Latest revision as of 08:46, 19 March 2020

Text

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC - Document No. NWMI-2015-RAI-001, Revision 0, Appendices B, C, D, and E. Part 2 of 14
	ML15328A072
Person / Time
Site:	Northwest Medical Isotopes
Issue date:	11/20/2015
From:	Mcmanus G; Northwest Medical Isotopes, Portage
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15328A010	List: ML15328A070; ML15328A071; ML15328A072; ML15328A073; ML15328A075; ML15328A076; ML15328A077; ML15328A078; ML15328A079; ML15328A080; ML15328A081; ML15328A082; ML15328A083; ML15328A084;
References
	NWMI-LTR-2015-005 EDF-3124-0008, EDF-3124-0012, Rev. 1, EDF-3124-0013, Rev. 1, NWMI-2015-RAI-001, Rev. 0
	Download: ML15328A072 (64)
	v • d • e

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001

'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E Rev. 0 Appendix B -

EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i

Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0A Effective Date: June 26, 2014 Engineering Design File I Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project

Title:

NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 1 of 5

1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task: NWMI Environmental Report

3. DCN#

4.

Title:

Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation

5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A

6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOC CO 2, VOC and SOx, from the two process steam boilers, the two HVAC boilers and the emergency generator that will be used for the operation of the NW/MI facility.

7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)

7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures:

(Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.)_____

Printed Name/

Organization Signature Date 61

____________RA Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus !'[)g'l[ dx' 6/26/14 Independent Review R Dave Thome * , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A INTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. These combustion sources are two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO 2 . The assumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below.

TEM-9002 EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 2 of 5 Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) (%) MVBTU/hr (ft3/hr)

Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 and Table 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.

Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.

Pollutant Emission Factor Units COa 84 NOx a 50 PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 c PM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb 6 sc VOC 5.5 SO 2

0.6 CO 2 d 120,000

a. Controlled -Low NOx burners

b. All PM (total, condensable, and filterable) is assumed to be less than 1.0 micrometer in diameter. Therefore, the PM emission factors presented here may be used to estimate PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM and condensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPA Method 202 (or equivalent). Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or prior to, the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.

c. Based on 100% conversion of fuel sulfur to SO2. Assumes sulfur content is natural gas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be converted to other natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio of the site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6 scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6 scf.

d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2 . CO2 [lb/10 6 scfl =

(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2, C =

carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/106 scf.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 3 of 5 From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:

Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)

Where:

EF = emission factor (lb/10 6 scf)

NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)

For: CO = 84 * (12460/106)

= 1.0 lb/hr Tons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton)

24 hr/day

7 days/week

50 weeks

=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1 Total CO release is the sum of the two process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers.

The emissions were calculated in ton/yr assuming a boiler operation of 50 weeks per year. The results are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilers Pollutant Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 (each) HVAC Boilers 1&2 (each) Total Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

CO 1.0E+00 4.4 1.1E+00 4.5 18 NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11 PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40 VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2 SO2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13 CO 2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000 Emergency Generator: The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO 2 , VOCs, and CO 2. The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annual emissions are shown below in Table 4 Total Emissions were calculated as follows:

Ei (kg) =EFi (g/kW-hr)

0.001 (kg/g)

Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)

Assumes 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months operation per year and 2,600 kw generator.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 4of 5 Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator)

PM~ SO~ab COa NOXa NOxa a02 PM" SOxa,b g/kW-hr ozikW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr ozikW-hr Emission Factor 3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087 Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr Standby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14 diesel______________________ _______

generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340 a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C., 2010. Table 3.4.1 b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.

SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09129/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 5 of 5

Attachment:

Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2...

0019*

I Stram Load IISteam lteat Factor I Boirr 0t19,m Fuel Encrgr Cotnt ata Couso a

934.52 BI~uO* Ofl for se~amat 25 xi 9345MN, 75% BoilerEf0,ienu, 22440MN, Fooloner* cortent 124600034,r CooCu,,,.14 1066;ha 30% OxreessAo 153004ft3ft Coomkustio, Air Emlacion Farctor, Br Boil,,. Enmhsbon.8.,n Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro Untll Pncoo,.Bollanl1&2 2 Pb l~ rate foreaoh of cxoobolers btwgs 0b/hr) Each {tons/*r} Esch (Ibthr Pb,,t,vecndorinfoocrmatio CO 84 hl4O of 2.050-09 4.44 NO,,' 50 6.23E-01 202 I1 6045E-02 2.72 PMt0 (Tola[)' 7.6 9.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 16 PMI0 (fl*orabe)bI 19 2.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.44 VOC 5.5 6.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.2 FIVAC 9672MN, Pook HIVAChooatg drrroalx 7.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.23

.75% Boilr, 03o¢nv CO.,* 120,000 ___ 2.500'803 6.28E303 [ 155E0 3 630 5E*3 25.359 o A, P (622,O. 00.40006 .. r~teik, = .u=*ad2t,ho00.

1.aoc.0=nmctood... eTh,,aoooorhePM l ssiacfool. rp'*ml htoo, re, bocodIo.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. Tri PM iuth00.00000inh . 0,000c.4c~o 08 70AMo¢hod 2026(,

Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM .i0 thp.ioalo..,oaoIll6.ga...*pri

,tt .u00..Iof.

w 2,*r~,00pn/t e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao m 00*t0. u. ho0,0r0 toud.h,c~atorO . .000r.ot,,o O 10020t (t.faim16lt) ,flOo9.oou floal106 so 002[100100 sel9 13.67)1C01d,1C0D30 .. h0. CulON r.000,oJ rOr.ru.020.O00IOCOC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt

0.000.dO D doy 0(.44,204.z1o4 or n6,

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001

=e*'ND*WEMEIA iOPE Rev. 0 Appendix C -

EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i

Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1 Effective Date: February 4, 2015 Engineering Design File Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124 Project

Title:

NWMI Environmental Report 4Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 20

1. Portage Project No.: 3124

2. Project/Task: NWMVI Enviromnmental Report

3. DCNH#

4.

Title:

Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN

5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A

6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary:

This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 natural gas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. The results are then compared to the NAAQS and ambient air concentrations.

8 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)

9. Review (R) andApproval (A) Signatures: :*",

(Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals mnay be added.)_____

~Printed Name/

R/A Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent A Gary McManus () (*¢*dld 2/04/15 Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 2 of 20 INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler and generator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilers and the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Steam Load Heat Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) (%) MBTU/hr (ft3/hr)

Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)

Pollutant _____________ Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1&2 Total S~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/br) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18 NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11 PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40 VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2 SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13 CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000 Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. This screening model uses standard defaults for meteorology, and terrain values. Modeled emissions included: PM-10, PM-2.5, CO, nitrogen, and sulfur oxides (NOx), and SOx.). The assumptions used for the modeling are presented below.

TEM-9002 EDF-31 24-0012 09/29109 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 3 of 20 ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4 below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. The results of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptor locations.

Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr STACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet STACK INNER DIAMETER: 0.305 meters 12.00 inches PLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K 99.95 Deg F PLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/s STACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFM RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURAL FLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feet INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE -- 5000. meters 16404. feet Table 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)

MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 meters DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Spring ALBEDO: 0.18 BOWEN RATIO: *0.4 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)

For this screening model, no downwash was considered in the calculations since exact locations and dimensions are still in the design phase. The closest residential receptor was assumed to be a single family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. Using these assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. A complete listing of the model is included in Attachment 1.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 4 of 20 RESULTS The final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.

Calculation Maximum]

1-Hour]

Scaled 3-Hour J Scaled]

8-Hour Scaled J24-Hour [Scaled Annual ProcdureConcentration a Flat Terrain (gig/m 3 ) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m 3 )

_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7

a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 meters Using the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters from attachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in 3), Table 6 and 7 were completed.

Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand - Natural Gas-Fired Boilers Modeled concentration to Hourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m) c (lb/hr) (jig/in 3 ) (jig/in 3 )

CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01 NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01 PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00 PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-01 5.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00 SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01 CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04

a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown in EDF-3 124-0008.

b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN equals 17jg/m3 per lb/hr

c. This represents the highest 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters and equals 11 jig/mn3 per lb/hr

TEM-9002 EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 5 of 20 Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired Heater Modeled Hourly Emissions Maximum concentration to Emission for Both HVAC concentration closest PluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)

(lb/hr) ([.tg/m 3) (jig/mn3)

CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01 NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01 PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00 PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01 VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00 SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01 CO2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04

a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008

b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17 jtg/mn3 / lb/hr

c. This represents the highest 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters and equals 11 jig/mn3 / lb/hr Since both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwind concentration was assumed to be additive. These values were then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards were exceeded. This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage of concentration closestAQ to NAAQS Limit at Polltant 136rato@ clst residential NASAASPoint of receptor____(375 m)______ ______ Maximum

(___g/m3)__(jig/r3) (ppm) (jig/mn3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%

NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 42+001d*43 PM-2.5 1.6E+001.E0003 46 SO2 4.7E+00 30+0*19E0 .6 CO2 5.1E-01 3.3E-01_NANAN

a. Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers ________

b. Concentration at closest residence

c. Values in Green are actual standard values; values in yellow are the converted values.

d. 24-hour standard for PM-10 and PM-2.5

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 6 of 20 From Table 8 it is apparent that the modeled release concentrations are all below the applicable NAAQS standards. Therefore no additional modeling is required at this time.

A similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if the emissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values of the five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9 summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.

Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban Missouri Ambient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri

(*tg/m 3 )

CO 3.8E+03 NOx 2.1E+01 PMl0 1.7E+01 PM-2.5 1.1E+01 SO2 7.0E+00 CO2 NA A similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if the emissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values of the five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9 summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done to Table 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the State Missouri.

Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Air concentrationoto Rural/Urban Pollutant concenratio closest residential Misuiconcentration Point of

@16b receptor (375 m) b MisuiMaximum Concentration (ig/m3) (#tg/m3) (#.g/m3) ____________

CO 7.2E+0l 4.6E+0l 3.8E+03 1.9%

NOx 4.3E+01 2.7E+0l 2.1E+01 203%

PM10 6.5E+00 4.2E+00 1.7E+01 38%

PM-2.5 l.6E+00 1.0E+00 1.1E+01 15%

SO2 4.7E+00 3.0E+00 7.0E+00 7.3%

CO2 5.lE-01 3.3E-01 NA NA a Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilers b Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1

TEM-9002 EDF-3124.-0012 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 7 of 20 ATTACHMENT 1.

AERSCREEN Files Text File:

Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04 AERSCREEN 11126 NWMI PROCESS BOILER DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH

- STACKDATA **------------------

Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr Stack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet Stack Diameter: 0.3 05 meters 12.00 inches Stack Temperature: 310.9 K 100.0 Deg F Exit Velocity: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/s Stack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFM Model Mode: RURAL Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet

- BUILDING DATA **

No Building Downwash Parameters

- TERRAIN DATA **

No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet Flagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters 6. feet No discrete receptors used

- METEOROLOGY DATA **

TEM-9002 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20 Min/Max Temperature: 255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture AERSCREEN output file:

boilerl .out

- AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run SURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.60 1.50 0.001 Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050 Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100 Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01 01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01 .sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01 .sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01 .sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pfl PROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34 Running probe for Winter sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1

- - - - WARNING MESSAGES *****

TEM-9002 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20

- - NONE ***

Running probe for Spring sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1

- - NONE ***

Running probe for Summer sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1

- - - - WARNING MESSAGES ********

- NONE **

Running probe for Autumn sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1

- - - - WARNING MESSAGES ********

- - NONE ***

PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8 REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1

- - - - WARNING MESSAGES *****

- - NONE **

REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38 AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details Ending date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39

TEM-9002 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 10 of 20 OUTPUT FILE:

AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234 02/05/15 08:19:38 TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER

- - - - STACK PARAMETERS

- - q* **** *** ******* **** * ****

SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr STACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet STACK INNER DIAMETER: 0.305 meters 12.00 inches PLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K 100.0 Deg F PLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 in/s 58.82 ft/s STACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFM RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL FLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feet INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =

5000. meters 16404. feet

- - - - BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS

- - - - PROBE ANALYSIS **************

25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters Zo ROUGHNESS 1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL SECTOR LENGTH (ug/m3) (in) PERIOD 1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR

- worst case flow sector

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Pagell1of 20

- - - - MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)

MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 rn/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Spring ALBEDO: 0.18 BOWEN RATIO: 0.40 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT YR MO DY JDY HR 10 0105 5 12 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS 21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 302.6 2.0 ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 37.4 meters METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARY IMPACT

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 12 of 20 YR MO DY JDY HR 10 01 01 5 12 Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS 1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 255.4 2.0 ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 56.5 meters

- - - - AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC DIST 1-HR CONC (in) (ug/m3) (mn) (ug/m3) 1.00 0.2290E-04 2525.00 4.139 25.00 4.216 2550.00 4.107 50.00 8.390 2575.00 4.076 75.00 10.29 2600.00 4.045 100.00 15.11 2625.00 4.015 125.00 16.69 2650.00 3.986 150.00 16.70 2675.00 3.956 175.00 16.17 2700.00 3.927 200.00 15.43 2725.00 3.899 225.00 14.64 2750.00 3.871 250.00 13.87 2775.00 3.843 275.00 13.16 2800.00 3.815 300.00 12.49 2825.00 3.788 325.00 11.89 2850.00 3.762 350.00 11.33 2875.00 3.735 375.00 10.83 2900.00 3.709 400.00 10.37 2925.00 3.684 425.00 9.943 2950.00 3.659

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page1l3of 20 450.00 9.609 2975.00 3.634 475.00 9.3 15 3000.00 3.609 500.00 9.039 3025.00 3.585 525.00 8.78 1 3050.00 3.561 550.00 8.539 3075.00 3.537 575.00 8.3 10 3100.00 3.5 14 600.00 8.095 3125.00 3.491 625.00 7.89 1 3150.00 3.468 650.00 7.699 3175.00 3.446 675.00 7.5 17 3200.00 3.424 700.00 7.344 3225.00 3.402 725.00 7.179 3250.00 3.380 750.00 7.023 3275.00 3.359 775.00 6.874 3300.00 3.338 800.00 6.733 3325.00 3.3 17 825.00 6.597 3350.00 3.296 850.00 6.468 3375.00 3.276 875.00 6.344 3400.00 3.256 900.00 6.226 3425.00 3.236 925.00 6.112 3450.00 3.217 950.00 6.003 3475.00 3.197 975.00 6.039 3500.00 3.178 1000.00 6.174 3525.00 3.159 1025.00 6.287 3550.00 3.14 1 1050.00 6.3 80 3575.00 3.122 1075.00 6.447 3600.00 3.104 1100.00 6.43 1 3625.00 3.086 1125.00 6.4 11 3650.00 3.068 1150.00 6.386 3675.00 3.051 1175.00 6.359 3700.00 3.033 1200.00 6.328 3725.00 3.016 1225.00 6.295 3750.00 2.999 1250.00 6.259 3775.00 2.982 1275.00 6.221 3800.00 2.966 1300.00 6.182 3825.00 2.949 1325.00 6.14 1 3850.00 2.933 1350.00 6.098 3875.00 2.917 1375.00 6.055 3900.00 2.90 1 1400.00 6.010 3925.00 2.886 1425.00 5.965 3950.00 2.870 1450.00 5.9 19 3975.00 2.855 1475.00 5.872 4000.00 2.839 1500.00 5.826 4025.00 2.824 1525.00 5.778 4050.00 2.8 10 1550.00 5.73 1 4075.00 2.795 1575.00 5.683 4100.00 2.780

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 14 of 20 1600.00 5.636 4125.00 2.766 1625.00 5.588 4150.00 2.752 1650.00 5.541 4175.00 2.737 1675.00 5.494 4200.00 2.724 1700.00 5.447 4225.00 2.710 1725.00 5.400 4250.00 2.696 1750.00 5.353 4275.00 2.682 1775.00 5.307 4300.00 2.669 1800.00 5.26 1 4325.00 2.656 1825.00 5.2 16 4350.00 2.643 1850.00 5.171 4375.00 2.630 1875.00 5.126 4400.00 2.617 1900.00 5.082 4425.00 2.604 1925.00 5.03 8 4450.00 2.591 1950.00 4.995 4475.00 2.579 1975.00 4.952 4500.00 2.5 66 2000.00 4.910 4525.00 2.554 2025.00 4.868 4550.00 2.542 2050.00 4.827 4575.00 2.530 2075.00 4.786 4600.00 2.5 18 2100.00 4.746 4625.00 2.506 2125.00 4.706 4650.00 2.494 2150.00 4.667 4675.00 2.483 2175.00 4.629 4700.00 2.471 2200.00 4.590 4725.00 2.460 2225.00 4.553 4750.00 2.449 2250.00 4.5 15 4775.00 2.438 2275.00 4.479 4800.00 2.427 2300.00 4.443 4825.00 2.416 2325.00 4.407 4850.00 2.405 2350.00 4.372 4875.00 2.394 2375.00 4.337 4900.00 2.3 83 2400.00 4.303 4925.00 2.373 2425.00 4.269 4950.00 2.362 2450.00 4.236 4975.00 2.352 2475.00 4.203 5000.00 2.341 2500.00 4.171

- - - - AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT

SUMMARY

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED

TEM-9002 09/29109 ENGINEERING DESIGt* J1FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 15 of 20 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUF ,.ANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/ni [3) (ug/m3)

FLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08 1.68 1 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 136.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr 1.00 meters

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 16 of 20 Attachment 2 Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for Missouri Table 1. Levels of CO in Springfield Missouri Maximum Maximum Year 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average (ppm) (ppm) 1993 5.4 14 1994 5.9 12 1995 5 9 1996 3.3 7 1997 5 7 1998 5.1 6 1999 4.1 5 2000 2.8 5 2001 4.3 7 2002 3.5 6 2003 2.4 4 2004 3.4 5 2005 3 5 2006 2.1 .4 2007 2.6 4 2008 1.3 1.9 2009--- - -1.5- ..--- 2.3 --

2010 1.9 2.3 Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3 Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00 Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03 Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm) 1993 0.011 1994 0.013 1995 0.012 1996 0.011 1997 0.011 1998 0.012 1999 0.013 2000 0.012 2001 0.013 2002 0.0107 2003 0.0111 2004 0.012 2005 0.0115 2006 0.0104 2007 0.01 2008 0.0089 2009 0.0083 Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079 Average (ppm) 1.1OE-02 Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 17 of 20 Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr Average Year (gg/m3) (gg/m3) 1993 18 38 1994 18 58 1995 17 44 1996 18 64 1997 15 51 1998 17 43 1999 18 45 2000 18 47.

2001 20 57 2002 18 46 2003 17 40 2004 16.7 36 2005 19.3 45 2006 15.7 35 2007 17.9 38 2008 15 39 2009 14 27 2010 17.2 36 2011 16.5 37 2012 16.9 38 Average(jgg/m 3) 17.16 43.2 Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm) 1999 12.24 2000 12.28 2001 12.2 2002 12.7 2003 11.7 2004 10.91 2005 13.01 2006 10.82 2007 11.8 2008 10.7 2009 9.55 2010 9.89 2011 10.92 2012 10.09 Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1

TEM-9002 EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/ 09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 18 of 20 Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm) 1993 0.003 1994 0.005 1995 0.002 1996 0.003 1997 0.002 1998 0.003 1999 0.004 2000 0.003 2001 0.004 2002 0.003 2003 0.002 2004 0.0014 2005 0.0017 2006 0.0019 2007 0.0018 2008 0.0022 2009 0.0022 Average (ppm) 2.66E-03 Average (*g/m3) 6.97E+00

TEM-9002 EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 DESmiGNtIL Page 19 of 20 EGNEINGrat

Attachment:

Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from Vista Process 10000 pph 934.52 Btu/lb 111111 h for steam at 25 psi& ________

____ 9345 Mbh

______ 75% [Boiler Efficiency________

_______ 12460 Mbh Fuel energy content________________

____ 12460 ft3/hr Gas Consumption 0.01246 1.046662 lb/hr

______ 30% ___ Excess Air____ ___

~Flue gas flow rate for each of two boilers

~Flue, vendor information

~~Flue gs velocit HVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demand Flue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____

~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 20 of 20 Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 124)l 12460 Wva2 100 7 P

_ 1H 2 P* ELIEL. I ~

~/fr)3.& tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.& Dii~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i +AlitJI t.F;*0 *,' I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 IJP.-.*O 2*1WJ1 */0

-- I IMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~ 16 liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI416~E l134o0(16b): _____

1flF -OI -. - L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O I.IF*0

__ O______ 0.6 ___

I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]

3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.00 0.13 2.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 SCOmlm 120.00 zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, so~o. J ~ I Mat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tC akiusm k~.m ThufEL~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu.

.*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~

.. damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~

~Iut*s ~ Tb~

PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~

Ctlillilli 3mlawmiu' I wmdii catm.,lo O*

i*iid tll l

11 tilt4

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001

;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T Rev. 0 Appendix D -

EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i

Document ID: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1 Effective Date: July 31, 2015 Engineering Design File On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project

Title:

NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 5

1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task: NWMvI Environmental Report

3. DCN#

4.

Title:

On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A

6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles during the operation of the RPF.

7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)

7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures:

_(Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.) .

Printed Namer R/A Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus * "(*T) )~d '-* 7/31/15 Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ ,*7/31/15 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A

TEM-9002 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 2of 5 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE During the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce and from routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board Emission Database (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) was used to calculate on-road vehicle emission factors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type, vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidity The volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected during construction. Additionally, the lands on the developed RPF site are either developed surfaces (buildings, paved parking/access road) or consist of either agricultural or landscaped uses. Consequently, limiting routine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts from vehicular air emissions and fugitive dust during operations would be far less than during the construction phase.

ASSUMPTIONS On-road vehicle emissions were calculated using emission rate in grams(g)/(vehicle miles traveled) +

g/day(idle) + g/day(starting). Total mileage estimates for on-road vehicles during the construction period are shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100 vehicles per day using a specific vehicle ratio (60% light-duty autos, 30% light-duty gas trucks, and 10%

light-duty diesel trucks) and a round trip of 40 mi/day. The vehicles include construction vehicles, delivery trucks, and employee vehicles. Though RPF operations are assumed to occur for 50 weeks a year to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52 weeks a year to account for personnel and deliveries that occur during maintenance and outages.

Table 1. Total Mileage Estimates for On-road Vehicles during Operation Elquipment Activity Duration Total distance Traveled (quantity) (months/days) (kin) Miles Workforce travel (60) Commute - light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000 Workforce travel (30) Commute - light duty gas trucks (12/260) 502,116 312,000 Workforce travel (10) Commute - light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000 Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC series of models.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 3 of 5 Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running)

CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx Vehicle Type (/ie Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03 Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03 LgtdtTrcs3.36E-01 6.70E-01 3.56E+02 6.11E-02 5.62E-02 3.40E-03 (diesel)

Table 3 Emission Factor from EM7FAC2O1 1 (Idling)

CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx~

Vehicle Type (g/vehicle/day)

Light Duty Auto (gas) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LgtdtTrcs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (diesel)

Table 4 Emission Factor from EMFAC20 11 (Stationary)

VhceTp VeilyeCO NOx CO 2 PM10 (g/vehicle/day)

PM2.5 SOx Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03 Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03 LgtdtTrcs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (diesel)

From Tables 1 through 4, the total emissions for each of the types of vehicles was calculated as shown below:

The equations used to calculate total vehicle emissions are as follows:

Total emission = emission (running) + emission (idling) + emission (stationary)

Emissions while running = EFRi (days of operation) (miles/day) (number of vehicles)

Emissions while idling =EFIi (days of operation) (number of vehicles)

Emissions while idling = EFSi (days of operation) (number of vehicles)

Where:

EF~i = the individual emission factor for each pollutant, i.e. CO, NOx, C0 2 , PM10, PM2.5 and SOx

TEM-9002 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0013 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 4of 5 Example for Light Duty Gas Autos (GO)

CO EFR = 1.3 1E+00 g/mile x 624,000 miles

= 8.17E+05g CO EFl = 0.00+00 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days

- 0.00E+00 g CO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days

=-2.70E+05g Total CO Emissions = 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g 11.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)

Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO 2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOx Vehicle Type Fuel (kgs) (Ibs) (kgs) (ibs) (kgs) (lbs) (kgs) (bbs) (kgs) (lbs) (kgs) (Ibs)

Light Duty Gas 1,085 2,392 95 210 225,239 496,569 1 3 1 3 2 5 Autos LgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3 LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1 Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9 Total (tonnes or tons) 2.4 2.7 0.3 0.3 392 432 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.004 0.004

EMFAC20OR EmissionRates Type:Statewide Region Region:

California o o~r ccN2 CalendarYear:2015 Season:Annual Vehicle Classification:

EMPAC2RO1 Categories Running - dli~ng Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I CO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE (miles/hr) (gins/ssile) [gms/vehlcle/duy) ~dling 1.73E+01 (gms/vehslce/day) 49E0 StatewIde 2015Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-003.51E-03 0 0 0 R 0 R 1.7+103E+004.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0R Statewide 2015Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated O 0 0 R 0 R ORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R Statewide 2015Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated 3.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03 0 0 0 R S S Miles CO NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles Days CO NOR COO 624,0R0 6.15E6+05 260 0 0 PM0R O PMO._5 0 ROE R Vehicles 60 Gays 060 2CO+50 O.R 10NOR 7.24E+06

.776+04 COO O.ROE+0O PMIOR2.RSE+02 ROE PM2... 7.72E+01]

lightDutyAuto gas lightsOt/Truck gas 302,000 1.O2E.+]6 0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+000.25E+031.276+0 300 260 0 0 O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O44.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E02 4.56E+01 LightDutyTruck diesel 004,0oo 3.401+04 E.RRE+040.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 ,53E+R2 10 260 .R 0 O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+000.00E+000.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00 CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StS VstlsteTtye Fontl itus) Phe) 1005) yhn) I* 0ni So'go) Old) flu b* ks) Os ightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2 Jt Truok *s 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 I T'ostz c

TeozloDt dksel 05 2443 } 77 50360 7n[i 290 104 631 37.004 Ri,5tS 001,746 603,662 0 S 4 21 6

9 1

i h'i To0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004 z 0

i m

h"m z

"0 i-rn CD.

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001

.,'Nn'WMS*D*ISOO* Rev. 0 Appendix E -

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i

1111111 II PU WAT1m P'UW D w euraE WASTI MAN(T CA*W AES P03t 3....AL alU Ar/3l U3IRU31~iWA1Ul WW*~M AJIS3XUVU

TAIt OI~J.T~ -e~

,mtru, iss iw 31W YAMu AII

.3 1 MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118 ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH

'U..NWMIl

. J* III~l Altermative Sits Locatiosm J* * !_. .. .II inJ~k...

i~niifi iii n .........iJ_. !i![!!

1!F! I l-T ........rrt Imlllll mflI]I_-.

> University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) - Columbia, MO

>. Discovery Ridge Research Park -Columbia, MO

> Oregon State University (OSU) - Corvallis, OR

> McClellan Business Park (McClellan) - Davis, CA

- University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Research Reactor located at McClellan NDU

\, ' -,, U

-\\ LO

, III,I , . . .... ... Y. *. ] ....... IIH ....1 Site Selectlen Criteria

... r] . 1! 1.. o 1,, I11 1 lf ......... Ill ...

Political and local Ability of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical 10 logistics support support, based on regional politics and importance of project to economic develooment Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10 Radioactive, hazardous, Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements and 8 and mixed secondary availability of waste disposition pathway waste generation (i.e., air, liquids, solids)

Federal and State taxes Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate 3 and incentives income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPF ownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMI separately Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2 and construction indices Total Weight 60

ej WM

Scoring Details mmdii Ressuht

--6~ S -

40: 1 10 Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3 30 3 30 Txitingitc4 40 2 2 30 3 30 Transportation 4 32 4 32 2 16 3 24 Federal, State, county, and local require- 4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10 ments to construct and operate facility Feiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3 Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6 Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6 Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Iii:~i Wei*,hted Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'0

~.NWMI uSflmUTinA+/- IUIWS

........ .. i / T III

. ............ .. l r .. ...... . I IIII

/llll_ ,,,,I II l ri i flrilrT iiiiii SUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations*

Reference:

Based on Department of Energy's Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods (WSRC-IM-2002-00002)

SDeveloped a list of site-specific criteria

Criteria weighted by their importance to NWMI's business plan

10 = most important, 1 = least important

) Each site scored on a scale of 1-5

5 = most favorable, 1 = least favorable

) Weighting applied to the raw scores to determine a total score for each location

/~ iNWM I 1,I°T I~aEV

Elseovery Bilge Characteristics

> Location

Columbia, MO is -125 miles west of St Louis, MO, on Highway 70

Potential RPF site is adjacent to MURR on University of Missouri campus

> Existing Conditions

Site is on ground that has been historically used for agriculture

> Roadways

Located near Highway 70; 5 miles from MURR (Columbia, MO)

No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist

Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used for irradiated targets

> Utilities

Required utilities are available through MU

> Land Use

Land use is presently set aside for a technology research park/industrial

> Soils

Soils are characterized by medium and narrow ridges with moderate to steep side slopes

Soils are clayey and formed inloess over glacial till; loess is thin or nonexistent on the side slopes

Area is broken up by a number of narrow and medium-sized stream bottoms

Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Average depth to groundwater inColumbia, MO vicinity is ~180 feet

> Environmental Site Conditions

Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 537

@ NWMI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Current Dilscsvsry IRidge Laysut PhimI 13L0,0,t PlmE lOAM Fts212* Ac

/

I, I

NWMII W* frMT tA

Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut

...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .... .... . . ... . . . . . . . .

a in a mu EUU DEED flUME U

~WEUYUt~M

MUIR Site Characteristics I> Location

Columbia, MO is -125 miles west of St Louis, MO, on Highway 70

Potential RPF site is adjacent to MURR on University of Missouri campus

> Existing Conditions

Potential RPF site is adjacent to existing building on a partially paved parking lot

Direct connection to existing reactor may require below ground construction

> Roadways

MURR is located near Highway 70; Just off main campus of University of Missouri (Columbia, MO)

No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist

Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets

> Utilities

Required utilities are available within MURR

> Land Use

Potential RPF site is on University of Missouri's campus and adjacent to MURR

Land is available for industrial use

> Soils/Groundwater

Sameas DR

> Environmental Site Conditions

Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental ReportWil becmpee n D S!NWMI

EUR, - rlllll r ....

CurrentLayout/

IIII IIIIIII

... I

....... .... ...... /I/II ..I!1 IIII,,,ID RPF Layout

. .....ilIl I ,t

NW/MI

OSUE Site Characteristics

>. Location

OSU is located near the I-5 corridor inCorvallis,i OR (- 80 miles south of Portland, OR)

RPF site is adjacent to OSU Radiation Center (off SW Jefferson Way and SW 35th Street)

> Existing Conditions

Potential RPF site -- immediately to the east of the reactor

Utilizing site would require relocation of two existing laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modify roads)

> Roadways

Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on the Corvallis-Lebanon Highway

Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs

Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used for irradiated targets

OSE Site Characterlstics (cmnii

> Utilities

Sewer, water, and electrical are available (i.e, on 35th street)

>. Land Use

Site is part of OSU Master Plan and inSector Bof the Corvallis City Zoning Code

Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimum setback requirement of 40 ft from collector streets

> Soils

According to the USDA

Soils on flood plains along Willamette River are well drained

° Lower foothills around the western margin of the valley are underlain by soft to hard sedimentary rock, which has restricted permeability

Foothills are subject to earthflow and slumping, erosion, and varying cut-slope stability

Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Water table varies between 10 and 25 feet below ground surface

> Environmental Site Conditions

Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 537

~NWMI

OSU, - CurrentSite Layout/

....IIIIII

... ........ l llI III lI * ..........

mPF' Layout 1[" I il" " lI TII . . .

PreliminaryRPF Layout I

Current OSU Layout WMIM

.. U.,.: t II VNVU n I¥11t

McClellan Site Characteristics

> Location

UC Davis, McClellan Nuclear Research Center (MNRC) is located off campus at McClellan Business Park, 10 miles northeast of Sacramento, CA near I-5 corridor

McClellan Air Force Base was closed in 1995 and privatized from 1995-2003 (i.e.,

McClellan Business Park)

> Existing Conditions

-45,000 sq ft clear span, high bay building --200 ft from reactor has been identified as potential site for RPF

Existing infrastructure (i.e., buildings, roads) meet current CA seismic codes

> Roadways

McClellan Business Park is located along 1-80 and is served by 4 major interchanges. Watt Avenue boarders McClellan to the east

No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist

Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets

-l vmms uiNWMI0 1

Ecl~lellam Sits Charactsristics (cent]

> Utilities

McClellan Business Park provides three dedicated electrical substations

Power is available at existing building

Water and sewer are available at or near existing building

> Land Use

McClellan Business Park and potential site resides in Core Airfield/Industrial district

Designated for manufacturing, light industrial and high-tech uses

Special Planning Area designation within Sacramento County's zoning ordinance

> Soils

Soils in urban areas of Sacramento County have been drastically altered during development of Air Force Base and privatization efforts

Cut areas consist mainly of truncated San Joaquin soils; Durixeralfs

Filled areas, which were once low areas, now consist of as much as 20" of physically mixed soil material; Xerarents

Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Depth to groundwater inSacramento County varies between 2- 420 feet basin-wide

> Environmental Site Conditions

Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 5370

~FNWMI

.o. m5,uiu+/-i:w

. ...J,.. .. llllllll l BFI]I))]I))

. . .. II

- CurrentSits Layout/

IIIII I I I ,,,j,/

RPF Layeut IIIl lTl))ff r lrrr rrrrrrT

ii f i p _ .. .J,,*L ii J

4 Preliminary RPF Layout Lo1 4

N.

I i1~ --1 Current McClellan Layout M~n S~.

3rwm~

5 22A A~

1'

.NWMI

-IN*lZ JG LOT 15 P.S WrATUl PW* UQD PLaR WAre SCtmCL Elhu._* WA*h MAILIT -AIEpf r w gvwQI Ia WAIrn 11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS mLOT 3 uwrum I-urnt

=4PV IIWVA FIT

£ N L*wl R-ar IMW A smftA NORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LII ALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION -DETILEE SI

, W mN~a M........

Psilitcal and Local Logistics Support

> DRIMURR

University has high-level of political and local support and local and county ties

NWMI Team Member MURR has extensive connection with state and local network; however, NWMI should not expect as much support as in Oregon

University and State of Missouri are aware of MURR's capability and current/previous 99Mo endeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community

> OSU

NWMI has strongest network inOR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties

NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor

State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in99Mo business model due to FTE generation as well as educational and R&D aspects

> McClellan

Limited local political support and local and county ties

NWMI has little or no network in California

California unlikely to have significant interest in99 Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimal FTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)

DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1 BEUMIED I III VYMI

..................!!ll l I I I FFI]H HF((

Sperations l .........I

................................. . ...F[r*Fr II SDiscovery Ridge

NWMI would manage RPF

No reactor onsite

> MURR

RPF to be entirely staffed and operated by university; NWMI and MURR would co-manage RPF

Will require a multi-story building due to land constraints and current research reactor facility layout; may present design/construction and operational challenges

> OSU

Limited involvement in RPF operations; NWMI would manage RPF

Reactor will be co-located with RPF

Will require a multi-story building due to land constraints and current research reactor facility layout; may present design/construction and operational challenges

"Educational/R&D area" will need to be part of RPF (not requested by UC Davis or MURR)

> McClellan

No involvement in management and operations of RPF since itwill not be housed on UC Davis campus; proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in2003 and has a 99 year lease)

NWMI would manage RPF

Reactor located in McClellan Business Park and would be adjacent to proposed RPF location (within --200 ft)

Design and construction of transportation corridor required DR MURR 0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3

&WMJa

Preductlen Isgistlcs

> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activity SPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical third reactor

>Transportation Distance RPFLocation: DR/MURR RPF Location: OSU RPF Location: McClellan

.. ~ -. .~ . I - - .- . - S -- S *~ S I Covi i,OR iii~ 200mi (40 hr) Corvallis, OR 0 Corvallis, OR 50nii 1 i McClellan, CA 1800 mi (35 hr) McClellan, CA 520 mi (12 hr) 0 McClellan, CA Columbia, MO 20o0(40ohr)

Columbia, MO Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging

All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes DR MURR McClellan 4 2 3 3

~NW¢MI

Trahnsprtation

> Two high-priority transportation activities can effect 6-day curies delivered

Irradiated target to RPF via ground

99Mo Product to Distributor via air or ground

> Based on FEMA disaster declarations (1964-2007)

Transportation route between OSU and McClellan has a slightly greater density of disaster declarations than route between either location and DR/MURR

All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result indelays due to inclement weather

IfRPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability of delays 0 0 DR MUR QSU Mclellan

' NWMI-------

Waste Generation SRadioactive and Mixed Wastes

All potential RPF locations have a radioactive/mixed waste disposition pathways

Missouri (DR/MURR) sends waste to Waste Control Specialists, Inc. (located inTX) - two state borders will be crossed during transport

Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located inWA) - one state border will be crossed during transport

California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) - two state borders will be crossed during transport SHazardous Waste

All potential RPF locations have disposition pathways for all types of hazardous waste

Disposal costs are expected to be more expensive in CA than in OR or MO (cannot be evaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste)

. S DR MURR OU Mleln 4 4 4 3

MI________________

Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites because these are Federal requirements

>Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not vary between sites; each site already has an existing research reactor within close proximity SState and local requirements are expected to be most significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURR SAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project but differences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expected to be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURR S 0 DR MURR :OSU Mlellan 4 4 4 2 4 NWMI wIii~iii*5t WALiiii~i iii*

Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntives

> Sales tax on equipment and construction materials

MO sales tax = 4.225%; Equipment/supplies exempt; Construction materials non-exempt

OR has no sales tax

CA sales tax = 7.75%; Equipment or construction materials non-exempt SCorporate Income Tax

Missouri: 6.25%

Oregon: 7.60%

California: 8.84%

(Note: single sales factor apportionment is available in all 3 states; may be subject to income tax where product is sold)

SProperty Tax

University properties (OSU and DR/MURR) present opportunity for reduced property taxes based on the ownership model of government-owned facilities

McClellan does not appear to offer reduced property taxes

Cost savings will be determined by lease negotiations SIncentives

Oregon and Missouri are likely to offer more competitive tax and incentive packages than California S S DR MURR OSU Mclellan 5531

Available lpames

> Discovery Ridge

Greenfield Location (Agricultural for many generations)

SMURR

Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for limited future expansion (next to Research Reactor)

> OSU

Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the 0 SU campus (Northeast and East of Radiation Center)

Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion

RPF will need to include space for OSU educational and R&D use SMcClellan

Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion (,,-250 feet away from UC Davis Research Reactor)

RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made

~0

DR MURR OSU McClellan 5 3 I 2

~ NWMI

Construction Costs SRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes

DR/MURR (Columbia): 95.4

OSU (Corvallis): 98.6

McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): 109.9 SDiscovery Ridge

Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design

Construction cost expected be similar to OSU SMURR

Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design

Construction cost expected be similar to OSU

> OSU

Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design

Site may require demolition and reconstruction of existing laboratory buildings

> McClellan

Site has existing building and infrastructure resulting inslight cost savings

Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which will increase costs

DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3

NWMI,,u.

Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster Potential

Discovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)

Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake risk SOSU (Benton County)

Has fewest disaster declarations (mostly storm and flooding) and a moderate to low earthquake risk

>" McClellan (Sacramento County)

Has more disaster declarations than OSU and less than MURR (mostly storm and flooding) and a higher earthquake risk Pm'ob*Ry of mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu &50klm' UeP e,,*u= *m 4 djd Le,.

Mclela -Earthquk Risk Map OSU Ma

-cEaelhquakeaRisk i . 0.....

r, Discovery RidgeIMURR - EarthquakeRisk Map

- S 0

-I -D UR S clla 3 3 4 2 NW2M I..........

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001

'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E Rev. 0 Appendix B -

EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i

Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0A Effective Date: June 26, 2014 Engineering Design File I Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project

Title:

NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 1 of 5

1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task: NWMI Environmental Report

3. DCN#

4.

Title:

Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation

5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A

6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOC CO 2, VOC and SOx, from the two process steam boilers, the two HVAC boilers and the emergency generator that will be used for the operation of the NW/MI facility.

7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)

7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures:

(Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.)_____

Printed Name/

Organization Signature Date 61

____________RA Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus !'[)g'l[ dx' 6/26/14 Independent Review R Dave Thome * , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A INTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. These combustion sources are two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO 2 . The assumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below.

TEM-9002 EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 2 of 5 Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) (%) MVBTU/hr (ft3/hr)

Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 and Table 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.

Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.

Pollutant Emission Factor Units COa 84 NOx a 50 PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 c PM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb 6 sc VOC 5.5 SO 2

0.6 CO 2 d 120,000

a. Controlled -Low NOx burners

b. All PM (total, condensable, and filterable) is assumed to be less than 1.0 micrometer in diameter. Therefore, the PM emission factors presented here may be used to estimate PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM and condensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPA Method 202 (or equivalent). Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or prior to, the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.

c. Based on 100% conversion of fuel sulfur to SO2. Assumes sulfur content is natural gas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be converted to other natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio of the site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6 scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6 scf.

d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2 . CO2 [lb/10 6 scfl =

(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2, C =

carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/106 scf.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 3 of 5 From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:

Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)

Where:

EF = emission factor (lb/10 6 scf)

NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)

For: CO = 84 * (12460/106)

= 1.0 lb/hr Tons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton)

24 hr/day

7 days/week

50 weeks

=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1 Total CO release is the sum of the two process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers.

The emissions were calculated in ton/yr assuming a boiler operation of 50 weeks per year. The results are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilers Pollutant Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 (each) HVAC Boilers 1&2 (each) Total Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

CO 1.0E+00 4.4 1.1E+00 4.5 18 NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11 PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40 VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2 SO2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13 CO 2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000 Emergency Generator: The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO 2 , VOCs, and CO 2. The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annual emissions are shown below in Table 4 Total Emissions were calculated as follows:

Ei (kg) =EFi (g/kW-hr)

0.001 (kg/g)

Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)

Assumes 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months operation per year and 2,600 kw generator.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09/29/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 4of 5 Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator)

PM~ SO~ab COa NOXa NOxa a02 PM" SOxa,b g/kW-hr ozikW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr ozikW-hr Emission Factor 3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087 Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr Standby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14 diesel______________________ _______

generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340 a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C., 2010. Table 3.4.1 b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.

SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance.

TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 09129/09 Rev. 0A Rev. 0 Page 5 of 5

Attachment:

Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2...

0019*

I Stram Load IISteam lteat Factor I Boirr 0t19,m Fuel Encrgr Cotnt ata Couso a

934.52 BI~uO* Ofl for se~amat 25 xi 9345MN, 75% BoilerEf0,ienu, 22440MN, Fooloner* cortent 124600034,r CooCu,,,.14 1066;ha 30% OxreessAo 153004ft3ft Coomkustio, Air Emlacion Farctor, Br Boil,,. Enmhsbon.8.,n Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro Untll Pncoo,.Bollanl1&2 2 Pb l~ rate foreaoh of cxoobolers btwgs 0b/hr) Each {tons/*r} Esch (Ibthr Pb,,t,vecndorinfoocrmatio CO 84 hl4O of 2.050-09 4.44 NO,,' 50 6.23E-01 202 I1 6045E-02 2.72 PMt0 (Tola[)' 7.6 9.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 16 PMI0 (fl*orabe)bI 19 2.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.44 VOC 5.5 6.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.2 FIVAC 9672MN, Pook HIVAChooatg drrroalx 7.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.23

.75% Boilr, 03o¢nv CO.,* 120,000 ___ 2.500'803 6.28E303 [ 155E0 3 630 5E*3 25.359 o A, P (622,O. 00.40006 .. r~teik, = .u=*ad2t,ho00.

1.aoc.0=nmctood... eTh,,aoooorhePM l ssiacfool. rp'*ml htoo, re, bocodIo.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. Tri PM iuth00.00000inh . 0,000c.4c~o 08 70AMo¢hod 2026(,

Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM .i0 thp.ioalo..,oaoIll6.ga...*pri

,tt .u00..Iof.

w 2,*r~,00pn/t e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao m 00*t0. u. ho0,0r0 toud.h,c~atorO . .000r.ot,,o O 10020t (t.faim16lt) ,flOo9.oou floal106 so 002[100100 sel9 13.67)1C01d,1C0D30 .. h0. CulON r.000,oJ rOr.ru.020.O00IOCOC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt

0.000.dO D doy 0(.44,204.z1o4 or n6,

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001

=e*'ND*WEMEIA iOPE Rev. 0 Appendix C -