Operation
CO Uncontrolled
CO Commissioning CTG No Load
CO Commissioning CTG/HRSG Load
CO Commissioning Uncontrolled
8
34.55
45.00
75.00
54.00
2.17
52.87
WorstStartup
case Total /Warmup
5.83
Normal
Operations
0.59
Worst-case
Total
g/s
CTG
No Load Uncontrolled
Emissions Emissions
8
8
600
432
Commissioning
CTG/HRSG
Maintenance Normal
Worst-case
Startup
Maintenance Normal
Worst-case
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Operations
Total
/Warmup
Shutdown Uncontrolled
Operations
Total
No Load
g/s
Emissions
lb/hr
Total lbs
1
1
3.83
2.17
1
1
3.83
4
73.25
55.50
8.64
276.42
114.55
73.25
55.50
33.12
4.35
360
CTG Commissioning No load testing could operate no more than 4 out of any 8 hours (off other 4) and no more than 8 out of 24, off the other 16 hours.
CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hours.
Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours.
Only CO is considered for an average 8-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Worst-case 8-Hour Scenario includes 1 hour at Maintenance rate, 1 Startups, 1 Shutdown, and remaing time at controlled duct firing rate.
TABLE C-9 Worst-Case 8-Hour Emission Rates
Emissions per turbine
Total Hours of Operation
SO2
Worstcase Total
lb/hr
UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FOR
DIFFERENT OPERATING SCENARIOS
lb/hr
40F
73F
36.20
35.20
34.00
55.50
54.50
57.00
1.84
1.84
2.00
1.84
1.78
1.94
5.00
5.00
5.00
Only SO2 is considered for an average 3-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
TABLE C-8 Worst-Case 3 Hour Emission Rate
Emissions per turbine
NO2
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
TABLE C-7 Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions
DIFFERENT STARTUP ONE HOUR SCENARIO TIMES
COMMISSIONING EMISSIONS
startup, rampuprampup + part
total/2
part of HRSG of HRSG HRSG + SCR
CTG
CTG/HRSG Uncontrolled
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
No Load
Load
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
lb/hour
lb/hour
lb/hour
lb/hour
lb/hour
lb/hour
lb/hour
41.13
65.66
55.33
28.79
40.00
100.00
32.00
52.87
75.25
55.25
48.30
90.00
75.00
54.00
1.38
1.57
1.62
1.71
1.25
2.00
1.80
1.64
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
4.23
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios
ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios
Commissioning
Estimated annual normal operating hours
40F Duct Fired
40F No Duct Fired
73F No Duct Fired
73F Duct Fired
115F No Duct Fired
115F Duct Fired
0
480.00
2500
500
2000
2500
Total Hours
Duct Fired
3000
Total Hours
No Duct Fired
4980.00
Average Operation lb/hr Emission Rates presented below for normal fired and unfired operations are based on the 73°F; 100% load; with Evap. Cooler On operation scenario for 8,000 hours,
plus 150 startup/warmup events and 150 shutdown events and 20 maintenance hours. Worst-case total emission rate incorporates estimated operating hours at different temperatures.
Normal
Normal
Startup
Maintenance WorstStartup
Maintenance - Operations Operations Worst-case
Unfired
Total
/Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Fired
case Total /Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
Total lbs
Total Hours of Operation
8475
325.00
150.00
20
3000
4980
Number per Scenario
150
150
20
3000
4980
Duration of Event (min)
130
60
60
60
60
8.49
41.13
64.33
30.80
6.74
6.12
74353.4
13368.0
9649.5
616.0
NOX
CO
10.85
52.87
73.25
52.40
8.24
8.25
95027.8
17182.5
10987.5
1048.0
VOC
1.09
1.38
1.37
9.00
1.10
1.09
9579.3
447.0
205.5
180.0
1.72
1.64
1.78
1.77
1.74
1.80
15039.8
534.3
266.8
35.4
SO2
PM10
4.81
4.23
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
42125.5
1375.5
750.0
100.0
Note: Worst-case lb/hr is the total emissions (lbs) over 8760 hours/year
TABLE C-11 Average Annual Emissions
20222.2
24720.0
3310.8
5230.4
15000.0
Normal
Operations
Fired
30497.7
41089.8
5436.0
8972.8
24900.0
1.07
1.37
0.14
0.22
0.61
Normal
Operations WorstUnfired case Total
g/s
Only SO2 and PM10 are considered for an average 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
CTG
CTG/HRSG Uncontrolled
Worst-case 24-Hour Scenario includes 2 Startups, 2 Shutdowns, 2 hour maintenance, and remaining time at controlled duct firing rate.
No Load
No Load
Normal
Normal
WorstStartup
Maintenance - Operations Operations Worst-case
Startup
Maintenance Normal
Worst-case
case Total /Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Fired
Unfired
Total
/Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Operations
Total
Emissions Emissions Emissions
g/s
Total lbs
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
Total lbs
Total Hours of Operation
24
4.33
2
2
0.5
15.17
4.33
2
2
15.67
8
12
24
NOX
20.02
41.13
64.33
34.00
7.11
6.73
480.47
178.24
128.66
68.00
105.57
2.52
320
1200
768
CO
26.20
52.87
73.25
57.00
8.64
8.89
628.68
229.10
146.50
114.00
139.08
3.30
720
900
1296
VOC
1.31
1.38
1.37
2.00
1.10
1.20
31.45
5.96
2.74
4.00
18.75
0.17
10
24
43.2
SO2
1.87
1.64
1.78
1.94
1.84
1.94
44.96
7.12
3.56
3.89
30.39
0.24
15.54
23.32
46.63
PM10
4.86
4.23
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
116.67
18.34
10.00
10.00
78.33
0.61
40.00
60.00
120.00
SO2 Commissioning CTG No Load
0.65
CTG Commissioning No load testing could operate no more than 4 out of any 8 hours (off other 4) and no more than 8 out of 24, off the other 16 hours
SO2 Commissioning CTG/HRSG Load
0.97
CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hours
SO2 Commissioning Uncontrolled
1.94
Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours
PM10 Commissioning CTG No Load
1.67
CTG Commissioning No load testing could operate no more than 4 out of any 8 hours (off other 4) and no more than 8 out of 24, off the other 16 hours
PM10 Commissioning CTG/HRSG Load
2.50
CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hours
PM10 Commissioning Uncontrolled
5.00
Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours
TABLE C-10 Worst-Case 24 Hour Emission Rate
1
2
3
115
73
40
15
15
15
1807500 1866000 1947000
75%
75%
75%
OFF
OFF
OFF
Area =
176.71 ft2
NOX at 9 ppmvd pre-BACT level
24.00
26.00
27.00
5.33
5.78
6.00
NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
CO at 25 ppmvd pre BACT level
41.00
43.00
52.00
CO at 4.0 ppmvd BACT level
6.56
6.88
7.17
VOC at 7 ppmvd pre-BACT level
7.00
7.00
8.00
VOC at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
0.84
0.84
0.96
SO2
1.41
1.49
1.57
5.00
5.00
5.00
PM10
9.96
10.44
12.63
NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level
NH3 at 5 ppmvd BACT level
4.98
5.22
6.31
Sulfur content in fuel basis for above:
0.75
grain total S/100 scf
Data from Vendor
Full load cases assume evap cooling and duct firing
Part load cases assume no evap cooling and no duct firing
TABLE C-14 Average Emission Rates from each Gas Turbine (lbs/hr/turbine) - Normal Operations
(Reference: Emission Summary GE PG7121 Turbine/Site Specific Information)
Heat Consumed (MMBTU/hr)
674.8
714.4
751.7
Turbine Outlet Temperature (°F)
1084
1063
1037
HRSG Stack Outlet Temperature (°F)
316
317
319
Exhaust Flow @ T stack (acfm)
601272
620641
647881
Stack Exit Velocity, ft/m
3402.5
3512.1
3666.3
Stack Exit Velocity, m/s
17.3
17.8
18.6
Nitrogen, % Vol
74.41
74.70
75.10
Oxygen, % Vol
13.82
13.73
13.77
Carbon Dioxide, % Vol
3.16
3.24
3.28
Argon, % Vol
0.89
0.89
0.90
Water Vapor, % Vol
7.70
7.44
6.96
Molecular Weight
28.39
28.43
28.49
Data from Vendor
TABLE C-13 Expected Operation of each Gas Turbine - Normal Operation
Ambient Temperature (°F)
Stack Diameter (ft)
Exhaust Flow (lb/hr)
CTG Load Level
Evap. Cooler
Data from Vendor
TABLE C-12 Case Parameters
Case
ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios
20
30
45
CTG Purge Startup CTG RampupHRSG Warmup
Emissions Emissions Emissions
Emissions
lb/event lb/event lb/event
lb/event
0.00
21.00
39.33
24.00
0.00
38.00
28.25
40.50
0.00
0.55
0.72
1.35
0.00
0.52
0.79
1.18
0.00
1.67
2.5
3.75
20
30
60
ShutdownTG Load Raotal Shutdown
Emissions Emissions Emissions
lb/event lb/event
lb/hour
25.00
39.33
64.33
45.00
28.25
73.25
0.65
0.72
1.37
0.79
0.79
1.57
2.50
2.50
5.00
30
SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.
15
SCR Warmup
Emissions
lb/event
4.79
7.80
0.36
0.39
1.25
Assumptions:
Shutdown Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Shutdown
duration in minutes
SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.
Assumptions:
Startup Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Startup
duration in minutes
TABLE C-15 Startup / Shutdown Emissions from Turbine
Average
Total Startup Startup
Emissions Emissions
lb/event
lb/hour
89.12
41.13
114.55
52.87
2.98
1.38
2.88
1.33
9.17
4.23
130
ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios
TABLE C-16 Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions per Turbine
3
1.57
lb/hr
3
1.57
Normal
Operations
4.72
Worst-case
Total
Emissions per turbine
Total Hours of Operation
CO
WorstStartup
Maintenance case Total /Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled
lb/hr
8
2.17
1
1
33.43
52.87
73.25
52.00
3.83
7.17
Normal
Operations
Total lbs
4.72
0.20
Worstcase
Normal
Operations Total
g/s
g/s
3.40
6.55
1.01
0.20
0.63
Worstcase
Worst-case Startup
MaintenanceNormal
Total
/Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled Operations Total
Total lbs
g/s
2.17
1
1
3.83
267.45
114.73
73.25
52.00
27.47
4.21
Only CO is considered for an average 8-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Worst-case 8-Hour Scenario includes 1 hours at Maintenance rate, 1 Startups, 1 Shutdown, and remaining time at Normal rate.
TABLE C-18 Worst-Case 8-Hour Emission Rates
Emissions per turbine
Total Hours of Operation
SO2
Worstcase Total
Only SO2 is considered for an average 3-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard. Since the SO2 emission rate does not change during Startup, Maintenance or
Normal operations, the worst-case 3-hour emission rate is the maximum SO2 rate for 100% load case (72°F; with Sprint and Evap. Cooler On).
TABLE C-17 Worst-Case 3 Hour Emission Rate per Turbine
Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions are equal to the Maintenance emission rates. (ie uncontrolled emissions)
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
27.00
NO2
CO
52.00
VOC
8.00
SO2
1.57
PM10
5.00
ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios
TABLE C-19 Worst-Case 24 Hour Emission Rate
15.67
6.00
7.17
0.96
1.57
5.00
Normal
Operations
454.90
591.97
39.74
36.70
116.67
178.24
229.10
5.96
5.77
18.34
128.66
146.50
2.74
3.15
10.00
Estimated annual normal operating hours
40F Duct Fired
40F No Duct Fired
73F No Duct Fired
73F Duct Fired
115F No Duct Fired
115F Duct Fired
0
480.00
2500
500
2000
2500
Total Hours Total Hours
Duct Fired No Duct Fired
3000
4980
WorstStartup
Maintenance case Total /Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
Total Hours of Operation
5475
325.00
150.00
20
Number per Scenario
150
150
20
Duration of Event (min)
130
60
60
NOX
5.88
41.13
64.33
25.67
CO
7.17
52.87
73.25
45.33
VOC
0.58
1.38
1.37
7.33
SO2
0.91
1.33
1.57
1.49
PM10
3.10
4.23
5.00
5.00
Note: Worst-case lb/hr is the total emissions (lbs) over 8760 hours/year
7980
Total Hours
4980
4980
60
5.62
6.78
0.85
1.47
5.00
Normal
Operations
94.00
112.37
15.04
24.64
78.33
2.39
3.11
0.21
0.19
0.61
51521.9
62839.4
5040.0
8015.1
27125.5
13368.0
17182.5
447.0
432.6
1375.5
9649.5
10987.5
205.5
236.0
750.0
513.3
906.7
146.7
29.9
100.0
27991.1
33762.8
4240.8
7316.7
24900.0
0.74
0.90
0.07
0.12
0.39
Worstcase
Worst-case Startup
MaintenanceNormal
Total
/Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled Operations Total
Total lbs
g/s
54.00
104.00
16.00
3.15
10.00
Worstcase
Worst-case Startup
MaintenanceNormal
Total
/Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled Operations Total
Total lbs
g/s
Average Operation Emission Rates are based on the average operation scenario (72°F; 100% load; with Sprint and Evap. Cooler On) for 2,980 hours
plus 250 startup/warmup events and 250 shutdown events and 20 maintenance hours. The two turbines will each have these operating conditions
TABLE C-20 Average Annual Emissions
Emissions per turbine
Total Hours of Operation
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Startup
Maintenance Worstcase Total /Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled
lb/hr
24
4.33
2
2
18.95
41.13
64.33
27.00
24.67
52.87
73.25
52.00
1.66
1.38
1.37
8.00
1.53
1.33
1.57
1.57
4.86
4.23
5.00
5.00
Only SO2 and PM10 are considered for an average 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Worst-case 24-Hour Scenario includes 2 Startups, 2 Shutdowns, 2 hours maintenance, and remaining time at Normal rate.
ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios
1
115
15
1517000
50%
OFF
2
73
15
1543000
50%
OFF
Area =
3
40
15
1577000
50%
OFF
176.71
ft2
NOX at 9 ppmvd pre-BACT level
19.00
21.00
22.00
4.22
4.67
4.89
NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
CO at 25 ppmvd pre BACT level
317.00
156.00
76.00
CO at 4.0 ppmvd BACT level
5.54
5.62
5.85
VOC at 7 ppmvd pre-BACT level
51.00
25.00
12.00
VOC at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level
1.73
1.72
1.71
SO2
1.14
1.21
1.28
5.00
5.00
5.00
PM10
76.99
37.89
18.46
NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level
NH3 at 5 ppmvd BACT level
38.49
18.94
9.23
Sulfur content in fuel basis for above:
0.75
grain total S/100 scf
Data from Vendor
Full load cases assume evap cooling and duct firing
Part load cases assume no evap cooling and no duct firing
TABLE C-23 Average Emission Rates from each Gas Turbine (lbs/hr/turbine) - Normal Operations
(Reference: Emission Summary GE PG7121 Turbine/Site Specific Information)
Heat Consumed (MMBTU/hr)
544.1
577.4
609.5
Turbine Outlet Temperature (°F)
1100
1100
1100
HRSG Stack Outlet Temperature (°F)
316
316
316
Exhaust Flow @ T stack (acfm)
504217
512264
522692
Stack Exit Velocity, ft/m
2853.3
2898.8
2957.8
Stack Exit Velocity, m/s
14.5
14.7
15.0
Nitrogen, % Vol
74.52
74.77
75.12
Oxygen, % Vol
14.15
13.95
13.83
Carbon Dioxide, % Vol
3.01
3.14
3.25
Argon, % Vol
0.89
0.90
0.90
Water Vapor, % Vol
7.44
7.25
6.91
Molecular Weight
28.41
28.45
28.49
Data from Vendor
TABLE C-22 Expected Operation of each Gas Turbine - Normal Operation
Ambient Temperature (°F)
Stack Diameter (ft)
Exhaust Flow (lb/hr)
CTG Load Level
Evap. Cooler
Data from Vendor
TABLE C-21 Case Parameters
Case
ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios
20
Startup
Emissions
lb/event
21.00
38.00
0.55
0.43
1.67
20
CTG Purge
Emissions
lb/event
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45
CTG Rampup HRSG Warmup
Emissions
Emissions
lb/event
lb/event
39.33
24.00
28.25
40.50
0.72
1.35
0.64
0.96
2.5
3.75
30
30
60
ShutdownCTG Load RampTotal Shutdown
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
lb/event
lb/event
lb/hour
25.00
39.33
64.33
45.00
28.25
73.25
0.65
0.72
1.37
0.86
0.86
1.71
2.50
2.50
5.00
30
SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO 2.
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Assumptions:
Shutdown Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.
Shutdown
duration in minutes
SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO 2.
NOX
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Assumptions:
Startup Emissions for CO, NO 2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.
Startup
duration in minutes
TABLE C-24 Startup / Shutdown Emissions from Turbine
SCR Warmup
Emissions
lb/event
4.79
7.80
0.36
0.32
1.25
15
Average
Total Startup Startup
Emissions Emissions
lb/event
lb/hour
89.12
41.13
114.55
52.87
2.98
1.38
2.34
1.08
9.17
4.23
130
ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios
TABLE C-25 Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions per Turbine
3
1.28
lb/hr
3
1.28
Normal
Operations
3.83
Worst-case
Total
Total lbs
3.83
Normal
Operations
0.16
Worstcase
Total
g/s
g/s
2.77
39.94
6.43
0.16
0.63
Only CO is considered for an average 8-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Worst-case 8-Hour Scenario includes 1 hours at Maintenance rate, 1 Startups, 1 Shutdown, and remaining time at Normal rate.
WorstWorstcase
case
Startup
Maintenance Normal
Worst-case Startup
MaintenanceNormal
Total
/Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Operations
Total
/Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled Operations Total
g/s
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
Total lbs
Total Hours of Operation
8
2.17
1
1
3.83
CO
65.90
52.87
73.25
317.00
5.85
527.21
114.55
73.25
317.00
22.41
8.30
TABLE C-27 Worst-Case 8-Hour Emission Rates
Emissions per turbine
Total Hours of Operation
SO2
Worstcase
Total
Only SO2 is considered for an average 3-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard. Since the SO 2 emission rate does not change during Startup, Maintenance or
Normal operations, the worst-case 3-hour emission rate is the maximum SO 2 rate for 100% load case (72°F; with Sprint and Evap. Cooler On).
TABLE C-26 Worst-Case 3 Hour Emission Rate per Turbine
Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions are equal to the Maintenance emission rates. (ie uncontrolled emissions)
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
NO2
22.00
CO
317.00
VOC
51.00
SO2
1.28
PM10
5.00
ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios
TABLE C-28 Worst-Case 24 Hour Emission Rate
Estimated annual normal operating hours
40F Duct Fired
40F No Duct Fired
73F No Duct Fired
73F Duct Fired
115F No Duct Fired
115F Duct Fired
0
480.00
2500
500
2000
2500
Total Hours
Duct Fired
3000
Total Hours
No Duct Fired
4980
7980
Total Hours
Average Operation Emission Rates are based on the average operation scenario (72°F; 100% load; with Sprint and Evap. Cooler On) for 2,980 hours
plus 250 startup/warmup events and 250 shutdown events and 20 maintenance hours. The two turbines will each have these operating conditions.
WorstWorstcase
case
Startup
Maintenance Normal
Worst-case Startup
MaintenanceNormal
Total
/Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Operations
Total
/Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled Operations Total
g/s
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
Total lbs
Total Hours of Operation
5475
325.00
150.00
20
4980
Number per Scenario
150
150
20
4980
Duration of Event (min)
130
60
60
60
5.24
41.13
64.33
20.67
4.51
45888.6
13368.0
9649.5
413.3
22457.8
0.66
NOX
CO
6.82
52.87
73.25
183.00
5.61
59764.4
17182.5
10987.5
3660.0
27934.4
0.86
VOC
1.12
1.38
1.37
29.33
1.73
9830.0
447.0
205.5
586.7
8590.8
0.14
SO2
0.75
1.08
1.71
1.21
1.19
6542.2
350.8
257.1
24.1
5910.1
0.09
PM10
3.10
4.23
5.00
5.00
5.00
27125.5
1375.5
750.0
100.0
24900.0
0.39
Note: Worst-case lb/hr is the total emissions (lbs) over 8760 hours/year
TABLE C-29 Average Annual Emissions
Only SO2 and PM10 are considered for an average 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Worst-case 24-Hour Scenario includes 2 Startups, 2 Shutdowns, 2 hours at Maintenance rate, and remaining time at Normal rate.
WorstWorstcase
case
Startup
Maintenance Normal
Worst-case Startup
MaintenanceNormal
Total
/Warmup
Shutdown
Uncontrolled
Operations
Total
/Warmup Shutdown Uncontrolled Operations Total
g/s
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
Total lbs
Total Hours of Operation
24
4.33
2
2
15.67
17.81
41.13
64.33
22.00
4.89
427.49
178.24
128.66
44.00
76.59
2.24
NOX
CO
45.88
52.87
73.25
317.00
5.85
1101.19
229.10
146.50
634.00
91.59
5.78
VOC
5.74
1.38
1.37
51.00
1.73
137.78
5.96
2.74
102.00
27.08
0.72
SO2
1.28
1.08
1.71
1.28
1.28
30.64
4.68
3.43
2.55
19.98
0.16
PM10
4.86
4.23
5.00
5.00
5.00
116.67
18.34
10.00
10.00
78.33
0.61
ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios
TABLE C-30 ECGS Unit 3 Cooling Tower Drift Calculation
Past
circulating water rate
Operations cycles of concentration
TDS
36,000 gallons/min
4
905 mg/liter
7.55 lb/1000 gallons
Drift Eliminator Control
0.000020
Average operating hours per year
3094
Drift PM emissions
1.30 lb/hr
2.02 tpy
Future Operations
circulating water rate
cycles of concentration
TDS
Drift Eliminator Control
Operating hours per year
Drift PM emissions
31,500 gallons/min
4
905 mg/liter
7.55 lb/1000 gallons
0.000010
8200
0.57 lb/hr
2.34 tpy
Net increase in emissions
0.32 tons per year
Plant Operating Emissions Used in ISCST3 Model
TABLE C-31 1-Hour Worst-Case Emission Scenario for ECGS
Only NO2, CO and SO2 are considered for the 1-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Worst-case 1-Hour Scenario for NO 2 and SO2 includes new Unit 3 turbine operating for 1 hour at Commissioning rate.
For CO, worst-case scenario is uncontrolled rate at 50% load for 115 F conditions.
g/s
Emissions from Unit 3 turbine
lb/hr
100.00
12.60
NO2
CO
317.00
39.94
SO2
1.94
0.24
TABLE C-32 3 Hour Emissions Scenarios for ECGS
Only SO2 is considered for an average 3-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
The worst-case 3-hour emission rate is the maximum SO2 rate for 100% load case (40°F; with Evap. Cooler Off).
Emissions per turbine
SO2
lb/hr
1.94
g/s
0.24
TABLE C-33 8-Hour Emissions Scenarios for ECGS
Only CO is considered for an average 8-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hours.
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
g/s
CO
75.00
9.45
TABLE C-34 24-Hour Emissions Scenarios for ECGS
Only SO2 and PM10 are considered for an average 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours for SO 2 and PM10.
Emissions per turbine
NO2
CO
VOC
SO2
PM10
Emissions from Cooling Tower 3 with new Unit 3 rates
PM10
lb/hr
20.02
45.88
5.74
1.94
5.00
lb/hr
0.57
g/s
2.52
5.78
0.72
0.24
0.63
g/s
0.07
TABLE C-35 Average Annual Emissions for ECGS
Average Operation Emission Rates are based on the annual operation scenarios for 7,980 hours
plus 150 startup/warmup events and 150 shutdown events and 20 maintenance hours.
Emissions per turbine
lb/hr
g/s
8.49
1.07
NOX
CO
10.85
1.37
VOC
1.09
0.14
1.72
0.22
SO2
PM10
4.81
0.61
Emissions from Cooling Tower 3 with new Unit 3 rates
PM10
0.57
0.07
Air_Attachment_C_TD_04-10-06.xls
4/11/2006
2002
2003
2004
UNIT 4
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
UNIT 2
2002
2003
2004
Annual heat input
2013284 MM BTU
2285909 MM BTU
2041710 MM BTU
Annual heat input
2136314 MM BTU
2890562 MM BTU
3070555 MM BTU
NOx
Annual emissions
0.221 lb/MM BTU
0.234 lb/MM BTU
0.232 lb/MM BTU
SO2
Long term
0.14 lb/hr
0.32 lb/hr
0.14 lb/hr
NOx
Long term
50.79 lb/hr
61.06 lb/hr
54.07 lb/hr
SO2
Short term
0.20 lb/hr
0.44 lb/hr
0.20 lb/hr
NOx
Short term
75.88 lb/hr
84.70 lb/hr
78.41 lb/hr
SO2
Long term
0.14 lb/hr
0.21 lb/hr
0.21 lb/hr
NOx
Long term
8.54 lb/hr
10.56 lb/hr
12.27 lb/hr
SO2
Short term
0.41 lb/hr
0.50 lb/hr
0.43 lb/hr
NOx
Short term
25.85 lb/hr
25.66 lb/hr
25.73 lb/hr
SO2
Annual operating hoursAnnual emissions
5864 hours
0.6 tpy
6315 hours
1.4 tpy
6041 hours
0.6 tpy
NOx
Annual emissions
0.035 lb/MM BTU
0.032 lb/MM BTU
0.035 lb/MM BTU
SO2
Annual operating hrs Annual emissions
2892 hours
0.6 tpy
3605 hours
0.9 tpy
4177 hours
0.9 tpy
Annual heat input values from CEMS spreadsheet received from Mike Taylor on 3/16/2006
SO2 and NOx values calculated from annual operating hours and annual heat input from CEMS spreadsheet
Unit 3 emissions not calculated, unit being replaced
Annual SO2 emissions from CEMS spreadsheet
TABLE C-36 Cumulative SO2 and NOx for ECGS
AP-42 EF
84
7.6
AP-42 EF
5.00
21.60
Natural Gas
lb/MM scf
lb/MM scf
Distillate Fuel
lb/M gal
lb/M gal
CO
Annual operating Hrs Short term
2892 hours
60.57 lb/hour
3605 hours
65.60 lb/hour
4177 hours
60.28 lb/hour
from oil (from JSL)
PM10
Short term
2.56 lb/hour
2.68 lb/hour
2.52 lb/hour
PM10
Short term
4.88 lb/hour
5.30 lb/hour
4.85 lb/hour
PM10
Long term
1.71 lb/hour
1.93 lb/hour
1.74 lb/hour
PM10
Long term
1.61 lb/hour
2.18 lb/hour
2.31 lb/hour
Table 1.3-1 EF for fuel oil combustion for boilers >100 MM BTU/hr
Table 1.3-1 EF for fuel oil combustion for boilers >100 MM BTU/hr
Table 1.4-1 uncontrolled/controlled natural gas-fired large wall fired boilers (>100 MM BTU/hr)
Table 1.4-2 EF from natural gas combustion (total PM)
CO
Annual operating Hrs Short term
5864 hours
28.27 lb/hour
6315 hours
29.64 lb/hour
6041 hours
27.83 lb/hour
from oil (from JSL)
Table 3.1-1 uncontrolled distillate oil-fired turbine
Table 3.1-2a uncontrolled distillate oil-fired turbine
Table 3.1-1 uncontrolled natural gas-fired turbine
Table 3.1-2a uncontrolled natural gas-fired turbine
Annual heat input
2013284 MM BTU
2285909 MM BTU
2041710 MM BTU
1.33E+04 MM BTU
76.566 M gal
Natural Gas
lb/MM BTU
lb/MM BTU
Distillate Fuel
lb/MM BTU
lb/MM BTU
UNIT 4
2002 NG only
2003
2004 NG only
1823 bbl oil used in 2003
42 gallons/bbl
AP-42 EF
8.20E-02
6.60E-03
AP-42 EF
3.30E-03
1.20E-02
Annual heat input
2136314 MM BTU
2890562 MM BTU
3070555 MM BTU
6909 MM BTU
S content
2.00 percent (assumed)
1020 BTU/scf
CO
PM10
CO
PM10
CO
PM10
CO
PM10
UNIT 2
2002 NG only
2003
2004 NG only
1175 bbl oil used in 2003
Annual heat input values from CEMS spreadsheet received from Mike Taylor on 3/16/2006
CO and PM10 values calculated from data sent by JSL on 3/22/06 and data from CEMS spreadsheet
Unit 3 emissions not calculated, unit being replaced
TABLE C-37 Cumulative CO and PM10 for ECGS
TABLE C-38 Cumulative PM10 Cooling Towers for ECGS
Unit 3 Cooling Tower Drift Calculation
Past
circulating water rate
Operation cycles of concentration
TDS
Drift Eliminator Control
Average operating hours per year (2004/5)
Drift PM emissions
36,000 gallons/min
4
905 mg/liter
7.55 lb/1000 gallons
0.000020
3094
1.30 lb/hr
2.02 tpy
Future Operations
circulating water rate
cycles of concentration
TDS
Drift Eliminator Control
Operating hours per year
Drift PM emissions
31,500 gallons/min
4
905 mg/liter
7.55 lb/1000 gallons
0.000010
8200
0.57 lb/hr
2.34 tpy
Net increase in emissions
Unit 2 Cooling Tower
design circulating water rate
cycles of concentration
TDS
Drift Eliminator Control
Operating hours per year
Drift PM emissions
Number of cells
Cumua
Emission rate per cell
Unit 4 Cooling Tower
design circulating water rate
cycles of concentration
TDS
Drift Eliminator Control
Operating hours per year
Drift PM emissions
Number of cells
Emission rate per cell
0.32 tons per year
27,700 gallons/min
4
905 mg/liter
7.55 lb/1000 gallons
0.000010
8200
0.50 lb/hr
7
0.0714
2.06 tpy
40,800 gallons/min
4
905 mg/liter
7.55 lb/1000 gallons
0.000010
8200
0.74 lb/hr
3
0.2465
3.03 tpy
Attachment D
Modeling Protocol
R E P O R T
MODELING PROTOCOL FOR THE
EL CENTRO GENERATING STATION
UNIT #3 REPOWER PROJECT
IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
and
California Energy Commission
URS Project No. 22238279
April 7, 2006
1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108-4314
619.294.9400
Fax: 619.293.7920
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1
ONE
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
Section 2
TWO
Project Description......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
2.2
Section 3
THREE
FOUR
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
FIVE
SIX
Screening Modeling ................................................................................. 4-1
Refined Modeling .................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Psd Increment Analysis................................................................ 4-2
4.2.2 Ambient Air Quality Standard Analysis ...................................... 4-5
4.2.3 Health Risk Assessment Analysis................................................ 4-6
4.2.4 Air Quality Related Values and Visibility Analysis .................... 4-7
Emissions Sources Represented In Modeling Analyses .......................... 4-7
4.3.1 Project Sources............................................................................. 4-7
4.3.2 Modeling of Contemporaneous Sources Within ECGS............... 4-9
4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis Including Sources Outside
ECGS ......................................................................................... 4-10
Building Wake Effects........................................................................... 4-10
Receptor Grid......................................................................................... 4-10
Meteorological and Air Quality Data .................................................... 4-11
4.6.1 Meteorological Data................................................................... 4-11
4.6.2 Background Air Pollutant Monitoring Data .............................. 4-12
Presentation of Modeling Results................................................................................. 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.3
Section 6
California Energy Commission Requirements ........................................ 3-1
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Requirements................ 3-1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Requirements............................ 3-2
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques............................................................... 4-1
4.1
4.2
Section 5
Project Location ....................................................................................... 2-1
Description of the Proposed Sources ....................................................... 2-1
Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
Section 4
Background .............................................................................................. 1-1
Purpose..................................................................................................... 1-2
NAAQS and CAAQS Analysis ............................................................... 5-1
Health Risk Assessment Analysis............................................................ 5-1
Data Submittal ......................................................................................... 5-1
References ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
Table 4-1
Relevant Ambient Air Quality Standards and Significance Levels
Table 4-2
Preliminary Estimated Emissions for ECGS Combustion Turbine
Generator
Figures
Figure 1-1
Location Map of El Centro Generating Station
Figure 1-2
Site Plan Showing ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project
Appendices
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
Figure A-1
Windrose for all Months 1991 - 1995 Imperial Count Airport
Figure A-2
Windrose for Winter Months (December – February) 1991 - 1995
Imperial County
Figure A-3
Windrose for Spring Months (March – May) 1991 - 1995 Imperial
County
Figure A-4
Windrose for Summer Months (June – August) 1991 - 1995
Imperial County Airport
Figure A-5
Windrose for Autumn Months (September – November) 1991 1995 Imperial County Airport
ii
List of Acronyms
μg/m3
micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS
Ambient Air Quality Standards
AERMOD
American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model
AFC
Application for Certification
AOI
area of influence
AQRV
Air Quality Related Values
ASOS
automated surface observing systems
ATC
Authority to Construct
BACT
best available control technology
BPIP
Building Parameter Input Program
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CEC
California Energy Commission
CO
carbon monoxide
CTG
combustion turbine generator
DOC
determination of compliance
ECGS
El Centro generating station
g/s
gram per second
GE
General Electric
GEP
good engineering practice
HRSG
heat recovery steam generator
H1H
high first high
H2H
high second high
H6H
highest sixth high
HARP
Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HRA
health risk assessment
ICAPCD
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
IID
Imperial Irrigation District
ISCST3
Industrial Source Complex Short Term 3
km
kilometers
iii
List of Acronyms
LAER
lowest achievable emission rate
LORS
laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards
MEI
maximally exposed individual
MW
megawatt
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCDC
National Climatic Data Center
NNSR
non-attainment new source review
NOx
nitrogen oxides
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NSR
new source review
NWS
National Weather Service
O3
ozone
OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OLM
ozone limiting method
Pb
lead
PM2.5
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
ppm
parts per million
PSD
prevention of significant deterioration
ROC
reactive organic compounds
SCR
selective catalytic reduction
SCRAM
Support Center for Regulatory Air Modeling
SIL
significant impact level
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SOx
sulfur oxides
SO2
sulfur dioxide
SPPE
Small Power Plant Exemption
STG
steam turbine generator
TAC
toxic air contaminants
T-BACT
best available control technology for toxics
tpy
tons per year
USEPA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
iv
List of Acronyms
USGS
U.S. Geological Society
UTM
Universal Transverse Mercator
VOC
volatile organic compound
ZOI
Zone of Impact
v
List of Acronyms
vi
SECTIONONE
1.
1.1
Section 1 ONE
Introduction
Introduction
BACKGROUND
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) is proposing to repower the existing Unit 3 steam turbine
generator (STG) with a new General Electric (GE) Frame 7EA dry low NOx combustion turbine
generator (CTG) and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to supply steam to Unit 3. This
new CTG will be an approximately 128 megawatt (MW) (with duct firing) natural gas-fired
combined cycle unit at the existing El Centro Generating Station (ECGS) located in the City of
El Centro in Imperial County, California (Figure 1-1, Location Map of El Centro Generating
Station, and Figure 1-2, Site Plan Showing ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project). The new Unit 3 will
replace the existing 50 MW Unit 3; therefore, the new Unit 3 will only increase generating
capacity at ECGS by 78 MW. The project is subject to the site licensing requirements of the
California Energy Commission (CEC) and is applying for licensing under the CEC Small Power
Plant Exemption (SPPE) program. The CEC will coordinate its independent air quality
evaluations with the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) through the
Determination of Compliance (DOC) process.
Annual emissions of all criteria pollutants will be below the allowable levels specified in
ICAPCD Rules and Regulations. Also, the annual emissions increases of all criteria pollutants
will be below the significant emission thresholds specified by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (USEPA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations for Major
Modifications, except for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10).
Specifically, the incremental increases in the ECGS emissions will be less than: 40 tons per year
(tpy) each of nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic compounds (ROC) and sulfur oxides (SOx),
less than 100 tpy of carbon monoxide (CO), less than 0.6 tpy of lead (Pb), and less than 7 tpy of
sulfuric acid mist. PM10 emissions will increase by approximately 19 tpy, which exceeds the
Major Modification threshold of 15 tpy. However, Imperial County is designated a federal nonattainment area for PM10, so the Project does not trigger the PSD program.
Even though federal PSD regulations will not apply to the Unit 3 Repower at ECGS, the air
dispersion modeling for this Project will be conducted in conformance with PSD requirements in
certain ways. For example, worst-case predicted impacts due to the new unit alone will be
compared with the applicable monitoring exemption limits to demonstrate that the Project will be
exempt from the requirements relating to pre-construction ambient air quality monitoring. The
PSD regulations apply only to those pollutants for which the Project study area is in attainment
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). State and local new source review
(NSR) and non-attainment NSR regulations potentially apply to all criteria pollutants, depending
on the quantity of pollutants emitted. The area around ECGS is designated as attainment or
unclassified for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
in diameter (PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards, and non-attainment for ozone (O3) and
PM10. With respect to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the area around
the ECGS is classified as attainment for NO2, CO, sulfates, Pb, hydrogen sulfide, and SO2, and
non-attainment for O3 and PM10, and unclassified for PM2.5. NOx and SO2 and are regulated as
PM10 precursors, and NOx and ROC as O3 precursors. Project emissions of non-attainment
pollutants and their precursors will be offset to satisfy state and local NSR regulations.
1-1
SECTIONONE
1.2
Introduction
PURPOSE
The CEC and ICAPCD require the use of atmospheric dispersion modeling to demonstrate
compliance with applicable air quality standards, and both agencies require modeling to
determine the potential impacts on human health from emissions of toxic air contaminants.
Finally, CEC siting regulations also require that the cumulative impacts of the Project and other
new and reasonably foreseeable projects within 6 miles of the Project site be assessed via
modeling.
This document summarizes the procedures that will be used for the air dispersion modeling in
support of project certification and permitting. Modeling of both construction and operations
emissions will be performed in accordance with CEC guidance (CEC 1997). This Protocol is
being submitted to the CEC and ICAPCD for their review and comment prior to completion of
the SPPE Application for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower Project The proposed model selection
and modeling approach is based on review of applicable regulations and agency guidance
documents, as well as discussions with agency staff.
1-2
OVERVIEW MAP
Imperial County
El Centro
Project Area
_
[
EL CENTRO
GENERATING STATION
G:\gis\projects\1577\22238279\mxd\project_location_el_centro.mxd
_
[
!
(
86
LEGEND
_
[
§
¨
¦
8
SOURCES: ESRI (roads);
USGS (7.5 El Centro quad);
U.S. Census (TIGER Base Layers 2002).
1000
100
1
0200
00Feet 0
1000
2000 Feet
SCALE: 1" = 2000' (1:24,000)
Approximate Location of
Proposed El Centro
Generating Station
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
EL CENTRO GENERATING STATION
CHECKED BY: LG
PM: DD
DATE: 12-20-05
PROJ. NO: 22238279.20006
FIG. NO:
1-1
1-2
SECTIONTWO
2.
2.1
Section 2 TWO
Project Description
Project Description
PROJECT LOCATION
The Unit 3 Repower Project will be implemented at the existing ECGS at 485 East Villa Avenue
in the City of El Centro, California (see Figure 1-1, Location Map of El Centro Generating
Station). The Project Site is within approximately 20 miles (33 kilometers [km]) of complex
terrain (i.e., elevations exceeding the proposed Unit 3 stack height), and is surrounded by
generally vacant or agricultural land to the east, northeast, and north. The City of El Centro is to
the northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast.
2.2
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SOURCES
The existing ECGS comprises three active generating units. Unit 2 is a 30 MW steam unit that
was repowered by a GE 7EA combined cycle gas turbine in 1993 to provide a total power output
of about 110 MW. Unit 2 will remain in operation following the Unit 3 Repower Project. Unit 4
is an 80 MW steam boiler that will also continue to operate. Unit 1 was a 20 MW steam unit that
has been retired and largely dismantled. For the Repower Project, the existing Unit 3 boiler will
be replaced by a GE Frame 7EA dry low NOx CTG and associated HRSG with duct firing,
transformers, and other ancillary facilities. Improvements to the existing STG for this unit will
also result in a generation increase of about 4 MW, bringing the total Unit 3 output to about 128
MW and the entire plant output from 233 MW to about 311 MW. The fact that the net increase
in generating capacity will be less than 100 MW justifies the decision of IID to pursue licensing
as an SPPE project. However, as described in subsequent sections of this Protocol, the proposed
modeling approach is identical to that which would be used in the Application for Certification
(AFC) for a larger project.
Note that the net change in emissions for this Project will consist of the decrease caused by the
retirement of the existing Unit 3 boiler, as well as the increase due to the addition of the new
combined cycle unit.
The new Unit 3 gas turbine will be fired exclusively on natural gas, and will be equipped with
dry low NOx combustors and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for the control of NOx
emissions and a CO oxidation catalyst for control of CO emissions. The new CTG will operate
in combined cycle mode and will have an exhaust stack with a height of 100 feet. An existing
Unit 3 evaporative cooling tower will remain in service for the new Unit 3, but will be outfitted
with an improved drift elimination system as part of the Repower Project. Ammonia reagent for
the Unit 3 SCR will be provided by the existing anhydrous ammonia storage tank, which
currently serves an existing SCR at the ECGS.
2-1
SECTIONTWO
Project Description
2-2
SECTIONTHREE
3.
3.1
Section 3 THREE
Regulatory Setting
Regulatory Setting
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS
For projects with electrical power generation capacity of greater than 50 MW, CEC requires that
Applicants prepare a comprehensive AFC or SPPE document addressing the project’s
environmental and engineering features. An AFC or SPPE Application must include the
following air quality information (CEC 1997):
•
A description of the project, including project emissions, fuel type(s), control technologies
and stack characteristics
•
The basis for all emission estimates and/or calculations
•
An analysis of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) according to ICAPCD rules
•
Existing baseline air quality data for all regulated pollutants
•
Existing meteorological data, including temperature, wind speed, and direction and mixing
height
•
A listing of applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) and a
determination of compliance with all applicable LORS
•
An emissions offsets strategy
•
An air quality impact assessment (i.e., national and state ambient air quality standards
[AAQS] and PSD review) and protocol for the assessment of cumulative impacts of the
project along with permitted and under construction projects within a 10 km radius
•
An analysis of human exposure to air toxics (i.e., health risk assessment [HRA])
In the case of the Unit 3 Repower Project, the submittal to CEC will actually be in the form of an
SPPE Application, but the proposed modeling approaches for evaluating the ECGS Unit 3
Repower Project’s incremental and cumulative air quality impacts, and the HRA for the Project’s
emissions of toxic air contaminants will be the same as for an AFC air quality assessment.
3.2
IMPERIAL COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
The ICAPCD has promulgated NSR requirements under Rule 207. In general, all equipment
with the potential to emit air pollutants is subject to NSR requirements. NSR has four major
requirements that potentially apply to new sources:
•
Installation of BACT
•
Ambient air quality impact modeling to demonstrate compliance with NAAQS and CAAQS
•
Emission offsets
•
Certification of statewide compliance with air quality requirements
Assembly Bill 2588, California Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (and ICAPCD Rule 216) allows a
predicted incremental cancer risk from toxic air contaminants (TAC) at any receptor up to 10 in
one million, prior to public notification, if best available control technology for toxics (T-BACT)
is implemented. A TAC analysis should include TAC emission estimates and a modeling
analysis to identify the Zone of Impact (ZOI) and the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI). The
3-1
SECTIONTHREE
Regulatory Setting
ZOI encompasses the area within which the incremental carcinogenic risk (due to the inhalation
pathway only) equals or exceeds one in one million.
3.3
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
USEPA has promulgated PSD regulations applicable to criteria pollutant emissions from major
sources in Imperial County. The ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project will not be a major modification
under the PSD rules, because PM10 is the only criteria pollutant for which a net emissions
increase may exceed a PSD significant modification threshold (PM10 greater than 15 tpy). But
the Project study area is designated non-attainment with respect to both the California and
federal ambient standards for PM10, so the PSD program does not apply to this pollutant.
However, the same significance criteria pertain to increases in non-attainment pollutant
emissions under the non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR) process. Many of the PSD
requirements are the same as the AFC/SPPE and NSR requirements described above (e.g.,
project description, BACT, AAQS analysis); however, PSD requires the following additional
analyses:
•
A PSD increment (consumption) analysis
•
An analysis of air quality related values (AQRV) to ensure the protection of visibility of
federal Class I wilderness areas within 100 km of the project
•
An evaluation of potential impacts on soils and vegetation of commercial and recreational
value
•
An evaluation of potential growth-inducing impacts
The ECGS 3 Repower Project will not be a major modification for criteria pollutants other than
PM10. Since Imperial County is classified as non-attainment for PM10, the PSD requirements
will not apply. However, the federal NNSR program will be applicable for PM10. The NNSR
regulations differ from the PSD regulations. The following four specific issues must be
addressed in NNSR:
•
A different emission control requirement, i.e., lowest achievable emission rates (LAER) must
be used instead of BACT for the pollutant(s) of concern.
•
The new emission source is required to obtain offsets for its emissions of the non-attainment
pollutant(s) and their precursors from other sources that impact the same non-attainment
area.
•
The Applicant must certify that all other sources owned by the Applicant in the state are
complying with all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
•
Any sources impacting visibility in nearby Class I areas must be reviewed by the appropriate
federal land manager.
3-2
SECTIONFOUR
4.
Section 4 FOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
This section describes the dispersion models and modeling techniques that will be used in
performing the air quality analysis for the ECGS. The objectives of the modeling are to
demonstrate that air emissions from the ECGS will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
an ambient air quality standard violation, and will not cause a significant health risk.
In November 2005, USEPA officially recognized the American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) as the preferred dispersion
model for regulatory Applications, replacing the Industrial Source Complex Short Term 3
(ISCST3) model. USEPA allowed a one-year “grace period” commencing November 9, 2005
during which the use of either model is acceptable, depending on the preference of the local air
quality jurisdiction When contacted on this point, the ICAPCD suggested that one or the other
model be proposed with justification provided for the selection. Originally, the IID team
selected AERMOD, since this is consistent with the most recent USEPA policy and the data
needed to support its Application are available in Imperial County. However, we have recently
become aware of two problems with the model for this particular Application that have caused us
to question the wisdom of using it for ECGS permit modeling.
1. USEPA has posted a notice on the Support Center for Regulatory Air Modeling (SCRAM)
website to warn that AERMOD may underpredict maximum concentrations in receptor areas
with gently downward sloping terrain. This is precisely the situation on the south and
southwest side of the ECGS Site.
2. In the initial model runs for the Niland Gas Turbine Project, another IID facility, URS has
found what appears to be an error in AERMAP (the terrain data processing module of
AERMOD), in the terrain heights for areas that are below sea level. Most, if not all, of the
area that would be included in the ECGS modeling receptor grid is below sea level. URS has
notified Bowman Environmental Engineering (the company we buy our BEEST modeling
software from) about this problem, and they agree that the version they are marketing
provides inaccurate terrain elevations below sea level. They are checking their software to
determine whether the problem in AERMAP exists in the original USEPA model or has been
introduced in adapting the model to the BEEST commercial software package. They believe
it is inherent in the original model and, if that proves to be correct, they will contact USEPA
so that a fix can be initiated as required.
Given these problems, we have decided to do the ECGS permit modeling with the ISCST3
model until the problems with AERMOD can be resolved.
4.1
SCREENING MODELING
An initial screening analysis will be conducted to identify which operating mode for the turbine
results in worst-case ambient air impacts. The most recent version of the USEPA ISCST3 model
will be used to model worst-case conditions for each of three operating modes across the load
range (100, 75, and 50 percent loads) and each of three ambient temperature conditions (40, 73
and 115 degrees Fahrenheit). A unit emission rate of 1.0 gram per second (g/s) will be modeled
using stack parameters corresponding to the different combinations of turbine load and ambient
temperature. Building downwash effects will be addressed, as described in Section 4.4, Building
Wake Effects. Concentrations for each pollutant, expressed in units of micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3), will be obtained by multiplying the unit concentrations obtained from the ISCST3
screening results (expressed in μg/m3 per g/s) by the emission rate calculated for each pollutant
4-1
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
(expressed in g/s) for each operating mode. This is a streamlined process, because it allows
ISCST3 to be executed only once for all pollutants for each operating mode, instead of having to
execute the model iteratively for each pollutant. The operating mode that yields the highest
concentrations for each averaging time pertaining to the National and California AAQS will be
considered the worst-case Unit 3 gas turbine/HRSG operating mode for that averaging time. The
worst-case operating mode will be used as the basis for selecting Unit 3 stack parameters in all
subsequent ISCST3 modeling analyses. Refined modeling (discussed in the following section)
will be used to determine the worst-case annual and short-term impacts of the turbine/HRSG unit
in combination with other Project and plant sources. Screening modeling will not be used to
eliminate pollutants from the refined modeling analysis.
4.2
REFINED MODELING
The purpose of the refined modeling analysis is to demonstrate that air pollutant emissions from
the ECGS will not cause or contribute to an AAQS violation; and will not cause a significant
health risk impact. Two refined modeling scenarios will be examined, first emissions from the
new Unit 3 alone, and second emissions from the new Unit 3 with the other sources at the ECGS
facility. The most recent version (04300) of the ISCST3 model will be used for the refined
modeling. The regulatory default option will be selected. ISCST3 will be used for modeling
concentrations of pollutants having short-term (e.g., 1- to 24-hour) ambient standards with the
appropriate averaging time selected. Modeling for pollutants having annual standards (i.e., PM10,
SO2, and NO2), will be conducted using ISCST3 with the PERIOD option to predict impacts for
comparison with the annual standards. Specific modeling techniques for conducting the AAQS
and HRA analyses are discussed below.
The SPPE Application for the ECGS Repower Project will include an analysis of the land use
adjacent to the Project. This analysis will be conducted in accordance with Section 7.2.3 of the
Guideline on Air Quality Models (USEPA 2005 and Auer [1978]).
Based on the Auer land use procedure, less than 40 percent of the area within a 3 km radius of
the ECGS could be classified as urban. The remaining area is rural, and since the Auer
classification scheme requires more than 50 percent of the area within the 3 km radius around a
source to be non-rural for an urban classification, the rural mode will be used in the ISCST3
modeling analyses.
The following ISCST3 regulatory default settings will also be used:
•
Wind profile exponents of 0.7, 0.7, 0.10, 0.15, 0.35, and 0.35
•
Final plume rise
•
Stack tip downwash effects included
•
Buoyancy-induced dispersion option
4.2.1 PSD Increment Analysis
As stated earlier in this Protocol, a PSD increment analysis will not be required because the
ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project will not qualify as a major modification (except for PM10, which
is a non-attainment pollutant). However, the monitoring exemption thresholds from the PSD
4-2
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
regulations will be included in the analysis as justification for using agency-collected local
ambient air quality monitoring data as background levels for the AAQS analysis discussed in the
following section. Also, criteria pollutant impacts from the ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project will
be compared to the PSD significant impact levels (SIL), since these often serve as significance
criteria for new source impacts from new sources in California (see Table 4-1, Relevant Ambient
Air Quality Standards and Significance Levels).
4-3
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
TABLE 4-1
RELEVANT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND SIGNIFICANCE
LEVELS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
CAAQS
(a,c)
8-hour
9.0 ppm
(10,000 μg/m3)
9.0 ppm
(10,000
μg/m3)
500
1-hour
20 ppm
(23,000 μg/m3)
35 ppm
(40,000
μg/m3)
2,000
0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3)
1
0.03 ppm
(80 μg/m3)
1
0.14 ppm
(365 μg/m3)
5
0.5 ppm
(1,300 μg/m3)
25
CO
Annual
(d)
NO2
1-hour
24-hour
SO2
0.04 ppm(e)
(105 μg/m3)
3-hour
PM2.5
Annual
20 μg/m3
50 μg/m3
1
24-hour
50 μg/m
150 μg/m3
5
Annual
12 μg/m
15 μg/m
Class II
2.5
25
2
20
5
91
25
512
15
4
17
8
30
3
65 μg/m3
24-hour
8-hour
0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.08 ppm
(157 μg/m3)
1-hour
0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3)
See footnote(g)
O3
Class I
40
0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
3
PSD Increments
(μg/m3)
40
1-hour
3
PSD/NNSR
Significant
Modification
Thresholds
(tpy)
100
0.25 ppm
(470 μg/m3)
Annual
PM10
Ambient
Impact
Significance
Levels
(μg/m3)
NAAQS
(b,c)
See footnote(f)
40
(of VOCs)
Notes:
a. California standards for ozone (as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and PM10, are values
that are not to be exceeded. The visibility standard is not to be equaled or exceeded.
b. National standards, other than those for ozone and based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard
is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or
less than one.
c. Concentrations are expressed first in units in which they were promulgated. Equivalent units are given in parentheses and based on a reference
temperature of 25° C and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury. All measurements of air quality area to be corrected to a reference
temperature of 25° C and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury (1,013.2 millibar).
d. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is the compound regulated as a criteria pollutant; however, emissions are usually based on the sum of all oxides of
nitrogen (NOx).
e. At locations where the state standards for ozone and/or PM10 are violated. National standards apply elsewhere.
f. Modeling is required for any net increase of 100 tpy or more of VOCs subject to PSD.
g. New federal 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards were promulgated by USEPA on July 18, 1997. The federal 1-hour
ozone standard was revoked by USEPA on June 15, 2005.
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ppm = parts per million by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas
Blanks = Not applicable
PSD = prevention of significant deterioration
CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
CO = carbon monoxide
tpy = ton per year
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard
3
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
O = ozone
VOC = volatile organic compounds
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
4-4
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
4.2.2 Ambient Air Quality Standard Analysis
The purpose of the AAQS analysis is to determine whether the ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project
will cause or contribute to an AAQS violation. The Project will not be considered to cause or
contribute to an AAQS violation unless impacts from the Project itself combined with the
background concentration exceed the AAQS, or the Project has a significant impact at the same
location and time as a predicted AAQS violation. The following approach is proposed for
performing the AAQS analysis:
1. The receptor grid deployment spacing described in Section 4.5, Receptor Grid, will be used
for the AAQS analysis.
2. Short-term and annual AAQS modeling will be performed using ISCST3. Annual AAQS
modeling will be performed using ISCST3 with the PERIOD option. Both short-term and
annual analyses will be run using sequential hourly meteorological data for 5 years. For
short-term standards, one exceedance is allowed per year; the second is a violation.
Therefore, the maximum impact (i.e., high first high [H1H]) can exceed a short-term
standard; however, a high second high (H2H) concentration must be below the standard or a
violation exists and further analysis is required. Maximum impact equals modeled impact
plus background. For ECGS modeling, the H1H will be used.
For CO modeling, the PLOTFILE output option in ISCST3 will be invoked to save any H1H
events that, when added to background, exceed the AAQS. If 1-hour and 8-hour
concentrations do not exceed the AAQS, then compliance is demonstrated and no further
modeling is necessary for CO.
For NO2 modeling, the PLOTFILE output option in ISCST3 will be invoked to save any
H1H events that exceed the AAQS (minus background). Initially, the modeling will assume
full conversion of NOx to NO2. Should it be required, NO2 estimates will be reduced using
the USEPA ozone limiting method (OLM) (for either hourly or annual impacts). If 1-hour
and annual concentrations do not exceed the applicable AAQS, then compliance is
demonstrated and no further modeling is necessary for NO2.
For SO2 modeling, the PLOTFILE output option in ISCST3 will be invoked to save any H1H
events that, when added to background exceed the AAQS. If 3-hour and 24-hour
concentrations do not exceed the AAQS, then compliance is demonstrated and no further
modeling is necessary for SO2.
For PM10 modeling, the MULTYEAR processing option will not be invoked in order to
determine the 24-hour, highest sixth high (H6H) concentration at each receptor over the
5 years modeled for comparison, when added to background, to the 24-hour AAQS. Instead
the maximum of the five 1-year average PM10 concentrations will be reported. If
concentrations do not exceed the AAQS (minus background), then compliance is
demonstrated and no further modeling is necessary for PM10.
3. The events exceeding the AAQS will be rerun to determine if the Project has a significant
event during a predicted CAAQS or NAAQS exceedance event. The ISCST3 model will be
used to analyze short-term events and annual events. If the Project does not have a
significant impact during these exceedance events, then AAQS compliance is demonstrated
and no further modeling is necessary.
4-5
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
4. If the Project has a significant event during an AAQS exceedance event, then the subject
receptor locations will be analyzed to determine if they reside within another facility’s
boundary. The corresponding facility's contribution to the maximum concentration at that
receptor will be determined and subtracted from the concentration modeled at that receptor.
If the revised total predicted impact at the receptor is below the AAQS, then compliance is
demonstrated and no further analysis is necessary.
5. For any remaining events, a culpability analysis using ISCST3 will be performed to
determine which sources contribute the greatest impact. These sources may then be updated
by contacting the facility owning the source or applicable regulatory agency and verifying
the source’s input parameters. For any culpable Project sources, the modeling inventory,
including source locations and stack parameters used to estimate emissions, will be reviewed
to ensure they are reasonable. Adjustments will be made as appropriate.
6. An ISCST3 run will be performed using the revised inventory in (5) above to determine if the
AAQS exceedance still exists. If no AAQS exceedance exists, then AAQS compliance is
demonstrated and no further modeling is necessary.
Comparison of model-predicted impacts with AAQS will require assumptions regarding
background pollutant concentrations, i.e., the contributions of sources other than those of the
sources being modeled. For purposes of the ECGS modeling analyses, background values for
each pollutant and averaging time will be represented using the highest measured levels at the
nearest air quality monitoring station in Imperial County over the last 5 years. Section 4.6.2,
Background Air Pollutant Monitoring Data, discusses the representativeness of the air quality
monitoring data that are available for this purpose.
4.2.3 Health Risk Assessment Analysis
The CEC and ICAPCD require an HRA of TAC emissions from the operation of the Project.
Contaminants potentially emitted by the ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project with potential
carcinogenic or chronic or acute non-carcinogenic health effects will be considered. This HRA
will be performed following the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA),
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (OEHHA 2003). As recommended
by this guideline, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Hotspots Analysis and Reporting
Program (HARP) (CARB 2005) will be used to perform a refined HRA for the Project. HARP
includes two modules: a dispersion module and a risk module. The HARP dispersion module
incorporates the USEPA ISCST3 air dispersion model, and the HARP risk module implements
the latest Risk Assessment Guidelines developed by OEHHA.
First, ground-level impacts from the ECGS Unit 3 sources alone will be estimated using the
ISCST3 atmospheric dispersion modeling. The HARP modeling analysis will be consistent with,
and use similar appropriate parameters as the modeling approach discussed above for the AAQS
analyses using ISCST3. Based on the impacts modeled using ISCST3 (the dispersion model
incorporated by HARP), the HARP model will be used to estimate health risk. The year(s) of
meteorological data resulting in the highest 1-hour and annual impacts as determined above will
be used and receptors will be placed at 25 meter spacing around the ECGS facility fence line and
500 meter spacing outside of the fence out to 10 km. All receptors that HARP creates that are
inside the fence will be excluded. HARP will also include the census receptors out to 10 km.
4-6
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
Receptors will also be placed at all sensitive locations (e.g., schools, hospitals, etc.) out to 1 mile.
The HRA will be performed using HARP and will follow the following steps:
1. Define the location of the MEI (i.e., the location where the highest carcinogenic risk may
occur)
2. Define the locations of the maximum chronic non-carcinogenic adverse health effects and the
maximum acute adverse health effects
3. Calculate concentrations and adverse health effects at locations of maximum impact for each
pollutant
The HARP model will be performed for the inhalation pathway for diesel particulate and for all
applicable uptake pathways for all other TACs. A discussion of the surrounding land use,
sensitive receptors, and local meteorology will be provided in the SPPE Application.
Per a discussion with CEC, the combined impacts of all ECGS TAC emission sources will also
be evaluated using HARP, excluding any emergency equipment.
4.2.4 Air Quality Related Values and Visibility Analysis
A PSD analysis of AQRV will not be required because the ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project will
not be a major source. However, per ICAPCD Rule 207D.6.f, an Authority to Construct (ATC)
permit must address the potential of the Project to impact air quality (including visibility) of any
federal Class 1 area. A screening level modeling analysis will be conducted to evaluate these
impacts at the only Class I area within 100 km from the Project Site, i.e., Joshua Tree National
Park, the closest part of which is about 97 km north from ECGS. This analysis will be conducted
using the screening version of the CALPUFF model and the same meteorological input data used
for the AAQS modeling analysis.
4.3
EMISSIONS SOURCES REPRESENTED IN MODELING ANALYSES
4.3.1 Project Sources
The ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project will entail replacement of the existing Unit 3 boiler by a new
GE 7EA gas turbine and HRSG with duct firing. Thus the net change in emissions resulting
from the Project will be a combination of increases from the new turbine/HRSG line and
decreases from the retirement of the existing boiler. Table 4-2, Preliminary Estimated Emissions
for ECGS Combustion Turbine Generator, presents preliminary annual emission estimates for
the new turbine with HRSG, as well as the emissions decrease that will result from eliminating
the existing Unit 3 boiler. Conceptual plant design includes SCR for NOx and CO oxidation
catalysts for CO that will match recent BACT determinations for similar projects. As shown in
Table 4-2, use of this control equipment will ensure a net emissions decrease for NOx and only
relatively small net increases for CO and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Unit 3 emissions
of SO2 and PM10 will also be low, owing to the exclusive use of interstate pipeline quality natural
gas as fuel for the gas turbine and HRSG duct burner.
4-7
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
TABLE 4-2
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FOR ECGS COMBUSTION TURBINE
GENERATOR
(tpy)
Unit
NOx
CO
SO2
VOC
PM10
New turbine/HRSG1
38.15
48.52
8.173
4.65
21.06
Retiring Boiler
51.82
26.61
0.50
1.74
2.41
Net Emission Change
-13.67
+21.91
+7.67
+2.91
+18.65
2
1
Based on 8,000 hours per year, (5,000 hours without duct firing, 3,000 hours with duct firing) and 150 startups/shutdowns per year
2
Average historical Unit 3 emissions for 2001 – 2003 based on CEMS and fuel use data.
3
SO2 for new unit based on assumed fuel gas sulfur content of 0.75 grains per 100 dry standard cubic feet, the maximum value
allowed in the current tariff.
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
CO = carbon monoxide
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
ECGS = El Centro generating station
tpy = ton per year
HRSG = heat recovery steam generator
VOC = volatile organic compounds
NOx = nitrogen oxides
Worst-case emissions scenarios will be determined and modeled for each pollutant and averaging
time using realistic combinations of normal operations, turbine/HRSG startups/shutdowns and
maintenance conditions. Initial commissioning activities, will also be evaluated. The modeling
to address all of these operating conditions is discussed below.
Normal operating CTG emissions will vary with ambient temperature and turbine load, as well
as use or non-use of duct burners. The screening modeling analysis described in Section 4.1,
Screening Model, will be used to determine the turbine/HRSG operating mode and ambient
conditions that will produce the highest incremental air quality impacts for each averaging time
addressed by the ambient standards, and the corresponding emission parameters will be used to
represent the turbine/HRSG contributions for all refined modeling of normal operations.
Startup and shutdown conditions will also be considered. The emissions from these events will
be quantified conservatively, using data provided by the turbine vendors and a reasonable
maximum number of startups/shutdowns will be assumed in developing the worst-case emissions
scenarios for each relevant averaging time.
IID is also proposing up to 20 hours of turbine operations for maintenance, which will be
represented as full load operation without SCR and CO oxidation catalyst controls. Emissions
for these periods will thus be equivalent to operation with only dry low-NOx burners, based on
turbine manufacturer emissions guarantees.
Emissions resulting from turbine/HRSG commissioning immediately following equipment
installation will also be represented, based on the sequence of commissioning activities
recommended by the equipment manufacturers and the expected durations and pollutant
emissions profiles for each step in the commissioning process. Care will be taken to ensure that
conservative assumptions are used for all parameters in order to avoid underestimating these
one-time emissions.
Equipment emissions and stack parameters for all of the operating modes described above will
be examined and modeled to determine which activity will produce the highest ground-level
concentrations for all pollutants and averaging times, and the maximum impacts will be reported
4-8
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
in the SPPE and Authority to Construct (ATC) Applications as evidence of the Project’s
compliance with applicable air quality standards. Where applicable, emissions estimates of all
pollutants and all modes of operation will be provided in both parts per million (ppm) and
pounds per hour values.
TACs will also be emitted from the operational ECGS due to turbine/HRSG combustion of
natural gas. These emissions have not been estimated at this time; however, because only natural
gas will be used as fuel for the CTG, only small quantities of TAC including benzene,
formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may potentially be emitted. In addition,
TACs potentially contained in the cooling tower circulating water will be quantified and
included in the HRA described in Section 4.2.4, Air Quality Related Values and Visibility
Analysis. Emissions estimates for TAC will be based on published emission factors (AP-42 or
the CARB’s CATEF database) and/or speciation profiles (for PM10 and ROC) available from
CARB and/or vendor data, if available.
The Repowered Unit 3 equipment will use the existing Unit 3 cooling tower. As part of the
Repower Project, more efficient drift eliminators will replace the existing system to reduce the
associated particulate emission rates below current levels, despite a projected increase in annual
water circulation through the tower. The PM10 emission data for the cooling tower will
incorporate this control measure.
No new fired emergency equipment (e.g., generators or firewater pumps) will be installed for the
ECGS Unit 3 Repower Project. Thus, the new turbine/HRSG train will be the only change in
fuel burning equipment within the power plant.
Temporary construction emissions will result from equipment exhaust (primarily NOx and diesel
particulate emissions) and fugitive dust (PM10) from earthmoving activities and vehicle and
equipment traffic on unpaved surfaces. A construction schedule and equipment list provided by
the Project engineering design firm will be consulted to determine the scenarios that will produce
the highest emissions for the different averaging times addressed in the AAQS. For the ECGS,
the fugitive PM10 emissions from construction will be initially estimated using data on the area to
be disturbed and the extent of equipment operations, and will take into account the effects of
implementing control measures for controlling fugitive dust during construction. The air quality
impacts of the heavy equipment exhaust and fugitive dust emissions will then be modeled using
ISCST3. The construction site, parking area, and laydown area will be modeled as volume
sources. Low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm by weight) will be utilized in any emission calculations
for construction equipment used at the ECGS Site.
4.3.2 Modeling of Contemporaneous Sources within ECGS
There are several existing sources at the ECGS. This Project will entail the repowering of the
existing Unit 3. The new Unit 3 will first be modeled using only the emissions from the new
Unit 3 equipment. Next, the other existing sources at the ECGS facility will be modeled together
with the new Unit 3, i.e., including Units 2 and 4. Emissions and operating scenarios from the
past 3 years for Units 2 and 4 will be reviewed and the highest annual average emission rates for
Units 2 and 4 during that time period will be used in the modeling analysis to represent these
sources. The worst-case operating scenario used for the new Unit 3 turbine/HRSG will be used
in this modeling analysis. PM10 emission from all operational cooling towers at the ECGS,
including the reconfigured Unit 3 cooling tower, will also be included. No other intermittent
4-9
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
sources (e.g., existing fire pump, black start engines, etc.) will be included in this modeling
analysis of combined sources. Predicted maximum off-site pollutant concentrations due to the
combined ECGS operations will be compared with the NAAQS and CAAQS for compliance.
4.3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis Including Sources Outside ECGS
A cumulative impact analysis will evaluate the combined air quality impacts of all routinely
operating sources within the ECGS together with the emission from other projects within 6 miles
from the ECGS that are currently either under construction, currently in an air quality permitting
or CEQA review process, or reasonably expected to enter these processes in the near future. A
request will be made to ICAPCD asking for a list of all newly permitted sources or other sources
that are reasonably anticipated to be permitted within 6 miles of the ECGS. This list, when
compiled will be forwarded onto CEC for review. Based on this information, additional sources
may be included in the cumulative source modeling analysis
4.4
BUILDING WAKE EFFECTS
The effect of building wakes (i.e., downwash) upon the stack plumes of emission sources at the
El Centro plant will be evaluated in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA 1985).
Direction-specific building data will be generated for stacks below good engineering practice
(GEP) stack height, using the most recent version of USEPA Building Parameter Input Program
– Prime (BPIP-Prime). Appropriate information will be provided in the SPPE Application and
other permit Applications that describe the input assumptions and output results from the BPIPPrime model. The ISCST3 model considers direction-specific downwash using both the Huber
Snyder and Schulman-Scire algorithms as evaluated in the BPIP-Prime program.
4.5
RECEPTOR GRID
This section presents the receptor grids that will be used in the AAQS modeling analyses. The
receptor grid to be used for determining the area of influence (AOI) is as follows:
•
25-meter spacing along the property line and extending from the property line out to 1,000
meters beyond the property line
•
100-meter spacing from 1 km to 5 km of project sources
•
250-meter spacing within 5 km to 10 km of project sources
If a maximum concentration value is located in the 100-meter or 250-meter grid, a dense receptor
grid will be placed around the maximum concentration point and the model will be rerun. The
dense grid will use 25-meter spacing and will extend at least 500 meters in all directions from the
original point of maximum concentration.
For the HRA modeling, receptors will be placed at 25-meter spacing around the fenceline and
500-meter spacing outside of the fence out to 10 km. All receptors that HARP creates that are
inside the ECGS fenceline will be excluded. HARP will also include all census receptors out to
10 km. These census receptors will include the population locations in and around the City of El
Centro. Receptors will also be placed at all sensitive locations (e.g., schools, hospitals, etc.) out
to 1 mile.
4-10
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
A detailed Project map and a 7½- minute U.S Geological Survey (USGS) map will be provided
in the SPPE Application showing the receptors used in the modeling. Actual Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates will be used. The CAAQS and NAAQS apply to all
locations off-site of the Applicant’s facility, i.e., where public access is not under the control of
the Applicant. The CAAQS and NAAQS are not evaluated for receptors on the property
controlled by the Applicant.
4.6
METEOROLOGICAL AND AIR QUALITY DATA
4.6.1 Meteorological Data
Meteorological data suitable for direct input to ISCST3 were obtained from the National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for the Imperial County Airport meteorological station, outside
the town of Imperial, located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of El Centro and ECGS. The 5
years of meteorological data to be used in this modeling analysis include data from 1991 through
1995. Data were missing from each year’s dataset. There was 3 percent missing data in the
records for 1991, 1992, and 1993, 5 percent missing for 1994, and 9 percent missing for 1995.
Years with 10 percent or more missing data are not recommended for use in permit modeling
Applications. NCDC replaced these missing data by following USEPA approved techniques for
filling in missing data.
The meteorological data recorded at Imperial County Airport are acceptable for use at ECGS for
two reasons: proximity and terrain similarity. As mentioned above, the Imperial County Airport
is located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the ECGS Site. The airport is located in the
middle of the Imperial Valley with the closest elevated terrain approximately 20 miles to the
northwest. This is the closest meteorological recording station to the ECGS Site, and there are
no intervening terrain features between the two locations; thus meteorological conditions at the
ECGS Site will be very similar to those at the Imperial Valley Airport.
The terrain in the Salton Sea Imperial Valley area is relatively flat and below sea level. The
Chocolate Mountains and the Sand Hills provide the terrain boundaries of the valley to the north,
east, and southeast. The highest point in the Chocolate Mountains is just below 3,000 feet. The
highest point in the Sand Hills is just below 600 feet. The Santa Rosa Mountains, Fish Creek
Mountains, and Coyote Mountains form the western terrain boundary of the Imperial Valley.
The highest points in these mountains are more then 4,800 feet, more than 2,300 feet, and more
than 2,400 feet, respectively. The Imperial Valley is approximately 13 miles across at the
northern edge of the Salton Sea and expands to more than 54 miles wide along the southern
border with Mexico. The ECGS Site is located in the middle portion of the valley approximately
32 miles southwest of the Chocolate Mountains and 22 miles southeast of the Salton Sea.
The next closest weather recording stations are Palm Springs and Blythe. These two stations are
automated surface observing systems (ASOS) as is the Imperial County Airport site. The Palm
Springs station is approximately 92 miles to the northwest. The Palm Springs monitoring station
is at the airport. The terrain at this location is somewhat similar to the Imperial Valley in that the
Coachella Valley is orientated in a northwest to southeast direction. However, the Coachella
Valley is approximately 8-miles wide at the Palm Springs Airport which tends to increase the
wind speeds in this area. In fact, this area has hundreds of windmills to convert this wind energy
to electrical power due to the near constant winds. The meteorological conditions at the Palm
4-11
SECTIONFOUR
Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques
Springs Airport are not similar to the conditions at ECGS, and thus are not appropriate for use in
the permit modeling for the ECGS Project.
The Blythe station is located approximately 84 miles to the northeast of the ECGS Site. The
Blythe station is at the airport located approximately 2 miles west of the Colorado River at the
southern edge of the Parker Valley. Parker Valley is oriented in a north-northeast to southsouthwest direction. Terrain features in the Blythe vicinity include the Dome Rock Mountains to
the east (across the Colorado River in Arizona), the Big Maria Mountains to the north, the
McCoy Mountains to the west-northwest, and the Mule Mountains to the southwest. The terrain
differences at the Blythe location would make the meteorological conditions quite dissimilar to
those at ECGS. Thus, the data recorded at Blythe would not be appropriate for use in the permit
modeling for the ECGS Project.
The closest National Weather Service (NWS) stations are at Daggett and San Diego. Both of
these NWS stations are over 100 miles away (165 miles for Daggett, 100 miles for San Diego)
and neither has climate or terrain similar to the conditions at the ECGS Site. Therefore, these
two sites do not have representative meteorological conditions acceptable for use in the permit
modeling for the ECGS Project.
Data from the Imperial County Airport were recently used to support modeling for the proposed
Salton Sea Unit 6 geothermal project Application to CEC, which would be located about 27
miles northwest of the ECGS Site. The data from the Imperial County Airport are representative
of conditions at ECGS and are appropriate for use in permit modeling. Wind roses for each
season are provided as Appendix A, Windrose Figures, of this Protocol.
4.6.2 Background Air Pollutant Monitoring Data
Available ICAPCD/CARB air quality data from 2000 through 2004 will be used to represent
background air pollutant concentrations. Data from El Centro and Calexico monitoring stations
will be evaluated as potentially representative of the Project Site conditions.
The El Centro 9th Street monitoring station records CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3. The El
Centro monitoring station is located approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest of ECGS.
Monitoring data recorded at this location are by far the most representative information available
to characterize conditions at ECGS. Calexico Ethel Street station located approximately
10 miles to the south-southeast of ECGS is the only location in Imperial County where SO2 is
recorded. Data recorded at this location will be influenced by emissions from Calexico and the
Mexican city of Mexicali, which is significantly larger than the City of El Centro. Data recorded
at Calexico would thus represent a worst-case representation of ambient conditions at ECGS.
Data completeness percentages for each year for each pollutant at these monitoring stations will
be provided.
For both the construction and operational phase modeling, the highest reported concentration that
has occurred within the last 5 years will be used as the background values for each pollutant and
averaging time and will be added to the maximum modeled contributions of Project sources to
obtain totals suitable for comparison with the AAQS. This is a conservative approach because it
assumes that the highest recorded value and the modeled maximum impact both occur at the
same time and at the same location.
4-12
SECTIONFIVE
5.
5.1
Section 5 FIVE
Presentation of Modeling Results
Presentation of Modeling Results
NAAQS AND CAAQS ANALYSIS
The AAQS analyses for the new Unit 3 source alone and the cumulative sources at ECGS will be
presented in a summary table. A figure indicating the location of the maximum pollutant
concentrations will be provided. For CO, NO2, and SO2, the H1H short-term and highest annual
concentrations will be reported. For PM10, the H1H 24-hour concentration (of the individual
5 years) over the 5 years modeled will be presented. Background concentrations will be added to
yield the total concentration, which will be compared with the NAAQS and CAAQS.
5.2
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS
Maps at a scale of 1:24,000 will depict the following data:
•
Elevated terrain within a 10-km radius of the project
•
Distribution of population via census data with 10-km radius of the project and sensitive
receptors, including schools, pre-schools, etc., within a 1-mile radius of the project
•
Current and future residential land uses
•
Location of proposed new or modified transmission lines
•
Isopleths of any areas where predicted exposures to air toxics result in estimated chronic noncancer impacts and acute impacts equal to or exceeding a hazard index of 1.0
•
Isopleths of any areas where exposures to air toxics lead to an estimated carcinogenic risk
equal to or exceeding one in one million
HRA modeling results will be summarized to include maximum annual (chronic both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) and hourly (acute) adverse health effects from TAC
emissions. Health risk values will be calculated and presented in the summary table for the
points of maximum impact and the sensitive receptors with the maximum risk values.
5.3
DATA SUBMITTAL
Electronic copies of the modeling input and output files will be provided to ICAPCD and CEC.
5-1
SECTIONFIVE
Presentation of Modeling Results
5-2
SECTIONSIX
6.
Section 6 SIX
References
References
Air Resources Board (ARB). 2003. HARP User Guide – Software for Emission Inventory
Database Management, Air Dispersion Modeling Analyses, and Health Risk Assessment
version 1.3, Air Resources, Board, California Environmental Protection Agency.
December.
Auer, August H., Jr. 1978. American Meteorological Society. Journal of Applied Meteorology,
17(5): 636-643. “Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies.”
May.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. HARP (Hotspots Analysis and Reporting
Program), Version 1.1 (Build 23.02.21). April.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 1997. “Regulations Pertaining to the Rules of Practice
and Procedure and Plant Site Certification.” Title 20, California Code of Regulations.
Chapter 1, 2, 5.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. August.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/htm/bl02.cfm
_____. 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Nonattainment Area Permitting (Draft), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
October.
_____. 1995. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex Dispersion Models. Volume I –
User’s Instructions. EPA-454/B-95-003a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September.
_____. 1997. Addendum to ISC3 User’s Guide. The Prime Plume Rise and Building Downwash
Model. November.
_____. 2002. Addendum to the User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex Dispersion
Models. Volume I – User’s Instructions.
_____. 2005. “Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred
General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions;
Final Rule”, 40 CFR Part 51, AH-FRL07990-9, November 9.
U.S. Forest Service et al. 2000. Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup
(FLAG) Phase 1 Report. Prepared by U.S. Forest Service Air Quality Program, National
Park Service Air Resources Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Air Quality Branch.
December.
6-1
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
N
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 9.94%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
Figure A-1
Windrose for All Months 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
A-1
17-21
+21
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
A-2
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
N
W
2%
from which the
wind is blowing.
8%
12%
16%
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
4%
6%
10%
14%
CALM WINDS 13.34%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
+21
Figure A-2
Windrose for Winter Months (December – February) 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
A-3
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
A-4
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
N
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
W
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
from which the
wind is blowing.
CALM WINDS 7.90%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
Figure A-3
Windrose for Spring Months (March – May) 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
A-5
+21
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
A-6
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
N
W
2%
from which the
wind is blowing.
8%
12%
16%
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
4%
6%
10%
14%
CALM WINDS 6.42%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
Figure A-4
Windrose for Summer Months (June – August) 1991 – 1995
Imperial County Airport
A-7
+21
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
A-8
Appendix A
Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)
N
W
2%
from which the
wind is blowing.
8%
12%
16%
E
S
NOTE: Frequencies
indicate direction
4%
6%
10%
14%
CALM WINDS 12.18%
CALMS
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-16
17-21
+21
Figure A-5
Windrose for Autumn Months (September – November) 1991 – 95
Imperial County Airport
A-9
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E.1
Assessment of NOx Control Technologies ..................................................................E-1
E.2
Other Technologies......................................................................................................E-5
E.3
Assessment of CO Control Technologies ....................................................................E-5
E.4
Assessment of ROC Control Technologies .................................................................E-5
E.5
Assessment of SO2 and PM10 Control Technologies...................................................E-5
E.6
Assessment of Ammonia Slip Control Technologies ..................................................E-6
E.7
Cooling Tower Drift PM10 Control Technologies .......................................................E-6
E.8
References....................................................................................................................E-6
List of Tables
Table 1
Summary of Recent NOx BACT Determinations for Combustion Turbine Generators
in Combined Cycle Configurations
E-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-ii
List of Acronyms
AFC
Application for Certification
BACT
best available control technology
Btu
British thermal unit
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CEC
California Energy Commission
CO
carbon monoxide
CO2
carbon dioxide
CTG
combustion turbine generator
DLE
dry low emissions
HRSG
heat recovery steam generator
ICAPCD
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
N2
nitrogen
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NOx
nitrogen oxides
O2
oxygen
PM10
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
ppm
parts per million
ppmvd
parts per million by volume
SCR
selective catalytic reduction
SOx
sulfur oxides
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
E-iii
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
E-iv
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
The best available control technology (BACT) assessment conducted for the Project considered
all emission control technologies currently proposed or in use on natural-gas-fired combustion
turbines (>50 MM British thermal unit per hour [Btu/hour] heat input) in combined cycle
configurations. To identify feasible emission limits, several information sources were consulted,
including the following:
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) BACT/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
Clearinghouse (USEPA 1985) and updates
•
California Air Resources Board (CARB) BACT Clearinghouse database and CARB BACT
Guidelines for Power Plants (Adopted 7/22/99)
•
Recent California Energy Commission (CEC) Applications for Certification
•
Research conducted by El Centro Unit 3 Repower design engineers
Table 1, Summary of Recent NOx BACT Determinations for Combustion Turbine Generators in
Combined Cycle Configurations, lists selected recent nitrogen oxides (NOx) BACT
determinations for natural-gas-fired combined cycle power projects in California using advanced
technology combustion turbines. BACT for the most recent projects that have come on-line in
the state has been determined to be either 2.0 or 2.5 parts per million (ppm) by volume (ppmvd)
(at 15 percent oxygen [O2]), to be achieved by means of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with
ammonia injection. All of the five most recent projects to be approved by CEC committed to a
NOx BACT level of 2.0 ppmvd at 15 percent O2. The combustion turbine generator (CTG) in
this Project will achieve the BACT concentration of 2.0 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 using dry lowNOx combustor technology (rather than steam or water injection, as a means of water
conservation), and SCR.
Similarly, the most recent combined cycle turbine projects have been approved with a carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions limit between 3 and 6 ppmvd and a reactive organic compounds
(ROC) emissions limit at or near 2 ppmvd (both at 15 percent O2), based on the use of a CO
oxidation catalyst. The CTG in this Project will employ the same control technology to achieve
comparable CO and ROC stack exhaust levels. Exclusive use of natural gas fuel has been
determined to be BACT for sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10) in all other comparable projects for several years.
E.1
ASSESSMENT OF NOx CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Based on a review of materials described above, the following NOx control technologies were
evaluated to determine whether they are able to achieve BACT NOx levels in practice:
•
Dry low emissions and Goal Line SCONOx™
•
DLE and SCR with ammonia injection
SCONOxTM
SCONOx™ is a new NOx reduction system produced by Goal Line Environmental Technologies
(now distributed by EmeraChem) for gas turbine applications. This system uses a coated catalyst
to oxidize both NOx and CO, thereby reducing plant emissions of these pollutants. CO emissions
are reduced in SCONOx™ by the oxidation of CO to carbon dioxide (CO2). A two-step process
E-1
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
reduces the NOx emissions. First, NOx emissions are oxidized to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
then adsorbed onto the catalyst. In the second step, a proprietary regenerative gas is passed
through the catalyst periodically. This gas de-desorbs the NO2 from the catalyst and reduces it to
nitrogen (N2). The system does not use ammonia as a reagent; rather, it uses natural gas as the
basis for a proprietary catalyst regeneration process.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RECENT NOX BACT DETERMINATIONS
FOR COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS IN COMBINED CYCLE
CONFIGURATIONS
Name
Location
Emission Limit1
NOx
CO
ROC
Control(s)
On-Line
Date
Projects Recently Coming On-Line
PICO
CA
2.0 ppm
4.0 ppm
2 ppm
Metcalf
CA
2.5 ppm
6.0 ppm
2 ppm
Pastoria – Phase 1
CA
2.5 ppm
3.0 ppm
6 ppm
Magnolia
CA
2.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
2 ppm
Malburg
CA
2.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
2 ppm
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
Projects Recently Permitted by CEC
East Altamont
CA
2.0 ppm
6.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SMUD Consumnes
CA
2.0 ppm
4.0 ppm
1.4 ppm
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
Inland Empire
CA
2.0 ppm
3.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
San Joaquin
CA
2.0 ppm
4.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
Roseville
CA
2.0 ppm
4.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
SCR with ammonia
CO oxidation catalyst
Notes:
1
All emission limits are in ppm by volume referenced to 15% O2
SCR = selective catalytic reduction
NOx = nitrogen oxides
ROC = reactive organic compounds
CO = carbon monoxide
ppm = parts per million
CA = California
E-2
March 05
May 05
July 05
September 05
2 October 05
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
As demonstrated by an initial installation on several gas turbines where energy is recovered from
the exhaust gas to produce steam, SCONOx™ is capable of achieving NOx emission
concentrations of 2 ppm based on a maximum inlet concentration of 25 ppm, and 90 percent CO
reduction based on a maximum inlet concentration of 50 ppm. However, the effectiveness of the
SCONOx™ technology has not been demonstrated on turbines as large as the GE 7EA turbine
proposed for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower Project.
Vendors of the SCONOx™ technology have stated that it is commercially ready for any size
turbine. However, the largest turbine that SCONOx™ has actually been applied to thus far is a
GE LM2500, approximately 25 MW in capacity, or about 1/5th the size of the Project. The Otay
Mesa Power Project (which would have used frame 7F turbines in a combined cycle
configuration) was permitted with a commitment to use the SCONOx™ technology as the
primary NOx and CO control method if possible, but construction of that project has been
postponed for several years. The Application for Certification (AFC) filed in 2000 for the Nueva
Azalea Project also proposed to use the SCONOx™ technology, but ultimately, this project was
never built.
SCONOx™ would not require an oxidation catalyst or the use of ammonia reagent to control CO
and NOx emissions. The SCONOx™ technology employs a reactive catalyst that must be
regenerated on a regular basis. The catalyst reacts with CO and NOx to form CO2, which is
emitted, and NO2, which is absorbed on the surface of the catalyst until it is saturated. Prior to
saturation, the catalyst is regenerated. This is accomplished by sealing off the catalyst from the
exhaust stream by means of a pair of mechanical louver doors and subjecting it to a mixture of
natural gas and steam that forms hydrogen to produce elemental nitrogen and CO2, which are
emitted through the stack.
The manufacturer of SCONOx™ recommends that the catalyst in each module be removed and
put through a regenerative bathing process once a year. An on-line catalyst washing system
design has not yet been fully developed. There is some concern that the bathing process may
result in an additional hazardous waste stream. The time required for this process is not clearly
known, but it is likely to be approximately 1 to 2 weeks. Also, there may be a requirement that
liquefied natural gas be stored on-site for use during the regular regeneration process of the
catalyst throughout the year.
For large gas turbines, an assembly of multiple SCONOx™ modules would be required to
control NOx and CO to 2 ppm each. For example, proposals for installation of the technology on
frame 7F turbine have specified up to 15 such modules, with a capital cost of $26 million (Three
Mountain Power Plant, 99-AFC-2). Testing has not yet been conducted to demonstrate the
successful operation of the louver doors used by each module under realistic flow and emissions
conditions that would be found in large turbines. Also, control algorithms have not yet been
developed nor tested for controlling large numbers of SCONOx™ modules. Due to the lack of
appropriate testing and information, some heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) manufacturers
have expressed reluctance to issue guarantees for their equipment if SCONOx™ is installed
(Beck 2000).
Although the SCONOx™ technology has been demonstrated to be an effective NOx and CO
emission abatement system on a few small combined cycle turbine installations and does not
require the use of ammonia reagent, an SCR system has virtually the same NOx emissions
E-3
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
guarantee as the SCONOx™ at a much lower price, and has been successfully demonstrated
extensively on large frame-type turbines.
Potential advantages of the SCONOx™ process include:
•
No ammonia. The SCONOx™ process does not use ammonia. This eliminates the
ammonia storage and transportation safety issues entirely and the potential for ammonia slip
or ammonia-based particulate formation.
•
Carbon monoxide reduction. SCONOx™ will reduce CO emissions as well as NOx
emissions.
Potential disadvantages of the SCONOx™ process include:
•
Unproven for large gas turbines. While demonstrated to be effective on smaller turbines,
several aspects of the technology have not been demonstrated for a system configured for a
larger turbine.
•
Catalyst “washing.” A proprietary catalyst washing system must be used and an on-line
catalyst washing system design has not yet been fully developed. If an on-line catalyst
washing system is not used, then the facility must be shut down for cleaning.
•
High capital and operating cost. SCONOx™ is significantly more expensive than SCR
with ammonia injection, primarily due to the higher cost of initial and replacement catalyst.
The SCONOx™ catalyst is a precious metal catalyst, which is very expensive.
Because the performance of SCONOx™ has not been sufficiently demonstrated as “achieved in
practice” on large combined cycle turbines, as discussed above, SCONOx™ does not represent
BACT for the ECGS Unit 3 Project at this time.
SCR with Ammonia Injection
SCR with ammonia injection systems for reduction of NOx emissions have been widely used in
combined cycle gas turbine applications for many years and are considered a proven technology.
SCR systems are commercially available from several vendors, unlike SCONOx™, which is
available from a single vendor. The SCR process involves the injection of ammonia into the flue
gas stream via an ammonia injection grid upstream of a catalyst. The ammonia reacts with the
NOx gases in the presence of the catalyst. The catalyst is not regenerated and requires periodic
replacement. SCR vendors typically offer a 3-year guarantee on catalyst life. SCR with
ammonia injection systems have been used in numerous larger combined cycle applications
including 7EA Class units.
The Project will use DLE and SCR and ammonia injection designed to achieve a NOx emission
limit of 2.0 ppm (at 15 percent O2) on a 3-hour average. As noted in Table 1, Summary of
Recent NOx BACT Determinations for Combustion Turbine Generators in Combined Cycle
Configurations, this level of NOx control is consistent with other recent similar projects, and is
considered to be BACT for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower Project. It has also been approved by
the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD).
E-4
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
E.2
OTHER TECHNOLOGIES
Technologies that cannot achieve a NOx emissions limit of 2.0 ppmvd (at 15 percent O2) in
practice were not considered as potential BACT candidates. These technologies include SCR
without DLE and DLE without SCR.
E.3
ASSESSMENT OF CO CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
The El Centro Unit 3 CTG is guaranteed to achieve 4 ppm (at 15 percent O2) over a 3-hour
average with natural gas fuel and use of a CO oxidation catalyst (except during unit startup and
shutdown). The ICAPCD has already confirmed that the use of a CO oxidation catalyst will
result in emissions of CO that will conform to current ICAPCD BACT requirements.
The following CO control technologies are evaluated:
•
Combustion design/control
•
CO oxidation catalyst
Combustion Design/Control
Gas turbine combustion technology has significantly improved over recent years with respect to
lowering CO emissions. This turbine design that will be used for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower
Project has been guaranteed by the manufacturer to achieve a CO rate of 25 ppm (at 15 percent
O2) without post-combustion control technologies under a wide range of operating conditions
(60 percent to 100 percent load) and ambient conditions (15°F to 115°F).
CO Oxidation Catalyst
CO oxidation catalysts have been used with natural-gas-fired turbines for over a decade when
uncontrolled CO emission levels are considered unacceptably high. CO oxidation catalysts
operate at elevated temperatures within the exhaust stream and are considered technically
feasible, having been successfully demonstrated in numerous combined cycle frame turbine
applications. Thus, installation of a CO oxidation catalyst on the Project turbines is considered
to be BACT for CO in the case of the El Centro Unit 3 Application.
E.4
ASSESSMENT OF ROC CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
The proposed BACT level of 2 ppmvd (at 15 percent O2) for ROC control achieved by a CO
oxidation catalyst is consistent with the most stringent level that has been demonstrated in
practice by the latest combined cycle units to come on-line in California and is therefore
considered to be BACT for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower Project.
E.5
ASSESSMENT OF SO2 AND PM10 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Sulfur dioxide and PM10 emissions will be controlled through the exclusive use of clean-burning
pipeline quality natural gas. This control technology has been widely and uniformly
implemented for control of SO2 and PM10 emissions from combustion turbines in California and
throughout the United States, and is considered to be BACT for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower
Project.
E-5
Attachment E
BACT Assessment
E.6
ASSESSMENT OF AMMONIA SLIP CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
The proposed BACT level of 5 ppmvd (at 15 percent O2) is the most rigorous control
requirement that has been imposed to date on any gas turbine power plant project in California,
and is thus considered to represent an appropriate BACT level for the El Centro Unit 3 Repower
Project.
E.7
COOLING TOWER DRIFT PM10 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
The Project will include improvements to the Unit 3 cooling tower, including a retrofitting of the
existing drift elimination system to achieve an extremely low level of PM10 emissions from this
source. Based on data provided by the cooling tower manufacturer, the new drift eliminator will
control drift to a level of no more than 0.001 percent of the circulating water flow rate. The
ICAPCD has already agreed that this level of control constitutes BACT for the cooling tower.
E.8
REFERENCES
Beck, R.W. 2000. Towantic Energy Project Revised BACT Analysis. February 18.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/htm/bl02.cfm
E-6
Attachment F
Certificates for Banked Emission
Reduction Credit to Offset Project Emissions
Attachment G
Letter from Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
Regarding Approval of Emission Reduction Package
Source Exif Data:
File Type : PDF File Type Extension : pdf MIME Type : application/pdf PDF Version : 1.6 Linearized : No Page Count : 154 Has XFA : No XMP Toolkit : XMP toolkit 2.9.1-13, framework 1.6 About : uuid:ddb29f25-fe9f-4adc-a0b8-2f942bd6876c Producer : Acrobat Distiller 7.0 (Windows) Create Date : 2006:04:07 16:54:40-06:00 Creator Tool : PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 Modify Date : 2006:05:15 15:34:36-06:00 Metadata Date : 2006:05:15 15:34:36-06:00 Document ID : uuid:184b3c27-631f-4d62-b3c3-afd71af1e2e6 Instance ID : uuid:fe7ee9d7-2413-4ec4-8744-e5cfa7e9da59 Format : application/pdf Creator : artorre0 Title : Microsoft Word - Fly Sheets.doc Author : artorre0EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools