Fly Sheets 3655BL D Appendix B Air Quality Data

User Manual: 3655BL

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 154 [warning: Documents this large are best viewed by clicking the View PDF Link!]

Appendix B

Air Quality Data

Appendix B

Air Quality Data

B-1

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

Attachment A

Windrose Figures

12%

16%

20%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 9.94%

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

Figure A-1

Windrose for All Months 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 13.34%

Figure A-2

Windrose for Winter Months (December – February) 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

12%

16%

20%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 7.90%

Figure A-3

Windrose for Spring Months (March – May) 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 6.42%

Figure A-4

Windrose for Summer Months (June – August) 1991 - 1995

Imperial County Airport

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 12.18%

Figure A-5

Windrose for Autumn Months (September – November) 1991 - 1995

Imperial County Airport

Attachment B

Supporting Information on Estimation

of Project Construction Emissions

EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION

TABLE B-1 EMISSION FACTOR FOR DIESEL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION 1

Range Average HC CO NOx PM

(Base-T3)

NOx

(Base-T2)

BSFC

(Base-T2) HC CO NOx PM HC CO NOx PM HC CO NOx HC CO NOx PM SO2

Air Compressor 185 CFM D 1 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3263 1.6097 4.7492 0.0578 0.3613 0.0054 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002

Air Compressor 750 CFM D 1 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3263 1.6097 4.7492 0.0578 0.3613 0.0054 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002

Articulating Boom Platform D 2 300-600 398 0.367 0.1669 0.8425 4.3351 0.1316 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.1953 0.8850 4.3546 0.0520 0.1107 0.0049 0.0083 0.0377 0.1857 0.0047 0.0002

Bulldozer D10R D 1 500 500 0.367 0.1669 0.8425 4.3351 0.1316 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.2050 1.3541 4.1369 0.0525 0.1477 0.0049 0.0087 0.0572 0.1747 0.0062 0.0002

Bulldozer D4C D 1 75-100 88 0.408 0.3672 2.3655 4.7 0.24 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.04 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.4511 3.8020 4.4851 0.0584 0.2503 0.0055 0.0171 0.1444 0.1704 0.0095 0.0002

Concrete Pumper Truck D 1 300-600 398 0.408 0.1669 0.8425 4.3351 0.1316 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.1953 0.8850 4.3546 0.0578 0.1049 0.0054 0.0075 0.0340 0.1671 0.0040 0.0002

Concrete Trowel Machine D 1 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3426 2.4628 4.5117 0.0584 0.4571 0.0055 0.0130 0.0935 0.1714 0.0174 0.0002

Concrete Vibrators D 1 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3426 2.4628 4.5117 0.0584 0.4571 0.0055 0.0130 0.0935 0.1714 0.0174 0.0002

Crane - Mobile 65 ton D 1 175-300 240 0.367 0.3085 0.7475 4 0.1316 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3609 0.7852 4.0180 0.0520 0.1107 0.0049 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002

Cranes - Mobile 35 ton D 1 100-175 140 0.367 0.3384 0.8667 4.1 0.18 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3959 0.9105 4.1185 0.0520 0.1706 0.0049 0.0169 0.0388 0.1757 0.0073 0.0002

Cranes - Mobile 45 ton D 1 100-175 140 0.367 0.3384 0.8667 4.1 0.18 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3959 0.9105 4.1185 0.0520 0.1706 0.0049 0.0169 0.0388 0.1757 0.0073 0.0002

Diesel Powered Welder D 4 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.7473 4.1369 5.2241 0.0682 0.7573 0.0064 0.0243 0.1345 0.1698 0.0246 0.0002

Dump Truck D 1 175-300 244 0.367 0.3085 0.7475 4 0.1316 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.04 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3790 1.2014 3.8171 0.0525 0.1167 0.0049 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0049 0.0002

Excavator - Backhoe/loader D 2 50-100 75 0.408 0.3672 2.3655 4.7 0.24 2.29 2.57 1.1 1.97 1.18 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.9838 6.3863 5.1933 0.0682 0.5164 0.0064 0.0320 0.2076 0.1688 0.0168 0.0002

Excavator - Earth Scraper 623 D 2 175-300 240 0.367 0.3085 0.7475 4 0.1316 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3790 1.2014 3.8171 0.0525 0.1477 0.0049 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0062 0.0002

Excavator - loader D 1 50-100 75 0.408 0.3672 2.3655 4.7 0.24 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.4511 3.8020 4.4851 0.0584 0.3067 0.0055 0.0171 0.1444 0.1704 0.0116 0.0002

Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H) D 1 100-175 140 0.367 0.3384 0.8667 4.1 0.18 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.4157 1.3930 3.9125 0.0525 0.2213 0.0049 0.0176 0.0588 0.1652 0.0093 0.0002

Excavator - Trencher (CAT320) D 1 50-100 75 0.408 0.3672 2.3655 4.7 0.24 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.4511 3.8020 4.4851 0.0584 0.3067 0.0055 0.0171 0.1444 0.1704 0.0116 0.0002

Forklift D 2 50-100 75 0.408 0.3672 2.3655 4.7 0.24 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.4511 3.8020 4.4851 0.0584 0.3067 0.0055 0.0171 0.1444 0.1704 0.0116 0.0002

Pile Driver Truck D 1 375 375 0.367 0.1669 0.8425 4.3351 0.1316 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.2050 1.3541 4.1369 0.0525 0.1477 0.0049 0.0087 0.0572 0.1747 0.0062 0.0002

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Plate G 1 11-16 13 0.74 4.16 352.57 2.77 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 0.266 0.231 0 0.266 1.13 1.12 1.00 1.13 4.7133 393.2918 2.7700 0.1048 0.0368 0.0097 0.0997 8.3189 0.0586 0.0008 0.0002

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram D 1 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3263 1.6097 4.7492 0.0578 0.3613 0.0054 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002

Portable Compaction Roller D 1 175-300 240 0.367 0.3085 0.7475 4 0.1316 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3790 1.2014 3.8171 0.0525 0.1477 0.0049 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0062 0.0002

Portable Power Generators D 2 25-50 40 0.408 0.2789 1.5323 4.7279 0.3389 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3263 1.6097 4.7492 0.0578 0.3613 0.0054 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002

Pumps G 2 3-6 5 0.781 6.13 351.16 1.83 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 0.266 0.231 0 0.266 1.13 1.12 1.00 1.13 6.9453 391.7190 1.8300 0.1106 0.0426 0.0102 0.1392 7.8507 0.0367 0.0009 0.0002

Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton D 1 175-300 240 0.367 0.3085 0.7475 4 0.1316 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3609 0.7852 4.0180 0.0520 0.1107 0.0049 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002

Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton D 1 175-300 240 0.367 0.3085 0.7475 4 0.1316 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.3609 0.7852 4.0180 0.0520 0.1107 0.0049 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002

Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton D 1 100-175 140 0.367 0.3384 0.8667 4.1 0.18 1.05 1.53 0.95 1.23 1.01 0.34 0.101 0.009 0.473 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.24 0.4157 1.3930 3.9125 0.0525 0.2213 0.0049 0.0176 0.0588 0.1652 0.0093 0.0002

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)

TAF (Table A-3)

Fuel

Type

BSFC

(lb/hp-hr)

(Table A-2)

EFss (Zero Hour Steady State Emission

Factor) - Tier 2

(g/hp-hr) (Table A-2) Adjusted

SO2 EF

(g/hp-hr) 5

Adjusted EF (lbs/gal) 6

PM Adj.

Factor 3Equipment Type

Unit

Count

Horsepower Adjusted

PM EF

(g/hp-hr) 4

"A" Factor (For Deterioration

Factor)

- Tier 2 (Table A-4)

DF (= 1 + A x Fraction

of Useful Life) Adjusted EF (g/hp-hr) 2

TABLE B-2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT USAGE

Equipment

Gasoline/

Diesel

Number

of Units

Hrs/Day

Per Unit

Gals/Hr

Per Unit

Daily

Fuel Use

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Air Compressor 185 CFM D 1 8 1.27 10.16 5 51 10.16 5 51 10.16 5 51 10.16 5 51 10.16 5 51 10.16 5 51 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16

Articulating Boom Platform D 2 8 0.25 4.00 000000010404.00 10 40 4.00 20 80 4.00

Bulldozer D4C D 1 8 3.00 24.00 0 0 5 120 24.00 10 240 24.00 10 240 24.00 5 120 24.00 0000

Concrete Pumper Truck D 1 4 3.13 12.52 00000056312.52 10 125 12.52 10 125 12.52 5 63 12.52

Concrete Trowel Machine D 1 8 1.27 10.16 00000055110.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 5 51 10.16

Concrete Vibrators D 1 8 0.25 2.00 0000005102.00 10 20 2.00 10 20 2.00 5 10 2.00

Cranes - Mobile 45 ton D 1 4 4.00 16.00 0 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 10 160 16.00 20 320 16.00 20 320 16.00

Diesel Powered Welder D 4 4 1.27 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 0000

Dump Truck D 1 8 3.13 25.04 5 125 25.04 10 250 25.04 20 501 25.04 20 501 25.04 20 501 25.04 20 501 25.04 10 250 25.04 5 125 25.04 0 0

Excavator - Backhoe/loader D 2 8 2.50 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 10 400 40.00 10 400 40.00 10 400 40.00 10 400 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00

Excavator - loader D 1 8 5.00 40.00 0 0 10 400 40.00 20 800 40.00 20 800 40.00 10 400 40.00 0000

Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H) D 1 8 6.00 48.00 0 0 5 240 48.00 10 480 48.00 10 480 48.00 5 240 48.00 0000

Excavator - Trencher (CAT320) D 1 6 6.60 39.60 5 198 39.60 5 198 39.60 10 396 39.60 10 396 39.60 10 396 39.60 10 396 39.60 5 198 39.60 5 198 39.60 0 0

Forklift D 2 8 2.50 40.00 0 0 0 5 200 40.00 10 400 40.00 20 800 40.00 20 800 40.00 20 800 40.00 20 800 40.00 20 800 40.00

Pile Driver Truck D 1 8 7.50 60.00 0 0 0 10 600 60.00 15 900 60.00 00000

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Plate G 1 8 0.25 2.00 000010202.00 10 20 2.00 10 20 2.00 10 20 2.00 0 0

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram D 1 8 0.25 2.00 000010202.00 10 20 2.00 10 20 2.00 10 20 2.00 0 0

Portable Compaction Roller D 1 8 10.00 80.00 0 0 5 400 80.00 10 800 80.00 10 800 80.00 5 400 80.00 5 400 80.00 0 0 0

Portable Power Generators D 2 8 1.27 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 5 102 20.32 0000

Pumps G 2 8 0.13 2.08 0 0 0 10 21 2.08 10 21 2.08 10 21 2.08 10 21 2.08 0 0 0

Tractor Truck 5th Wheel D 1 4 3.13 12.52 0 0 5 63 12.52 0 0 5 63 12.52 0000

Truck - Fuel/Lube D 1 4 3.13 12.52 0 0 5 63 12.52 5 63 12.52 5 63 12.52 5 63 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52

Truck - Water D 1 8 3.13 25.04 0 0 10 250 25.04 20 501 25.04 20 501 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04

Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton D 1 4 5.00 20.00 0000000510020.00 5 100 20.00 10 200 20.00

Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton D 1 4 7.50 30.00 0000000515030.00 5 150 30.00 10 300 30.00

Trucks - 3 ton D 2 2 1.56 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24

Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton G 4 2 0.78 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24

Total = 902 167.92 1107 183.92 3291 426.00 5460 515.56 6062 519.56 4214 472.08 2677 331.60 2624 303.52 2421 234.88 2588 234.88

Equipment

Gasoline/

Diesel

Number

of Units

Hrs/Day

Per Unit

Gals/Hr

Per Unit

Daily

Fuel Use

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Days

Gal/Month

Gal/Day

Total

Fuel

Usage

Total

Operating

Hours

h month 16th month 17th month 18th month 19th month 20th month

Air Compressor 185 CFM D 1 8 1.27 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 10 102 10.16 609.6 480

Air Compressor 750 CFM D 1 8 1.27 10.16 000000000000

Articulating Boom Platform D 2 8 0.25 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 20 80 4.00 10 40 4.00 10 40 4.00 80 320

Bulldozer D10R D 1 8 22.25 178.00 000000000000

Bulldozer D4C D 1 8 3.00 24.00 0000000000720240

Concrete Pumper Truck D 1 4 3.13 12.52 0000000000313100

Concrete Trowel Machine D 1 8 1.27 10.16 0000000000254200

Concrete Vibrators D 1 8 0.25 2.00 000000000050200

Crane - Mobile 65 ton D 1 4 4.00 16.00 000000000000

Cranes - Mobile 35 ton D 1 4 4.00 16.00 000000000000

Cranes - Mobile 45 ton D 1 4 4.00 16.00 20 320 16.00 20 320 16.00 10 160 16.00 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 5 80 16.00 0000960240

Diesel Powered Welder D 4 4 1.27 20.32 0000000000609.6 480

Dump Truck D 1 8 3.13 25.04 00000000002754.4 880

Excavator - Backhoe/loader D 2 8 2.50 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 2600 1040

Excavator - Earth Scraper 623 D 2 8 9.00 144.00 000000000000

Excavator - loader D 1 8 5.00 40.00 00000000002400 480

Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H) D 1 8 6.00 48.00 00000000001440 240

Excavator - Trencher (CAT320) D 1 6 6.60 39.60 00000000002376 360

Forklift D 2 8 2.50 40.00 20 800 40.00 20 800 40.00 10 400 40.00 10 400 40.00 10 400 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 5 200 40.00 3800 1520

Fusion Welder D 1 8 1.27 10.16 000000000000

Light Plants D 1 8 1.27 10.16 000000000000

Pile Driver Truck D 1 8 7.50 60.00 00000000001500 200

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Plate G 1 8 0.25 2.00 000000000080320

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram D 1 8 0.25 2.00 000000000080320

Portable Compaction Roller D 1 8 10.00 80.00 00000000002800 280

Portable Power Generators D 2 8 1.27 20.32 0000000000609.6 480

Pumps G 2 8 0.13 2.08 000000000083.2 640

Service Truck - 1 ton D 1 4 1.56 6.24 000000000000

Tractor Truck 5th Wheel D 1 4 3.13 12.52 0000000000125.2 40

Truck - Fuel/Lube D 1 4 3.13 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52 2 25 12.52 1 13 12.52 1 13 12.52 1 13 12.52 1 13 12.52 1 13 12.52 325.52 104

Truck - Water D 1 8 3.13 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 10 250 25.04 5 125 25.04 5 125 25.04 5 125 25.04 5 125 25.04 5 125 25.04 2253.6 720

Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton D 1 4 5.00 20.00 10 200 20.00 5 100 20.00 0000000020040

Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton D 1 4 7.50 30.00 10 300 30.00 5 150 30.00 0000000030040

Trucks - 3 ton D 2 2 1.56 6.24 0000000000561.6 360

Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton G 4 2 0.78 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 20 125 6.24 10 62 6.24 10 62 6.24 873.6 1120

Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton D 1 8 10.00 80.00 000000000000

Total = 2402 203.96 2152 203.96 1342 153.96 1262 153.96 1262 153.96 924 153.96 844 137.96 844 137.96 742 137.96 742 137.96 28759 11444

9th month8th month7th month6th month 10th month

11th month 12th month 14th month

1st month 5th month4th month3rd month2nd month

13th month

EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION

TABLE B-3 MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION

HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2

Air Compressor 185 CFM none 0.43 D 1 8 1.27 10.16 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 0.02 0.08 0.23 0.02 0.00

Air Compressor 750 CFM none 0.43 D 8 1.27 0.00 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Articulating Boom Platform 0.46 D 8 0.25 0.00 0.0083 0.0377 0.1857 0.0047 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bulldozer D10R High 0.59 D 8 22.25 0.00 0.0051 0.0572 0.1747 0.0062 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bulldozer D4C 0.59 D 1 8 3.00 24.00 0.0101 0.1444 0.1704 0.0095 0.0002 0.03 0.43 0.51 0.03 0.00

Concrete Pumper Truck D 4 3.13 0.00 0.0000 0.0340 0.1671 0.0040 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Concrete Trowel Machine High 0.59 D 8 1.27 0.00 0.0130 0.0935 0.1714 0.0174 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Concrete Vibrators High D 8 0.25 0.00 0.0130 0.0935 0.1714 0.0174 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crane - Mobile 65 ton none 0.43 D 4 4.00 0.00 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cranes - Mobile 35 ton none 0.43 D 4 4.00 0.00 0.0169 0.0388 0.1757 0.0073 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cranes - Mobile 45 ton none 0.43 D 1 4 4.00 16.00 0.0169 0.0388 0.1757 0.0073 0.0002 0.07 0.16 0.70 0.03 0.00

Diesel Powered Welder Low 0.21 D 4 4 1.27 20.32 0.0243 0.1345 0.1698 0.0246 0.0002 0.12 0.68 0.86 0.13 0.00

Dump Truck D 1 8 3.13 25.04 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0049 0.0002 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.02 0.00

Excavator - Backhoe/loader Low 0.21 D 2 8 2.50 40.00 0.0320 0.2076 0.1688 0.0168 0.0002 0.16 1.04 0.84 0.08 0.00

Excavator - Earth Scraper 623 High 0.59 D 8 9.00 0.00 0.0094 0.0299 0.0951 0.0037 0.0001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Excavator - loader High 0.59 D 1 8 5.00 40.00 0.0101 0.0852 0.1005 0.0069 0.0001 0.05 0.43 0.50 0.03 0.00

Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H) High 0.59 D 1 8 6.00 48.00 0.0104 0.0347 0.0975 0.0055 0.0001 0.06 0.21 0.58 0.03 0.00

Excavator - Trencher (CAT320) High 0.59 D 1 6 6.60 39.60 0.0101 0.0852 0.1005 0.0069 0.0001 0.07 0.56 0.66 0.05 0.00

Forklift High 0.59 D 2 8 2.50 40.00 0.0171 0.1444 0.1704 0.0116 0.0002 0.09 0.72 0.85 0.06 0.00

Pile Driver Truck High 0.59 D 1 8 7.50 60.00 0.0087 0.0572 0.1747 0.0062 0.0002 0.06 0.43 1.31 0.05 0.00

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram none D 1 8 0.25 2.00 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00

Portable Compaction Roller none D 1 8 10.00 80.00 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0062 0.0002 0.16 0.51 1.61 0.06 0.00

Portable Power Generators none D 2 8 1.27 20.32 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 0.03 0.16 0.46 0.04 0.00

Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton none D 4 5.00 0.00 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton none D 4 7.50 0.00 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton none D 8 10.00 0.00 0.0176 0.0588 0.1652 0.0093 0.0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Daily

Fuel

Usage

(gal)

NR-009c

Load

Factor 2

SCAQMD

CEQA Typical

Load Factor 3

Equipment

Gals/Hr

Per Unit

Hrs/Day

Per Unit

Number

of UnitsFuel Type

LF Adjusted EF (lbs/gal fuel) 4Emission Rate for 1-HR Standards (lbs/hr) 5

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

Equipment

TABLE B-3 CONTINUED MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION

HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2

0.13 0.63 1.85 0.14 0.00 0.005 0.026 0.077 0.006 0.000 0.0020 0.0099 0.0292 0.0022 0.0000 0.0007 0.0033 0.0097 0.0007 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.24 3.47 4.09 0.23 0.00 0.010 0.144 0.170 0.010 0.000 0.0038 0.0546 0.0644 0.0036 0.0001 0.0013 0.0182 0.0215 0.0012 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.27 0.62 2.81 0.12 0.00 0.011 0.026 0.117 0.005 0.000 0.0085 0.0196 0.0885 0.0037 0.0001 0.0014 0.0033 0.0148 0.0006 0.0000

0.49 2.73 3.45 0.50 0.00 0.021 0.114 0.144 0.021 0.000 0.0156 0.0861 0.1087 0.0158 0.0001 0.0026 0.0143 0.0181 0.0026 0.0000

0.40 1.27 4.04 0.12 0.01 0.017 0.053 0.168 0.005 0.000 0.0063 0.0200 0.0636 0.0019 0.0001 0.0021 0.0067 0.0212 0.0006 0.0000

1.28 8.31 6.75 0.67 0.01 0.053 0.346 0.281 0.028 0.000 0.0202 0.1308 0.1064 0.0106 0.0001 0.0067 0.0436 0.0355 0.0035 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.40 3.41 4.02 0.27 0.00 0.017 0.142 0.168 0.011 0.000 0.0064 0.0537 0.0633 0.0043 0.0001 0.0021 0.0179 0.0211 0.0014 0.0000

0.50 1.67 4.68 0.26 0.01 0.021 0.069 0.195 0.011 0.000 0.0078 0.0262 0.0737 0.0042 0.0001 0.0026 0.0087 0.0246 0.0014 0.0000

0.40 3.37 3.98 0.27 0.00 0.017 0.141 0.166 0.011 0.000 0.0084 0.0709 0.0836 0.0057 0.0001 0.0021 0.0177 0.0209 0.0014 0.0000

0.69 5.78 6.81 0.47 0.01 0.029 0.241 0.284 0.019 0.000 0.0108 0.0910 0.1073 0.0073 0.0001 0.0036 0.0303 0.0358 0.0024 0.0000

0.52 3.43 10.48 0.37 0.01 0.022 0.143 0.437 0.016 0.001 0.0082 0.0540 0.1651 0.0059 0.0002 0.0027 0.0180 0.0550 0.0020 0.0001

0.03 0.12 0.36 0.03 0.00 0.001 0.005 0.015 0.001 0.000 0.0004 0.0019 0.0057 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001 0.0006 0.0019 0.0001 0.0000

1.28 4.06 12.90 0.50 0.02 0.053 0.169 0.537 0.021 0.001 0.0202 0.0639 0.2031 0.0079 0.0003 0.0067 0.0213 0.0677 0.0026 0.0001

0.25 1.25 3.70 0.28 0.00 0.011 0.052 0.154 0.012 0.000 0.0040 0.0198 0.0583 0.0044 0.0001 0.0013 0.0066 0.0194 0.0015 0.0000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.88 40.12 69.93 4.24 0.09 0.1225 0.7024 1.2209 0.0779 0.0015 0.0361 0.2106 0.3671 0.0223 0.0005

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

Modeled Emission Rates for 24-HR Standards (g/s)Daily Emissions (lbs) 6Emission Rate for 24-HR Standards (lbs/hr) 7Modeled Emission Rates for 1-HR Standards (g/s)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION

TABLE B-4 EMISSION RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION - ANNUAL

HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2 HC CO NOx PM SO2

Air Compressor 185 CFM 610 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 7.6314 37.6452 111.0678 8.4489 0.1267 0.0009 0.0043 0.0127 0.0010 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0000

Air Compressor 750 CFM 0 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 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

Articulating Boom Platform 80 0.0083 0.0377 0.1857 0.0047 0.0002 0.6663 3.0198 14.8579 0.3779 0.0166 0.0001 0.0003 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

Bulldozer D10R 0 0.0051 0.0572 0.1747 0.0062 0.0002 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

Bulldozer D4C 720 0.0101 0.1444 0.1704 0.0095 0.0002 7.2789 103.9793 122.6613 6.8446 0.1495 0.0008 0.0119 0.0140 0.0008 0.0000 0.0001 0.0015 0.0018 0.0001 0.0000

Concrete Pumper Truck 313 0.0000 0.0340 0.1671 0.0040 0.0002 0.0000 10.6276 52.2900 1.2601 0.0651 0.0000 0.0012 0.0060 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000

Concrete Trowel Machine 254 0.0130 0.0935 0.1714 0.0174 0.0002 3.3057 23.7612 43.5291 4.4098 0.0528 0.0004 0.0027 0.0050 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000

Concrete Vibrators 50 0.0130 0.0935 0.1714 0.0174 0.0002 0.6507 4.6774 8.5687 0.8681 0.0104 0.0001 0.0005 0.0010 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000

Crane - Mobile 65 ton 0 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002 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

Cranes - Mobile 35 ton 0 0.0169 0.0388 0.1757 0.0073 0.0002 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

Cranes - Mobile 45 ton 960 0.0169 0.0388 0.1757 0.0073 0.0002 16.2109 37.2782 168.6259 6.9848 0.1994 0.0019 0.0043 0.0192 0.0008 0.0000 0.0002 0.0005 0.0024 0.0001 0.0000

Diesel Powered Welder 610 0.0243 0.1345 0.1698 0.0246 0.0002 14.8101 81.9900 103.5378 15.0100 0.1265 0.0017 0.0094 0.0118 0.0017 0.0000 0.0002 0.0012 0.0015 0.0002 0.0000

Dump Truck 2,754 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0049 0.0002 44.0814 139.7409 443.9749 13.5779 0.5722 0.0050 0.0160 0.0507 0.0015 0.0001 0.0006 0.0020 0.0064 0.0002 0.0000

Excavator - Backhoe/loader 2,600 0.0320 0.2076 0.1688 0.0168 0.0002 83.1650 539.8444 438.9924 43.6547 0.5389 0.0095 0.0616 0.0501 0.0050 0.0001 0.0012 0.0078 0.0063 0.0006 0.0000

Excavator - Earth Scraper 623 0 0.0094 0.0299 0.0951 0.0037 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

Excavator - loader 2,400 0.0101 0.0852 0.1005 0.0069 0.0001 24.2630 204.4925 241.2339 16.4936 0.2941 0.0028 0.0233 0.0275 0.0019 0.0000 0.0003 0.0029 0.0035 0.0002 0.0000

Excavator - Motor Grader (CAT140H) 1,440 0.0104 0.0347 0.0975 0.0055 0.0001 14.9148 49.9768 140.3685 7.9383 0.1765 0.0017 0.0057 0.0160 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.0007 0.0020 0.0001 0.0000

Excavator - Trencher (CAT320) 2,376 0.0101 0.0852 0.1005 0.0069 0.0001 24.0204 202.4476 238.8216 16.3287 0.2912 0.0027 0.0231 0.0273 0.0019 0.0000 0.0003 0.0029 0.0034 0.0002 0.0000

Forklift 3,800 0.0171 0.1444 0.1704 0.0116 0.0002 65.1126 548.7794 647.3792 44.2626 0.7893 0.0074 0.0626 0.0739 0.0051 0.0001 0.0009 0.0079 0.0093 0.0006 0.0000

Fusion Welder 0 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

Light Plants 0 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

Pile Driver Truck 1,500 0.0087 0.0572 0.1747 0.0062 0.0002 12.9874 85.7722 262.0365 9.3527 0.3119 0.0015 0.0098 0.0299 0.0011 0.0000 0.0002 0.0012 0.0038 0.0001 0.0000

Portable Compaction - Vibratory Ram 80 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 1.0015 4.9403 14.5758 1.1088 0.0166 0.0001 0.0006 0.0017 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000

Portable Compaction Roller 2,800 0.0160 0.0507 0.1612 0.0062 0.0002 44.8112 142.0544 451.3250 17.4583 0.5817 0.0051 0.0162 0.0515 0.0020 0.0001 0.0006 0.0020 0.0065 0.0003 0.0000

Portable Power Generators 610 0.0125 0.0618 0.1822 0.0139 0.0002 7.6314 37.6452 111.0678 8.4489 0.1267 0.0009 0.0043 0.0127 0.0010 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0000

Truck Crane - Greater than 200 ton 200 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002 3.0789 6.6982 34.2736 0.9447 0.0416 0.0004 0.0008 0.0039 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000

Truck Crane - Greater than 300 ton 300 0.0154 0.0335 0.1714 0.0047 0.0002 4.6183 10.0473 51.4103 1.4170 0.0623 0.0005 0.0011 0.0059 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000

Vibratory Roller Ingersol-Rand 20 ton 0 0.0176 0.0588 0.1652 0.0093 0.0002 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

Total 380.2 2275.4 3700.6 225.2 4.5 0.0055 0.0327 0.0532 0.0032 0.0001

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)

Emission Rate - Annual (lbs/hr) 3Modeled Annual Emission Rate (g/s)Project Emissions (lbs) 2

Equipment

Total Fuel

Usage (gal)

LF Adjusted EF (lbs/gal fuel) 1

EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION

TABLE B-5 EMISSION RATES FOR GASOLINE POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1

gal/hr/ Unit

lbs/hr/ Unit

MMBtu /hr/

Unit 4TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2

Portable Compaction -

Vibratory Plate G 1 8 0.25 1.78 0.0360 3.03 62.7 1.63 0.1 0.084 0.109 2.259 0.059 0.004 0.003 0.036 0.753 0.020 0.001 0.001

Pumps2G 2 8 0.13 0.92 0.0187 0.162 7.222 0.048 0.001 0.059 0.054 2.407 0.016 0.000 0.020

Total

Equipment ER For 24-HR Standards (g/s)

TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2

Portable Compaction -

Vibratory Plate 0.0138 0.2847 0.0074 0.0005 0.0004 0.0046 0.0949 0.0025 0.0002 0.0001 0.0005 0.0104 0.0003 0.00002 0.00001

Pumps 0.0204 0.9100 0.0061 0.0002 0.0074 0.0068 0.3033 0.0020 0.0001 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0138 0.2847 0.0074 0.0005 0.0004 0.0046 0.0949 0.0025 0.0002 0.0001 0.0005 0.0104 0.0003 0.00002 0.00001

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).

TABLE B-6 EMISSION CALCULATION FOR GASOLINE POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2

Portable Compaction -

Vibratory Plate 8 320 0.9 18.1 0.5 0.03 0.02 34.9 723.0 18.8 1.2 1.0

Pumps 8 640 1.3 57.8 0.4 0.01 0.5 103.6 4622.0 31.0 0.8 37.5

Total 2.2 75.8 0.9 0.04 0.5 138.6 5345.0 49.8 1.9 38.5

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

Daily Emissions (lbs) 1Project Emissions (lbs) 2

ER For Annual Standards (g/s) 6

ER For 24-HR Standards (lbs/hr) 5

Daily Op.

Hours

Actual Fuel Input EF (lb/MMBtu) ER For 1-HR Standards (lbs/hr)

Equipment Daily Op.

Hours

Total Op.

Hours /

Project

Equipment Fuel Number of

Units

EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE FUGITIVE DUST (PM10)

Constants:

Material silt content (s) (%) 8.5 AP-42, Table 13.2.2-1 for construction site, used for emission calculation of material handling.

Material moisture content (M) (%) 8 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.

Mean Vehicle Speed (S) (mph) 5

PM10 Scaling Factor 0.75 For bulldozing and grading only. AP-42, Table 11.9-1.

Mean Wind Speed (mph) 7.4 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.

Water Suppression Control Efficiency 90% Daily multiple watering

TABLE B-7 EMISSIONS FROM BULLDOZING AND DIRT PUSHING OPERATION

24-HR (lbs/hr) 24-HR (g/s)

nnual (g/s)

Excavator - Trencher 0.0455 1 6 360 0.27 16.38 0.0114 0.0014 0.0002

Excavator - Backhoe/Loader 0.0455 2 8 1040 0.73 47.33 0.0303 0.0038 0.0007

Excavator - Loader 0.0455 1 8 480 0.36 21.84 0.0152 0.0019 0.0003

Bulldozer (D4c) 0.0455 1 8 240 0.36 10.92 0.0152 0.0019 0.0002

Dump Truck 0.0455 1 8 880 0.36 40.05 0.0152 0.0019 0.0006

Excavator - Motor Grader 0.0455 1 8 240 0.36 10.92 0.0152 0.0019 0.0002

Total 2.46 147.44 0.0129 0.0021

1. Using bulldozer equation in AP-42, Table 11.9-1 for all equipment with the 90% control efficiency of water suppression .

TABLE B-8 EMISSIONS FROM AGGREGATE HANDLING AND STORAGE

Daily Dirt Handled (tons)

Uncontrolled EF

(lbs/ton) 1

Controlled EF

(lbs/ton) 2Daily PM10 EM

(lbs)

PM10

Emission/

Project (lbs)

ER for 24-HR

Standard

(lbs/hr)

No. Of Days

during

project

ER for Annual

Standard

(lbs/hr)

ER for

24-Hr Standard

(g/s)

ER for Annual

Standard (g/s)

508.2 0.0003 2.67716E-05 0.013605325 0.544 5.67E-04 40 6.21248E-05 7.14E-05 7.828E-06

1. Calculated using AP-42 Section 13.2.4, Equation. 1

2. Based on the control efficiency of 90% for daily water suppression.

TABLE B-9 EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROAD AND PARKING LOT

Vehicle Type

Mean Vehicle

Weight (tons)

Uncontr. PM10

EF (lbs/VMT) 1

Adj. PM10 EF

(lbs/VMT) -For

Annual Impact

2No. Of Unit

Round Trips

/Day/ Unit3

Round Trip

Distance

(mile)4Daily VMT (all

units)

Water

Suppression

Efficiency

Controlled ER for

24-HR Standard

(lbs/hr)

Daily

Emissions

(lbs)

Total No. of

Days

Operated VMT/ Project

Project ER

(lbs)

Controlled ER

for Annual

Standard

(lbs/hr)

Controlled ER

for 24-HR

Standard (g/s)

Controlled ER

for Annual

Standard (g/s)

Dump trucks 22.7 2.73 2.64 1 8 0.53 4.24 0.9 0.048 1.159 110 466.4 123.33 0.0141 0.0061 0.0018

Service trucks 4 1.25 1.21 1 2 0.53 1.06 0.9 0.006 0.133 43 45.58 5.52 0.0006 0.0007 0.0001

Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton 1 0.67 0.65 4 2 0.53 4.24 0.9 0.012 0.284 340 1441.6 93.52 0.0107 0.0015 0.0013

Water Truck 29 3.05 2.95 1 16 0.53 8.48 0.9 0.108 2.589 175 1484.00 438.12 0.050 0.014 0.006

Light Delivery Trucks55 1.38 1.34 1 1 0.30 0.30 0.9 0.002 0.042 65 19.35 2.59 0.000 0.000 0.0000

Heavy Delivery Trucks510 1.89 1.83 1 1 0.30 0.30 0.9 0.002 0.057 35 10.50 1.92 0.0002 0.0003 0.00003

Total Unpaved Road 0.0224 0.0096

Worker's Vehicles in Parking lot

1 0.67 0.65 60 1 0.50 30.00 0.9 0.084 2.012 430 12900 836.90 0.0955 0.0106 0.0120

1. AP-42, Section 13.2.2, Equation 1a. 6.276 1501.90

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.

6. Average number of workers (75)/1.25 persons per vehicle.

Equipment

Controlled PM10

EF (lbs/hr) 1No. Of Unit Hrs/Day/ Unit

Total Op.

Hours

Daily

Emissions

(lbs)

Project

Emission

(lbs)

PM10 Emission Rate

EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED ONROAD VEHICLES

TABLE B-10 EMISSION FACTOR FOR ONROAD VEHICLES

TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2

On-Site Vehicles

Truck - Water D 1 58000 HHD 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 3.58E-02 9.00E-04 4.76E-05

Dump Truck D 1 45400 HHD 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 3.58E-02 9.00E-04 4.76E-05

Service Truck - 1 ton D 1 8000 LHD 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 3.58E-02 9.00E-04 4.76E-05

Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton G 4 2000 LHD 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 3.58E-02 9.00E-04 4.76E-05

Highway Vehicles (Off-site)

Worker's Vehicles 2G/D 60 2000 LDA/LDT 2.30E-03 1.96E-02 2.20E-03 8.16E-05 3.93E-06

Light Delivery Trucks D 1 10000 LDH 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 3.58E-02 9.00E-04 4.76E-05

Heavy Duty Delivery Trucks D 1 20000 MDH 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 3.58E-02 9.00E-04 4.76E-05

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.

TABLE B-11 EMISSION CALCULATION FOR ONROAD VEHICLES

TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2

On-Site Vehicles

Truck - Water 720 16 0.53 8.48 1.78E-02 7.12E-02 3.04E-01 7.63E-03 4.04E-04 1.01E-01 4.04E-01 1.72E+00 4.33E-02 2.29E-03

Dump Truck 880 8 0.53 4.24 8.90E-03 3.56E-02 1.52E-01 3.82E-03 2.02E-04 1.23E-01 4.94E-01 2.10E+00 5.29E-02 2.80E-03

Service Truck 104 2 0.53 1.06 2.23E-03 8.90E-03 3.79E-02 9.54E-04 5.05E-05 1.46E-02 5.83E-02 2.49E-01 6.25E-03 3.31E-04

Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton 1,120 2 0.53 4.24 8.90E-03 3.56E-02 1.52E-01 3.82E-03 2.02E-04 6.28E-01 2.51E+00 1.07E+01 2.69E-01 1.42E-02

Total Total 0.04 lbs 0.15 lbs 0.65 lbs 0.02 lbs 0.00 lbs 0.87 3.47 14.78 0.37 0.02

Highway Vehicles (Off-site) Total Days

Worker's Vehicles 2430 1 20 1200 2.8 23.5 2.6 0.1 4.72E-03 1,187 10,114 1,135 42 2

Light Delivery Trucks 65 1 15 15 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.014 7.14E-04 2 8 35 1 0

Heavy Duty Delivery Trucks 35 1 15 15 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.014 7.14E-04 1 4 19 0 0

Total Total 0.03 lbs 0.13 lbs 0.54 lbs 0.01 lbs 0.00 lbs 1,190 lbs 10,126 lbs 1,189 lbs 43 lbs 2 lbs

0.6 tons 5.1 tons 0.6 tons 0.0 tons 0.001 tons

TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2 TOG CO NOx PM10 SO2

On-Site Vehicles

Truck - Water 720 16 0.53 8.48 1.40E-04 5.61E-04 2.39E-03 6.01E-05 3.18E-06 9.35E-05 3.74E-04 1.59E-03 4.01E-05 2.12E-06 1.45E-06 5.81E-06 2.48E-05 6.22E-07 3.29E-08

Dump Truck 880 8 0.53 4.24 1.40E-04 5.61E-04 2.39E-03 6.01E-05 3.18E-06 4.67E-05 1.87E-04 7.97E-04 2.00E-05 1.06E-06 1.78E-06 7.10E-06 3.03E-05 7.61E-07 4.02E-08

Service Truck - 1 ton 104 2 0.53 1.06 1.40E-04 5.61E-04 2.39E-03 6.01E-05 3.18E-06 1.17E-05 4.67E-05 1.99E-04 5.01E-06 2.65E-07 2.10E-07 8.39E-07 3.58E-06 8.99E-08 4.76E-09

Trucks - Pickup 3/4 ton 1,120 2 0.53 4.24 5.61E-04 2.24E-03 9.56E-03 2.40E-04 1.27E-05 4.67E-05 1.87E-04 7.97E-04 2.00E-05 1.06E-06 9.04E-06 3.61E-05 1.54E-04 3.87E-06 2.05E-07

Total Total 9.82E-04 3.93E-03 1.67E-02 4.21E-04 2.23E-05 1.99E-04 7.95E-04 3.39E-03 8.51E-05 4.50E-06 1.25E-05 4.99E-05 2.13E-04 5.35E-06 2.83E-07

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.

TABLE B-12 EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON PAVED ROAD

Vehicle Type

Mean Vehicles

Speed (mph)

[Vehicles

Weight (tons)]

Total No. Of

Trips / Day

PM10 EF

(lbs/VMT) 1

Round Trip

Distance

(mile)

Daily VMT

(all units)

Total No.

of Days

Operated

VMT/

Project

Daily

Emissions

(lbs)

Project

Emissions

(lbs)

ER for 24-

Standard

(lbs/hr)

ER for Annual

Standard

(lbs/hr)

ER for 24-HR

Standard

(g/s)

ER for

Annual

Standard

(g/s)

Worker's Vehicles 145 60 0.0138 20 1200 430 516000 16.5041 7096.74 0.6877 0.8101 0.0866 0.1021

Light Delivery Trucks 30 1 0.0893 15 15 65 967.5 1.3391 86.37

Heavy Duty Delivery Trucks

[18] 1 0.0709 15 15 35 525 1.0641 37.24 0.0443 0.0043 0.0056 0.0005

Total 19 7,220 Total 0.0922 0.1026

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

Silt Loading 0.04 oz/y

1.356 g/m

SCAQMD CEQA Table A9-9-C-1.

Daily Total

VMT Onroad Vehicles (Access Road)

Total Op.

Hours /

Project

Trips or

Hours / Day

/ Unit

Round Trip

Distance

(mile)

24-HR Emission Rate (g/s)

Project Emissions (lbs)

Annual Emission Rate (g/s)1-HR Emission Rate (g/s)

EF (lbs/VMT)

Vehicle

Type

Daily Emissions (lbs) 1

Daily Total

VMT

Onroad Vehicle Fuel Type

Vehicle

Count Weight (lbs)

Onroad Vehicles (Access Road)

Total Op.

Hours /

Project

Trips or

Hours / Day

/ Unit

Round Trip

Distance

(mile)

SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES IN CONSTRUCTION MODELING

TABLE B-13 COMBUSTION EMISSION RATE FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Diesel Equip. Gasoline Equip.

Service Road

(ROADC1-

ROADC6)

Construction

Area Total Diesel Equip. Gasoline Equip.

Service Road

(ROADC1-ROADC6)

Construction

Area Total

PM10 0.0779 0.0005 2.104E-05 0.0784 0.0223 0.0002 4.257E-06 0.0224

NOx 1.2209 0.0074 8.368E-04 1.2283 0.3671 0.0025 1.693E-04 0.3696

CO 0.7024 0.2847 1.963E-04 0.9870 0.2106 0.0949 3.973E-05 0.3055

SO2 0.0015 0.0004 1.113E-06 0.0019 0.0005 1.271E-04 2.252E-07 5.78E-04

Construction Area Long-

Term ER

(MAIN1C - MAIN4C)

(g/s)

Diesel Equip. Gasoline Equip.

Service Road

(ROADC1-

ROADC6)

Construction

Area Total Annual 1-HR/3-HR/8-HR 24-HR

PM10 0.0032 1.66E-05 5.35E-06 0.00326 8.14E-04 1.96E-02 5.60E-03

NOx 0.0532 0.0003 2.126E-04 0.0535 1.34E-02 3.07E-01 9.24E-02

CO 0.0327 0.0104 4.990E-05 0.0431 1.08E-02 2.47E-01 7.64E-02

SO2 6.544E-05 1.393E-05 2.827E-07 7.937E-05 1.98E-05 4.69E-04 1.44E-04

TABLE B-14 FUGITIVE DUST (PM10) EMISSION RATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (g/s)

Activity

Bulldozing/ Dirt

Pushing

Aggregate

Handling/

Storage

Unpaved

Parking Lots

Total ER w/o

Parking Lots

(g/s)

Service Road ER1

(ROADD1-ROADD6)

Construction Area

Long-Term ER -

(MAIN1D - MAIN4D)

(g/s)

Construction Area Short

Term ER - (MAIND1 -

MAIND4)

(g/s)

Parking Lot ER

(PKLOT1D -

PKLOT2D)

(g/s)

24-HR 0.0129 7.14E-05 0.0106 0.01297 1.12E-03 0.0032 0.0053

Annual 0.0021 7.82772E-06 0.0120 2.129E-03 4.78E-04 5.321E-04 0.0060

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

1-HR/3-HR/8-HR

Construction Area Short-Term ER (MAINC1

MAINC4) (g/s)

Pollutant

24-HR

Annual

Pollutant

EMISSION INVENTORY

TABLE B-15 On-Site Daily Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions (lbs/day)

Activities VOC CO NOx PM10 SO2

Combustion Emissions

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 9.09 116.12 71.43 4.30 0.58

Unpaved Road Travel/Parking Area Fugitive

PM Emissions 6.28

Grading /Bulldozing Fugitive PM Emissions 2.46

Earth Loading/Storage Fugitive PM Emissions 0.014

Total Max. Daily Emissions (lbs) 9.09 116.12 71.43 13.04 0.58

TABLE B-16 On-Site Project Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions

Activities VOC CO NOx PM10 SO2

Combustion Emissions

Construction - Diesel 380.2 2,275.4 3,700.6 225.2 4.5

Construction - Gasoline 138.6 5,345.0 49.8 1.9 38.5

Construction - Trucks 0.9 3.5 14.8 0.4 0.0

Construction Combustion Subtotal 519.7 7,623.9 3,765.1 227.5 43.1

Unpaved Road Travel / Parking Area Fugitive

PM Emissions 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 2.40

Total (lbs) 2.79 23.65 3.18 19.03 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 7,096.7

Delivery Truck - Paved Road Dust 123.6

Total (lbs) 1,187.9 10,118.0 1,154.0 7,263.8 2.1

Total (tons) 0.6 5.1 0.6 3.6 0.001

TABLE B-19 WINTER EMISSIONS

Title : Imperial County Avg 2008 Winter El Centro version 2 Scen Year: 2008 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2008 I/M Stat : No I and M program in effect

Version : Emfac2002 V2.2 Apr 23 2003 Season : Winter Emissions: Tons Per Day

Run Date : 03/11/06 11:06:52 Area : Imperial County Average

Passenger Car (50%

)

Tech Group LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LHDT1-DSL LHDT2-DSL MHDT-DSL HHDT-DSL

Vehicle Info

VMT/1000 2543 1005 28 11 59 322

TOG Emissions

Run Exhaust 0.98 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.37

Idle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

Start Exhaust 0.65 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Diurnal 0.17 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hot Soak 0.26 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Running 0.63 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Resting 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Exhaust (tons/day) 2.75 1.25 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.4

EF (lbs/VMT) 0.0022 0.0025

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)

CO Emissions

Run Exhaust 16.25 8.58 0.04 0.02 0.16 1.39

Idle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16

Start Exhaust 6.16 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Exhaust (tons/day) 22.41 10.66 0.04 0.02 0.16 1.55

EF (lbs/VMT) 0.0176 0.0216

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)

NOx Emissions

Run Exhaust 2.16 0.96 0.16 0.07 0.70 6.08

Idle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.50

Start Exhaust 0.34 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Exhaust (tons/day) 2.50 1.07 0.16 0.07 0.71 6.58

EF (lbs/VMT) 0.0020 0.0024

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)

CO2 Emissions (1000)

Run Exhaust 0.97 0.46 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.77

Idle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

Start Exhaust 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Exhaust (tons/day) 1.00 0.48 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.79

EF (lbs/VMT) 0.0008 0.0010

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)

PM10 Emissions

Run Exhaust 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13

Idle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Start Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal Exhaust 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14

TireWear 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

BrakeWear 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Exhaust (tons/day) 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.16

EF (lbs/VMT) 0.0001 0.0001

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)

Lead Emissions

Lead Exhaust (tons/day) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT) 0.00 0.00

SOx Emissions

SOx (tons/day) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

EF (lbs/VMT) 0.00001 0.00

Weighted EF (lbs/VMT)

Fuel Consumption (x1000 gal)

Gasoline 106.37 50.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Diesel 0.16 0.75 1.47 0.57 8.89 71.43

Vehicle Class Worker Commuter Delivery Truck

Light-Duty Trucks (50%) Heavy Duty Trucks - Diesel

0.0023 0.0021

0.020 0.0084

0.0022 0.036

0.00

3.93E-06 4.76E-05

0.0009 0.0044

8.16E-05 0.0009

TABLE B-20 WINTER EMISSIONS DETAILS

Title : Imperial County Avg 2008 Winter El Centro version 2 Season : 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

- - - - H e a v y D u t y T r u c k s - - -

- - - 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 Trucks Trucks Buses cycles Vehicles

Vehicles 885 65236 185 66305 1228 44477 845 46550 262 8453 820 9535 647 2743 3389 4768 8157 248 2470 133265

VMT/1000 13 2525 4 2543 35 1669 29 1734 7 357 45 408 7 58 65 387 452 29 18 5184

Trips 3697 408635 1014 413346 5186 277823 5078 288087 2483 120209 9317 132009 12400 34225 46626 50800 97426 991 4940 936799

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 0.4 0.61 0.19 0.06 2.85

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.04

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 0 0.29 0.01 0.01 1.43

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

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 0.43 0.94 0.2 0.08 4.33

Diurnal 0.01 0.16 0 0.17 0.02 0.11 0 0.12 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.33

Hot Soak 0.02 0.24 0 0.26 0.03 0.17 0 0.2 0 0.03 0 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0.53

Running 0.09 0.54 0 0.63 0.07 0.62 0 0.69 0.02 0.15 0 0.17 0.06 0.13 0.2 0 0.2 0.01 0.02 1.71

Resting 0 0.05 0 0.06 0.01 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total 0.24 2.51 0 2.75 0.39 1.8 0.01 2.19 0.1 0.45 0.02 0.58 0.33 0.4 0.73 0.43 1.16 0.21 0.12 7

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

Run Exh 1.01 15.24 0 16.25 2.74 12.27 0.02 15.03 0.88 2.04 0.06 2.98 1.62 2.21 3.83 1.57 5.4 1.51 0.73 41.9

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.18 0 0 0.21

Start Ex 0.13 6.02 0 6.16 0.19 3.52 0 3.71 0.14 1.01 0 1.15 1.58 1.58 3.16 0 3.16 0.07 0.05 14.29

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total Ex 1.14 21.27 0 22.41 2.93 15.79 0.02 18.74 1.02 3.08 0.06 4.15 3.2 3.8 7 1.74 8.74 1.57 0.78 56.4

Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions

Run Exh 0.07 2.08 0.01 2.16 0.19 1.64 0.04 1.88 0.06 0.41 0.23 0.69 0.05 0.47 0.52 6.85 7.38 0.32 0.03 12.46

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.51 0 0 0.52

Start Ex 0.01 0.33 0 0.34 0.01 0.24 0 0.25 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.03 0.22 0.24 0 0.24 0 0 1.04

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total Ex 0.08 2.41 0.01 2.5 0.2 1.88 0.04 2.12 0.06 0.61 0.23 0.9 0.08 0.69 0.77 7.37 8.13 0.33 0.03 14.01

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (000)

Run Exh 0.01 0.96 0 0.97 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.8 0 0.29 0.02 0.32 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.88 0.93 0.04 0 3.06

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.03

Start Ex 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total Ex 0.01 0.99 0 1 0.02 0.8 0.01 0.83 0 0.3 0.02 0.33 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.9 0.96 0.04 0 3.16

PM10 Emissions

Run Exh 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.15 0.15 0 0 0.23

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0 0 0.02

Start Ex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total Ex 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0.25

TireWear 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.06

BrakeWr 0 0.03 0 0.04 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.07

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total 0 0.09 0 0.09 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 0 0 0 0

SOx 0 0.01 0 0.01 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

TABLE B-20 CONTINUED WINTER EMISSIONS DETAILS

Title : Imperial County Avg 2008 Winter El Centro versi

Season : 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

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

- - 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 Total Diesel Trks Gas Diesel Gas Diesel Buses

********** ********** ******** *********** ********* *********** *********** ********** ********* *********** ********* ********** ********** *********** ********* *********** ********* ********** *********** ********* ********** *********** ********* *********** ********* ************ ********* ************ ********* ********** *******

Vehicles 684 25688 635 27008 544 18789 210 19542 215 5938 157 6309 46 2229 453 2728 0 287 211 498 562 2487 1306 4355 3308 63 153 166 82 463

VMT/1000 20 964 22 1005 16 705 7 728 6 222 6 234 0 121 28 150 0 14 11 24 6 43 59 108 322 3 6 20 10 38

Trips 2879 160300 3828 167007 2307 117523 1249 121080 945 37034 972 38951 1534 73692 5695 80922 4 9482 2650 12136 9540 24158 33448 67145 16742 252 611 662 328 1854

---------- ---------- -------- ----------- --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- --------- ----------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- ------------ --------- ------------ --------- ---------- -------

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 0.14 0.37 0.01 0 0.18 0.01 0.21

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 0 0.03 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 0.17 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ------ ------- -------

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 0.32 0.4 0.02 0 0.19 0.01 0.22

Diurnal 0.01 0.06 0 0.07 0.01 0.04 0 0.05 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hot Soak 0.02 0.1 0 0.12 0.01 0.07 0 0.08 0 0.03 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0

Running 0.04 0.37 0 0.41 0.03 0.25 0 0.28 0.01 0.1 0 0.11 0.01 0.04 0 0.05 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.05 0.09 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01

Resting 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Total 0.22 1.03 0 1.25 0.17 0.77 0 0.94 0.07 0.32 0 0.39 0.03 0.1 0.01 0.14 0 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

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

Run Exh 1.52 7.04 0.01 8.58 1.22 5.23 0 6.46 0.82 1.81 0 2.63 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.25 0 0.08 0.02 0.09 1.02 1.31 0.16 2.49 1.39 0.25 0.02 1.47 0.04 1.78

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.16 0.01 0 0 0 0.01

Start Ex 0.1 1.98 0 2.08 0.08 1.54 0 1.62 0.06 0.58 0 0.64 0.08 0.34 0 0.41 0 0.09 0 0.09 0.73 0.83 0 1.56 0 0.02 0 0.07 0 0.09

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ------ ------- -------

Total Ex 1.63 9.01 0.01 10.66 1.3 6.78 0 8.08 0.88 2.39 0 3.28 0.14 0.51 0.04 0.69 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

Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions

Run Exh 0.11 0.82 0.03 0.96 0.09 0.82 0.01 0.92 0.05 0.35 0.01 0.41 0 0.05 0.16 0.21 0 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.19 0.7 0.92 6.08 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.19 0.41

Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.5 0 0.01 0 0 0.01

Start Ex 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0.13 0 0.14 0 0.05 0 0.05 0 0.13 0 0.13 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.01 0.1 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ------ ------- -------

Total Ex 0.11 0.93 0.03 1.07 0.09 0.95 0.01 1.05 0.06 0.39 0.01 0.46 0 0.18 0.16 0.34 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

(00 Carbon Dioxide Emissions (000)

Run Exh 0.01 0.45 0.01 0.46 0.01 0.33 0 0.34 0 0.14 0 0.15 0 0.13 0.02 0.15 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0.03 0.1 0.14 0.77 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06

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 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0

Start Ex 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 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

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ------ ------- -------

Total Ex 0.01 0.46 0.01 0.48 0.01 0.34 0 0.35 0 0.15 0 0.15 0 0.13 0.02 0.15 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

PM10 Emissions

Run Exh 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.01

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 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0

Start Ex 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 0

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ------ ------- -------

Total Ex 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.01

TireWear 0 0.01 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 0.01 0 0 0 0 0

BrakeWr 0 0.01 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 0

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ------ ------- -------

Total 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.16 0 0 0 0 0.01

Lead 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 0

SOx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0

Fuel Consumption (000 gallons)

Gasoline 1.39 48.96 0 50.35 1.11 35.96 0 37.07 0.57 15.58 0 16.14 0.1 13.88 0 13.99 0 1.58 0 1.58 1.01 3.84 0 4.85 0 0.28 0 1.96 0 2.24

Diesel 0 0 0.75 0.75 0 0 0.26 0.26 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.47 1.47 0 0 0.57 0.57 0 0 8.89 8.89 71.43 0 0.94 0 2.59 3.53

Project Emissions Data Files

Submitted on Separate DVDs

Attachment C

Supporting Information on Estimation

of Project Operation Emissions

TABLE C-1 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-2 Case Parameters

Case 1 2 3 4 5

Ambient Temperature (°F) 115 115 73 73 40

Stack Diameter (ft) 15 15 15 15 15

Exhaust Flow (lb/hr) 2240000 2077000 2358000 2302000 2481000

CTG Load Level 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evap. Coole

ON OFF ON OFF OFF

Data from Vendor Area = 176.71 ft2

TABLE C-3 Expected Operation of New Unit 3 Gas Turbine - Normal Operation

(Reference: Emission Summary GE PG7121 Turbine/Site Specific Information

Heat Consumed (MMBTU/hr) 824.3 748.4 877.4 850.1 928.5

Turbine Outlet Temperature (°F) 1016 1043 1006 1014 990

HRSG Stack Outlet Temperature (°F) 320 320 322 322 326

Exhaust Flow @ T stack (acfm) 751916 694103 790219 770302 832859

Stack Exit Velocity, ft/m 4255.0 3927.8 4471.7 4359.0 4713.0

Stack Exit Velocity, m/s 21.62 19.95 22.72 22.14 23.94

Nitrogen, % Vol 73.58 74.46 74.44 74.76 75.15

Oxygen, % Vol 13.64 13.99 13.77 13.91 13.91

Carbon Dioxide, % Vol 3.13 3.08 3.18 3.16 3.21

Argon, % Vol 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.90

Water Vapor, % Vol 8.77 7.58 7.72 7.28 6.83

Molecular Weigh

28.28 28.41 28.40 28.44 28.50

Data from Vendor

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

NOX at pre-BACT level 34.62 31.62 36.20 35.20

ppmvd 10.39 10.39 10.18 10.18

NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level 6.67 6.09 7.11 6.91

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

SO21.72 1.57 1.84 1.78

PM10 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level 12.39 11.44 13.11 12.88

NH3 at 5 ppmvd BACT leve

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).

TABLE C-5 Average Emission Rates from New Unit 3 Gas Turbine (lbs/hr) - Normal Operations with No Duct Firing

NOX at 9 ppmvd pre-BACT level 30.00 27.00 32.00 31.00 34.00

NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level 5.78 5.20 6.29 6.09 6.73

CO at 25 ppmvd pre BACT level 51.00 47.00 54.00 53.00 57.00

CO at 4.0 ppmvd BACT level 7.90 7.28 8.41 8.25 8.89

UHC at 7 ppmvd pre-BACT level 9.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 10.00

VOC at 7 ppmvd BACT level 1.80 1.60 1.80 1.80 2.00

VOC at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level 1.08 0.96 1.08 1.08 1.20

SO21.72 1.57 1.84 1.78 1.94

PM10 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level 12.39 11.41 13.11 12.87 13.84

NH3 at 5 ppmvd BACT leve

6.19 5.71 6.56 6.44 6.92

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-6 Startup / Shutdown Emissions from Turbine

Startup

duration in minutes 20 20 30 45 15 130 Average

CTG Purge Startup CTG Rampup HRSG Warmup SCR Warmup Total Startup Startup

Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions

lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/hour

0.00 21.00 39.33 24.00 4.79 89.12 41.13

CO 0.00 38.00 28.25 40.50 7.80 114.55 52.87

VOC 0.00 0.55 0.72 1.35 0.36 2.98 1.38

SO20.00 0.65 0.97 1.46 0.49 3.56 1.64

PM10 0.00 1.67 2.5 3.75 1.25 9.17 4.23

Assumptions:

Startup Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.

SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO

Shutdown

duration in minutes 30 30 60

Shutdown

G Load Ra

Total Shutdown

Emissions Emissions Emissions

lb/event lb/event lb/hour

25.00 39.33 64.33

CO 45.00 28.25 73.25

VOC 0.65 0.72 1.37

SO20.89 0.89 1.78

PM10 2.50 2.50 5.00

Assumptions:

Shutdown Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.

SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO

Commissioning Emission

Total Pounds Emitted

Hours NOxCO VOC PM10

CTG No Load Testing 40 1600.00 3600.00 50.00 200.00

CTG/HRSG Load Testing 200 20000.0 15000.00 400.00 1000.00

Uncontrolled Operations 120 3840.00 6480.00 216.00 600.00

Maximum Emission Rates lb/hr

NOxCO VOC PM10

CTG No Load Testing 40.00 90.00 1.25 5.00

CTG/HRSG Load Testing 100.00 75.00 2.00 5.00

Uncontrolled Operations 32.00 54.00 1.80 5.00

ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios

DIFFERENT STARTUP ONE HOUR SCENARIO TIMES

startup, rampu

ampup + par

COMMISSIONING EMISSIONS

UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FOR total/2 part of HRSG of HRSG HRSG + SCR CTG CTG/HRSG Uncontrolled

TABLE C-7 Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions DIFFERENT OPERATING SCENARIOS Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum No Load Load

lb/hr Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions

Emissions per turbin

40F lb/hour lb/hour lb/hour lb/hour lb/hour lb/hour lb/hour

NO234.62 31.62 36.20 35.20 34.00 41.13 65.66 55.33 28.79 40.00 100.00 32.00

CO 52.65 48.65 55.50 54.50 57.00 52.87 75.25 55.25 48.30 90.00 75.00 54.00

VOC 1.84 1.64 1.84 1.84 2.00 1.38 1.57 1.62 1.71 1.25 2.00 1.80

SO21.72 1.57 1.84 1.78 1.94 1.64 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94

PM10 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.23 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

TABLE C-8 Worst-Case 3 Hour Emission Rate

Only S

2 is considered for an average 3-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Worst-

case Total

Normal

Operations

Worst-case

Total

g/s

Total Hours of Operation 3

SO2 1.94 5.83 0.59

TABLE C-9 Worst-Case 8-Hour Emission Rates

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. CTG CTG/HRSG

Worst-

case Total

Startup

/Warmup Shutdown

Maintenance -

Uncontrolled

Normal

Operations

Worst-case

Total

Startup

/Warmup Shutdown

Maintenance

Uncontrolled

Normal

Operations

Worst-case

Total No Load No Load Uncontrolled

g/s Emissions Emissions Emissions

Total Hours of Operation 8 2.17 1 1 3.83 2.17 1 1 3.83 4 8 8

CO Uncontrolled 34.55 52.87 73.25 55.50 8.64 276.42 114.55 73.25 55.50 33.12 4.35 360 600 432

CO Commissioning CTG No Load 45.00 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.

CO Commissioning CTG/HRSG Load 75.00 CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hours.

CO Commissioning Uncontrolled 54.00 Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours.

Emissions per turbine lb/hr

115F 73F

Commissioning

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

ECGS Unit 3 100% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-10 Worst-Case 24 Hour Emission Rate

Only SO2 and PM10 are considered for an average 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard. CTG CTG/HRSG Uncontrolle

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

Worst-

case Total

Startup

/Warmup Shutdown

Maintenance -

Uncontrolled

orma

Operations

Fired

orma

Operations

Unfired

Worst-case

Total

Startup

/Warmup Shutdown

Maintenance -

Uncontrolled

Normal

Operations

Worst-case

Total Emissions Emissions Emissions

g/s Total lbs

Total Hours of Operation 24 4.33 2 2 0.5 15.17 4.33 2 2 15.67 8 12 24

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

SO21.87 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 Loa

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 hour

SO2 Commissioning CTG/HRSG Loa

0.97 CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hour

SO2 Commissioning Uncontrolle

1.94 Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours

PM10 Commissioning CTG No Loa

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 hour

PM10 Commissioning CTG/HRSG Loa

2.50 CTG/HRSG Commissioning Load testing could operate no more than 12 out of any 24 hours and be off the other 12 hour

omm

ncon

5.00 Uncontrolled commissioning operations could last 24 hours

TABLE C-11 Average Annual Emissions

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.

Worst-

case Total

Startup

/Warmup Shutdown

Maintenance -

Uncontrolled

Normal

Operations

Fired

Normal

Operations

Unfired

Worst-case

Total

Startup

/Warmup Shutdown

Maintenance -

Uncontrolled

Normal

Operations

Fired

Normal

Operations

Unfired

Worst-

case Total

g/s

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 20222.2 30497.7 1.07

CO 10.85 52.87 73.25 52.40 8.24 8.25 95027.8 17182.5 10987.5 1048.0 24720.0 41089.8 1.37

VOC 1.09 1.38 1.37 9.00 1.10 1.09 9579.3 447.0 205.5 180.0 3310.8 5436.0 0.14

SO21.72 1.64 1.78 1.77 1.74 1.80 15039.8 534.3 266.8 35.4 5230.4 8972.8 0.22

PM10 4.81 4.23 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 42125.5 1375.5 750.0 100.0 15000.0 24900.0 0.61

Note: Worst-case lb/hr is the total emissions (lbs) over 8760 hours/year

Estimated annual normal operating hours

40F Duct Fired 0 Total Hours Total Hours

40F No Duct Fired 480.00 Duct Fired No Duct Fired

73F No Duct Fired 2500 3000 4980.00

73F Duct Fired 500

115F No Duct Fired 2000

115F Duct Fired 2500

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

Commissioning

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-12 Case Parameters

Case 1 2 3

Ambient Temperature (°F) 115 73 40

Stack Diameter (ft) 15 15 15

Exhaust Flow (lb/hr) 1807500 1866000 1947000

CTG Load Level 75% 75% 75%

Evap. Coole

OFF OFF OFF

Data from Vendor Area = 176.71 ft2

TABLE C-13 Expected Operation of each Gas Turbine - Normal Operation

(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 Weigh

28.39 28.43 28.49

Data from Vendor

TABLE C-14 Average Emission Rates from each Gas Turbine (lbs/hr/turbine) - Normal Operations

NOX at 9 ppmvd pre-BACT level 24.00 26.00 27.00

NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level 5.33 5.78 6.00

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

SO21.41 1.49 1.57

PM10 5.00 5.00 5.00

NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level 9.96 10.44 12.63

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

ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-15 Startup / Shutdown Emissions from Turbine

Startup

duration in minutes 20 20 30 45 15 130 Average

CTG Purge Startup

TG Rampu

HRSG Warmup SCR Warmup Total Startup Startup

Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions

lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/hour

0.00 21.00 39.33 24.00 4.79 89.12 41.13

CO 0.00 38.00 28.25 40.50 7.80 114.55 52.87

VOC 0.00 0.55 0.72 1.35 0.36 2.98 1.38

SO20.00 0.52 0.79 1.18 0.39 2.88 1.33

PM10 0.00 1.67 2.5 3.75 1.25 9.17 4.23

Assumptions:

Startup Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.

SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.

Shutdown

duration in minutes 30 30 60

Shutdown

G Load R

tal Shutdown

Emissions Emissions Emissions

lb/event lb/event lb/hour

25.00 39.33 64.33

CO 45.00 28.25 73.25

VOC 0.65 0.72 1.37

SO20.79 0.79 1.57

PM10 2.50 2.50 5.00

Assumptions:

Shutdown Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.

SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.

ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-16 Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions per Turbine

Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions are equal to the Maintenance emission rates. (ie uncontrolled emissions)

Emissions per turbine lb/hr g/s

NO227.00 3.40

CO 52.00 6.55

VOC 8.00 1.01

SO21.57 0.20

PM10 5.00 0.63

TABLE C-17 Worst-Case 3 Hour Emission Rate per Turbine

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 S

2rate for 100% load case (72°F; with Sprint and Evap. Cooler On).

Worst-

case Total Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

Total Hours of Operation 3 3

SO2 1.57 1.57 4.72 4.72 0.20

TABLE C-18 Worst-Case 8-Hour Emission Rates

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.

Worst-

case Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance -

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance-

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

Total Hours of Operation 8 2.17 1 1 3.83 2.17 1 1 3.83

CO 33.43 52.87 73.25 52.00 7.17 267.45 114.73 73.25 52.00 27.47 4.21

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

ECGS Unit 3 75% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-19 Worst-Case 24 Hour Emission Rate

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.

Worst-

case Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance -

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance-

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

Total Hours of Operation 24 4.33 2 2 15.67

18.95 41.13 64.33 27.00 6.00 454.90 178.24 128.66 54.00 94.00 2.39

CO 24.67 52.87 73.25 52.00 7.17 591.97 229.10 146.50 104.00 112.37 3.11

VOC 1.66 1.38 1.37 8.00 0.96 39.74 5.96 2.74 16.00 15.04 0.21

SO21.53 1.33 1.57 1.57 1.57 36.70 5.77 3.15 3.15 24.64 0.19

PM10 4.86 4.23 5.00 5.00 5.00 116.67 18.34 10.00 10.00 78.33 0.61

TABLE C-20 Average Annual Emissions

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

Worst-

case Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance -

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance-

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

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

5.88 41.13 64.33 25.67 5.62 51521.9 13368.0 9649.5 513.3 27991.1 0.74

CO 7.17 52.87 73.25 45.33 6.78 62839.4 17182.5 10987.5 906.7 33762.8 0.90

VOC 0.58 1.38 1.37 7.33 0.85 5040.0 447.0 205.5 146.7 4240.8 0.07

SO20.91 1.33 1.57 1.49 1.47 8015.1 432.6 236.0 29.9 7316.7 0.12

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

Estimated annual normal operating hours

40F Duct Fired 0 Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours

40F No Duct Fired 480.00 Duct Fired No Duct Fired

73F No Duct Fired 2500 3000 4980 7980

73F Duct Fired 500

115F No Duct Fired 2000

115F Duct Fired 2500

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-21 Case Parameters

Case 1 2 3

Ambient Temperature (°F) 115 73 40

Stack Diameter (ft) 15 15 15

Exhaust Flow (lb/hr) 1517000 1543000 1577000

CTG Load Level 50% 50% 50%

Evap. Cooler OFF OFF OFF

Data from Vendor Area = 176.71 ft2

TABLE C-22 Expected Operation of each Gas Turbine - Normal Operation

(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-23 Average Emission Rates from each Gas Turbine (lbs/hr/turbine) - Normal Operations

NOX at 9 ppmvd pre-BACT level 19.00 21.00 22.00

NOX at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level 4.22 4.67 4.89

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

OC at 7 ppmvd pre-BACT level 51.00 25.00 12.00

OC at 2.0 ppmvd BACT level 1.73 1.72 1.71

SO21.14 1.21 1.28

PM10 5.00 5.00 5.00

NH3 at 10 ppmvd tBACT level 76.99 37.89 18.46

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

ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-24 Startup / Shutdown Emissions from Turbine

Startup

duration in minutes 20 20 30 45 15 130 Average

CTG Purge Startup CTG Rampup HRSG Warmup SCR Warmup Total Startup Startup

Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions

lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/event lb/hour

NOX0.00 21.00 39.33 24.00 4.79 89.12 41.13

CO 0.00 38.00 28.25 40.50 7.80 114.55 52.87

OC 0.00 0.55 0.72 1.35 0.36 2.98 1.38

SO20.00 0.43 0.64 0.96 0.32 2.34 1.08

PM10 0.00 1.67 2.5 3.75 1.25 9.17 4.23

Assumptions:

Startup Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.

SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.

Shutdown

duration in minutes 30 30 60

Shutdown

TG Load Ram

otal Shutdown

Emissions Emissions Emissions

lb/event lb/event lb/hour

NOX25.00 39.33 64.33

CO 45.00 28.25 73.25

OC 0.65 0.72 1.37

SO20.86 0.86 1.71

PM10 2.50 2.50 5.00

Assumptions:

Shutdown Emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and VOC integrated from data provided by GE and IID.

SO2 emissions assume complete conversion of all sulfur to SO2.

ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-25 Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions per Turbine

Worst-Case 1-Hour Emissions are equal to the Maintenance emission rates. (ie uncontrolled emissions)

Emissions per turbine lb/hr g/s

NO222.00 2.77

CO 317.00 39.94

OC 51.00 6.43

SO21.28 0.16

PM10 5.00 0.63

TABLE C-26 Worst-Case 3 Hour Emission Rate per Turbine

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).

Worst-

case

Total Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

Total Hours of Operation 3 3

SO2 1.28 1.28 3.83 3.83 0.16

TABLE C-27 Worst-Case 8-Hour Emission Rates

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.

Worst-

case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance -

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance-

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

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

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

ECGS Unit 3 50% Load Scenarios

TABLE C-28 Worst-Case 24 Hour Emission Rate

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.

Worst-

case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance -

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance-

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

Total Hours of Operation 24 4.33 2 2 15.67

NOX17.81 41.13 64.33 22.00 4.89 427.49 178.24 128.66 44.00 76.59 2.24

CO 45.88 52.87 73.25 317.00 5.85 1101.19 229.10 146.50 634.00 91.59 5.78

OC 5.74 1.38 1.37 51.00 1.73 137.78 5.96 2.74 102.00 27.08 0.72

SO21.28 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

TABLE C-29 Average Annual Emissions

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.

Worst-

case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance -

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations Worst-case

Total Startup

/Warmup Shutdown Maintenance-

Uncontrolled Normal

Operations

Worst-

case

Total

g/s

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

NOX5.24 41.13 64.33 20.67 4.51 45888.6 13368.0 9649.5 413.3 22457.8 0.66

CO 6.82 52.87 73.25 183.00 5.61 59764.4 17182.5 10987.5 3660.0 27934.4 0.86

OC 1.12 1.38 1.37 29.33 1.73 9830.0 447.0 205.5 586.7 8590.8 0.14

SO20.75 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

Estimated annual normal operating hours

40F Duct Fired 0 Total Hours Total Hours Total Hours

40F No Duct Fired 480.00 Duct Fired No Duct Fired

73F No Duct Fired 2500 3000 4980 7980

73F Duct Fired 500

115F No Duct Fired 2000

115F Duct Fired 2500

Emissions per turbine lb/hr Total lbs

Past circulating water rate 36,000 gallons/min

Operations cycles of concentration 4

TDS 905 mg/liter

7.55 lb/1000 gallons

Drift Eliminator Control 0.000020

verage operating hours per year 3094

Drift PM emissions 1.30 lb/hr

2.02 tpy

Future Operations

circulating water rate 31,500 gallons/min

cycles of concentration 4

TDS 905 mg/liter

7.55 lb/1000 gallons

Drift Eliminator Control 0.000010

Operating hours per year 8200

Drift PM emissions 0.57 lb/hr

2.34 tpy

Net increase in emissions 0.32 tons per yea

TABLE C-30 ECGS Unit 3 Cooling Tower Drift Calculation

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 NO2 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.

Emissions from Unit 3 turbine lb/h

g/s

NO2100.00 12.60

CO 317.00 39.94

SO21.94 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 lb/h

g/s

SO21.94 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/h

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 SO2 and PM10.

Emissions per turbine lb/h

g/s

NO220.02 2.52

CO 45.88 5.78

OC 5.74 0.72

SO21.94 0.24

PM10 5.00 0.63

Emissions from Cooling Tower 3 with new Unit 3 rates lb/h

g/s

PM10 0.57 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/h

g/s

8.49 1.07

CO 10.85 1.37

OC 1.09 0.14

SO21.72 0.22

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

TABLE C-36 Cumulative SO2 and NOxfor ECGS

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

SO2SO2SO2

UNIT 2 Annual heat input Annual operating hrs Annual emissions Short term Long term

2002 2136314 MM BTU 2892 hours 0.6 tpy 0.41 lb/hr 0.14 lb/hr

2003 2890562 MM BTU 3605 hours 0.9 tpy 0.50 lb/hr 0.21 lb/hr

2004 3070555 MM BTU 4177 hours 0.9 tpy 0.43 lb/hr 0.21 lb/hr

NOxNOxNOx

Annual emissions Short term Long term

2002 0.035 lb/MM BTU 25.85 lb/hr 8.54 lb/hr

2003 0.032 lb/MM BTU 25.66 lb/hr 10.56 lb/hr

2004 0.035 lb/MM BTU 25.73 lb/hr 12.27 lb/hr

SO2SO2SO2

UNIT 4 Annual heat input

nnual operating hour

Annual emissions Short term Long term

2002 2013284 MM BTU 5864 hours 0.6 tpy 0.20 lb/hr 0.14 lb/hr

2003 2285909 MM BTU 6315 hours 1.4 tpy 0.44 lb/hr 0.32 lb/hr

2004 2041710 MM BTU 6041 hours 0.6 tpy 0.20 lb/hr 0.14 lb/hr

NOxNOxNOx

Annual emissions Short term Long term

2002 0.221 lb/MM BTU 75.88 lb/hr 50.79 lb/hr

2003 0.234 lb/MM BTU 84.70 lb/hr 61.06 lb/hr

2004 0.232 lb/MM BTU 78.41 lb/hr 54.07 lb/hr

TABLE C-37 Cumulative CO and PM10 for ECGS

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

CO PM10 PM10

UNIT 2 Annual heat input Annual operating Hrs Short term Short term Long term

2002 NG only 2136314 MM BTU 2892 hours 60.57 lb/hour 4.88 lb/hour 1.61 lb/hour

2003 2890562 MM BTU 3605 hours 65.60 lb/hour 5.30 lb/hour 2.18 lb/hour

2004 NG only 3070555 MM BTU 4177 hours 60.28 lb/hour 4.85 lb/hour 2.31 lb/hour

1175 bbl oil used in 2003 6909 MM BTU from oil (from JSL)

AP-42 EF Natural Gas

CO 8.20E-02 lb/MM BTU Table 3.1-1 uncontrolled natural gas-fired turbine

PM10 6.60E-03 lb/MM BTU Table 3.1-2a uncontrolled natural gas-fired turbine

AP-42 EF Distillate Fuel

CO 3.30E-03 lb/MM BTU Table 3.1-1 uncontrolled distillate oil-fired turbine

PM10 1.20E-02 lb/MM BTU Table 3.1-2a uncontrolled distillate oil-fired turbine

CO PM10 PM10

UNIT 4 Annual heat input Annual operating Hrs Short term Short term Long term

2002 NG only 2013284 MM BTU 5864 hours 28.27 lb/hour 2.56 lb/hour 1.71 lb/hour

2003 2285909 MM BTU 6315 hours 29.64 lb/hour 2.68 lb/hour 1.93 lb/hour

2004 NG only 2041710 MM BTU 6041 hours 27.83 lb/hour 2.52 lb/hour 1.74 lb/hour

1823 bbl oil used in 2003 1.33E+04 MM BTU from oil (from JSL)

42 gallons/bbl 76.566 M gal

AP-42 EF Natural Gas

CO 84 lb/MM scf Table 1.4-1 uncontrolled/controlled natural gas-fired large wall fired boilers (>100 MM BTU/hr)

PM10 7.6 lb/MM scf Table 1.4-2 EF from natural gas combustion (total PM)

AP-42 EF Distillate Fuel

CO 5.00 lb/M gal Table 1.3-1 EF for fuel oil combustion for boilers >100 MM BTU/hr

PM10 21.60 lb/M gal Table 1.3-1 EF for fuel oil combustion for boilers >100 MM BTU/hr

S content 2.00 percent (assumed)

1020 BTU/scf

TABLE C-38 Cumulative PM10 Cooling Towers for ECGS

Past circulating water rate 36,000 gallons/min

Operation cycles of concentration 4

TDS 905 mg/liter

7.55 lb/1000 gallons

Drift Eliminator Control 0.000020

Average operating hours per year (2004/5) 3094

Drift PM emissions 1.30 lb/hr

2.02 tpy

Future Operations

circulating water rate 31,500 gallons/min

cycles of concentration 4

TDS 905 mg/liter

7.55 lb/1000 gallons

Drift Eliminator Control 0.000010

Operating hours per year 8200

Drift PM emissions 0.57 lb/hr

2.34 tpy

Net increase in emissions 0.32 tons per yea

Unit 2 Cooling Tower

design circulating water rate 27,700 gallons/min

cycles of concentration 4

TDS 905 mg/liter

7.55 lb/1000 gallons

Drift Eliminator Control 0.000010

Operating hours per year 8200

Drift PM emissions 0.50 lb/hr 2.06 tpy

Number of cells Cumua 7

Emission rate per cell 0.0714

Unit 4 Cooling Tower

design circulating water rate 40,800 gallons/min

cycles of concentration 4

TDS 905 mg/liter

7.55 lb/1000 gallons

Drift Eliminator Control 0.000010

Operating hours per year 8200

Drift PM emissions 0.74 lb/hr 3.03 tpy

Number of cells 3

Emission rate per cell 0.2465

Unit 3 Cooling Tower Drift Calculation

Attachment D

Modeling Protocol

REPORT

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 Background.............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Purpose..................................................................................................... 1-2

Section 2 TWO Project Description.........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Description of the Proposed Sources....................................................... 2-1

Section 3 THREE Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 California Energy Commission Requirements ........................................ 3-1

3.2 Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Requirements................ 3-1

3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Requirements............................ 3-2

Section 4 FOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques...............................................................4-1

4.1 Screening Modeling................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 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

4.3 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

4.4 Building Wake Effects........................................................................... 4-10

4.5 Receptor Grid......................................................................................... 4-10

4.6 Meteorological and Air Quality Data .................................................... 4-11

4.6.1 Meteorological Data................................................................... 4-11

4.6.2 Background Air Pollutant Monitoring Data .............................. 4-12

Section 5 FIVE Presentation of Modeling Results.................................................................................5-1

5.1 NAAQS and CAAQS Analysis ............................................................... 5-1

5.2 Health Risk Assessment Analysis............................................................ 5-1

5.3 Data Submittal ......................................................................................... 5-1

Section 6 SIX References......................................................................................................................6-1

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

List of Acronyms

iii

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

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

List of Acronyms

USGS U.S. Geological Society

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

VOC volatile organic compound

ZOI Zone of Impact

List of Acronyms

SECTIONONE Introduction

1-1

1. Section 1 ONE Introduction

1.1 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 non-

attainment 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.

SECTIONONE Introduction

1-2

1.2 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.

G:\gis\projects\1577\22238279\mxd\project_location_el_centro.mxd

EL CENTRO

GENERATING STATION

(

1000100200Feet

SOURCES: ESRI (roads);

USGS (7.5 El Centro quad);

U.S. Census (TIGER Base Layers 2002).

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

EL CENTRO GENERATING STATION

CHECKED BY: LG

PM: DD PROJ. NO: 22238279.20006

DATE: 12-20-05 FIG. NO:

1-1

SCALE: 1" = 2000' (1:24,000)

1000 0 1000 2000 Feet

OVERVIEW MAP

El Centro

Project Area

Imperial County

LEGEND

Approximate Location of

Proposed El Centro

Generating Station

1-2

SECTIONTWO Project Description

2-1

2. Section 2 TWO Pr oject Description

2.1 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.

SECTIONTWO Project Description

2-2

SECTIONTHREE Regulatory Setting

3-1

3. Section 3 THREE Regulatory Setting

3.1 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

SECTIONTHREE Regulatory Setting

3-2

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.

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-1

4. Section 4 FOUR 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

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-2

(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

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-3

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).

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-4

TABLE 4-1

RELEVANT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND SIGNIFICANCE

LEVELS

PSD Increments

(μg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging

Time CAAQS

(a,c) NAAQS

(b,c)

Ambient

Impact

Significance

Levels

(μg/m3)

PSD/NNSR

Significant

Modification

Thresholds

(tpy) Class I Class II

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

100

Annual

0.053 ppm

(100 μg/m3) 1 2.5 25

NO2(d)

1-hour 0.25 ppm

(470 μg/m3)

Annual

0.03 ppm

(80 μg/m3) 1 2 20

24-hour 0.04 ppm(e)

(105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm

(365 μg/m3) 5 5 91

3-hour

0.5 ppm

(1,300 μg/m3) 25 25 512

SO2

1-hour 0.25 ppm

(655 μg/m3)

Annual 20 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 1 4 17

PM10 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 5 15 8 30

Annual 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

PM2.5 24-hour

65 μg/m3

8-hour 0.07 ppm

(137 μg/m3)

0.08 ppm

(157 μg/m3) See footnote(f) 40

(of VOCs)

1-hour 0.09 ppm

(180 μg/m3) See footnote(g)

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.

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Blanks = Not applicable

CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard

CO = carbon monoxide

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard

O3 = ozone

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

ppm = parts per million by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas

PSD = prevention of significant deterioration

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

tpy = ton per year

USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VOC = volatile organic compounds

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-5

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.

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-6

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.

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-7

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.

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-8

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 Boiler2 51.82 26.61 0.50 1.74 2.41

Net Emission Change -13.67 +21.91 +7.67 +2.91 +18.65

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.

CO = carbon monoxide

ECGS = El Centro generating station

HRSG = heat recovery steam generator

NOx = nitrogen oxides

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

tpy = ton per year

VOC = volatile organic compounds

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

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-9

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

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-10

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 BPIP-

Prime 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.

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-11

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

SECTIONFOUR Models Proposed and Modeling Techniques

4-12

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 south-

southwest 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.

SECTIONFIVE Presentation of Modeling Results

5-1

5. Section 5 FIVE Presentation of Modeling Results

5.1 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 non-

cancer 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.

SECTIONFIVE Presentation of Modeling Results

5-2

SECTIONSIX References

6-1

6. Section 6 SIX 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.

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-1

12%

16%

20%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 9.94%

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

Figure A-1

Windrose for All Months 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-2

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-3

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

2% 4%

8% 10%

12%

14% 16%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 13.34%

Figure A-2

Windrose for Winter Months (December – February) 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-4

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-5

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

12%

16%

20%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 7.90%

Figure A-3

Windrose for Spring Months (March – May) 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-6

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-7

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

2% 4%

8% 10%

12%

14% 16%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 6.42%

Figure A-4

Windrose for Summer Months (June – August) 1991 – 1995

Imperial County Airport

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-8

Appendix A

Seasonal Wind Roses – Imperial County Airport (1995-1999)

A-9

NOTE: Frequencies

indicate direction

from which the

wind is blowing.

4% 6%

10% 12%

14% 16%

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21

CALMS

CALM WINDS 12.18%

Figure A-5

Windrose for Autumn Months (September – November) 1991 – 95

Imperial County Airport

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

E-i

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

E-ii

List of Acronyms

E-iii

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

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-iv

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-1

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 low-

NOx 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

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-2

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

Emission Limit1

Name Location

NOx CO ROC Control(s) On-Line

Date

Projects Recently Coming On-Line

PICO CA 2.0 ppm 4.0 ppm 2 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst March 05

Metcalf CA 2.5 ppm 6.0 ppm 2 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst May 05

Pastoria – Phase 1 CA 2.5 ppm 3.0 ppm 6 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst July 05

Magnolia CA 2.0 ppm 2.0 ppm 2 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst September 05

Malburg CA 2.0 ppm 2.0 ppm 2 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst 2 October 05

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 SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst

San Joaquin CA 2.0 ppm 4.0 ppm 2.0 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst

Roseville CA 2.0 ppm 4.0 ppm 2.0 ppm SCR with ammonia

CO oxidation catalyst

Notes:

1All 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

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-3

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

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-4

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).

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-5

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.

Attachment E

BACT Assessment

E-6

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

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

Fly Sheets 3655BL D Appendix B Air Quality Data

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation