ML15328A072: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:*'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~ | {{#Wiki_filter:*'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix B -EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0AEffective Date: June 26, 2014Engineering Design FileI Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task: | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 2 of 5Table 1. Boiler Operational | NWMI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 3 of 5From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where:EF = emission factor (lb/106scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106)= 1.0 lb/hrTons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton) | : 5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: | ||
N/A7 Summary: | |||
This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOCCO2, 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/____________RA Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus 61 !'[)''g'l[ | |||
dx' 6/26/14Independent Review R Dave T home , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) | |||
Z]N/AINTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. | |||
Thesecombustion 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 releasedthrough two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO2.Theassumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 2 of 5Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural GasBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) | |||
(%) MVBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 andTable 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.Pollutant Emission Factor UnitsCOa 84NOx a 50PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 cPM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb6scVOC 5.5SO2 0.6CO2 d 120,000a. Controlled | |||
-Low NOx burnersb. 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 estimatePM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. | |||
Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM andcondensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPAMethod 202 (or equivalent). | |||
Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or priorto, 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 naturalgas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be converted toother natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio ofthe site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6scf.d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO2.CO2[lb/106 scfl =(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO2, C =carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/106scf. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 3 of 5From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where:EF = emission factor (lb/106scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106) | |||
= 1.0 lb/hrTons/year | |||
=(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton) | |||
* 24 hr/day | * 24 hr/day | ||
* 7 days/week | * 7 days/week | ||
* 50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1Total 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 areshown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilersPollutant | * 50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1Total 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 areshown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilersPollutant 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 18NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2SO2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13CO2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000Emergency Generator: | |||
The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safeshutdown of the system if required. | |||
The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO2, VOCs,and CO2.The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annualemissions are shown below in Table 4Total Emissions were calculated as follows:Ei (kg) =EFi (g/kW-hr) | |||
* 0.001 (kg/g) | * 0.001 (kg/g) | ||
* Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)Assumes 24 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator. | * Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)Assumes 24 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator. | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 4of 5Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator)NOXa PM~ SO~abCOaNOxaa02PM"SOxa, bg/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-hrEmission Factor3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hrStandby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14diesel______________________ _______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental | TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 4of 5Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator) | ||
NOXa PM~ SO~abCOaNOxaa02PM"SOxa, bg/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-hrEmission Factor3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hrStandby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14diesel______________________ | |||
_______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission | |||
: 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 3.4.1b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance. | |||
TEM-900209129/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 5 of 5 | TEM-900209129/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 5 of 5 | ||
==Attachment:== | ==Attachment:== | ||
Excel spread sheet of | |||
* iOPENWMI-201 5-RAI- | Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2... 934.52 Ofl for se~am at 25 xi9345 MN,75% Boiler Ef0,ienu, 22440 MN, Fool cortent124600034,r Coo Cu,,,.14 1066;ha30% OxreessAo 153004 ft3ft Coomkustio, AirPb btwgs l~ rate foreaoh of cxoo bolersPb,,t, vecndor infoocrmatio FIVAC 9672 MN, Pook HIVAC hooatg drrroalxISteam lteat Boirr Fuel Encrgr ata aI Stram Load I Factor I 0t19,m Cotnt Couso.75%Boilr, 03o¢nvEmlacion | ||
TEM-900209/29109Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 3 of | : Farctor, Br Boil,,.Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro UntllCO 84 hl4O ofNO,,' 50PMt0 (Tola[) ' 7.6PMI0 1 9VOC 5.5120,000 ___o A, P (62 2,O. 00.40006 | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 4 of 20RESULTSThe final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized inTable 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [ScaledCalculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour AnnualProcdureConcentration aFlat Terrain (gig/m3) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m3)_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 metersUsing the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters fromattachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in3), Table 6 and 7 were completed.Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired BoilersModeledconcentration toHourly Emissions | .. r~t eik, = .u=*ad 2t, ho 00.1.aoc.0=nmct o od... eTh,,aoooorhePM l s siac fool. rp'*mlhtoo, re, bocod Io.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. | ||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124- | TriPM iu th0 0.00000inh | ||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124- | .0 ,000c.4c~o 08 70A Mo¢hod 202 6(,Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM | ||
.i0 | |||
,tt w .u00..Iof. | |||
: e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao mt0. u. ho 0,0r0 to ud.h, c~a torO ..000r .ot,,o O10020t (t.faim16lt) | |||
,flOo9.oou floal106 so002[100100 sel9 1 3.67) 1C01d,1C0D30 | |||
..h0. CulON r.000,oJrOr.ru. 020.O00IO COC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt.dO D doy or 0(.44,204.z1o4 n6,2.050-09 4.446.23E-01 2026045E-02 2.72I19.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 162.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.446.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.27.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.232.500'803 6.28E303 | |||
[ 1 55E0 3 630 25.359Enmhsbon. | |||
8.,nPncoo,.Bollanl1&2 20b/hr) Each Esch (Ibthr | |||
* iOPENWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix C -EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1Effective Date: February 4, 2015Engineering Design FileEmission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report4PortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 01. Portage Project No.: 3124ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 1 of 202. Project/Task: | |||
NWMVI Enviromnmental Report3. DCNH#4. Title: Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN | |||
: 5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: | |||
N/A7 Summary:This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 naturalgas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. | |||
The results are then compared to the NAAQS andambient 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 DateAuthor/Design Agent A Gary McManus () 2/04/15Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) | |||
Z]N/A TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 2 of 20INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steamproduction and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. | |||
The two steam boilers and thetwo boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler andgenerator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilersand the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural GasSteam Load HeatBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) | |||
(%) MBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)Pollutant | |||
_____________ | |||
Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1 &2 TotalS~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) | |||
(lb/br) (tons/yr) | |||
(tons/yr) | |||
CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. Thisscreening 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-900209/29109Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 3 of 20ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. Theresults of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptorlocations. | |||
Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetSTACK INNER DIAMETER: | |||
0.305 meters 12.00 inchesPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: | |||
310.9 K 99.95 Deg FPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: | |||
17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURALFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feetINITIAL PROBE DISTANCE | |||
-- 5000. meters 16404. feetTable 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: | |||
255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 metersDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: | |||
Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: *0.4ROUGHNESS 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 asingle family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. | |||
Usingthese assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. | |||
A completelisting of the model is included in Attachment | |||
: 1. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 4 of 20RESULTSThe final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized inTable 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] | |||
Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [ScaledCalculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour AnnualProcdureConcentration aFlat Terrain (gig/m3) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m3)_________ | |||
17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 metersUsing the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters fromattachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in3), Table 6 and 7 were completed. | |||
Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired BoilersModeledconcentration toHourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m)c(lb/hr) (jig/in3) (jig/in3)CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-015.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04a. 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 1 7jg/m3 perlb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3per lb/hr TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 5 of 20Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired HeaterModeledHourly Emissions Maximum concentration toEmission for Both HVAC concentration closestPluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)(lb/hr) ([.tg/m3) (jig/mn3)CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01CO2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17jtg/mn3 / lb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3/ lb/hrSince both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwindconcentration was assumed to be additive. | |||
These values were then compared to the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards wereexceeded. | |||
This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage ofconcentration to closestAQ NAAQS Limit atPolltant 136rato@ | |||
clst residential NASAASPoint ofreceptor____(375 m)______ | |||
______ Maximum(___g/m3)__(jig/r | |||
: 3) (ppm) (jig/mn3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 PM-2.5 1 .6E+001.E0003 46SO2 4.7E+00 | |||
.6CO2 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-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 6 of 20From 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 theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. | |||
Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban MissouriAmbient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri3)CO 3.8E+03NOx 2.1E+01PMl0 1.7E+01PM-2.5 1.1E+01SO2 7.0E+00CO2 NAA similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. | |||
Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done toTable 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the StateMissouri. | |||
Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Airconcentrationoto 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 NAa Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilersb Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1 | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124.-0012 Rev. 1Page 7 of 20ATTACHMENT 1.AERSCREEN FilesText File:Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04AERSCREEN 11126NWMI PROCESS BOILER-......... | |||
DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH** STACKDATA | |||
**------------------ | |||
Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrStack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetStack Diameter: | |||
0.3 05 meters 12.00 inchesStack Temperature: | |||
310.9 K 100.0 Deg FExit Velocity: | |||
17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sStack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFMModel Mode: RURALDist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet** BUILDING DATA **No Building Downwash Parameters | |||
** TERRAIN DATA * *No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: | |||
0.0 meters0.0 feetProbe distance: | |||
5000. meters 16404. feetFlagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters6. feetNo discrete receptors used** METEOROLOGY DATA ** | |||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20Min/Max Temperature: | |||
255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg FMinimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/sAnemometer Height: 10.000 metersDominant Surface Profile: | |||
Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average MoistureAERSCREEN output file:boilerl .out** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to BeginNo terrain used, AERMAP will not be runSURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS | |||
& MAKEMETObtaining surface characteristics... | |||
Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average MoistureSeason Albedo Bo zoWinter 0.60 1.50 0.001Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc | |||
& aerscreen_01 01.pflCreating met files aerscreen_02_01 | |||
.sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_03_01 | |||
.sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_04_01 | |||
.sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pflPROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34Running probe for Winter sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES | |||
***** | |||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20*** NONE ***Running probe for Spring sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1*** NONE ***Running probe for Summer sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1******** | |||
WARNING MESSAGES | |||
********** NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES | |||
*********** NONE ***PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES | |||
******** NONE **REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warningsCheck log file for detailsEnding date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 10 of 20OUTPUT FILE:AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER02/05/1508:19:38***************************** | |||
STACK PARAMETERS | |||
***q* **** *** ******* **** * **** *SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/sSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 metersSTACK INNER DIAMETER: | |||
0.305 metersPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: | |||
310.9 KPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: | |||
17.929 in/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL1.000 lb/hr75.00 feet12.00 inches100.0 Deg F58.82 ft/sFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT:INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE | |||
=1.83 meters6.00 feet5000. meters16404. feet****************BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS | |||
** *** **** ****** ** **NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS************** | |||
PROBE ANALYSIS | |||
************** | |||
25 meter receptor spacing: | |||
: 1. meters -5000. metersZo ROUGHNESS SECTOR LENGTH1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL(ug/m3) (in) PERIOD1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR* -worst case flow sector TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Pagell1of 20********************** | |||
MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: | |||
255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED:0.5 rn/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 metersSURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLESDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: | |||
Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: 0.40ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUMIMPACTYR MO DY JDY HR10 0105 5 12HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50HT REF TA HT10.0 302.6 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): | |||
37.4 metersMETEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARYIMPACT TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 12 of 20YR MO DY JDY HR10 01 01 5 12Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.180.50HT REF TA HT10.0 255.4 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): | |||
56.5 meters************************ | |||
AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCEMAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(in) (ug/m3)1.00 0.2290E-04 25.00 4.21650.00 8.39075.00 10.29100.00 15.11125.00 16.69150.00 16.70175.00 16.17200.00 15.43225.00 14.64250.00 13.87275.00 13.16300.00 12.49325.00 11.89350.00 11.33375.00 10.83400.00 10.37425.00 9.943MAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(mn) (ug/m3)2525.00 4.1392550.00 4.1072575.00 4.0762600.00 4.0452625.00 4.0152650.00 3.9862675.00 3.9562700.00 3.9272725.00 3.8992750.00 3.8712775.00 3.8432800.00 3.8152825.00 3.7882850.00 3.7622875.00 3.7352900.00 3.7092925.00 3.6842950.00 3.659 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page1l3of 20450.00475.00500.00525.00550.00575.00600.00625.00650.00675.00700.00725.00750.00775.00800.00825.00850.00875.00900.00925.00950.00975.001000.001025.001050.001075.001100.001125.001150.001175.001200.001225.001250.001275.001300.001325.001350.001375.001400.001425.001450.001475.001500.001525.001550.001575.009.6099.3 159.0398.78 18.5398.3 108.0957.89 17.6997.5 177.3447.1797.0236.8746.7336.5976.4686.3446.2266.1126.0036.0396.1746.2876.3 806.4476.43 16.4 116.3866.3596.3286.2956.2596.2216.1826.14 16.0986.0556.0105.9655.9 195.8725.8265.7785.73 15.6832975.003000.003025.003050.003075.003100.003125.003150.003175.003200.003225.003250.003275.003300.003325.003350.003375.003400.003425.003450.003475.003500.003525.003550.003575.003600.003625.003650.003675.003700.003725.003750.003775.003800.003825.003850.003875.003900.003925.003950.003975.004000.004025.004050.004075.004100.003.6343.6093.5853.5613.5373.5 143.4913.4683.4463.4243.4023.3803.3593.3383.3 173.2963.2763.2563.2363.2173.1973.1783.1593.14 13.1223.1043.0863.0683.0513.0333.0162.9992.9822.9662.9492.9332.9172.90 12.8862.8702.8552.8392.8242.8 102.7952.780 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 14 of 201600.001625.001650.001675.001700.001725.001750.001775.001800.001825.001850.001875.001900.001925.001950.001975.002000.002025.002050.002075.002100.002125.002150.002175.002200.002225.002250.002275.002300.002325.002350.002375.002400.002425.002450.002475.002500.005.6365.5885.5415.4945.4475.4005.3535.3075.26 15.2 165.1715.1265.0825.03 84.9954.9524.9104.8684.8274.7864.7464.7064.6674.6294.5904.5534.5 154.4794.4434.4074.3724.3374.3034.2694.2364.2034.1714125.004150.004175.004200.004225.004250.004275.004300.004325.004350.004375.004400.004425.004450.004475.004500.004525.004550.004575.004600.004625.004650.004675.004700.004725.004750.004775.004800.004825.004850.004875.004900.004925.004950.004975.005000.002.7662.7522.7372.7242.7102.6962.6822.6692.6562.6432.6302.6172.6042.5912.5792.5 662.5542.5422.5302.5 182.5062.4942.4832.4712.4602.4492.4382.4272.4162.4052.3942.3 832.3732.3622.3522.341********************** | |||
AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARYMAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED TEM-9002 ENGINEERING 09/29109Rev. 01-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUFCALCULATION CONC CONC CONCPROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/niFLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08J1 FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 15 of 20,.ANNUALCONC CONC[3) (ug/m3)1.68 1DISTANCE FROM SOURCE136.00 metersIMPACT AT THEAMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr1.00 meters TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 16 of 20Attachment 2Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for MissouriTable 1. Levels of CO in Springfield MissouriMaximum MaximumYear 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average(ppm) (ppm)1993 5.4 141994 5.9 121995 5 91996 3.3 71997 5 71998 5.1 61999 4.1 52000 2.8 52001 4.3 72002 3.5 62003 2.4 42004 3.4 52005 3 52006 2.1 .42007 2.6 42008 1.3 1.92009--- --1.5- ..---2.3 --2010 1.9 2.3Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0111994 0.0131995 0.0121996 0.0111997 0.0111998 0.0121999 0.0132000 0.0122001 0.0132002 0.01072003 0.01112004 0.0122005 0.01152006 0.01042007 0.012008 0.00892009 0.0083Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079Average (ppm) 1. 1OE-02Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 17 of 20Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr AverageYear(gg/m3) (gg/m3)1993 18 381994 18 581995 17 441996 18 641997 15 511998 17 431999 18 452000 18 47.2001 20 572002 18 462003 17 402004 16.7 362005 19.3 452006 15.7 352007 17.9 382008 15 392009 14 272010 17.2 362011 16.5 372012 16.9 38Average(jgg/m | |||
: 3) 17.16 43.2Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1999 12.242000 12.282001 12.22002 12.72003 11.72004 10.912005 13.012006 10.822007 11.82008 10.72009 9.552010 9.892011 10.922012 10.09Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1 TEM-900209/29/ 09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 18 of 20Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0031994 0.0051995 0.0021996 0.0031997 0.0021998 0.0031999 0.0042000 0.0032001 0.0042002 0.0032003 0.0022004 0.00142005 0.00172006 0.00192007 0.00182008 0.00222009 0.0022Average (ppm) 2.66E-03Average 6.97E+00 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0EGNEINGrat DESm iGNtILEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 19 of 20 | |||
==Attachment:== | ==Attachment:== | ||
Excel spread sheets of | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 20 of 20Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JIl134o0(16b): _______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --IIMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.000.132.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ IMat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tCakiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu..*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo | Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from VistaProcess 10000 pph 111111 ________934.52 Btu/lb 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 informationgs velocitHVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demandFlue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ | |||
____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 20 of 20Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JIl134o0(16b): | |||
_______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --IIMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.000.132.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ IMat 51.~mUi~. | |||
mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tCakiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu. | |||
.*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl | |||
~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~ | |||
~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ | |||
~t~wEinfl~ | |||
Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo | |||
* tll l 11 tilt4 | * tll l 11 tilt4 | ||
* ;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$ | * ;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix D -EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i Document I D: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1Effective Date: July 31, 2015Engineering Design FileOn-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task: | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124- | NWMvI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: | ||
*;., NWMI-201 5-RAI- | N/A7 Summary: | ||
........... ........ .. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiiiSUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations* | This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles duringthe 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 NamerR/A Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus )~d 7/31/15Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ | |||
Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) | |||
Z]N/A TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 2of 5INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSEDuring the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce andfrom routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board EmissionDatabase (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) | |||
was used to calculate on-road vehicle emissionfactors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type,vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidityThe volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected duringconstruction. | |||
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, limitingroutine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts fromvehicular 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 periodare shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100vehicles 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 ayear to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. | |||
On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52weeks 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) MilesWorkforce travel (60) Commute -light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000Workforce travel (30) Commute -light duty gas trucks (1 2/260) 502,116 312,000Workforce travel (10) Commute -light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants andcarbon dioxide (CO2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC seriesof models. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1Page 3 of 5Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running) | |||
CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVehicle Type (/ieLight Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03LgtdtTrcs3.36E-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+00Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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) | |||
Veil yeCO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVhceTp (g/vehicle/day) | |||
Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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 shownbelow: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, C02, PM10,PM2.5 and SOx TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 4of 5Example 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 gCO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days=-2.70E+05 gTotal CO Emissions | |||
= 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g1 1.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown inTable 5 below.Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOxVehicle 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 5AutosLgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9Total (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 Emission RatesRegion Type: Statewide Region: California Calendar Year: 2015Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: | |||
EMPAC2RO1 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed(miles/hr) | |||
StatewIde 2015 Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated Statewide 2015 Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated Statewide 2015 Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated o o~rcc N2Running -CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I(gins/ssile) 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-00 3.51E-033.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03dli~ngCO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J[gms/vehlcle/duy) 0 0 0 R 0 RO 0 0 R 0 R0 0 0 R S S1.73E+01 | |||
~dling 49E0CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE(gms/vehslce/day) 1.7+1 03E+00 4.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0RORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R light Duty Auto gaslightsOt/Truck gasLight Duty Truck dieselMiles624,0R0302,000004,0ooCO6.15E6+05 1.O2E.+]6 3.401+04NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+00 0.25E+03 1.276+0 300E.RRE+04 0.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 | |||
,53E+R2 10Days CO260 0260 0260 .RNORCOO000PM0R PMO._5 ROE Vehicles Gays 2CO+50 NOR COO PMIOR PM2... ROEO 0 R 60 060 O.R 10 .776+04 7.24E+06 O.ROE+0O 2.RSE+02 7.72E+01] | |||
O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O4 4.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E*02 4.56E+01O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+00 0.00E+00 0.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StSVstlste Ttye Fontlitus) Phe) 1005) yhn) 0ni So'go) Old) flu ks) Osightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2Jt Truok 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 ITeozloDt c dksel 05 77 7n[i 104 37.004 Ri,5tS S 4 6 1T'ostz 2443 } 50360 290 631 001,746 603,662 0 21 9 iTo0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004h'iz0imh"mz"0i-rnCD. | |||
*;., | |||
NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix E -Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i 1111111 I Iw euraEAr/3l U3IRU31~iWA1UlAJIS3XUVU OI~J.T~ -e~PU WAT1m P'UW DWASTI MAN(T CA*WAES P03t 3....AL *alU,mtru, iss iw31W YAMu AII.3 1MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH | |||
'U..NWMIl Altermative Sits Locatiosm | |||
._ .II in i~niifi iii n II I~l ! ...J~ k... ......... | |||
iJ _ .!i![!! 1! F ! I ..... ... rr t Imlllll m flI]I _ -.l-T> 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 Site Selectlen Criteria, , , ... .......... IIH .... III I ... .. Y ] 1 ... r] .1! 1 .. o 1, , I11 1 l f .... .. ...Il l ...Political and locallogistics supportAbility of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical | |||
: support, based on regional politics and importance of project toeconomic develooment 10Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (i.e., air,liquids, solids)Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements andavailability of waste disposition pathway8Federal and State taxesand incentives Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPFownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMIseparately 3Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2and construction indicesTotal Weight 60*e j WM Scoring Details mmdiiRessuht-- -6~ S -40: 1 1030 3 3030 3 3016 3 24Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3Txitingitc4 40 2 2Transportation 4 32 4 32 2Federal, State, county, and local require-4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10ments to construct and operate facilityFeiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'Iii:~i0~.NWMIuSflmUTinA+/- | |||
IUIWS | |||
........... | |||
........ | |||
.. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiiiSUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations* | |||
==Reference:== | ==Reference:== | ||
Current Dilscsvsry IRidge LaysutPhimI 13L0,0,tPlmE lOAMFts212* Ac/I,I...W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a muEUU DEED flUME U~WEUYUt~M MUIR Site | *Based on Department of Energy's Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods (WSRC-IM-2002-00002) | ||
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 in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimumsetback 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,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........ l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF LayoutICurrent OSU Layout:;.. WMIM nU.,.:t II VNVU I¥11t McClellan Site Characteristics> Location* UC Davis, McClellan Nuclear Research Center (MNRC) is located off campus at | SDeveloped a list of site-specific criteriaCriteria weighted by their importance to NWMI's business plan* 10 = most important, 1 = least important | ||
-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. iiJ4Preliminary RPF LayoutLo1!N.I4i1~--1Current McClellan LayoutM~n S~.3rwm~522A A~1' JG LOT 15PLaRw gvwQI Ia WAIrn11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~ | ) Each site scored on a scale of 1-5* 5 = most favorable, 1 = least favorable | ||
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 99Moendeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community> OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 99Mo business model due to FTEgeneration 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 in 99Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimalFTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU | ) Weighting applied to the raw scores to determine a total score for each location/~ iNWM I1,I°T I~aEV Elseovery Bilge Characteristics | ||
Waste | > 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 | ||
Feisral, Stats, and Loceal | * Site is on ground that has been historically used for agriculture | ||
Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake riskSOSU (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 ahigher earthquake | > 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 | ||
*'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~ | * Required utilities are available through MU> Land Use* Land use is presently set aside for a technology research park/industrial | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 2 of 5Table 1. Boiler Operational | > Soils* Soils are characterized by medium and narrow ridges with moderate to steep side slopes* Soils are clayey and formed in loess 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 | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 3 of 5From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where:EF = emission factor (lb/106scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106)= 1.0 lb/hrTons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton) | > Groundwater | ||
* Average depth to groundwater in Columbia, 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 LaysutPhimI 13L0,0,tPlmE lOAMFts212* Ac/I,I...W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a muEUU 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 becmpeen DS!NWMI EUR,-Current Layout/RPF Layout.... .... .... ... .... ... I r r ll lll IIII IIIIIII .. .. ... ... /I /I I I II I ,,,ID .. .... ..I!1 I I ,t i l l OSUE Site Characteristics | |||
>. Location* OSU is located near the I-5 corridor in Corvallis,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 ofthe reactor* Utilizing site would require relocation of twoexisting laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modifyroads)> Roadways* Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on theCorvallis-Lebanon Highway* Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used forirradiated 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 in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimumsetback 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,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........ | |||
l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF LayoutICurrent OSU Layout:;.. WMIM nU.,.:t II VNVU 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 aspotential 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. | |||
WattAvenue boarders McClellan to the east* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets-lvmms 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 ofAir 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 soilmaterial; Xerarents | |||
* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction | |||
> Groundwater | |||
* Depth to groundwater in Sacramento 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 | |||
-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. iiJ4Preliminary RPF LayoutLo1!N.I4i1~--1Current McClellan LayoutM~n S~.3rwm~522A A~1' JG LOT 15PLaRw gvwQI Ia WAIrn11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS P.S WrATUl UQDWAre SCtmCLh MAILIT -AIEpf rmLOT 3uwrum I-urntIIWVA FIT=4PVR-ar IMW A£ NsmftANORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LIIALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION | |||
-DETILEE SI* , mN~a W 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 99Moendeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community | |||
> OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 99Mo business model due to FTEgeneration 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 in 99Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimalFTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1BEUMIED IIII VYMI Sperations | |||
...... ............ | |||
!!l l l I I I F FI]H HF[[ ............ | |||
.......... | |||
.... ..... " ...... l ................................. | |||
.... Fr ......... | |||
I I ISDiscovery 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; maypresent 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; maypresent 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 it will not be housed on UC Davis campus;proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in 2003 and has a99 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..DRMURR0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3&WMJa Preductlen Isgistlcs | |||
> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activitySPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical thirdreactor>Transportation DistanceRPF Location: | |||
DR/MURR RPF Location: | |||
OSU RPF Location: | |||
McClellan | |||
..~ -. .~ .I --.- .-S--S *~ S ICovi i, OR iii~McClellan, CA200mi (40 hr)1800 mi (35 hr)Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO0520 mi (12 hr)20o0(40ohr) | |||
Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO50nii 1 i0Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging | |||
*All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes | |||
..DR4MURR23McClellan 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 disasterdeclarations than route between either location and DR/MURR* All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result in delays due toinclement weather* If RPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability ofdelays0 0DR 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 in TX) -twostate borders will be crossed during transport | |||
* Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located in WA) -one state border will be crossed during transport | |||
* California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) -two state borders willbe 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 beevaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste).SDR MURR OU Mleln4 4 4 3* MI________________ | |||
: Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites becausethese are Federal requirements | |||
>Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not varybetween 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 lessat OSU and DR/MURRSAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project butdifferences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expectedto be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURRS 0DR MURR :OSU Mlellan4 4 4 24 NWMI WALiiii~i Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntivesSales 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 taxesbased 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 thanCalifornia S SDR MURR OSU Mclellan5531 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 toResearch Reactor)> OSU* Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the(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 use0SU campus-250 feet awaySMcClellan | |||
* Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion | |||
(,,from UC Davis Research Reactor)* RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made~0 *DR5MURR3OSUIMcClellan 2:~ NWMI Construction CostsSRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes* DR/MURR (Columbia): | |||
95.4* OSU (Corvallis): | |||
98.6* McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): | |||
109.9SDiscovery Ridge* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSUSMURR* 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 in slight cost savings* Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which willincrease costs..:DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3* NWMI,,u. | |||
Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake riskSOSU (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 ahigher earthquake risk of mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu & 50klm'UeP e,,*u= djd 4 Le,.Mclela -Earthquk Risk MapOSU -cEaelhquakeaRisk Mai .0.....r, Discovery RidgeIMURR | |||
-Earthquake Risk Map-S 0-I -D UR S clla3 3 4 2NW2M I.......... | |||
*'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix B -EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0AEffective Date: June 26, 2014Engineering Design FileI Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task: | |||
NWMI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation | |||
: 5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: | |||
N/A7 Summary: | |||
This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOCCO2, 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/____________RA Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus 61 !'[)''g'l[ | |||
dx' 6/26/14Independent Review R Dave T home , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) | |||
Z]N/AINTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. | |||
Thesecombustion 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 releasedthrough two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO2.Theassumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 2 of 5Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural GasBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) | |||
(%) MVBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 andTable 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.Pollutant Emission Factor UnitsCOa 84NOx a 50PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 cPM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb6scVOC 5.5SO2 0.6CO2 d 120,000a. Controlled | |||
-Low NOx burnersb. 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 estimatePM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. | |||
Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM andcondensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPAMethod 202 (or equivalent). | |||
Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or priorto, 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 naturalgas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be converted toother natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio ofthe site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6scf.d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO2.CO2[lb/106 scfl =(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO2, C =carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/106scf. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 3 of 5From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where:EF = emission factor (lb/106scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106) | |||
= 1.0 lb/hrTons/year | |||
=(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton) | |||
* 24 hr/day | * 24 hr/day | ||
* 7 days/week | * 7 days/week | ||
* 50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1Total 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 areshown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilersPollutant | * 50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1Total 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 areshown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilersPollutant 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 18NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2SO2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13CO2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000Emergency Generator: | |||
The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safeshutdown of the system if required. | |||
The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO2, VOCs,and CO2.The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annualemissions are shown below in Table 4Total Emissions were calculated as follows:Ei (kg) =EFi (g/kW-hr) | |||
* 0.001 (kg/g) | * 0.001 (kg/g) | ||
* Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)Assumes 24 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator. | * Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)Assumes 24 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator. | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 4of 5Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator)NOXa PM~ SO~abCOaNOxaa02PM"SOxa, bg/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-hrEmission Factor3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hrStandby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14diesel______________________ _______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental | TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 4of 5Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator) | ||
NOXa PM~ SO~abCOaNOxaa02PM"SOxa, bg/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-hrEmission Factor3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hrStandby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14diesel______________________ | |||
_______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission | |||
: 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 3.4.1b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance. | |||
TEM-900209129/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 5 of 5 | TEM-900209129/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 5 of 5 | ||
==Attachment:== | ==Attachment:== | ||
Excel spread sheet of | |||
* iOPENWMI-201 5-RAI- | Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2... 934.52 Ofl for se~am at 25 xi9345 MN,75% Boiler Ef0,ienu, 22440 MN, Fool cortent124600034,r Coo Cu,,,.14 1066;ha30% OxreessAo 153004 ft3ft Coomkustio, AirPb btwgs l~ rate foreaoh of cxoo bolersPb,,t, vecndor infoocrmatio FIVAC 9672 MN, Pook HIVAC hooatg drrroalxISteam lteat Boirr Fuel Encrgr ata aI Stram Load I Factor I 0t19,m Cotnt Couso.75%Boilr, 03o¢nvEmlacion | ||
TEM-900209/29109Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 3 of | : Farctor, Br Boil,,.Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro UntllCO 84 hl4O ofNO,,' 50PMt0 (Tola[) ' 7.6PMI0 1 9VOC 5.5120,000 ___o A, P (62 2,O. 00.40006 | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 4 of 20RESULTSThe final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized inTable 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [ScaledCalculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour AnnualProcdureConcentration aFlat Terrain (gig/m3) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m3)_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 metersUsing the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters fromattachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in3), Table 6 and 7 were completed.Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired BoilersModeledconcentration toHourly Emissions | .. r~t eik, = .u=*ad 2t, ho 00.1.aoc.0=nmct o od... eTh,,aoooorhePM l s siac fool. rp'*mlhtoo, re, bocod Io.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. | ||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124- | TriPM iu th0 0.00000inh | ||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124- | .0 ,000c.4c~o 08 70A Mo¢hod 202 6(,Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM | ||
.i0 | |||
,tt w .u00..Iof. | |||
: e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao mt0. u. ho 0,0r0 to ud.h, c~a torO ..000r .ot,,o O10020t (t.faim16lt) | |||
,flOo9.oou floal106 so002[100100 sel9 1 3.67) 1C01d,1C0D30 | |||
..h0. CulON r.000,oJrOr.ru. 020.O00IO COC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt.dO D doy or 0(.44,204.z1o4 n6,2.050-09 4.446.23E-01 2026045E-02 2.72I19.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 162.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.446.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.27.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.232.500'803 6.28E303 | |||
[ 1 55E0 3 630 25.359Enmhsbon. | |||
8.,nPncoo,.Bollanl1&2 20b/hr) Each Esch (Ibthr | |||
* iOPENWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix C -EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1Effective Date: February 4, 2015Engineering Design FileEmission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report4PortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 01. Portage Project No.: 3124ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 1 of 202. Project/Task: | |||
NWMVI Enviromnmental Report3. DCNH#4. Title: Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN | |||
: 5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: | |||
N/A7 Summary:This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 naturalgas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. | |||
The results are then compared to the NAAQS andambient 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 DateAuthor/Design Agent A Gary McManus () 2/04/15Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) | |||
Z]N/A TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 2 of 20INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steamproduction and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. | |||
The two steam boilers and thetwo boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler andgenerator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilersand the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural GasSteam Load HeatBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) | |||
(%) MBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)Pollutant | |||
_____________ | |||
Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1 &2 TotalS~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) | |||
(lb/br) (tons/yr) | |||
(tons/yr) | |||
CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. Thisscreening 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-900209/29109Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 3 of 20ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. Theresults of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptorlocations. | |||
Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetSTACK INNER DIAMETER: | |||
0.305 meters 12.00 inchesPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: | |||
310.9 K 99.95 Deg FPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: | |||
17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURALFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feetINITIAL PROBE DISTANCE | |||
-- 5000. meters 16404. feetTable 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: | |||
255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 metersDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: | |||
Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: *0.4ROUGHNESS 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 asingle family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. | |||
Usingthese assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. | |||
A completelisting of the model is included in Attachment | |||
: 1. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 4 of 20RESULTSThe final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized inTable 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] | |||
Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [ScaledCalculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour AnnualProcdureConcentration aFlat Terrain (gig/m3) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m3)_________ | |||
17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 metersUsing the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters fromattachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in3), Table 6 and 7 were completed. | |||
Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired BoilersModeledconcentration toHourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m)c(lb/hr) (jig/in3) (jig/in3)CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-015.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04a. 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 1 7jg/m3 perlb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3per lb/hr TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 5 of 20Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired HeaterModeledHourly Emissions Maximum concentration toEmission for Both HVAC concentration closestPluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)(lb/hr) ([.tg/m3) (jig/mn3)CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01CO2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17jtg/mn3 / lb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3/ lb/hrSince both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwindconcentration was assumed to be additive. | |||
These values were then compared to the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards wereexceeded. | |||
This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage ofconcentration to closestAQ NAAQS Limit atPolltant 136rato@ | |||
clst residential NASAASPoint ofreceptor____(375 m)______ | |||
______ Maximum(___g/m3)__(jig/r | |||
: 3) (ppm) (jig/mn3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 PM-2.5 1 .6E+001.E0003 46SO2 4.7E+00 | |||
.6CO2 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-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 6 of 20From 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 theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. | |||
Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban MissouriAmbient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri3)CO 3.8E+03NOx 2.1E+01PMl0 1.7E+01PM-2.5 1.1E+01SO2 7.0E+00CO2 NAA similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. | |||
Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done toTable 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the StateMissouri. | |||
Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Airconcentrationoto 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 NAa Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilersb Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1 | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124.-0012 Rev. 1Page 7 of 20ATTACHMENT 1.AERSCREEN FilesText File:Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04AERSCREEN 11126NWMI PROCESS BOILER-......... | |||
DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH** STACKDATA | |||
**------------------ | |||
Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrStack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetStack Diameter: | |||
0.3 05 meters 12.00 inchesStack Temperature: | |||
310.9 K 100.0 Deg FExit Velocity: | |||
17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sStack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFMModel Mode: RURALDist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet** BUILDING DATA **No Building Downwash Parameters | |||
** TERRAIN DATA * *No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: | |||
0.0 meters0.0 feetProbe distance: | |||
5000. meters 16404. feetFlagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters6. feetNo discrete receptors used** METEOROLOGY DATA ** | |||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20Min/Max Temperature: | |||
255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg FMinimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/sAnemometer Height: 10.000 metersDominant Surface Profile: | |||
Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average MoistureAERSCREEN output file:boilerl .out** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to BeginNo terrain used, AERMAP will not be runSURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS | |||
& MAKEMETObtaining surface characteristics... | |||
Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average MoistureSeason Albedo Bo zoWinter 0.60 1.50 0.001Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc | |||
& aerscreen_01 01.pflCreating met files aerscreen_02_01 | |||
.sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_03_01 | |||
.sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_04_01 | |||
.sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pflPROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34Running probe for Winter sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES | |||
***** | |||
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20*** NONE ***Running probe for Spring sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1*** NONE ***Running probe for Summer sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1******** | |||
WARNING MESSAGES | |||
********** NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES | |||
*********** NONE ***PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES | |||
******** NONE **REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warningsCheck log file for detailsEnding date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 10 of 20OUTPUT FILE:AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER02/05/1508:19:38***************************** | |||
STACK PARAMETERS | |||
***q* **** *** ******* **** * **** *SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/sSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 metersSTACK INNER DIAMETER: | |||
0.305 metersPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: | |||
310.9 KPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: | |||
17.929 in/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL1.000 lb/hr75.00 feet12.00 inches100.0 Deg F58.82 ft/sFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT:INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE | |||
=1.83 meters6.00 feet5000. meters16404. feet****************BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS | |||
** *** **** ****** ** **NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS************** | |||
PROBE ANALYSIS | |||
************** | |||
25 meter receptor spacing: | |||
: 1. meters -5000. metersZo ROUGHNESS SECTOR LENGTH1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL(ug/m3) (in) PERIOD1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR* -worst case flow sector TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Pagell1of 20********************** | |||
MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: | |||
255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED:0.5 rn/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 metersSURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLESDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: | |||
Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: 0.40ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUMIMPACTYR MO DY JDY HR10 0105 5 12HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50HT REF TA HT10.0 302.6 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): | |||
37.4 metersMETEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARYIMPACT TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 12 of 20YR MO DY JDY HR10 01 01 5 12Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.180.50HT REF TA HT10.0 255.4 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): | |||
56.5 meters************************ | |||
AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCEMAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(in) (ug/m3)1.00 0.2290E-04 25.00 4.21650.00 8.39075.00 10.29100.00 15.11125.00 16.69150.00 16.70175.00 16.17200.00 15.43225.00 14.64250.00 13.87275.00 13.16300.00 12.49325.00 11.89350.00 11.33375.00 10.83400.00 10.37425.00 9.943MAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(mn) (ug/m3)2525.00 4.1392550.00 4.1072575.00 4.0762600.00 4.0452625.00 4.0152650.00 3.9862675.00 3.9562700.00 3.9272725.00 3.8992750.00 3.8712775.00 3.8432800.00 3.8152825.00 3.7882850.00 3.7622875.00 3.7352900.00 3.7092925.00 3.6842950.00 3.659 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page1l3of 20450.00475.00500.00525.00550.00575.00600.00625.00650.00675.00700.00725.00750.00775.00800.00825.00850.00875.00900.00925.00950.00975.001000.001025.001050.001075.001100.001125.001150.001175.001200.001225.001250.001275.001300.001325.001350.001375.001400.001425.001450.001475.001500.001525.001550.001575.009.6099.3 159.0398.78 18.5398.3 108.0957.89 17.6997.5 177.3447.1797.0236.8746.7336.5976.4686.3446.2266.1126.0036.0396.1746.2876.3 806.4476.43 16.4 116.3866.3596.3286.2956.2596.2216.1826.14 16.0986.0556.0105.9655.9 195.8725.8265.7785.73 15.6832975.003000.003025.003050.003075.003100.003125.003150.003175.003200.003225.003250.003275.003300.003325.003350.003375.003400.003425.003450.003475.003500.003525.003550.003575.003600.003625.003650.003675.003700.003725.003750.003775.003800.003825.003850.003875.003900.003925.003950.003975.004000.004025.004050.004075.004100.003.6343.6093.5853.5613.5373.5 143.4913.4683.4463.4243.4023.3803.3593.3383.3 173.2963.2763.2563.2363.2173.1973.1783.1593.14 13.1223.1043.0863.0683.0513.0333.0162.9992.9822.9662.9492.9332.9172.90 12.8862.8702.8552.8392.8242.8 102.7952.780 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 14 of 201600.001625.001650.001675.001700.001725.001750.001775.001800.001825.001850.001875.001900.001925.001950.001975.002000.002025.002050.002075.002100.002125.002150.002175.002200.002225.002250.002275.002300.002325.002350.002375.002400.002425.002450.002475.002500.005.6365.5885.5415.4945.4475.4005.3535.3075.26 15.2 165.1715.1265.0825.03 84.9954.9524.9104.8684.8274.7864.7464.7064.6674.6294.5904.5534.5 154.4794.4434.4074.3724.3374.3034.2694.2364.2034.1714125.004150.004175.004200.004225.004250.004275.004300.004325.004350.004375.004400.004425.004450.004475.004500.004525.004550.004575.004600.004625.004650.004675.004700.004725.004750.004775.004800.004825.004850.004875.004900.004925.004950.004975.005000.002.7662.7522.7372.7242.7102.6962.6822.6692.6562.6432.6302.6172.6042.5912.5792.5 662.5542.5422.5302.5 182.5062.4942.4832.4712.4602.4492.4382.4272.4162.4052.3942.3 832.3732.3622.3522.341********************** | |||
AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARYMAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED TEM-9002 ENGINEERING 09/29109Rev. 01-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUFCALCULATION CONC CONC CONCPROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/niFLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08J1 FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 15 of 20,.ANNUALCONC CONC[3) (ug/m3)1.68 1DISTANCE FROM SOURCE136.00 metersIMPACT AT THEAMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr1.00 meters TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 16 of 20Attachment 2Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for MissouriTable 1. Levels of CO in Springfield MissouriMaximum MaximumYear 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average(ppm) (ppm)1993 5.4 141994 5.9 121995 5 91996 3.3 71997 5 71998 5.1 61999 4.1 52000 2.8 52001 4.3 72002 3.5 62003 2.4 42004 3.4 52005 3 52006 2.1 .42007 2.6 42008 1.3 1.92009--- --1.5- ..---2.3 --2010 1.9 2.3Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0111994 0.0131995 0.0121996 0.0111997 0.0111998 0.0121999 0.0132000 0.0122001 0.0132002 0.01072003 0.01112004 0.0122005 0.01152006 0.01042007 0.012008 0.00892009 0.0083Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079Average (ppm) 1. 1OE-02Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 17 of 20Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr AverageYear(gg/m3) (gg/m3)1993 18 381994 18 581995 17 441996 18 641997 15 511998 17 431999 18 452000 18 47.2001 20 572002 18 462003 17 402004 16.7 362005 19.3 452006 15.7 352007 17.9 382008 15 392009 14 272010 17.2 362011 16.5 372012 16.9 38Average(jgg/m | |||
: 3) 17.16 43.2Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1999 12.242000 12.282001 12.22002 12.72003 11.72004 10.912005 13.012006 10.822007 11.82008 10.72009 9.552010 9.892011 10.922012 10.09Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1 TEM-900209/29/ 09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 18 of 20Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0031994 0.0051995 0.0021996 0.0031997 0.0021998 0.0031999 0.0042000 0.0032001 0.0042002 0.0032003 0.0022004 0.00142005 0.00172006 0.00192007 0.00182008 0.00222009 0.0022Average (ppm) 2.66E-03Average 6.97E+00 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0EGNEINGrat DESm iGNtILEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 19 of 20 | |||
==Attachment:== | ==Attachment:== | ||
Excel spread sheets of | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 20 of 20Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JIl134o0(16b): _______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --IIMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.000.132.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ IMat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tCakiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu..*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo | Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from VistaProcess 10000 pph 111111 ________934.52 Btu/lb 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 informationgs velocitHVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demandFlue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ | |||
____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 20 of 20Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JIl134o0(16b): | |||
_______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --IIMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.000.132.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ IMat 51.~mUi~. | |||
mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tCakiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu. | |||
.*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl | |||
~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~ | |||
~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ | |||
~t~wEinfl~ | |||
Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo | |||
* tll l 11 tilt4 | * tll l 11 tilt4 | ||
* ;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$ | * ;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix D -EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i Document I D: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1Effective Date: July 31, 2015Engineering Design FileOn-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task: | ||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124- | NWMvI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: | ||
*;., NWMI-201 5-RAI- | N/A7 Summary: | ||
........... ........ .. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiiiSUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations* | This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles duringthe 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 NamerR/A Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus )~d 7/31/15Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ | |||
Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) | |||
Z]N/A TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 2of 5INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSEDuring the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce andfrom routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board EmissionDatabase (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) | |||
was used to calculate on-road vehicle emissionfactors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type,vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidityThe volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected duringconstruction. | |||
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, limitingroutine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts fromvehicular 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 periodare shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100vehicles 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 ayear to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. | |||
On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52weeks 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) MilesWorkforce travel (60) Commute -light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000Workforce travel (30) Commute -light duty gas trucks (1 2/260) 502,116 312,000Workforce travel (10) Commute -light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants andcarbon dioxide (CO2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC seriesof models. | |||
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1Page 3 of 5Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running) | |||
CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVehicle Type (/ieLight Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03LgtdtTrcs3.36E-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+00Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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) | |||
Veil yeCO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVhceTp (g/vehicle/day) | |||
Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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 shownbelow: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, C02, PM10,PM2.5 and SOx TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 4of 5Example 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 gCO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days=-2.70E+05 gTotal CO Emissions | |||
= 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g1 1.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown inTable 5 below.Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOxVehicle 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 5AutosLgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9Total (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 Emission RatesRegion Type: Statewide Region: California Calendar Year: 2015Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: | |||
EMPAC2RO1 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed(miles/hr) | |||
StatewIde 2015 Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated Statewide 2015 Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated Statewide 2015 Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated o o~rcc N2Running -CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I(gins/ssile) 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-00 3.51E-033.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03dli~ngCO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J[gms/vehlcle/duy) 0 0 0 R 0 RO 0 0 R 0 R0 0 0 R S S1.73E+01 | |||
~dling 49E0CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE(gms/vehslce/day) 1.7+1 03E+00 4.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0RORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R light Duty Auto gaslightsOt/Truck gasLight Duty Truck dieselMiles624,0R0302,000004,0ooCO6.15E6+05 1.O2E.+]6 3.401+04NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+00 0.25E+03 1.276+0 300E.RRE+04 0.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 | |||
,53E+R2 10Days CO260 0260 0260 .RNORCOO000PM0R PMO._5 ROE Vehicles Gays 2CO+50 NOR COO PMIOR PM2... ROEO 0 R 60 060 O.R 10 .776+04 7.24E+06 O.ROE+0O 2.RSE+02 7.72E+01] | |||
O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O4 4.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E*02 4.56E+01O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+00 0.00E+00 0.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StSVstlste Ttye Fontlitus) Phe) 1005) yhn) 0ni So'go) Old) flu ks) Osightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2Jt Truok 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 ITeozloDt c dksel 05 77 7n[i 104 37.004 Ri,5tS S 4 6 1T'ostz 2443 } 50360 290 631 001,746 603,662 0 21 9 iTo0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004h'iz0imh"mz"0i-rnCD. | |||
*;., | |||
NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix E -Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i 1111111 I Iw euraEAr/3l U3IRU31~iWA1UlAJIS3XUVU OI~J.T~ -e~PU WAT1m P'UW DWASTI MAN(T CA*WAES P03t 3....AL *alU,mtru, iss iw31W YAMu AII.3 1MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH | |||
'U..NWMIl Altermative Sits Locatiosm | |||
._ .II in i~niifi iii n II I~l ! ...J~ k... ......... | |||
iJ _ .!i![!! 1! F ! I ..... ... rr t Imlllll m flI]I _ -.l-T> 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 Site Selectlen Criteria, , , ... .......... IIH .... III I ... .. Y ] 1 ... r] .1! 1 .. o 1, , I11 1 l f .... .. ...Il l ...Political and locallogistics supportAbility of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical | |||
: support, based on regional politics and importance of project toeconomic develooment 10Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (i.e., air,liquids, solids)Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements andavailability of waste disposition pathway8Federal and State taxesand incentives Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPFownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMIseparately 3Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2and construction indicesTotal Weight 60*e j WM Scoring Details mmdiiRessuht-- -6~ S -40: 1 1030 3 3030 3 3016 3 24Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3Txitingitc4 40 2 2Transportation 4 32 4 32 2Federal, State, county, and local require-4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10ments to construct and operate facilityFeiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'Iii:~i0~.NWMIuSflmUTinA+/- | |||
IUIWS | |||
........... | |||
........ | |||
.. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiiiSUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations* | |||
==Reference:== | ==Reference:== | ||
Current Dilscsvsry IRidge LaysutPhimI 13L0,0,tPlmE lOAMFts212* Ac/I,I...W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a muEUU DEED flUME U~WEUYUt~M MUIR Site | *Based on Department of Energy's Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods (WSRC-IM-2002-00002) | ||
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 in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimumsetback 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,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........ l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF LayoutICurrent OSU Layout:;.. WMIM nU.,.:t II VNVU I¥11t McClellan Site Characteristics> Location* UC Davis, McClellan Nuclear Research Center (MNRC) is located off campus at | SDeveloped a list of site-specific criteriaCriteria weighted by their importance to NWMI's business plan* 10 = most important, 1 = least important | ||
-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. iiJ4Preliminary RPF LayoutLo1!N.I4i1~--1Current McClellan LayoutM~n S~.3rwm~522A A~1' JG LOT 15PLaRw gvwQI Ia WAIrn11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~ | ) Each site scored on a scale of 1-5* 5 = most favorable, 1 = least favorable | ||
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 99Moendeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community> OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 99Mo business model due to FTEgeneration 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 in 99Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimalFTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU | ) Weighting applied to the raw scores to determine a total score for each location/~ iNWM I1,I°T I~aEV Elseovery Bilge Characteristics | ||
Waste | > 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 | ||
Feisral, Stats, and Loceal | * Site is on ground that has been historically used for agriculture | ||
Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake riskSOSU (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 ahigher earthquake | > 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 in loess 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 in Columbia, 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 LaysutPhimI 13L0,0,tPlmE lOAMFts212* Ac/I,I...W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a muEUU 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 becmpeen DS!NWMI EUR,-Current Layout/RPF Layout.... .... .... ... .... ... I r r ll lll IIII IIIIIII .. .. ... ... /I /I I I II I ,,,ID .. .... ..I!1 I I ,t i l l OSUE Site Characteristics | |||
>. Location* OSU is located near the I-5 corridor in Corvallis,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 ofthe reactor* Utilizing site would require relocation of twoexisting laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modifyroads)> Roadways* Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on theCorvallis-Lebanon Highway* Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used forirradiated 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 in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimumsetback 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,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........ | |||
l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF LayoutICurrent OSU Layout:;.. WMIM nU.,.:t II VNVU 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 aspotential 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. | |||
WattAvenue boarders McClellan to the east* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets-lvmms 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 ofAir 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 soilmaterial; Xerarents | |||
* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction | |||
> Groundwater | |||
* Depth to groundwater in Sacramento 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 | |||
-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. iiJ4Preliminary RPF LayoutLo1!N.I4i1~--1Current McClellan LayoutM~n S~.3rwm~522A A~1' JG LOT 15PLaRw gvwQI Ia WAIrn11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS P.S WrATUl UQDWAre SCtmCLh MAILIT -AIEpf rmLOT 3uwrum I-urntIIWVA FIT=4PVR-ar IMW A£ NsmftANORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LIIALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION | |||
-DETILEE SI* , mN~a W 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 99Moendeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community | |||
> OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 99Mo business model due to FTEgeneration 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 in 99Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimalFTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1BEUMIED IIII VYMI Sperations | |||
...... ............ | |||
!!l l l I I I F FI]H HF[[ ............ | |||
.......... | |||
.... ..... " ...... l ................................. | |||
.... Fr ......... | |||
I I ISDiscovery 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; maypresent 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; maypresent 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 it will not be housed on UC Davis campus;proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in 2003 and has a99 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..DRMURR0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3&WMJa Preductlen Isgistlcs | |||
> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activitySPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical thirdreactor>Transportation DistanceRPF Location: | |||
DR/MURR RPF Location: | |||
OSU RPF Location: | |||
McClellan | |||
..~ -. .~ .I --.- .-S--S *~ S ICovi i, OR iii~McClellan, CA200mi (40 hr)1800 mi (35 hr)Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO0520 mi (12 hr)20o0(40ohr) | |||
Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO50nii 1 i0Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging | |||
*All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes | |||
..DR4MURR23McClellan 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 disasterdeclarations than route between either location and DR/MURR* All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result in delays due toinclement weather* If RPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability ofdelays0 0DR 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 in TX) -twostate borders will be crossed during transport | |||
* Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located in WA) -one state border will be crossed during transport | |||
* California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) -two state borders willbe 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 beevaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste).SDR MURR OU Mleln4 4 4 3* MI________________ | |||
: Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites becausethese are Federal requirements | |||
>Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not varybetween 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 lessat OSU and DR/MURRSAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project butdifferences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expectedto be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURRS 0DR MURR :OSU Mlellan4 4 4 24 NWMI WALiiii~i Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntivesSales 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 taxesbased 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 thanCalifornia S SDR MURR OSU Mclellan5531 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 toResearch Reactor)> OSU* Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the(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 use0SU campus-250 feet awaySMcClellan | |||
* Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion | |||
(,,from UC Davis Research Reactor)* RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made~0 *DR5MURR3OSUIMcClellan 2:~ NWMI Construction CostsSRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes* DR/MURR (Columbia): | |||
95.4* OSU (Corvallis): | |||
98.6* McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): | |||
109.9SDiscovery Ridge* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSUSMURR* 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 in slight cost savings* Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which willincrease costs..:DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3* NWMI,,u. | |||
Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake riskSOSU (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 ahigher earthquake risk of mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu & 50klm'UeP e,,*u= djd 4 Le,.Mclela -Earthquk Risk MapOSU -cEaelhquakeaRisk Mai .0.....r, Discovery RidgeIMURR | |||
-Earthquake Risk Map-S 0-I -D UR S clla3 3 4 2NW2M I..........}} | |||
Revision as of 18:17, 30 June 2018
| 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: |
| 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) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:*'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix B -EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0AEffective Date: June 26, 2014Engineering Design FileI Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task: NWMI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation
- 5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category:
N/A7 Summary: This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOCCO2, 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/____________RA Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus 61 !'[)g'l[ dx' 6/26/14Independent Review R Dave T home , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/AINTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. Thesecombustion 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 releasedthrough two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO2.Theassumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below. TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 2 of 5Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural GasBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) (%) MVBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 andTable 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.Pollutant Emission Factor UnitsCOa 84NOx a 50PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 cPM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb6scVOC 5.5SO2 0.6CO2 d 120,000a. Controlled -Low NOx burnersb. 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 estimatePM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM andcondensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPAMethod 202 (or equivalent). Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or priorto, 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 naturalgas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be converted toother natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio ofthe site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6scf.d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO2.CO2[lb/106 scfl =(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO2, C =carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/106scf. TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 3 of 5From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where:EF = emission factor (lb/106scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106) = 1.0 lb/hrTons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton)
- 24 hr/day
- 7 days/week
- 50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1Total 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 areshown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilersPollutant 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 18NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2SO2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13CO2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000Emergency Generator: The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safeshutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO2, VOCs,and CO2.The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annualemissions are shown below in Table 4Total 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 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator.
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 4of 5Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator) NOXa PM~ SO~abCOaNOxaa02PM"SOxa, bg/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-hrEmission Factor3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hrStandby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14diesel______________________ _______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
- 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 3.4.1b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance.
TEM-900209129/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 5 of 5
Attachment:
Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2... 934.52 Ofl for se~am at 25 xi9345 MN,75% Boiler Ef0,ienu, 22440 MN, Fool cortent124600034,r Coo Cu,,,.14 1066;ha30% OxreessAo 153004 ft3ft Coomkustio, AirPb btwgs l~ rate foreaoh of cxoo bolersPb,,t, vecndor infoocrmatio FIVAC 9672 MN, Pook HIVAC hooatg drrroalxISteam lteat Boirr Fuel Encrgr ata aI Stram Load I Factor I 0t19,m Cotnt Couso.75%Boilr, 03o¢nvEmlacion
- Farctor, Br Boil,,.Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro UntllCO 84 hl4O ofNO,,' 50PMt0 (Tola[) ' 7.6PMI0 1 9VOC 5.5120,000 ___o A, P (62 2,O. 00.40006
.. r~t eik, = .u=*ad 2t, ho 00.1.aoc.0=nmct o od... eTh,,aoooorhePM l s siac fool. rp'*mlhtoo, re, bocod Io.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. TriPM iu th0 0.00000inh .0 ,000c.4c~o 08 70A Mo¢hod 202 6(,Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM .i0 ,tt w .u00..Iof.
- e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao mt0. u. ho 0,0r0 to ud.h, c~a torO ..000r .ot,,o O10020t (t.faim16lt)
,flOo9.oou floal106 so002[100100 sel9 1 3.67) 1C01d,1C0D30 ..h0. CulON r.000,oJrOr.ru. 020.O00IO COC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt.dO D doy or 0(.44,204.z1o4 n6,2.050-09 4.446.23E-01 2026045E-02 2.72I19.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 162.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.446.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.27.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.232.500'803 6.28E303 [ 1 55E0 3 630 25.359Enmhsbon. 8.,nPncoo,.Bollanl1&2 20b/hr) Each Esch (Ibthr
- iOPENWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix C -EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1Effective Date: February 4, 2015Engineering Design FileEmission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report4PortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 01. Portage Project No.: 3124ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 1 of 202. Project/Task:
NWMVI Enviromnmental Report3. DCNH#4. Title: Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN
- 5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category:
N/A7 Summary:This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 naturalgas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. The results are then compared to the NAAQS andambient 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 DateAuthor/Design Agent A Gary McManus () 2/04/15Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 2 of 20INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steamproduction and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and thetwo boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler andgenerator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilersand the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural GasSteam Load HeatBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) (%) MBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)Pollutant _____________ Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1 &2 TotalS~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/br) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. Thisscreening 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-900209/29109Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 3 of 20ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. Theresults of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptorlocations. Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetSTACK INNER DIAMETER: 0.305 meters 12.00 inchesPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K 99.95 Deg FPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURALFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feetINITIAL PROBE DISTANCE -- 5000. meters 16404. feetTable 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 metersDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: *0.4ROUGHNESS 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 asingle family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. Usingthese assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. A completelisting of the model is included in Attachment
- 1.
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 4 of 20RESULTSThe final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized inTable 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [ScaledCalculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour AnnualProcdureConcentration aFlat Terrain (gig/m3) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m3)_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 metersUsing the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters fromattachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in3), Table 6 and 7 were completed. Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired BoilersModeledconcentration toHourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m)c(lb/hr) (jig/in3) (jig/in3)CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-015.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04a. 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 1 7jg/m3 perlb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3per lb/hr TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 5 of 20Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired HeaterModeledHourly Emissions Maximum concentration toEmission for Both HVAC concentration closestPluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)(lb/hr) ([.tg/m3) (jig/mn3)CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01CO2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17jtg/mn3 / lb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3/ lb/hrSince both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwindconcentration was assumed to be additive.
These values were then compared to the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards wereexceeded. This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage ofconcentration to closestAQ NAAQS Limit atPolltant 136rato@ clst residential NASAASPoint ofreceptor____(375 m)______ ______ Maximum(___g/m3)__(jig/r
- 3) (ppm) (jig/mn3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 PM-2.5 1 .6E+001.E0003 46SO2 4.7E+00
.6CO2 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-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 6 of 20From 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 theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban MissouriAmbient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri3)CO 3.8E+03NOx 2.1E+01PMl0 1.7E+01PM-2.5 1.1E+01SO2 7.0E+00CO2 NAA similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done toTable 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the StateMissouri. Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Airconcentrationoto 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 NAa Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilersb Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124.-0012 Rev. 1Page 7 of 20ATTACHMENT 1.AERSCREEN FilesText File:Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04AERSCREEN 11126NWMI PROCESS BOILER-......... DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH** STACKDATA
- ------------------
Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrStack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetStack Diameter: 0.3 05 meters 12.00 inchesStack Temperature: 310.9 K 100.0 Deg FExit Velocity: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sStack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFMModel Mode: RURALDist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet** BUILDING DATA **No Building Downwash Parameters
- TERRAIN DATA * *No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation:
0.0 meters0.0 feetProbe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feetFlagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters6. feetNo discrete receptors used** METEOROLOGY DATA ** TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20Min/Max Temperature: 255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg FMinimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/sAnemometer Height: 10.000 metersDominant Surface Profile: Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average MoistureAERSCREEN output file:boilerl .out** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to BeginNo terrain used, AERMAP will not be runSURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS & MAKEMETObtaining surface characteristics... Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average MoistureSeason Albedo Bo zoWinter 0.60 1.50 0.001Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01 01.pflCreating met files aerscreen_02_01 .sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_03_01 .sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_04_01 .sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pflPROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34Running probe for Winter sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20*** NONE ***Running probe for Spring sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1*** NONE ***Running probe for Summer sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1******** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE ***PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE **REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warningsCheck log file for detailsEnding date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 10 of 20OUTPUT FILE:AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER02/05/1508:19:38*****************************
STACK PARAMETERS
- q* **** *** ******* **** * **** *SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/sSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 metersSTACK INNER DIAMETER:
0.305 metersPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 KPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 in/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL1.000 lb/hr75.00 feet12.00 inches100.0 Deg F58.82 ft/sFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT:INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =1.83 meters6.00 feet5000. meters16404. feet****************BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS
- *** **** ****** ** **NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS**************
PROBE ANALYSIS
25 meter receptor spacing:
- 1. meters -5000. metersZo ROUGHNESS SECTOR LENGTH1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL(ug/m3) (in) PERIOD1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR* -worst case flow sector TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Pagell1of 20**********************
MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED:0.5 rn/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 metersSURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLESDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: 0.40ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUMIMPACTYR MO DY JDY HR10 0105 5 12HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50HT REF TA HT10.0 302.6 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 37.4 metersMETEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARYIMPACT TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 12 of 20YR MO DY JDY HR10 01 01 5 12Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.180.50HT REF TA HT10.0 255.4 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 56.5 meters************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCEMAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(in) (ug/m3)1.00 0.2290E-04 25.00 4.21650.00 8.39075.00 10.29100.00 15.11125.00 16.69150.00 16.70175.00 16.17200.00 15.43225.00 14.64250.00 13.87275.00 13.16300.00 12.49325.00 11.89350.00 11.33375.00 10.83400.00 10.37425.00 9.943MAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(mn) (ug/m3)2525.00 4.1392550.00 4.1072575.00 4.0762600.00 4.0452625.00 4.0152650.00 3.9862675.00 3.9562700.00 3.9272725.00 3.8992750.00 3.8712775.00 3.8432800.00 3.8152825.00 3.7882850.00 3.7622875.00 3.7352900.00 3.7092925.00 3.6842950.00 3.659 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page1l3of 20450.00475.00500.00525.00550.00575.00600.00625.00650.00675.00700.00725.00750.00775.00800.00825.00850.00875.00900.00925.00950.00975.001000.001025.001050.001075.001100.001125.001150.001175.001200.001225.001250.001275.001300.001325.001350.001375.001400.001425.001450.001475.001500.001525.001550.001575.009.6099.3 159.0398.78 18.5398.3 108.0957.89 17.6997.5 177.3447.1797.0236.8746.7336.5976.4686.3446.2266.1126.0036.0396.1746.2876.3 806.4476.43 16.4 116.3866.3596.3286.2956.2596.2216.1826.14 16.0986.0556.0105.9655.9 195.8725.8265.7785.73 15.6832975.003000.003025.003050.003075.003100.003125.003150.003175.003200.003225.003250.003275.003300.003325.003350.003375.003400.003425.003450.003475.003500.003525.003550.003575.003600.003625.003650.003675.003700.003725.003750.003775.003800.003825.003850.003875.003900.003925.003950.003975.004000.004025.004050.004075.004100.003.6343.6093.5853.5613.5373.5 143.4913.4683.4463.4243.4023.3803.3593.3383.3 173.2963.2763.2563.2363.2173.1973.1783.1593.14 13.1223.1043.0863.0683.0513.0333.0162.9992.9822.9662.9492.9332.9172.90 12.8862.8702.8552.8392.8242.8 102.7952.780 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 14 of 201600.001625.001650.001675.001700.001725.001750.001775.001800.001825.001850.001875.001900.001925.001950.001975.002000.002025.002050.002075.002100.002125.002150.002175.002200.002225.002250.002275.002300.002325.002350.002375.002400.002425.002450.002475.002500.005.6365.5885.5415.4945.4475.4005.3535.3075.26 15.2 165.1715.1265.0825.03 84.9954.9524.9104.8684.8274.7864.7464.7064.6674.6294.5904.5534.5 154.4794.4434.4074.3724.3374.3034.2694.2364.2034.1714125.004150.004175.004200.004225.004250.004275.004300.004325.004350.004375.004400.004425.004450.004475.004500.004525.004550.004575.004600.004625.004650.004675.004700.004725.004750.004775.004800.004825.004850.004875.004900.004925.004950.004975.005000.002.7662.7522.7372.7242.7102.6962.6822.6692.6562.6432.6302.6172.6042.5912.5792.5 662.5542.5422.5302.5 182.5062.4942.4832.4712.4602.4492.4382.4272.4162.4052.3942.3 832.3732.3622.3522.341********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARYMAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED TEM-9002 ENGINEERING 09/29109Rev. 01-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUFCALCULATION CONC CONC CONCPROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/niFLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08J1 FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 15 of 20,.ANNUALCONC CONC[3) (ug/m3)1.68 1DISTANCE FROM SOURCE136.00 metersIMPACT AT THEAMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr1.00 meters TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 16 of 20Attachment 2Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for MissouriTable 1. Levels of CO in Springfield MissouriMaximum MaximumYear 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average(ppm) (ppm)1993 5.4 141994 5.9 121995 5 91996 3.3 71997 5 71998 5.1 61999 4.1 52000 2.8 52001 4.3 72002 3.5 62003 2.4 42004 3.4 52005 3 52006 2.1 .42007 2.6 42008 1.3 1.92009--- --1.5- ..---2.3 --2010 1.9 2.3Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0111994 0.0131995 0.0121996 0.0111997 0.0111998 0.0121999 0.0132000 0.0122001 0.0132002 0.01072003 0.01112004 0.0122005 0.01152006 0.01042007 0.012008 0.00892009 0.0083Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079Average (ppm) 1. 1OE-02Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 17 of 20Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr AverageYear(gg/m3) (gg/m3)1993 18 381994 18 581995 17 441996 18 641997 15 511998 17 431999 18 452000 18 47.2001 20 572002 18 462003 17 402004 16.7 362005 19.3 452006 15.7 352007 17.9 382008 15 392009 14 272010 17.2 362011 16.5 372012 16.9 38Average(jgg/m
- 3) 17.16 43.2Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1999 12.242000 12.282001 12.22002 12.72003 11.72004 10.912005 13.012006 10.822007 11.82008 10.72009 9.552010 9.892011 10.922012 10.09Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1 TEM-900209/29/ 09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 18 of 20Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0031994 0.0051995 0.0021996 0.0031997 0.0021998 0.0031999 0.0042000 0.0032001 0.0042002 0.0032003 0.0022004 0.00142005 0.00172006 0.00192007 0.00182008 0.00222009 0.0022Average (ppm) 2.66E-03Average 6.97E+00 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0EGNEINGrat DESm iGNtILEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 19 of 20
Attachment:
Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from VistaProcess 10000 pph 111111 ________934.52 Btu/lb 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 informationgs velocitHVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demandFlue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 20 of 20Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JIl134o0(16b): _______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --IIMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.000.132.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ IMat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tCakiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu. .*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~ ~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~ Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo
- tll l 11 tilt4
- ;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix D -EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i Document I D: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1Effective Date: July 31, 2015Engineering Design FileOn-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task:
NWMvI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: N/A7 Summary: This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles duringthe 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 NamerR/A Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus )~d 7/31/15Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 2of 5INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSEDuring the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce andfrom routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board EmissionDatabase (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) was used to calculate on-road vehicle emissionfactors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type,vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidityThe volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected duringconstruction. 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, limitingroutine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts fromvehicular 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 periodare shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100vehicles 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 ayear to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52weeks 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) MilesWorkforce travel (60) Commute -light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000Workforce travel (30) Commute -light duty gas trucks (1 2/260) 502,116 312,000Workforce travel (10) Commute -light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants andcarbon dioxide (CO2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC seriesof models. TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1Page 3 of 5Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running) CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVehicle Type (/ieLight Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03LgtdtTrcs3.36E-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+00Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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) Veil yeCO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVhceTp (g/vehicle/day) Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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 shownbelow: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, C02, PM10,PM2.5 and SOx TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 4of 5Example 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 gCO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days=-2.70E+05 gTotal CO Emissions = 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g1 1.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown inTable 5 below.Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOxVehicle 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 5AutosLgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9Total (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 Emission RatesRegion Type: Statewide Region: California Calendar Year: 2015Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMPAC2RO1 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed(miles/hr) StatewIde 2015 Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated Statewide 2015 Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated Statewide 2015 Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated o o~rcc N2Running -CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I(gins/ssile) 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-00 3.51E-033.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03dli~ngCO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J[gms/vehlcle/duy) 0 0 0 R 0 RO 0 0 R 0 R0 0 0 R S S1.73E+01 ~dling 49E0CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE(gms/vehslce/day) 1.7+1 03E+00 4.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0RORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R light Duty Auto gaslightsOt/Truck gasLight Duty Truck dieselMiles624,0R0302,000004,0ooCO6.15E6+05 1.O2E.+]6 3.401+04NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+00 0.25E+03 1.276+0 300E.RRE+04 0.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 ,53E+R2 10Days CO260 0260 0260 .RNORCOO000PM0R PMO._5 ROE Vehicles Gays 2CO+50 NOR COO PMIOR PM2... ROEO 0 R 60 060 O.R 10 .776+04 7.24E+06 O.ROE+0O 2.RSE+02 7.72E+01] O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O4 4.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E*02 4.56E+01O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+00 0.00E+00 0.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StSVstlste Ttye Fontlitus) Phe) 1005) yhn) 0ni So'go) Old) flu ks) Osightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2Jt Truok 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 ITeozloDt c dksel 05 77 7n[i 104 37.004 Ri,5tS S 4 6 1T'ostz 2443 } 50360 290 631 001,746 603,662 0 21 9 iTo0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004h'iz0imh"mz"0i-rnCD.
- .,
NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix E -Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i 1111111 I Iw euraEAr/3l U3IRU31~iWA1UlAJIS3XUVU OI~J.T~ -e~PU WAT1m P'UW DWASTI MAN(T CA*WAES P03t 3....AL *alU,mtru, iss iw31W YAMu AII.3 1MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH 'U..NWMIl Altermative Sits Locatiosm ._ .II in i~niifi iii n II I~l ! ...J~ k... ......... iJ _ .!i![!! 1! F ! I ..... ... rr t Imlllll m flI]I _ -.l-T> 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 Site Selectlen Criteria, , , ... .......... IIH .... III I ... .. Y ] 1 ... r] .1! 1 .. o 1, , I11 1 l f .... .. ...Il l ...Political and locallogistics supportAbility of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical
- support, based on regional politics and importance of project toeconomic develooment 10Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (i.e., air,liquids, solids)Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements andavailability of waste disposition pathway8Federal and State taxesand incentives Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPFownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMIseparately 3Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2and construction indicesTotal Weight 60*e j WM Scoring Details mmdiiRessuht-- -6~ S -40: 1 1030 3 3030 3 3016 3 24Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3Txitingitc4 40 2 2Transportation 4 32 4 32 2Federal, State, county, and local require-4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10ments to construct and operate facilityFeiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'Iii:~i0~.NWMIuSflmUTinA+/-
IUIWS ........... ........ .. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiiiSUtilized 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 criteriaCriteria 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 I1,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 in loess 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 in Columbia, 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 LaysutPhimI 13L0,0,tPlmE lOAMFts212* Ac/I,I...W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a muEUU 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 becmpeen DS!NWMI EUR,-Current Layout/RPF Layout.... .... .... ... .... ... I r r ll lll IIII IIIIIII .. .. ... ... /I /I I I II I ,,,ID .. .... ..I!1 I I ,t i l l OSUE Site Characteristics
>. Location* OSU is located near the I-5 corridor in Corvallis,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 ofthe reactor* Utilizing site would require relocation of twoexisting laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modifyroads)> Roadways* Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on theCorvallis-Lebanon Highway* Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used forirradiated 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 in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimumsetback 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,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........
l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF LayoutICurrent OSU Layout:;.. WMIM nU.,.:t II VNVU 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 aspotential 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. WattAvenue boarders McClellan to the east* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets-lvmms 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 ofAir 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 soilmaterial; Xerarents
- Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction
> Groundwater
- Depth to groundwater in Sacramento 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
-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. iiJ4Preliminary RPF LayoutLo1!N.I4i1~--1Current McClellan LayoutM~n S~.3rwm~522A A~1' JG LOT 15PLaRw gvwQI Ia WAIrn11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS P.S WrATUl UQDWAre SCtmCLh MAILIT -AIEpf rmLOT 3uwrum I-urntIIWVA FIT=4PVR-ar IMW A£ NsmftANORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LIIALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION -DETILEE SI* , mN~a W 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 99Moendeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community > OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 99Mo business model due to FTEgeneration 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 in 99Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimalFTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1BEUMIED IIII VYMI Sperations
...... ............ !!l l l I I I F FI]H HF[[ ............ .......... .... ..... " ...... l ................................. .... Fr ......... I I ISDiscovery 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; maypresent 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; maypresent 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 it will not be housed on UC Davis campus;proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in 2003 and has a99 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..DRMURR0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3&WMJa Preductlen Isgistlcs
> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activitySPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical thirdreactor>Transportation DistanceRPF Location: DR/MURR RPF Location: OSU RPF Location: McClellan ..~ -. .~ .I --.- .-S--S *~ S ICovi i, OR iii~McClellan, CA200mi (40 hr)1800 mi (35 hr)Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO0520 mi (12 hr)20o0(40ohr) Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO50nii 1 i0Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging
- All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes
..DR4MURR23McClellan 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 disasterdeclarations than route between either location and DR/MURR* All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result in delays due toinclement weather* If RPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability ofdelays0 0DR 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 in TX) -twostate borders will be crossed during transport
- Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located in WA) -one state border will be crossed during transport
- California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) -two state borders willbe 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 beevaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste).SDR MURR OU Mleln4 4 4 3* MI________________
- Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites becausethese are Federal requirements
>Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not varybetween 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 lessat OSU and DR/MURRSAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project butdifferences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expectedto be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURRS 0DR MURR :OSU Mlellan4 4 4 24 NWMI WALiiii~i Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntivesSales 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 taxesbased 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 thanCalifornia S SDR MURR OSU Mclellan5531 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 toResearch Reactor)> OSU* Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the(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 use0SU campus-250 feet awaySMcClellan
- Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion
(,,from UC Davis Research Reactor)* RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made~0 *DR5MURR3OSUIMcClellan 2:~ NWMI Construction CostsSRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes* DR/MURR (Columbia): 95.4* OSU (Corvallis): 98.6* McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): 109.9SDiscovery Ridge* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSUSMURR* 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 in slight cost savings* Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which willincrease costs..:DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3* NWMI,,u.
Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake riskSOSU (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 ahigher earthquake risk of mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu & 50klm'UeP e,,*u= djd 4 Le,.Mclela -Earthquk Risk MapOSU -cEaelhquakeaRisk Mai .0.....r, Discovery RidgeIMURR -Earthquake Risk Map-S 0-I -D UR S clla3 3 4 2NW2M I..........
- '°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix B -EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0AEffective Date: June 26, 2014Engineering Design FileI Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task:
NWMI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation
- 5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category:
N/A7 Summary: This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOCCO2, 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/____________RA Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus 61 !'[)g'l[ dx' 6/26/14Independent Review R Dave T home , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/AINTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. Thesecombustion 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 releasedthrough two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO2.Theassumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below. TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 2 of 5Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural GasBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) (%) MVBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 andTable 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.Pollutant Emission Factor UnitsCOa 84NOx a 50PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 cPM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb6scVOC 5.5SO2 0.6CO2 d 120,000a. Controlled -Low NOx burnersb. 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 estimatePM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM andcondensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPAMethod 202 (or equivalent). Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or priorto, 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 naturalgas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be converted toother natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio ofthe site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6scf.d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO2.CO2[lb/106 scfl =(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO2, C =carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/106scf. TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 3 of 5From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows:Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where:EF = emission factor (lb/106scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106) = 1.0 lb/hrTons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton)
- 24 hr/day
- 7 days/week
- 50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1Total 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 areshown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilersPollutant 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 18NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2SO2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13CO2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000Emergency Generator: The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safeshutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO2, VOCs,and CO2.The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annualemissions are shown below in Table 4Total 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 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator.
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 4of 5Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator) NOXa PM~ SO~abCOaNOxaa02PM"SOxa, bg/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-hrEmission Factor3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hrStandby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14diesel______________________ _______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
- 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 3.4.1b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance.
TEM-900209129/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0008Rev. 0APage 5 of 5
Attachment:
Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2... 934.52 Ofl for se~am at 25 xi9345 MN,75% Boiler Ef0,ienu, 22440 MN, Fool cortent124600034,r Coo Cu,,,.14 1066;ha30% OxreessAo 153004 ft3ft Coomkustio, AirPb btwgs l~ rate foreaoh of cxoo bolersPb,,t, vecndor infoocrmatio FIVAC 9672 MN, Pook HIVAC hooatg drrroalxISteam lteat Boirr Fuel Encrgr ata aI Stram Load I Factor I 0t19,m Cotnt Couso.75%Boilr, 03o¢nvEmlacion
- Farctor, Br Boil,,.Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro UntllCO 84 hl4O ofNO,,' 50PMt0 (Tola[) ' 7.6PMI0 1 9VOC 5.5120,000 ___o A, P (62 2,O. 00.40006
.. r~t eik, = .u=*ad 2t, ho 00.1.aoc.0=nmct o od... eTh,,aoooorhePM l s siac fool. rp'*mlhtoo, re, bocod Io.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. TriPM iu th0 0.00000inh .0 ,000c.4c~o 08 70A Mo¢hod 202 6(,Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM .i0 ,tt w .u00..Iof.
- e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao mt0. u. ho 0,0r0 to ud.h, c~a torO ..000r .ot,,o O10020t (t.faim16lt)
,flOo9.oou floal106 so002[100100 sel9 1 3.67) 1C01d,1C0D30 ..h0. CulON r.000,oJrOr.ru. 020.O00IO COC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt.dO D doy or 0(.44,204.z1o4 n6,2.050-09 4.446.23E-01 2026045E-02 2.72I19.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 162.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.446.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.27.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.232.500'803 6.28E303 [ 1 55E0 3 630 25.359Enmhsbon. 8.,nPncoo,.Bollanl1&2 20b/hr) Each Esch (Ibthr
- iOPENWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix C -EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1Effective Date: February 4, 2015Engineering Design FileEmission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report4PortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 01. Portage Project No.: 3124ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 1 of 202. Project/Task:
NWMVI Enviromnmental Report3. DCNH#4. Title: Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN
- 5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category:
N/A7 Summary:This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 naturalgas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. The results are then compared to the NAAQS andambient 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 DateAuthor/Design Agent A Gary McManus () 2/04/15Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 2 of 20INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steamproduction and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and thetwo boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler andgenerator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilersand the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural GasSteam Load HeatBoiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) (%) MBTU/hr (ft3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)Pollutant _____________ Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1 &2 TotalS~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/br) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. Thisscreening 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-900209/29109Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 3 of 20ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. Theresults of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptorlocations. Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetSTACK INNER DIAMETER: 0.305 meters 12.00 inchesPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K 99.95 Deg FPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURALFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feetINITIAL PROBE DISTANCE -- 5000. meters 16404. feetTable 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 metersDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: *0.4ROUGHNESS 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 asingle family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. Usingthese assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. A completelisting of the model is included in Attachment
- 1.
TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 4 of 20RESULTSThe final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized inTable 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [ScaledCalculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour AnnualProcdureConcentration aFlat Terrain (gig/m3) J(jPtg/m3) J(gig/m3) ](btg/m3) (Pig/m3)_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 metersUsing the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters fromattachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in3), Table 6 and 7 were completed. Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired BoilersModeledconcentration toHourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m)c(lb/hr) (jig/in3) (jig/in3)CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-015.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04a. 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 1 7jg/m3 perlb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3per lb/hr TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 5 of 20Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired HeaterModeledHourly Emissions Maximum concentration toEmission for Both HVAC concentration closestPluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)(lb/hr) ([.tg/m3) (jig/mn3)CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01CO2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17jtg/mn3 / lb/hrc. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters andequals 11 jig/mn3/ lb/hrSince both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwindconcentration was assumed to be additive.
These values were then compared to the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards wereexceeded. This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage ofconcentration to closestAQ NAAQS Limit atPolltant 136rato@ clst residential NASAASPoint ofreceptor____(375 m)______ ______ Maximum(___g/m3)__(jig/r
- 3) (ppm) (jig/mn3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 PM-2.5 1 .6E+001.E0003 46SO2 4.7E+00
.6CO2 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-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 6 of 20From 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 theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban MissouriAmbient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri3)CO 3.8E+03NOx 2.1E+01PMl0 1.7E+01PM-2.5 1.1E+01SO2 7.0E+00CO2 NAA similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if theemissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values ofthe five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division ofEnvironmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done toTable 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the StateMissouri. Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Airconcentrationoto 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 NAa Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilersb Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124.-0012 Rev. 1Page 7 of 20ATTACHMENT 1.AERSCREEN FilesText File:Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04AERSCREEN 11126NWMI PROCESS BOILER-......... DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH** STACKDATA
- ------------------
Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hrStack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feetStack Diameter: 0.3 05 meters 12.00 inchesStack Temperature: 310.9 K 100.0 Deg FExit Velocity: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/sStack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFMModel Mode: RURALDist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet** BUILDING DATA **No Building Downwash Parameters
- TERRAIN DATA * *No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation:
0.0 meters0.0 feetProbe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feetFlagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters6. feetNo discrete receptors used** METEOROLOGY DATA ** TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20Min/Max Temperature: 255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg FMinimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/sAnemometer Height: 10.000 metersDominant Surface Profile: Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average MoistureAERSCREEN output file:boilerl .out** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to BeginNo terrain used, AERMAP will not be runSURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS & MAKEMETObtaining surface characteristics... Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average MoistureSeason Albedo Bo zoWinter 0.60 1.50 0.001Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01 01.pflCreating met files aerscreen_02_01 .sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_03_01 .sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pflCreating met files aerscreen_04_01 .sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pflPROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34Running probe for Winter sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20*** NONE ***Running probe for Spring sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1*** NONE ***Running probe for Summer sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1******** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE ***PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES
- NONE **REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warningsCheck log file for detailsEnding date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1Page 10 of 20OUTPUT FILE:AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER02/05/1508:19:38*****************************
STACK PARAMETERS
- q* **** *** ******* **** * **** *SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/sSTACK HEIGHT: 22.86 metersSTACK INNER DIAMETER:
0.305 metersPLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 KPLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 in/sSTACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFMRURAL OR URBAN: RURAL1.000 lb/hr75.00 feet12.00 inches100.0 Deg F58.82 ft/sFLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT:INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =1.83 meters6.00 feet5000. meters16404. feet****************BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS
- *** **** ****** ** **NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS**************
PROBE ANALYSIS
25 meter receptor spacing:
- 1. meters -5000. metersZo ROUGHNESS SECTOR LENGTH1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL(ug/m3) (in) PERIOD1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR* -worst case flow sector TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Pagell1of 20**********************
MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED:0.5 rn/sANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 metersSURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLESDOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average MoistureDOMINANT SEASON: SpringALBEDO: 0.18BOWEN RATIO: 0.40ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUMIMPACTYR MO DY JDY HR10 0105 5 12HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50HT REF TA HT10.0 302.6 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 37.4 metersMETEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARYIMPACT TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 12 of 20YR MO DY JDY HR10 01 01 5 12Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.180.50HT REF TA HT10.0 255.4 2.0ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 56.5 meters************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCEMAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(in) (ug/m3)1.00 0.2290E-04 25.00 4.21650.00 8.39075.00 10.29100.00 15.11125.00 16.69150.00 16.70175.00 16.17200.00 15.43225.00 14.64250.00 13.87275.00 13.16300.00 12.49325.00 11.89350.00 11.33375.00 10.83400.00 10.37425.00 9.943MAXIMUMDIST 1-HR CONC(mn) (ug/m3)2525.00 4.1392550.00 4.1072575.00 4.0762600.00 4.0452625.00 4.0152650.00 3.9862675.00 3.9562700.00 3.9272725.00 3.8992750.00 3.8712775.00 3.8432800.00 3.8152825.00 3.7882850.00 3.7622875.00 3.7352900.00 3.7092925.00 3.6842950.00 3.659 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page1l3of 20450.00475.00500.00525.00550.00575.00600.00625.00650.00675.00700.00725.00750.00775.00800.00825.00850.00875.00900.00925.00950.00975.001000.001025.001050.001075.001100.001125.001150.001175.001200.001225.001250.001275.001300.001325.001350.001375.001400.001425.001450.001475.001500.001525.001550.001575.009.6099.3 159.0398.78 18.5398.3 108.0957.89 17.6997.5 177.3447.1797.0236.8746.7336.5976.4686.3446.2266.1126.0036.0396.1746.2876.3 806.4476.43 16.4 116.3866.3596.3286.2956.2596.2216.1826.14 16.0986.0556.0105.9655.9 195.8725.8265.7785.73 15.6832975.003000.003025.003050.003075.003100.003125.003150.003175.003200.003225.003250.003275.003300.003325.003350.003375.003400.003425.003450.003475.003500.003525.003550.003575.003600.003625.003650.003675.003700.003725.003750.003775.003800.003825.003850.003875.003900.003925.003950.003975.004000.004025.004050.004075.004100.003.6343.6093.5853.5613.5373.5 143.4913.4683.4463.4243.4023.3803.3593.3383.3 173.2963.2763.2563.2363.2173.1973.1783.1593.14 13.1223.1043.0863.0683.0513.0333.0162.9992.9822.9662.9492.9332.9172.90 12.8862.8702.8552.8392.8242.8 102.7952.780 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 14 of 201600.001625.001650.001675.001700.001725.001750.001775.001800.001825.001850.001875.001900.001925.001950.001975.002000.002025.002050.002075.002100.002125.002150.002175.002200.002225.002250.002275.002300.002325.002350.002375.002400.002425.002450.002475.002500.005.6365.5885.5415.4945.4475.4005.3535.3075.26 15.2 165.1715.1265.0825.03 84.9954.9524.9104.8684.8274.7864.7464.7064.6674.6294.5904.5534.5 154.4794.4434.4074.3724.3374.3034.2694.2364.2034.1714125.004150.004175.004200.004225.004250.004275.004300.004325.004350.004375.004400.004425.004450.004475.004500.004525.004550.004575.004600.004625.004650.004675.004700.004725.004750.004775.004800.004825.004850.004875.004900.004925.004950.004975.005000.002.7662.7522.7372.7242.7102.6962.6822.6692.6562.6432.6302.6172.6042.5912.5792.5 662.5542.5422.5302.5 182.5062.4942.4832.4712.4602.4492.4382.4272.4162.4052.3942.3 832.3732.3622.3522.341********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARYMAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED TEM-9002 ENGINEERING 09/29109Rev. 01-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUFCALCULATION CONC CONC CONCPROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/niFLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08J1 FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 15 of 20,.ANNUALCONC CONC[3) (ug/m3)1.68 1DISTANCE FROM SOURCE136.00 metersIMPACT AT THEAMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr1.00 meters TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 16 of 20Attachment 2Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for MissouriTable 1. Levels of CO in Springfield MissouriMaximum MaximumYear 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average(ppm) (ppm)1993 5.4 141994 5.9 121995 5 91996 3.3 71997 5 71998 5.1 61999 4.1 52000 2.8 52001 4.3 72002 3.5 62003 2.4 42004 3.4 52005 3 52006 2.1 .42007 2.6 42008 1.3 1.92009--- --1.5- ..---2.3 --2010 1.9 2.3Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0111994 0.0131995 0.0121996 0.0111997 0.0111998 0.0121999 0.0132000 0.0122001 0.0132002 0.01072003 0.01112004 0.0122005 0.01152006 0.01042007 0.012008 0.00892009 0.0083Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079Average (ppm) 1. 1OE-02Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 17 of 20Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr AverageYear(gg/m3) (gg/m3)1993 18 381994 18 581995 17 441996 18 641997 15 511998 17 431999 18 452000 18 47.2001 20 572002 18 462003 17 402004 16.7 362005 19.3 452006 15.7 352007 17.9 382008 15 392009 14 272010 17.2 362011 16.5 372012 16.9 38Average(jgg/m
- 3) 17.16 43.2Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1999 12.242000 12.282001 12.22002 12.72003 11.72004 10.912005 13.012006 10.822007 11.82008 10.72009 9.552010 9.892011 10.922012 10.09Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1 TEM-900209/29/ 09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 18 of 20Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual AverageYear (ppm)1993 0.0031994 0.0051995 0.0021996 0.0031997 0.0021998 0.0031999 0.0042000 0.0032001 0.0042002 0.0032003 0.0022004 0.00142005 0.00172006 0.00192007 0.00182008 0.00222009 0.0022Average (ppm) 2.66E-03Average 6.97E+00 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0EGNEINGrat DESm iGNtILEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 19 of 20
Attachment:
Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from VistaProcess 10000 pph 111111 ________934.52 Btu/lb 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 informationgs velocitHVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demandFlue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0012Rev. 1Page 20 of 20Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JIl134o0(16b): _______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --IIMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.000.132.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ IMat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tCakiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu. .*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~ ~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~ Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo
- tll l 11 tilt4
- ;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix D -EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i Document I D: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1Effective Date: July 31, 2015Engineering Design FileOn-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124Project Title: NWMI Environmental ReportPortageTEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0 TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 1 of 51. Portage Project No.: 31242. Project/Task:
NWMvI Environmental Report3. DCN#4. Title: On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A6. SSC Safety Category: N/A7 Summary: This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles duringthe 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 NamerR/A Organization Signature DateAuthor/Design Agent a Gary McManus )~d 7/31/15Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ Independent Review RProject Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1Rev. 0 Page 2of 5INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSEDuring the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce andfrom routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board EmissionDatabase (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) was used to calculate on-road vehicle emissionfactors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type,vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidityThe volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected duringconstruction. 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, limitingroutine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts fromvehicular 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 periodare shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100vehicles 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 ayear to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52weeks 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) MilesWorkforce travel (60) Commute -light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000Workforce travel (30) Commute -light duty gas trucks (1 2/260) 502,116 312,000Workforce travel (10) Commute -light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants andcarbon dioxide (CO2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC seriesof models. TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1Page 3 of 5Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running) CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVehicle Type (/ieLight Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03LgtdtTrcs3.36E-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+00Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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) Veil yeCO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOxVhceTp (g/vehicle/day) Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03LgtdtTrcs0.00E+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 shownbelow: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, C02, PM10,PM2.5 and SOx TEM-900209/29/09Rev. 0ENGINEERING DESIGN FILEEDF-31 24-0013Rev. 1Page 4of 5Example 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 gCO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days=-2.70E+05 gTotal CO Emissions = 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g1 1.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown inTable 5 below.Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOxVehicle 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 5AutosLgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9Total (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 Emission RatesRegion Type: Statewide Region: California Calendar Year: 2015Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMPAC2RO1 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed(miles/hr) StatewIde 2015 Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated Statewide 2015 Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated Statewide 2015 Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated o o~rcc N2Running -CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I(gins/ssile) 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-00 3.51E-033.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03dli~ngCO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J[gms/vehlcle/duy) 0 0 0 R 0 RO 0 0 R 0 R0 0 0 R S S1.73E+01 ~dling 49E0CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE(gms/vehslce/day) 1.7+1 03E+00 4.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0RORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R light Duty Auto gaslightsOt/Truck gasLight Duty Truck dieselMiles624,0R0302,000004,0ooCO6.15E6+05 1.O2E.+]6 3.401+04NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+00 0.25E+03 1.276+0 300E.RRE+04 0.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 ,53E+R2 10Days CO260 0260 0260 .RNORCOO000PM0R PMO._5 ROE Vehicles Gays 2CO+50 NOR COO PMIOR PM2... ROEO 0 R 60 060 O.R 10 .776+04 7.24E+06 O.ROE+0O 2.RSE+02 7.72E+01] O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O4 4.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E*02 4.56E+01O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+00 0.00E+00 0.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StSVstlste Ttye Fontlitus) Phe) 1005) yhn) 0ni So'go) Old) flu ks) Osightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2Jt Truok 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 ITeozloDt c dksel 05 77 7n[i 104 37.004 Ri,5tS S 4 6 1T'ostz 2443 } 50360 290 631 001,746 603,662 0 21 9 iTo0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004h'iz0imh"mz"0i-rnCD.
- .,
NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0Appendix E -Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i 1111111 I Iw euraEAr/3l U3IRU31~iWA1UlAJIS3XUVU OI~J.T~ -e~PU WAT1m P'UW DWASTI MAN(T CA*WAES P03t 3....AL *alU,mtru, iss iw31W YAMu AII.3 1MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH 'U..NWMIl Altermative Sits Locatiosm ._ .II in i~niifi iii n II I~l ! ...J~ k... ......... iJ _ .!i![!! 1! F ! I ..... ... rr t Imlllll m flI]I _ -.l-T> 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 Site Selectlen Criteria, , , ... .......... IIH .... III I ... .. Y ] 1 ... r] .1! 1 .. o 1, , I11 1 l f .... .. ...Il l ...Political and locallogistics supportAbility of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical
- support, based on regional politics and importance of project toeconomic develooment 10Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (i.e., air,liquids, solids)Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements andavailability of waste disposition pathway8Federal and State taxesand incentives Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPFownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMIseparately 3Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2and construction indicesTotal Weight 60*e j WM Scoring Details mmdiiRessuht-- -6~ S -40: 1 1030 3 3030 3 3016 3 24Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3Txitingitc4 40 2 2Transportation 4 32 4 32 2Federal, State, county, and local require-4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10ments to construct and operate facilityFeiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'Iii:~i0~.NWMIuSflmUTinA+/-
IUIWS ........... ........ .. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiiiSUtilized 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 criteriaCriteria 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 I1,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 in loess 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 in Columbia, 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 LaysutPhimI 13L0,0,tPlmE lOAMFts212* Ac/I,I...W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a muEUU 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 becmpeen DS!NWMI EUR,-Current Layout/RPF Layout.... .... .... ... .... ... I r r ll lll IIII IIIIIII .. .. ... ... /I /I I I II I ,,,ID .. .... ..I!1 I I ,t i l l OSUE Site Characteristics
>. Location* OSU is located near the I-5 corridor in Corvallis,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 ofthe reactor* Utilizing site would require relocation of twoexisting laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modifyroads)> Roadways* Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on theCorvallis-Lebanon Highway* Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used forirradiated 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 in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimumsetback 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,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........
l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF LayoutICurrent OSU Layout:;.. WMIM nU.,.:t II VNVU 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 aspotential 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. WattAvenue boarders McClellan to the east* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets-lvmms 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 ofAir 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 soilmaterial; Xerarents
- Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction
> Groundwater
- Depth to groundwater in Sacramento 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
-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. iiJ4Preliminary RPF LayoutLo1!N.I4i1~--1Current McClellan LayoutM~n S~.3rwm~522A A~1' JG LOT 15PLaRw gvwQI Ia WAIrn11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS P.S WrATUl UQDWAre SCtmCLh MAILIT -AIEpf rmLOT 3uwrum I-urntIIWVA FIT=4PVR-ar IMW A£ NsmftANORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LIIALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION -DETILEE SI* , mN~a W 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 99Moendeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 99Mo community > OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 99Mo business model due to FTEgeneration 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 in 99Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimalFTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1BEUMIED IIII VYMI Sperations
...... ............ !!l l l I I I F FI]H HF[[ ............ .......... .... ..... " ...... l ................................. .... Fr ......... I I ISDiscovery 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; maypresent 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; maypresent 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 it will not be housed on UC Davis campus;proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in 2003 and has a99 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..DRMURR0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3&WMJa Preductlen Isgistlcs
> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activitySPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical thirdreactor>Transportation DistanceRPF Location: DR/MURR RPF Location: OSU RPF Location: McClellan ..~ -. .~ .I --.- .-S--S *~ S ICovi i, OR iii~McClellan, CA200mi (40 hr)1800 mi (35 hr)Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO0520 mi (12 hr)20o0(40ohr) Corvallis, ORMcClellan, CAColumbia, MO50nii 1 i0Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging
- All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes
..DR4MURR23McClellan 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 disasterdeclarations than route between either location and DR/MURR* All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result in delays due toinclement weather* If RPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability ofdelays0 0DR 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 in TX) -twostate borders will be crossed during transport
- Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located in WA) -one state border will be crossed during transport
- California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) -two state borders willbe 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 beevaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste).SDR MURR OU Mleln4 4 4 3* MI________________
- Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites becausethese are Federal requirements
>Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not varybetween 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 lessat OSU and DR/MURRSAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project butdifferences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expectedto be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURRS 0DR MURR :OSU Mlellan4 4 4 24 NWMI WALiiii~i Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntivesSales 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 taxesbased 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 thanCalifornia S SDR MURR OSU Mclellan5531 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 toResearch Reactor)> OSU* Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the(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 use0SU campus-250 feet awaySMcClellan
- Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion
(,,from UC Davis Research Reactor)* RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made~0 *DR5MURR3OSUIMcClellan 2:~ NWMI Construction CostsSRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes* DR/MURR (Columbia): 95.4* OSU (Corvallis): 98.6* McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): 109.9SDiscovery Ridge* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSUSMURR* 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 in slight cost savings* Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which willincrease costs..:DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3* NWMI,,u.
Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake riskSOSU (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 ahigher earthquake risk of mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu & 50klm'UeP e,,*u= djd 4 Le,.Mclela -Earthquk Risk MapOSU -cEaelhquakeaRisk Mai .0.....r, Discovery RidgeIMURR -Earthquake Risk Map-S 0-I -D UR S clla3 3 4 2NW2M I..........}}