NRG ENERGY, INC. ASTORIA GAS TURBINE POWER LLC

NRG ENERGY INC ASTORIA GAS TURBINE POWER LLC

31-01 20th Avenue Long Island City NY 11105

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

UPDATED AIR QUALITY ANALYSES

Prepared by

Air Resources Group LLC

6281 Johnston Road Albany New York 12203

February 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1-1

20 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1

21 Surrounding Topography 2-1 22 Local Climate 2-1 23 Existing Background Ambient Air Quality 2-4

30 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3-1

31 Air Quality Assessment Methodology 3-1 32 Model Selection and Inputs 3-1 321 Dispersion Parameters 3-2 322 Source Exhaust Characteristics and Emission Rates 3-3 323 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height 3-5 324 Meteorological Data 3-6 325 Receptor Grid 3-8 3251 Ground-Level Grid 3-8 3252 Flagpole Receptors 3-9 33 Air Quality Assessment Results 3-10 331 Ground-Level Receptors 3-10 332 Flagpole Receptors 3-11 333 Turbine Start-up 3-12 334 Summary of Results 3-15

40 NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANT ASSESSMENT 4-1

41 Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions 4-1 42 Non-Criteria Pollutant Impacts 4-1

50 FINE PARTICULATE NET BENEFIT ANALYSIS 5-1

51 Net Benefit Modeling Methodology 5-1 52 Net Benefit Modeling Results 5-3 53 Secondary PM-25 Formation 5-4 54 Practical PM-25 Mitigation Strategies and Control Technologies 5-5

60 CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 6-1

61 Modeling Methodology for Prior Cumulative Impact Studies 6-1 62 Modeling Results 6-3 63 Proposed Repowering Project Impacts 6-3

70 ACCIDENTAL AMMONIA RELEASE 7-1

71 Accidental Release Modeling 7-1 72 Accidental Release Modeling Results 7-3

80 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 8-1

81 Repowering Project Emissions 8-1

Section Page

82 State National and Global Emissions 8-2 83 Significance of CO2 Emissions 8-3

90 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS Analysis 9-1

91 NO2 NAAQS Rule 9-1 92 Applicability to Repowering Project 9-2 93 Proposed Repowering Project Impacts 9-2 94 Background 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations 9-4 95 Total 1-Hour NO2 Impacts 9-5 96 Summary 9-6

100 REFERENCES 10-1 LIST OF ATTACHED APPENDICES Appendix A ndash NYSDEC Correspondence Appendix B ndash Results of the Combustion Turbine Load Analyses Appendix C ndash Modeling Input and Output Files Appendix D ndash Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors and Combustion Turbine

Load Analysis Appendix E ndash ALOHA Aqueous Ammonia Accidental Release Output

LIST OF TABLES Table No Page Table 2-1 Background Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants 2-9 Table 3-1 Combustion Turbine Modeling Data1 3-17 Table 3-2 GEP Stack Height Analysis 3-18 Table 3-3 Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Concentrations 3-19 Table 3-4 Maximum Modeled Flagpole Receptor Concentrations 3-20 Table 4-1 Combustion Turbine Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Rates (Natural Gas) 4-3 Table 4-2 Combustion Turbine Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Rates (Ultra-Low Sulfur Distillate Fuel Oil) 4-6 Table 4-3 Results of Non-Criteria Pollutant Analysis Ground-Level Receptors 4-8 Table 4-4 Results of Non-Criteria Pollutant Analysis Flagpole Receptors 4-10 Table 5-1 Stack Parameters and PM-25 Emissions for Existing Units 5-6 Table 8-1 New York State CO2 Emissions Inventory by Sector (MMTCE) 8-4 Table 8-2 United States CO2 Emissions Inventory by Sector (MMTCE) 8-5

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No Page Figure 2-1 Site Location Map 2-10 Figure 2-2 2000-2004 LaGuardia Airport Wind Rose 2-11 Figure 3-1 Land Cover Distribution for a 3-Kilometer Radius around the NRG Repowering

Project Site 3-21 Figure 3-2 NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Repowering Project Site Plan 3-22 Figure 3-3 Modeled Receptor Grid (Near Grid) 3-23 Figure 3-4 Modeled Receptor Grid (Full Grid) 3-24 Figure 5-1 Maximum Modeled 24-hour PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences

(ugm3) ndash Near Grid 5-7 Figure 5-2 Maximum Modeled 24-hour PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences

(ugm3) ndash Full Grid 5-8 Figure 5-3 Maximum Modeled Annual PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences

(ugm3) ndash Near Grid 5-9 Figure 5-4 Maximum Modeled Annual PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences

(ugm3) ndash Full Grid 5-10

10 INTRODUCTION This report presents information related to background conditions at the Repowering Project site specifically climatological and ambient air quality potential emissions from the Repowering Project and what air quality impacts these emissions may have on existing conditions A discussion of the area topography is included because it can affect local meteorological conditions and air quality impacts (ie elevations in terrain which can alter or channel wind direction as well as exacerbate pollutant impacts) Modeling methodologies presented in the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (TRC 2007) and approved by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) served as the basis for assessing air impacts Further information on the applicable New York State and Federal regulatory requirements and NRGrsquos compliance determinations with the regulatory requirements can be found in the Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application (ARG 2010) submitted to the NYSDEC in February 2010

20 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following section discusses the existing conditions at the Repowering Project site The discussion includes a description of existing topography and climatology as well as background ambient air quality data from representative stations operated by NYSDEC

21 Surrounding Topography The following information is based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps for the area The Repowering Project site is located along the East River in the Astoria section of Queens Borough and is shown in Figure 2-1 The site is adjacent to other industrial property and will be leveled to an elevation of approximately 20 feet (ft) above mean sea level (MSL) as part of the proposed Repowering Project To the west across the Hell Gate Channel are Wards Island and then Manhattan Island To the north are the south reaches of Bronx Borough To the east are Rikers Island and LaGuardia Airport Queens Borough lies to the east southeast and south Terrain within 6 kilometers (km) of the site is generally rolling with elevations limited to 80 ft or less with the exception of several higher hills to 140 ft in northern Manhattan Beyond 6 km terrain remains below stack top (the height of the stack being 250 ft above MSL) throughout Brooklyn and Queens Counties It is not until the Hudson River is crossed that elevated terrain (above stack top) is first encountered in the Palisades region of New Jersey Elevated terrain is first reached in the Palisades approximately 75 km to the northwest of the Repowering Project site Thereafter only in a 2-km-wide band of terrain that is the Palisades does the terrain consistently exceed stack top This band stretches from the west through north portions of the area at distances ranging from approximately 9 km west of the site to 16 km and beyond to the north Peak terrain in this area reaches over 400 ft above MSL in an area approximately 23 km north-northwest of the site Another area of elevated terrain is noted 16 km and beyond to the north and northeast in the areas of Mount Vernon Yonkers and the northern Bronx Further out and well beyond the range of the modeling terrain approaches or exceeds stack top in northern Westchester County (terrain to 800 ft) and in Staten Island (terrain at just over 400 ft)

22 Local Climate

The climate of the region and the Repowering Project site are described below The regional descriptions are applicable to the wide reaching area that is influenced by mesoscale meteorological patterns and are based on the Repowering Project sitersquos mid-latitude location near the Atlantic Ocean Site-specific conditions are unique to the area and can be influenced by the highly urban environment and proximity to several local water bodies (ie the East River Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean) The site-specific description is based on local meteorological data collected at the nearby LaGuardia Airport The climate at the Repowering Project site is primarily continental in character but is subjected to modification by the Atlantic Ocean the proper classification for the climate is ldquomodified continentalrdquo The mid-latitude site location and proximity to the Atlantic Ocean exposes the region to a variety of meteorological conditions and events Almost any weather can occur at the Repowering Project site including blizzards tropical storms thunderstorms and droughts and extreme occurrences of such events have been recorded The mid-latitude location exposes the area to large annual ranges in temperatures Cold outbreaks originating from the northern latitudes contrast significantly with the heat and humidity that is often transported from the Gulf of Mexico The primary interaction point between these the regions the mid-latitude regions experiences weather that is characterized by frequent sometimes violent change At times mesoscale influences alter this meteorological variety Stagnation in the weather pattern will expose the area to extended periods of a particular type of weather When there is stagnation in the weather pattern the weather experienced will depend on what local meteorological feature is being trapped by the stagnation High pressure stalled in the Atlantic Ocean in the summer often results in extended periods of heat humidity and at times drought Conversely a stalled frontal boundary can result in extended periods of rain ice or snow in the winter Mid-latitude cyclones (ie norrsquoEasters or coastal storms) are a frequent synoptic scale weather pattern occurring most often in the fall and winter months Such storms produce on occasion considerable amounts of precipitation Typically coastal storms are responsible for record rains snows and high winds However destructive force winds rarely occur with coastal storms and usually are associated with severe weather related to intense thunderstorms On occasion the area also may be affected by a tropical system that can bring extremely heavy rain and strong winds to the area

The nearest National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological monitoring station is LaGuardia Airport located approximately 18 km (11 miles) east of the Repowering Project site at the Marine Air Terminal building This station is considered representative of the Repowering Project site due to common proximity to large water bodies and location within highly urbanized areas This station is classified as Class I meaning it functions around the clock and collects all parameters of interest to the NWS Data presented in the ldquo2003 Local Climatological Data ndash Annual Summary with Comparative Data ndash New York La Guardia Airportrdquo (USDOC 2003) were reviewed and applied to this report Of the various parameters collected several are important in assessing the proposed Repowering Project impacts Specifically wind speed and direction are necessary for the prediction of the location and magnitude of Repowering Project emission impacts (a third parameter atmospheric stability is calculated from several other parameters) Since combustion turbine performance is affected by inlet air temperature average maximum and minimum ambient temperature values are also important in establishing turbine performance set points for modeling ambient air impacts Over a 42-year period of record annual wind velocities are shown to average 124 miles per hour General wind direction is responsive to seasonal effects related to large-scale circulation patterns In the warm months the prevailing wind flows from the southerly direction and becomes northwesterly during the winter months During the seasonal transition months of May and September winds flow from the northeast Average wind speed is strongest in the winter months Wind speed and direction data covering a five-year period (2000 through 2004) have been plotted graphically as a ldquowind roserdquo in Figure 2-2 A wind rose depicts the various frequencies and intensities of wind direction and speed Figure 2-2 shows the predominating wind flow from the northwest (approximately 11 percent of the time) east northeast (approximately 10 percent of the time) northeast (approximately 8 percent of the time) and the south (approximately 7 percent of the time) This distribution is consistent with the variety of weather to which the site is exposed cold winds from the northwest in the winter northeast winds during the transitional months and from sea breezes and coastal storms and warmhot summertime winds from the south At the Repowering Project location terrain has little effect on wind direction unlike a mountainous region where valley channeling of wind would strongly influence a wind rose distribution As mentioned above combined cycle combustion turbine performance is affected by ambient temperature Peak turbine performance is achieved when ambient temperatures and consequently the turbine inlet air is colder As a result establishing representative ambient

temperature extremes are important in defining turbine performance and assessing resultant impacts The NYSDEC recognized this and has developed unpublished guidance for establishing turbine performance ambient temperature set points The guidance instructs all applicants with projects located in New York City to establish the following turbine performance set points

bull Minimum Temperature = minus (ndash) 5 degrees Fahrenheit (degF) bull Maximum Temperature = 100 degF and bull Average Temperature = Value presented in the local climatological summary

(LCD) summary sheet of the NWS station that is to represent the source of meteorological data for the impact modeling

The mean dry bulb temperature measured over a 52-year period of record at La Guardia is 546 degF Therefore the three turbine performance set points (minimum maximum and average annual) following guidance established by the NYSDEC are ndash5 degF 100 degF and 546 degF Turbine performance is enhanced at cooler ambient temperatures therefore the use of the evaporative coolers is proposed to cool the inlet air during the warmer months As a result and as is detailed in Section 322 the maximum temperature set point will be changed due to the proposed use of the evaporative coolers Annual precipitation recorded at La Guardia over a 30-year period of record averages 444 inches Average monthly rainfall ranges from a low of 28 inches in February to a high of 44 inches in July (snowfall is melted to obtain the liquid equivalent) The maximum-recorded 24-hour rainfall measured 711 inches and occurred in August 1955 This extreme rainfall event was associated with a very active tropical stormhurricane season The September 1999 passage of tropical storm Floyd which moved along the New Jersey coastline did not significantly impact La Guardia as much of the extreme rainfall associated with the storm was confined to southeastern Pennsylvania western and northeastern New Jersey and the Hudson Valley region of southeastern New York At the other extreme the minimal monthly rainfall recorded over the 59-year period of record occurred during June 1949 when only 003 inches of precipitation was received

23 Existing Background Ambient Air Quality To determine the existing background ambient air quality in the area surrounding the Repowering Project site the background ambient air quality data available from the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the NYSDEC were reviewed Data for criteria pollutants that are not included in the air quality analysis (ozone and lead) are also presented in order to fully establish background air quality conditions Ozone is not included in the modeling because it is a large-scale (regional) issue although ozone precursors are included in the analysis Lead is not included in the criteria pollutant air quality modeling because the potential emissions from the Repowering Project are well below the emission thresholds that trigger a review However the potential lead emissions were included in the non-criteria air quality analysis presented in Section 4 The Repowering Project site is located in Queens County NYSDEC Region 2 and New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) The NYSDEC Bureau of Air Surveillance operates various air quality monitors for sulfur dioxide (SO2) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) carbon monoxide (CO) particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 um (PM-10) fine particulate matter (PM-25) ozone (O3) lead (Pb) nitrogen oxides (NOx) sulfates and nitrates According to 40 CFR 81333 (most recent update of July 1 2008) the following classifications exist for the criteria pollutants at or near the Repowering Project site

bull SO2 ndash better than national standards bull NO2 ndash not classified or better than national standards bull Pb ndash not designated bull O3 ndash moderate (Subpart 2) non-attainment (8-hour) bull CO ndash attainment bull PM-10 ndash moderate non-attainment in New York County but attainment in Queens

County and bull PM-25 ndash non-attainment

The Repowering Project area is designated as moderate non-attainment for ozone and non-attainment for PM-25 Therefore facilities emitting more than 25 tons per year of NOx or volatile organic compounds (VOC) andor 10 tonsyear of PM-25 are subject to New Source Review (NSR) non-attainment requirements for these pollutants which include the use of lowest achievable emission rates (LAER) controls and emission offset requirements as defined in the NYSDEC Part 231 Non-attainment review requirements The proposed Repowering Project emissions will be below the NSR non-attainment emission thresholds for all pollutants therefore the NSR requirements are not applicable to the Repowering Project In addition the maximum modeled PM-25 air quality concentrations are required to be less than the PM-25 significant impact levels (SILs) and the maximum modeled PM-10 air quality concentrations need to be less than the PM-10 SILs in New York County

NYSDEC is responsible for the operation of numerous ambient air quality monitors located throughout New York State The operation includes the responsibility to maintain maximum data collection recovery following rigorous quality assurance protocols Monitoring stations for NYSDECrsquos Region 2 were reviewed and sites were selected as representative of the Repowering Project area Table 2-1 presents the maximum annual maximum quarterly and second highest short-term concentrations recorded during the latest available three years (2005-2007) at the selected monitors for the specific criteria pollutants Second highest concentrations as opposed to maximum concentrations are presented in Table 2-1 for pollutants with short-term standards since one exceedance of the standard is allowed per year The following text provides pollutant-specific discussions of these data including ambient air concentrations with respect to the air quality standards and air pollution trends Carbon Monoxide (CO) The nearest representative CO monitor to the site is located at Public School (PS) 59 in New York County approximately 61 km to the southwest of the Repowering Project site CO is more of a concern from mobile sources than from stationary combustion sources as such monitors are often located at busy traffic intersections (known as CO ldquohot-spotsrdquo) CO concentrations are monitored for comparison against a 1-hour and an 8-hour standard The highest-second highest hourly concentration in the latest three years of data was recorded to be 2645 ugm3 which is well under the standard of 40000 ugm3 The highest-second highest eight-hour concentration was 1955 ugm3 which is well below the 10000 ugm3 standard Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) The closest representative NYSDEC monitor for SO2 is located approximately 31 km north of the Repowering Project site at Intermediate School (IS) 52 in Bronx County This monitor is located in close proximity within a center city residential location and is similar to the Astoria site for this reason Over the time period of 2005-2007 the monitoring data reported the 3-hour and annual SO2 concentrations have decreased every year for a total decrease of approximately 30 percent while 24-hour concentrations have decreased overall approximately 15 percent The data collected shows the highest-second highest 3-hour concentration at 14 percent of the

NAAQS the highest-second highest 24-hour concentration at 30 percent of the NAAQS and the maximum annual concentration at 36 percent of the NAAQS Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) The 2005 PM-10 background ambient air quality data are not available however data from the PS 59 PM-10 monitor are available for 2006 and 2007 With only two years of data a specific trend in the background PM-10 concentrations cannot be determined at this time although both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 concentrations recorded at the PS 59 monitor in 2006 and 2007 are well below their respective NAAQS The highest-second highest 24-hour value is 40 percent of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS and the maximum annual concentration at 50 percent of the NAAQS Fine Particulates (PM-25) Located approximately 31 km north of the Repowering Project site the IS 52 PM-25 monitor is the closest PM-25 monitor to the Repowering Project site This monitor is located on East 156th Street between Dawson and Kelly in New York County The area surrounding the PM-25 monitor is a highly urbanized area similar to the Repowering Project site and therefore concentrations recorded at this monitor are representative of the background PM-25 concentrations at the Repowering Project site The 24-hour PM-25 NAAQS is based on the average of three years of the 98th percentile 24-hour recorded PM-25 concentrations while the annual PM-25 NAAQS is based on the average of three years of annual average PM-25 concentrations recorded The three-year average monitored 98th percentile 24-hour PM-25 concentration (36 ugm3) during the 2005-2007 time period was slightly greater than the 24-hour PM-25 NAAQS (35 ugm3) and the three-year average monitored annual PM-25 concentration was 87 percent of the NAAQS Based on the 24-hour PM-25 concentrations recorded at the IS 52 monitor from 2005-2007 the 24-hour PM-25 concentrations have decreased by approximately 8 percent during this time period Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) The nearest representative NO2 monitor to the site is also located at IS 52 in Bronx County approximately 31 km north of the Repowering Project site During 2005-2007 the 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations decreased from 152 ugm3 to 135 ugm3

and are less than the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 188 ugm3 while the maximum annual NO2

concentrations have shown a slight decrease from the first to third year (39 ugm3 to 32 ugm3) and remain well below the annual NO2 NAAQS of 100 ugm3 Ozone (O3) The closest representative ozone monitor to the Repowering Project site is the IS 52 monitor in Bronx County Compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is based on the average of the three years of highest fourth-highest (H4H) 8-hour ozone concentrations recorded The H4H 8-hour average over the three year period (2005-2007) was 147 μgm3 which is at the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 147 ugm3 It is difficult to infer pollution trends from ozone data since the occurrence of this pollutant depends not only on a source of the precursor pollutants (NOx and VOC) but also the intensity and frequency of the driving mechanism (sunlight) that accelerates ozone formation Relative consistency in regional NOx and VOC concentrations may result in different resultant ozone concentrations depending on the particular meteorological pattern that was established during the May 1 through September 30 ozone season In addition long range transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind sources may contribute to an increased background concentration in the Northeast Lead (Pb) With the phase-out of leaded motor vehicle fuels in the 1980s the issue of ambient lead has remained only at locations proximate to certain industries (ie lead smelters) The Junior High School (JHS) 126 monitor is the closest representative location where particulate filters are analyzed for lead It is located approximately 85 km south-southwest of the Repowering Project site Lead has a not-to-exceed rolling quarterly ambient air quality standard of 015 ugm3 At JHS 126 the maximum quarterly value recorded in 2006 and 2007 was 002 ugm3 The 2005 lead samples were not analyzed and thus there are no 2005 background lead data available for New York

Table 2-1 Background Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants

Background Concentration2 (ugm3)

Pollutant Averaging

Period NAAQS1 (ugm3)

NYAAQS1 (ugm3) 2005 2006 2007 Monitor Location

1-Hour 40000 40000 2530 2645 2645 CO 8-Hour 10000 10000 1725 1955 1610

PS59 ndash 288 E 57th St (6 km southwest of the Repowering

Project site) 3-Hour 1300 1300 183 170 141

24-Hour 365 365 110 89 94 SO2

Annual 80 80 29 24 21

IS52 ndash E 156th St Between Dawson amp Kelly (3 km north of

the Repowering Project site) 24-Hour -- 250 --3 -- -- TSP Annual -- 75 --3 -- --

No monitoring stations operated during 2006-2007

24-Hour 150 -- --3 60 53 PM-10 Annual 50 -- --3 23 25

24-Hour 354 -- 368 366 339 PM-25 Annual 154 -- 137 125 127 IS52

1-Hour 1885 -- 1526 1356 1356 NO2 Annual 100 100 39 32 32 IS52

O3 8-Hour 1477 -- 151 141 149 IS52

Pb 3-Month 015 -- --3 002 002 JHS126 ndash 424 Leonard St

(85 km south-southwest of the Repowering Project site)

1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and New York Ambient Air Quality Standards (NYAAQS) 2 Highest second-highest short-term (1- 3- 8- amp 24-hour) and maximum annual average concentrations presented except for 24-hour PM-25 which is the 98th percentile concentration and 8-hour O3 which is the fourth highest concentration 3 The NYSDOT terminated their laboratory services to analyze the TSP PM-10 and Pb samples collected at the operating monitors in 2005 thus no TSP PM-10 and Pb data were available for this year 4 The 24-hour PM-25 NAAQS is not to be exceeded on the 98th percentile concentration during a three-year period and the annual PM-25 NAAQS is not to be exceeded on the three-year annual average PM-25 concentration The three-year (2005-2007) 98th percentile 24-hour and annual average PM-25 concentrations were 36 ugm3 and 13 ugm3 respectively 5 The 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is not to be exceeded on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations The three-year average (2005-2007) 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations is 141 ugm3 6 The 98th percentile (highest eight-highest) 1-hour NO2 concentration presented 7 The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not to be exceeded on the highest fourth-highest 8-hour average during a three year period The three year (2005-2007) highest fourth-highest 8-hour average at the IS52 ozone monitor was 147 μgm3 Bold value identifies the greatest value over the 3-year period and is presented as being a representative background concentration for the study area Sources New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2005 2006 and 2007 (NYSDEC 2005 2006a and 2007) and the US EPArsquos Technology Transfer Network ndash Air Quality System for 1-hour NO2 concentrations

Proposed Project Site

NRG Astoria Inc Proposed NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Repowering Project Astoria New York

Figure 2-1 Site Location Map Source USGS Quadrangle Map (Central Park NY)

Figure 2-2 2000-2004 LaGuardia Airport Wind Rose

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software

WIND ROSE PLOT

LaGuardia Airport New York 2000-2004 Wind Direction Data

COMMENTS COMPANY NAME

PROJECT NO

WEST EAST

WIND SPEED (Knots)

gt= 22

17 - 22

11 - 17

7 - 11

Calms 279

CALM WINDS

DATA PERIOD

2000-2004 Jan 1 - Dec 310000 - 2300

AVG WIND SPEED

952 Knots

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedDirection (blowing from)

30 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section details the air quality analyses conducted in support of the Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application (ARG 2010) These analyses include the stack height (Good Engineering Practice GEP) simple and complex terrain and combustion turbine start-up analyses The modeling methodology used for these analyses and the results of these analyses are presented in this section

31 Air Quality Assessment Methodology The modeling analysis was performed consistent with the procedures found in the NYSDECrsquos DAR-10 Guidelines on Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air Quality Impact Analysis (NYSDEC 2006b) and the US EPArsquos Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) (US EPA 2007) A detailed discussion on the modeling methodology which was used in the air quality analysis was contained in the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (TRC 2007) submitted to NYSDEC for review on December 14 2007 NRG addressed all of the NYSDECrsquos comments on the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (TRC 2007) and it was approved in January 2009 Copies of the correspondence with regards to the air quality modeling analysis are provided in Appendix A of this report

32 Model Selection and Inputs The US EPA AERMOD model (version 07026 with Prime) was used to model the proposed sources associated with both phases of the proposed Repowering Project The AERMOD model was designed for assessing pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources (point area and volume) AERMOD is currently recommended by US EPA for modeling studies in rural or urban areas flat or complex terrain and transport distances less than 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) with one hour to annual averaging times In November 2005 AERMOD became the preferred US EPA guideline model replacing the Industrial Source Complex (ISCST3) model which had been the preferred model for many years for most modeling applications The regulatory default option along with the URBAN option was used in the dispersion modeling analysis

321 Dispersion Parameters A land cover classification analysis based on the Auer technique (Auer 1978) was performed to determine whether the URBAN option should be used in quantifying ground-level concentrations This analysis was performed by visually determining the various land uses (industrial commercial residential and agriculturalnatural) within a 3-kilometer radius circle centered on the Repowering Project site in order to assess the land cover around the proposed Repowering Project Essentially if more than 50 percent of the area within this circle is designated I1 I2 C1 and R2 or R3 (industrial light industrial commercial and compact residential) urban dispersion parameters should be used otherwise the modeling should use rural dispersion parameters Urban land uses within 3 km of the Repowering Project site include high intensity residential (316) commercialindustrialtransportation (264) and low intensity residential (72) for a total of 652 of the total land uses within 3 km of the Repowering Project site The rural land uses are water (385) deciduous forest (32) mixed forest (22) and urbanrecreational grasses and pasturehay land uses both less than 1 Based on the land cover analysis greater than 50 percent of the land coverage is considered an urban land cover and as such the air quality analysis was conducted using the URBAN option The land cover distribution within 3-km of the Repowering Project is shown in Figure 3-1 The use of the URBAN option requires the user to specify the population of the urban area To develop the estimate population for the area surrounding the Repowering Project site the population data available in Annual Estimates of the Population for the Counties April 1 2000 to July 1 2006 (US Census 2007) was used Specifically the July 1 2006 population estimate data for the Bronx New York Kings Queens Nassau and Richmond counties in New York was used in the modeling analysis The July 1 2006 total estimated population for these six counties is 9540088 The AERMOD model also allows the user to specify the urban surface roughness length however NRG used the default surface roughness length of 10 meter

322 Source Exhaust Characteristics and Emission Rates The proposed Repowering Project (first and second phases) will consist of four CC-FAST trains with 300 mmBtuhr natural gas-fired duct burners an aqueous ammonia tank and other ancillary equipment Each CC-FAST train will have advanced inter-cooling combustion technology for improved thermal efficiency Natural gas the primary fuel for the combustion turbines will be delivered via pipeline The ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil (00015 sulfur content) the back-up fuel will be delivered by truck or barge and will be stored in the storage tanks at the site Natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate oil are considered best available control technology for SO2 and PM-25 control NRG is proposing to use water injection and SCR technologies to reduce the NOx emissions and an oxidation catalyst to reduce CO and VOC emissions from the CC-FAST trains Efficiency of the turbine will be enhanced during certain ambient conditions by using an inlet air evaporative cooler Evaporative cooling of the turbinersquos inlet air will only occur during base load (ie 100 operating load) conditions when the ambient temperature is greater than 70F The Repowering Project will be designed to operate in intermediate mode as necessary during periods of high electrical load or as needed to ensure electric system reliability A load screening analysis was performed to determine impacts for the turbines operating at 60 70 and 100 load conditions for natural gas firing and 70 and 100 for ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing Additional operating scenarios were included in the modeling analysis to account for evaporative cooler use and duct burner firing As discussed in Section 22 combustion turbine performance varies depending on the ambient temperature thus three ambient temperatures were modeled to represent the minimum (-5F) and maximum (100F) extremes and the annual average (546F) temperatures recorded at the LaGuardia Airport in New York Additionally the use of an inlet air evaporative cooler when the ambient temperature exceeds 70F and the turbines are at 100 load firing natural gas or ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil was included in modeling analysis A matrix of the potential operating cases and exhaust characteristics is provided in Table 3-1 Exhaust parameters are presented for three ambient temperatures (-5degF 546degF and 100degF) and three natural gas-fired loads (60 70 and 100) and two ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired loads (70 and 100) The evaporative cooler will only operate when the turbines are at

100 load and temperatures are greater than 70degF and duct burner firing will only occur when the combustion turbines are firing natural gas and are operating at 100 load Thus these additional operating scenarios were included in the load analyses to account for evaporative cooling and duct burner firing Table 3-1 also presents the potential emission rates for each of the operating scenarios Emission rates and stack parameters for all 18 fuel types ambient temperature and operating load combinations (with and without evaporative cooling and duct burner firing) were used in the load screening modeling analyses for one two three and four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously The maximum modeled annual concentrations were determined based on each combustion turbine firing natural gas for 8560 hours and for each combustion turbine firing natural gas for 8460 hours per year and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil for 100 hours New OpFlex and turndown software technology will be installed on the proposed combustion turbines to reduce the duration of start-ups and shutdowns under certain conditions Using the new technology the combustion turbines are capable of a ramp rate of 17 MW per minute Because the OpFlex and turndown software technology proposed for the combustion turbines is new and has limited data for other facilities the exhaust parameters and emission rates used in the start-up modeling analysis were based on the latest available data and engineering judgment Emissions of SO2 PM-10 and PM-25 from the turbines are directly related to the fuel type and fuel flow rate into the turbines and thus with NYSDECrsquos concurrence (May 28 2009 discussion with Mr Leon Sedefian at NYSDEC) these pollutants were not included in the start-up analysis The analysis examined the potential 1-hour and 8-hour CO and 1-hour nitrogen dioxide NO2 air quality impacts during the start-up period It should be noted that due to the proposed OpFlex and turndown software technology on the turbines the oxidation catalyst will be functional very early in the start-up period and the SCR system will also be functional for most of the start-up time period (assumed to be 30 minutes) For this modeling analysis control of the CO emissions due to the oxidation catalyst was accounted for during the start-up period while NOx emissions during the start-up period were assumed to be uncontrolled even though significant control of NOx is expected The modeled exhaust temperature (188F or 360 Kelvin) and velocity (342 feet per second or 104 meters per second) were approximated based on performance data for the turbines at 40 operating load Potential controlled CO and uncontrolled NOx emissions during the 30-minute

start-up period were estimated to be 1500 pounds per hour (lbhr) and 1000 lbhr respectively Based on data recently obtained for an operating fast start system these emission estimates are believed to be highly conservative (22 pounds per event for NOx and 10 pounds per event for CO)

323 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height Section 123 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) required the US EPA to promulgate regulations to assure that the degree of emission limitation for the control of any air pollutant under an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) was not affected by (1) stack heights that exceed GEP or (2) any other dispersion technique The US EPA provides specific guidance for determining GEP stack height and for determining whether building downwash will occur in the Guidance for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height Regulations) (US EPA 1985) GEP is defined as ldquohellipthe height necessary to ensure that emissions from the stack do not result in excessive concentrations of any air pollutant in the immediate vicinity of the source as a result of atmospheric downwash eddies and wakes that may be created by the source itself nearby structures or nearby terrain lsquoobstaclesrsquordquo The GEP definition is based on the observed phenomenon of atmospheric flow in the immediate vicinity of a structure It identifies the minimum stack height at which significant adverse aerodynamics (downwash) are avoided The US EPA GEP stack height regulations specify that the GEP stack height be calculated in the following manner

HGEP = HB + 15L

Where HB = the height of adjacent or nearby structures and L = the lesser dimension (height or projected width of the adjacent or nearby structures) The highest allowable GEP stack height is the maximum of the formula GEP stack height calculated using the equation above or 213 ft (65 m) If the actual stack height is less than the formula GEP stack height then direction-specific downwash parameters are required to be included in the air quality modeling analysis Should the actual stack height be greater than the formula GEP stack height but less than 213 ft then the proposed stack can be modeled with its full stack height and without any downwash effects In the case of the actual stack height being

taller than both the formula GEP stack height and 213 ft only the maximum of the formula GEP stack height or 213 ft can be accounted for in the air quality modeling analysis Because of the proximity of the New York Power Authorityrsquos (NYPArsquos) Combined Cycle Facility to the Repowering Project location the GEP stack height analysis included the buildingsstructures at the NYPA facility as well as the buildingsstructures proposed as part of NRGrsquos Repowering Project The largest controlling structure at these facilities will be the NYPA turbine building at a height of 100 ft above grade and results in a formula GEP height of 250 ft above grade NRG is proposing to build the two sets of co-located combustion turbine stacks to a height of 250 ft above grade The proposed Phase I co-located combustion turbine stacks will be located within 5L (ie 500 ft) where L is the lesser of the maximum projected width and the height of the NYPA turbine building Thus the Phase I co-located combustion turbine stacks were modeled using the GEP stack height and direction-specific building downwash parameters were not included in the modeling analysis for these co-located stacks However the Phase II co-located combustion turbine stacks will be located beyond 5L (ie 500 ft) of the NYPA turbine building The tallest buildingstructure that would have downwash influences on the Phase II co-located combustion turbine stacks are the heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) at 80 ft Using the height of the HRSGs yields a GEP stack height of 200 ft above grade Therefore the Phase II co-located combustion turbine stacks were modeled with a maximum GEP stack height of 213 ft although the actual physical height for these stacks will be 250 ft No direction-specific building downwash parameters were included in the modeling analysis for the Phase II co-located combustion turbine stacks The site layout plan for the Repowering Project is shown in Figure 3-2 Table 3-2 presents the GEP stack height analysis

324 Meteorological Data For any modeling analysis conducted using the AERMOD model two meteorological datasets are required 1) hourly surface data and 2) upper air sounding data According to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) (US EPA 2007) the meteorological data used in a modeling analysis should be selected based on its spatial and climatological representativeness of a proposed facility site and its ability to accurately characterize the transport and dispersion conditions in the area of concern The spatial and climatological representativeness of the meteorological data are dependent on four factors

1 The proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area under consideration 2 The complexity of the terrain 3 The exposure of the meteorological monitoring site and 4 The period of time during which data were collected

The nearest representative NWS operated meteorological monitoring station to NRGrsquos Repowering Project is at the LaGuardia Airport (WBAN 14732) approximately 18 km (11 miles) east of the Repowering Project site LaGuardia Airport is located in Queens County New York City south of the East River on the Long Island Sound at an elevation of 11 ft (34 meters) above MSL The location of the LaGuardia Airport in relation to the Repowering Project site is shown in Figure 2-1 Both the Repowering Project site and LaGuardia Airport are located on the south side of the East River on Long Island at approximately the same elevation and there are no high ridges between the Repowering Project site and the Airport Meteorological data has been recorded at the LaGuardia Airport since 1935 according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) however NRG used a recent five year dataset from 2000 through 2004 in the modeling analysis Based on the information provided above NRG believes that the meteorological data recorded at the LaGuardia Airport are representative of the air regime at NRGrsquos Repowering Project site and suitable for use in an atmospheric dispersion modeling study because

bull The close proximity of the Airport to the Repowering Project site and the lack of significant intervening terrain features overall climatological conditions would be expected to be almost identical at both the Airport and the Repowering Project site

bull The elevation of the Airport (approximately 11 ft above MSL) and the Repowering Project site elevation (approximately 20 ft above MSL) are very similar and

bull As a first order NWS meteorological station the tower is well sited and in an area free of obstructions to wind flow and the quality of the available data meets US EPA data recovery guidelines

Concurrent upper air sounding data from the Brookhaven National Lab in Upton New York (WBAN 94703) were used with the hourly surface data to create the meteorological dataset required for the modeling analysis Brookhaven National Lab is located approximately 90 km (55 miles) to the east-northeast of the Repowering Project site Although the Brookhaven National Lab is a considerable distance from the Repowering Project site upper atmospheric

conditions are more stable than surface conditions (ie less variable and fewer anomalies) and therefore regional upper air sounding data are appropriate for modeling purposes Both the surface and upper air sounding data were processed using AERMODrsquos meteorological processor AERMET (version 06341) The US EPArsquos AERSURFACE program (version 08009) was used to process the land cover data to develop surface characteristics for use in AERMET As per the NYSDECrsquos March 13 2008 comment letter on the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (TRC 2007) a Latitude of 40779 and Longitude of -73881 was used for the LaGuardia Airport met tower and five sectors defined as 40 to 80 80 to 135 135 to 285 285 to 325 and 325 to 40 were used in the AERSURFACE program

325 Receptor Grid

3251 Ground-Level Grid The modeling ground-level receptor grid consisted of polar receptors to a distance of 10 km from the proposed Repowering Project site and fence line receptors The polar receptors were based on the following distances 100 meters to 2000 meters at 100m spacing 2000 meters to 5000 meters at 250 m spacing and 5000 meters to 10000 meters at 1000 m spacing Both the 15 acre NRG Facility and the 600+ acre Astoria Con Ed Complex is fully fenced and secured preventing public access The NRG Facility has a fenced property line which precludes public access to the site Ambient air is therefore defined as the area at and beyond the NRG fence The modeling receptor grid included receptors spaced at 10-meter intervals along the entire fence line AERMOD requires receptor data consisting of location coordinates and ground-level elevations As part of the AERMOD package the receptor-generating program AERMAP (version 09040) was used to develop the elevations for each of the proposed receptor locations Since AERMOD is recommended for use in complex terrain as well as simple terrain the elevations that are associated with each receptor include a calculated terrain scaling value This is automatically

performed when the receptor grid is generated using the AERMAP receptor grid and terrain processor AERMAP uses digital elevation model (DEM) data obtained from the USGS For this modeling analysis 75 minute DEM files with 10-meter resolution were obtained for a sufficient area (ie cover the 10 km by 10 km area of the proposed receptor grid) in all directions around the Repowering Project AERMAP was then run to determine the representative elevations for each receptor Figures 3-3 and 3-4 graphically show the modeled receptor grid relative to the proposed Repowering Project site Because some of the maximum-modeled concentrations (ie 1-hour CO 3-hour SO2 and annual SO2 PM-10 PM-25 and NO2 concentrations) were located beyond the 100-meter spaced receptors 2000 m by 2000 m Cartesian receptors grids with 100-meter spacing were centered on the initial maximum modeled concentration location to ensure the overall maximum modeled concentrations were determined

3252 Flagpole Receptors In addition to the ground-level receptors flagpole receptors were developed for inclusion into the modeling analysis These flagpole receptors were used to assess impacts on high-rise structures to ensure the publicrsquos health and safety at these locations The locations included those flagpole receptors already established by the NYCDEP (ie landmark buildings such as the United Nations Building and Empire State Building) as well as those included as a result of a field survey conducted by the applicant The field survey included the following areas bull Randalls Island bull East Side of Manhattan - east of 1st Avenue south of 125th Street north of Gracie Square bull North Brother Island bull Roosevelt Island bull Southern Bronx - southeast of I-278 from East 132nd to East 141st Streets Barry Road Oak

Point Avenue and the area bounded by Tiffany East Bay and Halleck and bull Western Queens - north of Astoria Boulevard west of 21st Avenue north of I-278 west of

19th Street north of Ditmars Boulevard and west of Steinway The area extends an approximate minimum distance of 2 km from the Repowering Project area to an approximate maximum distance of 35 km from the Repowering Project area However inclusion of the landmark receptors extends the maximum distance much farther

To account for any possible open windows or balconies on the buildings half the building height was modeled with a flagpole receptor along with the top of the building If the maximum modeled concentration had been determined to be at half the height of the building then a more refined set of flagpole receptors would have been used over the entire height of the building However all of the pollutant-specific maximum modeled concentrations were located at the top of the buildings therefore no refinement of the flagpole receptors was required

33 Air Quality Assessment Results Modeling was conducted to assess the impacts of the proposed Repowering Project and demonstrate that it would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NYAAQS and NAAQS in the attainment areas Because New York County is a moderate non-attainment area for PM-10 and the entire New York City Metropolitan area is designated as a PM-25 non-attainment area the proposed Repowering Project had to demonstrate that it would result in insignificant PM-10 concentrations in New York County and insignificant PM-25 concentrations in the New York Metropolitan area The modeling analysis was conducted to determine the air quality concentrations due to Phase I and Phase II emission sources (combined) for both ground-level and flagpole receptors

331 Ground-Level Receptors To determine the worst case operating scenario for the proposed Repowering Project a load analysis was conducted for two fuel types (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil) three ambient temperatures (-5degF 546degF and 100degF) and three natural gas-fired operating loads (60 70 and 100) and two ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired operating cases (70 and 100) The evaporative cooler will only operate when the turbines are at 100 load and temperatures are greater than 70degF and duct burner firing will only occur when the combustion turbines are firing natural gas and are operating at 100 load Therefore a total of 18 operating scenarios were modeled in the load analysis for the proposed Repowering Project These 18 operating scenarios were modeled in the load screening modeling analyses for one two three and four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously Results of the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously were greater than those of one two or three CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously scenarios Thus only the results of the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously are presented in Table 3-3 and discussed below

The worst case operating scenarios (ie operating scenarios which yielded the maximum modeled ground-level concentrations) were Case 1 (natural gas firing at 100 load with the duct burner firing at -5degF) for 1-hour and 8-hour CO and annual natural gas-fired SO2 PM-10 PM-25 and NO2 concentrations and Case 13 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing at 100 load at -5degF) for 3-hour and 24-hour SO2 24-hour PM-10 24-hour PM-25 and annual ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired SO2 PM-10 PM-25 and NO2 concentrations Because the maximum-modeled 1-hour CO 3-hour SO2 and annual SO2 PM-10 PM-25 and NO2 concentrations were located beyond the 100-meter spaced receptors separate 2000 m by 2000 m Cartesian receptors grids with 100-meter spacing were centered on the initial maximum modeled concentration locations to ensure the overall maximum modeled concentrations were determined Table 3-3 shows that all the maximum modeled ground-level concentrations are less than their pollutant-specific SILs thus no further analyses were required The maximum annual ground-level concentrations shown in Table 3-3 are a product of scaling the natural gas-fired maximum modeled concentrations by 8460 hours per year per CC-FAST train and scaling the ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil maximum modeled concentrations by 100 hours per year per CC-FAST train These scaled concentrations were then conservatively summed regardless of location to estimate the maximum modeled annual ground-level receptor concentrations due to proposed Repowering Project This methodology yields maximum modeled annual concentrations greater than modeled concentrations when assuming natural gas firing only in the combustion turbines for 8560 hours per year per CC-FAST train Complete results of the load analysis for ground-level receptors for the one two three and four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously are presented in Appendix B All the modeling input and output files used in the load analysis are included on the CDROM located in Appendix C

332 Flagpole Receptors A separate load analysis was conducted for flagpole receptors The 18 operating scenarios were modeled for one two three and four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously As in the ground-level receptor load analysis results of the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously were greater than those of one two or three CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously scenarios Therefore only the results of the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously are discussed below

The worst case operating scenarios (ie operating scenarios which yielded the maximum modeled flagpole receptor concentrations) were Case 1 (natural gas firing at 100 load with the duct burner firing at -5degF) for 1-hour and 8-hour CO and annual natural gas-fired SO2 PM-10 PM-25 and NO2 concentrations Case 13 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing at 100 load at -5degF) for 3-hour SO2and annual ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired SO2 PM-10 PM-25 and NO2 concentrations and Case 14 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing at 70 load at -5degF) for 24-hour SO2 PM-10 and PM-25 concentrations Table 3-4 shows the maximum modeled concentrations for each pollutant and averaging period for the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously All of the maximum modeled concentrations were located at the top of the buildings thus no refinement of the flagpole receptors was necessary As shown in Table 3-4 the maximum modeled concentrations are less than their respective SILs so no further modeling was necessary Similar to the ground-level receptor load analysis the maximum modeled annual flagpole receptor concentrations shown in Table 3-4 were based on scaling the natural gas-fired maximum modeled concentrations by 8460 hours per year per CC-FAST train and scaling the ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil maximum modeled concentrations by 100 hours per year per CC-FAST train These scaled concentrations were then conservatively summed regardless of location to estimate the maximum modeled annual flagpole receptor concentrations due to proposed Repowering Project This methodology yields maximum modeled annual concentrations greater than modeled concentrations when assuming natural gas firing only in the combustion turbines for 8560 hours per year per CC-FAST train Appendix B contains the complete results of the turbine load analysis for the flagpole receptors for the one two three and four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously All the modeling input and output files used in the flagpole receptors load analyses are included in Appendix C on CDROM

333 Turbine Start-up As requested by the NYSDEC NRG also performed an air quality modeling analysis for start-up conditions for the proposed combustion turbines The proposed combustion turbines will be

equipped with new OpFlex and turndown software technology to reduce the duration of start-ups under certain conditions The AERMOD model was used in the start-up modeling analysis and incorporated the GEP stack heights LaGuardia Airport meteorological data (2000-2004) and receptor grids (ground-level and flagpole receptors) used in the significance analysis for the proposed Repowering Project Start-up exhaust parameters and emission rates modeled in the analysis are discussed in Section 322 Although the start-up period will last 30-minutes or less to reach 100 operating load the modeling analysis conservatively assumed that the start-up conditions lasted for each of the entire modeled averaging periods Therefore start-up conditions were assumed for both the entire 1-hour and 8-hour averaging periods to estimate 1-hour and 8-hour CO and 1-hour NO2 modeled concentrations To ensure the ldquoworst-caserdquo operating scenario (ie the operating scenario that yields the maximum modeled concentrations) was determined four different operating scenarios were modeled The scenarios were

1) All four turbines starting simultaneously 2) Three turbines starting simultaneously and one turbine operating at the worst-

case natural gas-fired load for 1-hour and 8-hour CO and 1-hour NO2 concentrations (Case 1 ndash 100 load with duct burner firing at -5F)

3) Two turbines starting simultaneously and two turbines operating at the worst-case natural gas-fired load for 1-hour and 8-hour CO and 1-hour NO2 concentrations (Case 1 ndash 100 load with duct burner firing at -5F) and

4) One turbine starting and three turbines operating at the worst-case natural gas-fired load for 1-hour and 8-hour CO and 1-hour NO2 concentrations (Case 1 ndash 100 load with duct burner firing at -5F)

In addition to these four operating scenarios different combinations of turbines were also examined similar to the operating load analysis presented in Sections 41 and 42 For example operating scenario 2 presented above examined the possibility of the two Phase I turbines starting one of the Phase II turbines starting and the remaining Phase II turbine operating at the worst-case natural gas-fired load and the possibility of the two Phase II turbines starting one of

the Phase I turbines starting and the remaining Phase I turbine operating at the worst-case natural gas-fired load The NYSDEC and US EPA have established a 1-hour SIL of 2000 ugm3 and an 8-hour SIL of 500 ugm3 for CO If the maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are less than these SILs then no further modeling is required as the proposed Repowering Project impacts will not significantly impact the air quality The maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO ground-level concentrations were 941 ugm3 and 341 ugm3 respectively The maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations were located at the maximum extent of the 100 m spaced receptors (ie at 2000 m) and thus refined separate 2000 m by 2000 m Cartesian receptors grids with 100-meter spacing were centered on the initial maximum modeled concentration locations to ensure the overall maximum modeled concentrations were determined Operating scenario 1 presented above (ie four turbines starting simultaneously) resulted in the maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour ground-level CO concentrations respectively For the flagpole receptors the maximum modeled 1-hour CO concentration was 908 ugm3 and the maximum modeled 8-hour CO concentration was 243 ugm3 The maximum modeled 1-hour CO concentration was located at the top of a building thus refining the modeled receptors was not necessary However the maximum modeled 8-hour CO concentration was located at the mid-height of a building so the analysis was refined to include flagpole (ie building) heights ranging from the base of the building (00 meters) to the top of the building every 5 feet to ensure the maximum modeled 8-hour CO concentration at a flagpole receptor was determined Operating scenario 1 presented above resulted in the maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO flagpole receptor concentrations All of the ground-level and flagpole receptor maximum modeled CO concentrations are well below their respective SILs and thus during the start-up periods the proposed Repowering Project will have insignificant CO air quality impacts The NYSDEC and US EPA have not finalized short-term SILs for NO2 However in the February 9 2010 Federal Register the US EPA finalized a new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations US EPA set the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb) or approximately 188 ugm3

NRG also looked to other State Agencies to find a surrogate short-term NO2 AAQS A brief review of some State AAQS yielded two states with 1-hour NO2 AAQS The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has a 1-hour NO2 AAQS of 470 ugm3 and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) - Air Resources Board (ARB) has a 1-hour NO2 AAQS of 018 parts per million (ppm) or approximately 338 ugm3 Results of the start-up modeling analysis for 1-hour NO2 were then compared to the proposed NO2 NAAQS and these State NO2 AAQS The maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 ground-level concentration for turbine start-up was determined to be 627 ugm3 and was due to operating scenario 1 presented above Operating scenario 1 also resulted in the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentration (605 ugm3) at a flagpole receptor The maximum modeled ground-level concentration was located at the extent of the 100 m spaced receptors (ie at 2000 m) Therefore a refined separate 2000 m by 2000 m Cartesian receptors grid with 100-meter spacing was centered on the initial maximum modeled concentration location to ensure the overall maximum modeled concentration was determined The maximum modeled flagpole receptor concentration was located at the top of a building and thus the flagpole receptor grid did not need to be refined Both the ground-level and flagpole receptor maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations for start-up periods are approximately 33 of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (188 ugm3) 13 of the NJDEPrsquos 1-hour NO2 AAQS and less than 19 of the CalEPA-ARBrsquos 1-hour NO2 AAQS Compared to these AAQS it is anticipated that the potential short-term NO2 air quality impacts during start-up periods will be minimal See Section 90 for further discussion All AERMOD input and output modeling files used in the combustion turbine start-up modeling analysis have been included electronically in Appendix C

334 Summary of Results As demonstrated in the load analysis for one two three and four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously the proposed Repowering Project will have insignificant impacts beyond the fenceline for both ground-level and flagpole receptors The start-up modeling analysis also demonstrated that the proposed Repowering Project will have insignificant or minimal air quality impacts to the surrounding area Furthermore the modeling analysis conducted for the proposed Repowering Project does not incorporate emission decreases due to the removal of the seven existing Westinghouse liquid-fuel fired industrial gas turbines and 24 existing dual fuel-fired

Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs Inclusion of these emission reductions would further minimize the change in air quality concentrations due to the proposed Repowering Project

Table 3-1 Combustion Turbine Modeling Data1

Potential Emission Rates (gs) Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

(ms) CO SO2 PM-10 PM-25 NOx 1 Natural Gas -5 100+DB2 3654 2015 172 016 161 161 287 2 Natural Gas -5 100 3721 2043 121 014 107 107 245 3 Natural Gas -5 70 3663 1636 095 011 083 083 191 4 Natural Gas -5 60 3693 1535 087 010 076 076 175 5 Natural Gas 546 100+DB 3766 2082 163 015 156 156 273 6 Natural Gas 546 100 3788 2084 114 014 101 101 231 7 Natural Gas 546 70 3675 1590 090 011 079 079 181 8 Natural Gas 546 60 3645 1461 082 010 072 072 166 9 Natural Gas 100 100+DB+EC3 3958 2055 151 014 143 143 254

10 Natural Gas 100 100+EC 3948 2041 107 013 094 094 216 11 Natural Gas 100 70 3846 1594 084 010 074 074 169 12 Natural Gas 100 60 3805 1423 073 0088 064 064 148 13 Fuel Oil -5 100 3794 2085 0018 039 312 312 820 14 Fuel Oil -5 70 3729 1656 0014 030 241 241 632 15 Fuel Oil 546 100 3879 2242 0018 038 305 305 801 16 Fuel Oil 546 70 3742 1644 0014 029 235 235 617 17 Fuel Oil 100 100+EC 4022 2164 0017 036 284 284 745 18 Fuel Oil 100 70 3908 1665 0013 028 222 222 582

1 Each set of co-located stacks will have a physical stack height of 250 ft (762 m) above grade The modeled GEP stack height of the Phase I co-located stacks is 250 ft while the modeled GEP stack height of the Phase II co-located stacks is 213 ft Each turbine stack will have an inner diameter of 18 ft (549 m) and an equivalent inner diameter of 255 ft (776 m) when the co-located stacks are operating simultaneously 2 DB ndash Duct Burning 3 EC ndash Evaporative Cooling

Table 3-2 GEP Stack Height Analysis

Building Description Height

Maximum Projected Width (ft)

Distance from Phase I Co-

Located Turbine

Stacks1 (ft)

Distance from Phase II Co-

Located Turbine Stacks2

ldquo5Lrdquo Distance

Formula GEP Stack Height (ft)

Proposed Repowering Project HRSG No 1 80 1188 250 5625 4000 2000 HRSG No 2 80 1188 250 4500 4000 2000 HRSG No 3 80 1188 4500 250 4000 2000 HRSG No 4 80 1188 5625 250 4000 2000

Turbine No 1 Air Inlet 67 550 2188 5875 2750 1495 Turbine No 2 Air Inlet 67 550 2188 4813 2750 1495 Turbine No 3 Air Inlet 67 550 4813 2188 2750 1495 Turbine No 4 Air Inlet 67 550 5875 2188 2750 1495

Dry Cooling Tower No 1 56 2500 5750 1875 2800 1400

Administration Building 20 1313 3438 4094 1000 500 Fuel Oil Tank No 1 50 600 8094 3444 2500 1250 Fuel Oil Tank No 2 50 600 7813 2825 2500 1250 Demineralized Water

Tank 40 600 8788 3156 2000 1000

ServiceFire Water Tank 44 800 8375 3000 2200 1100 NYPA Combined Cycle Facility

Boiler No 6 Building 212 255 13673 17884 1060 530 Turbine No 6 Building 100 252 12597 16626 500 250

Oil Tank No 1 40 150 4776 9680 200 100 Oil Tank No 2 40 150 3117 7839 200 100 Oil Tank No 3 40 150 2188 5979 200 100 Oil Tank No 4 40 150 2552 4211 200 100 Oil Tank No 5 40 150 4302 7201 200 100 Oil Tank No 6 40 150 4649 5961 200 100

Turbine Building 100 280 3281 7547 500 250 HRSG No 1 100 96 3573 8951 482 244 HRSG No 2 100 96 2513 7857 482 244

Air-Cooled Condenser 100 370 6654 12086 500 250 1 Phase I co-located combustion turbine stacks consist of Units No 1 and 2 2 Phase II co-located combustion turbine stacks consist of Units No 3 and 4

Table 3-3 Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Concentrations

Maximum Modeled Concentration Location

Pollutant Averaging

Period

Significant Impact Level

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Concentration1 (ugm3)

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Distance from Proposed

Repowering Project (m)

Direction from

Proposed Repowering Project (deg)

1-Hour 2000 67 593470 4513704 99 2186 148 CO 8-Hour 500 17 593152 4516295 00 1124 49 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256 SO2

Annual3 1 51x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237 24-Hour 5 11 590771 4515157 48 1586 256 PM-10 Annual3 1 51x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237 24-Hour 5 11 590771 4515157 48 1586 256 PM-25 Annual3 03 51x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

NO2 Annual3 1 92x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237 1 Maximum modeled concentrations of four CC-FAST trains operating at the worst-case operating scenario simultaneously 2 Modeled annual concentrations based on 8460 hours per year of natural gas firing summed with 100 hours of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing per CC-FAST train regardless of maximum modeled concentration locations for natural gas firing and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing 3 The location of the maximum modeled annual natural gas-fired concentrations presented in the table

Table 3-4 Maximum Modeled Flagpole Receptor Concentrations

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height (m)

Distance from

Proposed Repowering Project (m)

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 61 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192 CO 8-Hour 500 16 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 SO2

Annual3 1 72x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 24-Hour 5 14 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 PM-10 Annual3 1 72x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 24-Hour 5 14 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 PM-25 Annual3 03 72x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

NO2 Annual3 1 01 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 1 Maximum modeled concentrations of four CC-FAST trains operating at the worst-case operating scenario simultaneously 2 Modeled annual concentrations based on 8460 hours per year of natural gas firing summed with 100 hours of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing per CC-FAST train regardless of maximum modeled concentration locations for natural gas firing and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing 3 The location of the maximum modeled annual natural gas-fired concentrations presented in the table

Figure 3-1 Land Cover Distribution for a 3-Kilometer Radius around the NRG Repowering Project Site

Figure 3-2 NRG Repowering Project Site Plan

Figure 3-3 Modeled Receptor Grid (Near Grid)

Figure 3-4 Modeled Receptor Grid (Full Grid)

40 NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANT ASSESSMENT An air quality modeling analysis was conducted for potential non-criteria pollutant emissions from the four proposed CC-FAST trains at the Astoria facility The modeling methodology used in the non-criteria pollutant analysis was the same as used in the criteria pollutant air quality analyses discussed in Section 3 Maximum modeled short-term (ie 1-hour) and annual ground level concentrations of each toxic air pollutant at both ground-level and flagpole receptors were compared to the NYSDECrsquos short-term guideline concentration (SGC) and annual guideline concentration (AGC) respectively The NYSDEC SGCs and AGCs used in the analysis are listed in the NYSDECrsquos DAR-1 tables that were published September 10 2007

41 Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions Potential non-criteria pollutant emissions from the operation of the CC-FAST trains were quantified based on emission factors provided in the US EPA AP-42 Chapters 13 (September 1998) 14 (July 1998) and 31 (April 2000) with the exception of ammonia and sulfuric acid mist The ammonia emission factor was based on the cycle deck engineering performance data provided by the vendor for the proposed CC-FAST trains and the sulfuric acid mist emission factor was based on guidance provided in the US EPArsquos Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Technical Support Document Impact on CAIR Analysis of the DC Circuit Decision in New York vs EPA (US EPA 2005) All of the non-criteria pollutant emission factors used in the analysis are presented in Appendix D Table 4-1 presents the potential non-criteria pollutant emissions rates for each of the 12 natural gas-fired operating scenarios while Table 4-2 presents the potential non-criteria pollutant emissions rates for the 6 ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired operating scenarios The emission rates presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are for one CC-FAST train

42 Non-Criteria Pollutant Impacts The four proposed CC-FAST trains were modeled following the modeling methodology described in Section 3 Namely the analysis consisted of modeling the 18 different operating scenarios assuming all four CC-FAST trains were operating simultaneously using the AERMOD model with five years (2000-2004) of LaGuardia Airport meteorological data GEP stack heights and ground-level and flagpole receptors with terrain elevations As discussed in Sections 331 and 332 the maximum modeled concentrations were determined with four CC-FAST trains

operating simultaneously not with any other combination of one two or three CC-FAST trains operating together Thus only the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously scenario was analyzed in the non-criteria pollutant analysis Unit (1 gram per second) concentrations for the four CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously for the 1-hour and annual averaging periods were calculated for each operating scenario and the appropriate non-criteria pollutant-specific and operating scenario-specific emission rate was multiplied by the modeled unit concentration to determine the maximum pollutant-specific concentration The modeled pollutant-specific concentrations for each operating scenario are presented in Appendix D The operating scenario that yielded the maximum modeled 1-hour and annual concentrations (ie the worst-case operating scenario) was then used to demonstrate compliance with the NYSDEC SGCs and AGCs Because the worst-case modeled ground-level concentrations were located in an area beyond 100 m spaced receptors refined receptor grids were developed based on the methodology discussed in Section 3 The overall maximum modeled 1-hour and annual non-criteria pollutant-specific ground-level concentrations due to the four proposed CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously based on these refined receptor grids are shown in Table 4-3 Also presented in Table 4-3 are the NYSDEC SGCs and AGCs As shown in the table all of the maximum modeled non-criteria pollutants are well below their corresponding NYSDEC SGC and AGC Results of the load analysis for the non-criteria pollutants for the flagpole receptors are also presented in Appendix D All of the maximum modeled 1-hour and annual concentrations were located at the top of the buildings and as such no further refinement of the flagpole receptors was necessary Table 4-4 shows the overall maximum modeled 1-hour and annual non-criteria pollutant-specific concentrations comply with their respective NYSDEC SGC and AGC

Table 4-1 Combustion Turbine Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Rates (Natural Gas)

Operating Mode CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 CASE 5 CASE 6 CASE 7 CASE 8 CASE 9 CASE 10 CASE 11 CASE 12

Fuel Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas Nat Gas

Ambient Temp (degF) -5 -5 -5 -5 546 546 546 546 100 100 100 100

Turbine Load BASE BASE 70 60 BASE BASE 70 60 BASE BASE 70 60

Evaporative Cooling OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF ON ON OFF OFF

CTG Heat Input-HHV (mmBtuhr) 1925 1925 1501 1378 1815 1815 1422 1302 1695 1695 1332 1162

Duct Burner Operation ON OFF OFF OFF ON OFF OFF OFF ON OFF OFF OFF Duct Burner Rate (HHV) (mmBtuhr) 216 0 0 0 218 0 0 0 196 0 0 0

Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions (lbhr) 13-Butadiene 828E-04 828E-04 645E-04 592E-04 781E-04 781E-04 611E-04 560E-04 729E-04 729E-04 573E-04 500E-04

111-Trichloroethane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2-Methylnapthalene 509E-06 -- -- -- 513E-06 -- -- -- 460E-06 -- -- --

3-Methylchloranthrene 382E-07 -- -- -- 385E-07 -- -- -- 345E-07 -- -- --

712-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 339E-06 -- -- -- 342E-06 -- -- -- 307E-06 -- -- --

Acenaphthene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Acenaphthylene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Acetaldehyde 770E-02 770E-02 600E-02 551E-02 726E-02 726E-02 569E-02 521E-02 678E-02 678E-02 533E-02 465E-02

Acrolein 123E-02 123E-02 960E-03 882E-03 116E-02 116E-02 910E-03 833E-03 109E-02 109E-02 852E-03 744E-03

Ammonia 557E+00 500E+00 390E+00 358E+00 529E+00 472E+00 370E+00 338E+00 492E+00 441E+00 346E+00 302E+00

Anthracene 220E-04 219E-04 171E-04 157E-04 207E-04 207E-04 162E-04 148E-04 193E-04 193E-04 152E-04 132E-04

Arsenic 424E-05 -- -- -- 428E-05 -- -- -- 384E-05 -- -- --

Barium 933E-04 -- -- -- 941E-04 -- -- -- 844E-04 -- -- --

Benz(a)anthracene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Benzene 235E-02 231E-02 180E-02 165E-02 222E-02 218E-02 171E-02 156E-02 207E-02 203E-02 160E-02 139E-02

Benzo(a)pyrene 110E-04 110E-04 854E-05 784E-05 104E-04 103E-04 809E-05 741E-05 967E-05 965E-05 758E-05 661E-05

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Benzo(ghi)perylene 110E-04 110E-04 854E-05 784E-05 104E-04 103E-04 809E-05 741E-05 967E-05 965E-05 758E-05 661E-05

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Beryllium 254E-06 -- -- -- 257E-06 -- -- -- 230E-06 -- -- --

Butane 445E-01 -- -- -- 449E-01 -- -- -- 403E-01 -- -- --

Cadmium 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Chromium 297E-04 -- -- -- 299E-04 -- -- -- 269E-04 -- -- --

Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions (lbhr) Chrysene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Cobalt 178E-05 -- -- -- 180E-05 -- -- -- 161E-05 -- -- --

Copper 180E-04 -- -- -- 182E-04 -- -- -- 163E-04 -- -- --

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 110E-04 110E-04 854E-05 784E-05 104E-04 103E-04 809E-05 741E-05 967E-05 965E-05 758E-05 661E-05

Dichlorobenzene 254E-04 -- -- -- 257E-04 -- -- -- 230E-04 -- -- --

Ethane 657E-01 -- -- -- 663E-01 -- -- -- 595E-01 -- -- --

Ethylbenzene 616E-02 616E-02 480E-02 441E-02 581E-02 581E-02 455E-02 417E-02 543E-02 543E-02 426E-02 372E-02

Fluoranthene 274E-04 274E-04 213E-04 196E-04 259E-04 258E-04 202E-04 185E-04 242E-04 241E-04 189E-04 165E-04

Fluorene 256E-04 256E-04 199E-04 183E-04 242E-04 241E-04 189E-04 173E-04 226E-04 225E-04 177E-04 154E-04

Formaldehyde 138E+00 137E+00 107E+00 978E-01 130E+00 129E+00 101E+00 924E-01 122E+00 120E+00 946E-01 825E-01

Hexane 382E-01 -- -- -- 385E-01 -- -- -- 345E-01 -- -- --

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 165E-04 164E-04 128E-04 118E-04 155E-04 155E-04 121E-04 111E-04 145E-04 145E-04 114E-04 992E-05

Lead 106E-04 -- -- -- 107E-04 -- -- -- 959E-05 -- -- --

Manganese 806E-05 -- -- -- 813E-05 -- -- -- 729E-05 -- -- --

Mercury 551E-05 -- -- -- 556E-05 -- -- -- 499E-05 -- -- --

Molybdenum 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Napthalene 263E-03 250E-03 195E-03 179E-03 249E-03 236E-03 185E-03 169E-03 232E-03 220E-03 173E-03 151E-03

Nickel 445E-04 -- -- -- 449E-04 -- -- -- 403E-04 -- -- --

OCDD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

PAH 423E-03 423E-03 330E-03 303E-03 399E-03 399E-03 313E-03 286E-03 373E-03 373E-03 293E-03 256E-03

Pentane 551E-01 -- -- -- 556E-01 -- -- -- 499E-01 -- -- --

Phenanathrene 156E-03 155E-03 121E-03 111E-03 147E-03 146E-03 115E-03 105E-03 137E-03 137E-03 107E-03 937E-04

POM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Propane 339E-01 -- -- -- 342E-01 -- -- -- 307E-01 -- -- --

Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions (lbhr) Propylene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Propylene Oxide 558E-02 558E-02 435E-02 400E-02 526E-02 526E-02 412E-02 377E-02 492E-02 492E-02 386E-02 337E-02

Pyrene 457E-04 456E-04 356E-04 327E-04 431E-04 430E-04 337E-04 309E-04 403E-04 402E-04 316E-04 275E-04

Selenium 509E-06 -- -- -- 513E-06 -- -- -- 460E-06 -- -- --

Sulfuric Acid 590E-02 530E-02 414E-02 380E-02 560E-02 500E-02 392E-02 359E-02 521E-02 467E-02 367E-02 320E-02

Toluene 251E-01 250E-01 195E-01 179E-01 237E-01 236E-01 185E-01 169E-01 221E-01 220E-01 173E-01 151E-01

Vanadium 488E-04 -- -- -- 492E-04 -- -- -- 441E-04 -- -- --

Vinyl Chloride -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Xylenes 123E-01 123E-01 960E-02 882E-02 116E-01 116E-01 910E-02 833E-02 109E-01 109E-01 852E-02 744E-02

Zinc 615E-03 -- -- -- 620E-03 -- -- -- 556E-03 -- -- -- (--) indicates that there is no US EPA AP-42 emission factor for this non-criteria pollutant for combustion turbines andor duct burners

Table 4-2 Combustion Turbine Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Rates (Ultra-Low Sulfur Distillate Fuel Oil)

Operating Mode CASE 13 CASE 14 CASE 15 CASE 16 CASE 17 CASE 18 Fuel ULSD ULSD ULSD ULSD ULSD ULSD Ambient Temp (degF) -5 -5 546 546 100 100 Turbine Load BASE 70 BASE 70 BASE 70 Evaporative Cooling OFF OFF OFF OFF ON OFF CTG Heat Input-HHV (mmBtuhr) 2066 1593 2017 1555 1877 1466 Duct Burner Operation OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF Duct Burner Rate (HHV) (mmBtuhr) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions (lbhr) 13-Butadiene 331E-02 255E-02 323E-02 249E-02 300E-02 235E-02 111-Trichloroethane -- -- -- -- -- -- 2-Methylnapthalene -- -- -- -- -- -- 3-Methylchloranthrene -- -- -- -- -- -- 712-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene -- -- -- -- -- -- Acenaphthene 281E-02 217E-02 274E-02 212E-02 255E-02 199E-02 Acenaphthylene 337E-04 260E-04 329E-04 254E-04 306E-04 239E-04 Acetaldehyde -- -- -- -- -- -- Acrolein -- -- -- -- -- -- Ammonia 661E+00 510E+00 645E+00 498E+00 601E+00 469E+00 Anthracene 162E-03 125E-03 159E-03 122E-03 148E-03 115E-03 Arsenic 227E-02 175E-02 222E-02 171E-02 206E-02 161E-02 Barium -- -- -- -- -- -- Benz(a)anthracene 534E-03 412E-03 521E-03 402E-03 485E-03 379E-03 Benzene 114E-01 876E-02 111E-01 855E-02 103E-01 806E-02 Benzo(a)pyrene -- -- -- -- -- -- Benzo(b)fluoranthene 197E-03 152E-03 192E-03 148E-03 179E-03 140E-03 Benzo(bk)fluoranthene -- -- -- -- -- -- Benzo(ghi)perylene 301E-03 232E-03 294E-03 227E-03 273E-03 214E-03 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 197E-03 152E-03 192E-03 148E-03 179E-03 140E-03 Beryllium 641E-04 494E-04 625E-04 482E-04 582E-04 454E-04 Butane -- -- -- -- -- -- Cadmium 992E-03 764E-03 968E-03 747E-03 901E-03 704E-03 Chromium 227E-02 175E-02 222E-02 171E-02 206E-02 161E-02 Chrysene 317E-03 244E-03 309E-03 239E-03 288E-03 225E-03 Cobalt -- -- -- -- -- -- Copper -- -- -- -- -- -- Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 222E-03 171E-03 217E-03 167E-03 202E-03 158E-03 Dichlorobenzene -- -- -- -- -- -- Ethane -- -- -- -- -- -- Ethylbenzene -- -- -- -- -- -- Fluoranthene 645E-03 497E-03 629E-03 485E-03 586E-03 457E-03 Fluorene 595E-03 459E-03 581E-03 448E-03 541E-03 422E-03 Formaldehyde 579E-01 446E-01 565E-01 436E-01 526E-01 410E-01 Hexane -- -- -- -- -- -- Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 285E-03 220E-03 278E-03 215E-03 259E-03 202E-03 Lead 289E-02 223E-02 282E-02 218E-02 263E-02 205E-02 Manganese 163E+00 126E+00 159E+00 123E+00 148E+00 116E+00

Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions (lbhr) Mercury 248E-03 191E-03 242E-03 187E-03 225E-03 176E-03 Molybdenum -- -- -- -- -- -- Napthalene 723E-02 557E-02 706E-02 544E-02 657E-02 513E-02 Nickel 950E-03 733E-03 928E-03 715E-03 864E-03 674E-03 OCDD -- -- -- -- -- -- PAH 827E-02 637E-02 807E-02 622E-02 751E-02 586E-02 Pentane -- -- -- -- -- -- Phenanathrene 140E-02 108E-02 137E-02 105E-02 127E-02 992E-03 POM -- -- -- -- -- -- Propane -- -- -- -- -- -- Propylene -- -- -- -- -- -- Propylene Oxide -- -- -- -- -- -- Pyrene 566E-03 436E-03 553E-03 426E-03 514E-03 402E-03 Selenium 517E-02 398E-02 504E-02 389E-02 469E-02 366E-02 Sulfuric Acid 722E-02 557E-02 705E-02 544E-02 656E-02 512E-02 Toluene -- -- -- -- -- -- Vanadium -- -- -- -- -- -- Vinyl Chloride 109E-01 839E-02 106E-01 820E-02 989E-02 773E-02 Xylenes -- -- -- -- -- -- Zinc -- -- -- -- -- --

(--) indicates that there is no US EPA AP-42 emission factor for this non-criteria pollutant for combustion turbines andor duct burners

Table 4-3 Results of Non-Criteria Pollutant Analysis Ground-Level Receptors

Maximum Modeled Concentration (ugm3) NYSDEC SGCs amp AGCs

Pollutant 1-Hour1 Annual2 1-Hour Annual 13-Butadiene 150E-02 459E-06 NA 330E-02 111-Trichloroethane -- -- 68000 1000 2-Methylnapthalene 248E-06 201E-08 NA 71 3-Methylchloranthrene 186E-07 151E-09 NA NA 712-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 165E-06 134E-08 NA NA Acenaphthene 127E-02 179E-06 NA NA Acenaphthylene 153E-04 657E-07 NA NA Acetaldehyde 375E-02 304E-04 4500 045 Acrolein 600E-03 487E-05 019 200E-02 Ammonia 300E+00 220E-02 2400 100 Anthracene 737E-04 924E-07 NA 200E-02 Arsenic 103E-02 110E-06 NA 230E-04 Barium 454E-04 369E-06 NA 12 Benz(a)anthracene 242E-03 862E-07 NA 200E-02 Benzene 515E-02 966E-05 1300 013 Benzo(a)pyrene 535E-05 434E-07 NA 910E-04 Benzo(b)fluorathene 894E-04 724E-07 NA NA Benzo(bk)fluoranthene -- -- NA NA Benzo(ghi)perylene 136E-03 552E-07 NA NA Benzo(k)fluoranthene 894E-04 724E-07 NA NA Beryllium 290E-04 362E-08 1 420E-04 Butane 217E-01 176E-03 NA 57000 Cadmium 450E-03 132E-06 NA 240E-04 Chromium 103E-02 209E-06 NA 12 Chrysene 144E-03 773E-07 NA 200E-02 Cobalt 867E-06 704E-08 NA 300E-03 Copper 878E-05 712E-07 100 200E-02 Dibenz(ah)anthracene 101E-03 520E-07 NA 200E-02 Dichlorobenzene 124E-04 101E-06 30000 360 Ethane 320E-01 260E-03 NA 2900 Ethylbenzene 300E-02 243E-04 54000 1000 Fluoranthene 292E-03 134E-06 NA NA Fluorene 270E-03 124E-06 NA NA Formaldehyde 673E-01 546E-03 30 600E-02 Hexane 186E-01 151E-03 NA 700 Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 129E-03 760E-07 NA NA Lead 131E-02 160E-06 NA 038 Manganese 740E-01 672E-05 NA 500E-02 Mercury 112E-03 317E-07 18 03 Molybdenum 114E-04 921E-07 NA 12 Naphthalene 328E-02 132E-05 7900 3 Nickel 431E-03 213E-06 6 420E-03 OCDD -- -- NA NA PAH 375E-02 199E-05 NA 200E-02 Pentane 269E-01 218E-03 NA 4200

Pollutant 1-Hour1 Annual2 1-Hour Annual Phenanthrene 634E-03 665E-06 NA 200E-02 POM -- -- NA NA Propane 165E-01 134E-03 NA 43000 Propylene -- -- NA 3000 Propylene Oxide 272E-02 221E-04 3100 027 Pyrene 257E-03 202E-06 NA 200E-02 Selenium 234E-02 214E-06 NA 20 Sulfuric Acid 327E-02 233E-04 120 1 Toluene 122E-01 992E-04 37000 5000 Vanadium 238E-04 193E-06 NA 02 Vinyl Chloride 494E-02 446E-06 180000 011 Xylenes 600E-02 487E-04 4300 100 Zinc 299E-03 243E-05 NA 45

1 The maximum modeled 1-hour concentration is the higher of the modeled 1-hour natural gas-fired and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired concentrations 2 The modeled annual concentration represents the maximum of the sum of 8460 hours per year per CC-FAST train of natural gas firing and 100 hours per year per CC-FAST train of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing or 8560 hours per year per CC-FAST train of natural gas firing (--) indicates that there is no US EPA AP-42 emission factor for this non-criteria pollutant for combustion turbines andor duct burners and thus no modeled concentration NA ndash indicates that a short-term guideline concentration (SGC) or annual guideline concentration (AGC) has not been developed by the NYSDEC for this non-criteria pollutant

Table 4-4 Results of Non-Criteria Pollutant Analysis Flagpole Receptors

50 FINE PARTICULATE NET BENEFIT ANALYSIS Fine particulate (PM-25) refers to any microscopic liquid or solid particle or aerosol with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 25 microns The US EPA proposed and promulgated ambient air quality standards for PM-25 in 1997 and in 2004 designated the entire New York Metropolitan Area as non-attainment for PM-25 However until a SIP is created for PM-25 the NYSDEC is regulating PM-25 emissions under an interim policy CP-33Assessing and Mitigating Impacts of Fine Particulate Matter Emissions (NYSDEC 2003) as well as under Title 6 New York Codes Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 231 The 6 NYCRR Part 231 and the US EPA PM-25 Implementation Rule establish a significant emissions increase threshold of 15 tons for PM-10 and 10 tons for PM-25 The NYSDEC interim policy also requires any proposed facility with potential annual PM-10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year (tonsyear) to conduct an air quality modeling analysis for PM-25 Unless a source can demonstrate that a reasonably accurate measure of the PM-25 fraction of PM-10 is available the NYSDEC and US EPA require an applicant to conservatively assume that all PM-10 is PM-25 NRG established the basis for PM-10 and PM-25 comparability for determining emissions for this Repowering Project Using the average PM-10PM-25 emission factor plus two standard deviations from nine recent stack tests (see the Updated Title V Permit Modification Application (ARG 2010) for more information) the proposed Repowering Project will have net PM-25 emissions less than 10 tonsyear The net PM-10 emissions will also be less than 10 tonsyear Thus the proposed Repowering Project does not trigger a net benefit air quality analysis for PM-25 under CP-33 However NRG agreed with the NYSDEC and is providing such an analysis to ensure the proposed Repowering Project would comply with CP-33

51 Net Benefit Modeling Methodology In order to assess the Repowering Projectrsquos potential contribution to ambient PM-25 concentrations an air quality modeling analysis was prepared using the same modeling procedures as discussed in Section 3 Specifically load analyses were conducted for the four proposed CC-FAST trains operating simultaneously to determine the worst-case operating scenario for ground-level and flagpole receptors Results of the load analyses indicated that Case 1 (natural gas firing at 100 load with the duct burner firing at -5degF) was the worst-case

operating scenario for annual natural gas-fired PM-25 ground-level and flagpole receptor concentrations Case 13 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing at 100 load at -5degF) was the worst-case operating scenario for 24-hour ground-level concentrations and annual ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired PM-25 ground-level and flagpole receptor concentrations and Case 14 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing at 70 load at -5degF) for 24-hour PM-25 flagpole receptor concentrations These were the worst-case operating scenarios for both the ground-level and flagpole receptors To determine the net air quality change due to the proposed Repowering Project these worst-case operating scenarios were modeled with a positive emission rate while the existing Westinghouse turbines and Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs were modeled with a negative emission rate Operating Cases 13 and 14 stack parameters and PM-25 emission rates were modeled assuming all four CC-FAST trains were operating simultaneously for the entire 24-hour averaging period For the annual averaging period operating Case 1 stack parameters and emission rates were modeled assuming the four CC-FAST trains were operating simultaneously for 8460 hours per year firing natural gas and operating Case 13 stack parameters and emission rates were modeled assuming the four CC-FAST trains were operating simultaneously for 100 hours per year firing ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil GEP stack heights were modeled for each set of co-located turbine stacks as described in Section 323 Emission rates for the existing Westinghouse and Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs were based on the baseline two years (2004-2005) of actual emissions used in the emissions netting analysis (see Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application (ARG 2010)) The actual annual emissions for 2004 and 2005 for each of the Westinghouse turbines and Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs were estimated based on PM-10 2007 stack testing on the units and the number of hours per year the units operated during 2004 and 2005 The average of these annual PM-10 emissions for each unit were used in the PM-25 net benefit modeling analysis as negative emission rates since these units will no longer be in service after the Project Modeled stack parameters and PM-25 emission rates for the existing Westinghouse turbines and Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs are presented in Table 5-1 It should be noted that annual average PM-25 emission rates were modeled for the existing units for the 24-hour period Thus the results of the 24-hour modeling analysis may be conservative and understate the actual benefits

Because the existing Westinghouse and Pratt amp Whitney units have physical stacks less than their GEP formula stack heights direction-specific downwash parameters were determined based on the existing layout including the NYPA Combined Cycle facility The Building Profile Input Program (BPIP version 04274) was used to develop the direction-specific building downwash parameters input to the AERMOD model for each of the existing units

52 Net Benefit Modeling Results A net benefit modeling analysis was conducted for PM-25 to determine the overall air quality impact of replacing the seven existing Westinghouse liquid-fuel fired industrial gas turbines and the 24 existing dual fuel-fired Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs with four natural gas- and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-fired CC-FAST trains with natural gas-fired 300 mmBtuhr duct burners Results of the net benefit analysis shows that the maximum modeled 24-hour ground-level PM-25 concentrations will remain the same or increase slightly while the maximum modeled annual ground-level PM-25 concentrations will increase and decrease slightly depending on the location The maximum modeled 24-hour ground-level PM-25 concentrations range from no modeled change (0 ugm3) to an increase of 07 ugm3 Compared to the 24-hour PM-25 SIL of 5 ugm3

presented in the NYSDECrsquos CP-33Assessing and Mitigating Impacts of Fine Particulate Matter Emissions (NYSDEC 2003) the potential maximum 24-hour increase in PM-25 concentrations will be insignificant Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show maximum modeled 24-hour ground-level PM-25 concentrations overlaid onto the USGS topographic maps of the area As shown in the figures there are five small areas where the maximum modeled 24-hour PM-25 concentration exceeds 05 ugm3 with the majority of the area seeing less than a 05 ugm3 maximum increase The range of maximum modeled annual ground-level PM-25 concentrations goes from a decrease of 006 ugm3 to an increase of 002 ugm3 The annual PM-25 SIL in the NYSDECrsquos CP-33Assessing and Mitigating Impacts of Fine Particulate Matter Emissions (NYSDEC 2003) is 03 ugm3 Thus the maximum modeled annual PM-25 concentrations are well below the NYSDEC annual PM-25 SIL The maximum modeled annual ground-level PM-25 concentrations are shown in Figures 5-3 and 5-4 The figures show that within approximately 1 kilometer (km) of the facility there will be a net decrease in modeled annual PM-25 concentrations Beyond 1 km there will be a very slight increase (less than 002 ugm3) in modeled annual PM-25 concentrations

The results of the net benefit modeling analysis for the flagpole receptors show patterns similar to the results for the ground-level receptors Specifically the maximum modeled 24-hour PM-25 concentrations increase from 007 ugm3 to 08 ugm3 and the maximum modeled annual PM-25 concentrations increase from 0001 ugm3 to 003 ugm3 These maximum modeled PM-25 concentrations are less than their respective NYSDEC SILs Because the Repowering Projectrsquos maximum modeled 24-hour and annual PM-25 concentrations are significantly less than the NYSDECrsquos SILs the proposed Repowering Project will would not have an adverse impact to the surrounding air quality

53 Secondary PM-25 Formation While the Repowering Project will have a maximum net potential change in primary PM-25 emissions of 996 tonsyear due to the combustion of fossil fuels (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil) potential PM-25 precursor pollutants are also emitted due to combustion These potential PM-25 precursor pollutants include SO2 NOx and ammonia (NH3) The Repowering Project will have a potential decrease of 6474 tonsyear of NOx emissions SO2 and ammonia emissions will have the potential to change 74 and 941 tonsyear respectively based on the proposed Repowering Projectrsquos potential to emit The formation of secondary particulate involves many complex processes and cannot be modeled accurately The atmospheric transformation of SO2 NOx and NH3 to secondary particles occurs slowly typically on the order of 1 to 3 percent per hour (US EPA 2002) As such most of the SO2 NOx and NH3 emitted from the Repowering Project would be transported away from the Repowering Project area before any appreciable transformation to secondary PM-25 could occur Because of the transporting of the Repowering Projectrsquos emissions the slow reaction time of the PM-25 precursor pollutants and the dispersion of the Repowering Projectrsquos plume as it travels it is anticipated that the secondary PM-25 formed due to the Repowering Project would not be measurable In addition the large decrease in NOx emissions would also aid in minimizing the formation of secondary PM-25 due to the proposed Repowering Project Thus the proposed Repowering Project is expected to have no significant impact as a result of secondary PM-25 formation

54 Practical PM-25 Mitigation Strategies and Control Technologies To minimize potential primary PM-25 and PM-25 precursor pollutant emissions NRG has designed this as a full repowering project to remove the old existing Westinghouse turbines and Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs and to have the new combustion turbines meet or exceed all best available control technology (BACT) and LAER emission levels The shutdown and removal of the existing units will achieve a large decrease in NOx and CO emissions The use of natural gas and backup ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil meets the BACT criteria for PM-25 and SO2 control Per unit of electricity generated PM-25 emissions from natural gas-fired combustion turbines are very small Post-combustion controls such as baghouses scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators are impractical due to the high pressure drops associated with such equipment and the very low concentrations of particles present in the exhaust gas A high pressure drop results in a substantial reduction in combustion turbine output efficiency which in turn results in higher fuel consumption and higher power generation costs The use of clean burning fuels such as natural gas is considered to be the most efficient means for minimizing particulate emissions from combustion turbines The Repowering Project will be fueled primarily with natural gas with a minimal amount of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil (00015) firing to provide power during periods of natural gas curtailment Thus an effective particulate matter mitigation strategy has been incorporated into the facility design Some of the PM-25 emissions are due to necessary emission control strategies for ozone control Queens County like the entire northeastern seaboard is non-attainment for ozone and photochemical oxidants (NOx and VOC are the regulated principal precursors for ozone) The New York ozone SIP includes regulations that require measures to control emissions of NOx and unburned hydrocarbons (VOCs) from major sources The most effective post-combustion emissions control system for NOx from combustion turbines is SCR Additionally emissions of CO and VOCs are minimized through good combustion practices and the use of an add-on oxidation catalyst Both SCR and an oxidation catalyst are proposed for the Repowering Project The state of the art CC-FAST units will meet the highest standard for the level of good combustion efficiency will utilize the lowest sulfur natural gas and fuel oils available provide add-on BACTLAER control technologies for NOx VOCs CO and particulate materials and thus will provide the highest degree of emissions control available

Table 5-1 Stack Parameters and PM-25 Emissions for Existing Units1

Source Stack

Height (m) Exhaust

Temperature (K) Exhaust

Velocity (ms) Stack

Diameter (m) Actual Annual Average

PM-25 Emission Rate2 (gs)Pratt amp Whitney No 2-1 107 672 186 54 035 Pratt amp Whitney No 2-2 107 672 186 54 035 Pratt amp Whitney No 2-3 107 672 186 54 042 Pratt amp Whitney No 2-4 107 672 186 54 041 Pratt amp Whitney No 3-1 107 672 186 54 031 Pratt amp Whitney No 3-2 107 672 186 54 029 Pratt amp Whitney No 3-3 107 672 186 54 031 Pratt amp Whitney No 3-4 107 672 186 54 026 Pratt amp Whitney No 4-1 107 672 186 54 037 Pratt amp Whitney No 4-2 107 672 186 54 030 Pratt amp Whitney No 4-3 107 672 186 54 027 Pratt amp Whitney No 4-4 107 672 186 54 028

Westinghouse No 5 128 680 424 361 20x10-2

Westinghouse No 7 128 680 424 361 20x10-2 Westinghouse No 8 128 680 424 361 23x10-2

Westinghouse No 10 82 727 311 507 011 Westinghouse No 11 82 727 311 507 78x10-2

1 Base elevation for the existing sources is 17 ft

2 Actual annual average PM-25 emission rates modeled as negative emission rates for the 24-hour and annual averaging periods to account for the shutdown of these units

Figure 5-1 Maximum Modeled 24-hour PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences (ugm3) ndash Near Grid

Figure 5-2 Maximum Modeled 24-hour PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences (ugm3) ndash Full Grid

Figure 5-3 Maximum Modeled Annual PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences (ugm3) ndash Near Grid

Figure 5-4 Maximum Modeled Annual PM-25 Ground-Level Concentration Differences (ugm3) ndash Full Grid

60 CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS As agreed upon between NRG and NYSDEC a review of previous cumulative air quality modeling analyses conducted for the area surrounding Astoria New York was performed in lieu of conducting a quantitative modeling analysis At least three cumulative air quality modeling analyses have recently been conducted for the Astoria area These analyses were performed in support of the KeySpan Energy Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility (submitted February 2002) the Berrians Turbine Project (submitted June 2002) and the NYPA 500 MW Combined Cycle Project (submitted December 2002) The focus of these analyses was to determine the emissions and cumulative air quality concentrations of CO SO2 PM-10 and NOxNO2 Although all three of these projects had maximum modeled concentrations less than their respective SILs the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) requested that the project applicants perform these cumulative air quality analyses No large emission sources have been permitted in the Astoria area since 2002 thus the use of these cumulative air quality analyses as the basis for existing conditions is representative of current conditions in the Astoria area

61 Modeling Methodology for Prior Cumulative Impact Studies The cumulative modeling analyses used the Industrial Source Complex Short-term (ISCST3 versions 00101 and 02035) model to assess the air quality impacts at both ground-level and flagpole receptors While the ISCST3 model has been replaced by the AERMOD model as the preferred model by the US EPA since the completion of these analyses it remains an approved alternative model for use on a case-by-case basis Urban dispersion coefficients were used in the analyses and terrain elevations were input for all ground-level and flagpole receptors Five years (1991-1995) of hourly surface data from the LaGuardia Airport along with concurrent twice-daily mixing heights collected at the United States Department of Energyrsquos Brookhaven National Laboratory site and Atlantic City Airport were used in the analyses Two stations were necessary for the mixing heights because the Atlantic City Airport station shutdown in August 1994 with Brookhaven Laboratory assuming responsibility at that time Because the proposed sources at each of the facilities being permitted had stack heights less than their formula GEP stack heights direction-specific building downwash parameters were developed using BPIP (version 95086) and input to the ISCST3 model

In addition to modeling the proposed project sources in each analysis the applicants also included other existing emission sources located at their facilities that would remain after the proposed project was completed The applicable stack parameters emission rates and direction-specific building downwash parameters were developed for each of these sources and input to the model The off-site emission inventories were developed following the methodology outlined in the NYCDEPrsquos City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual (NYSDEC 1993) The methods generally involved the delineation of sources according to these criteria

1 Nearby small sources (maximum heat input equal to or greater than 28 mmBtuhr) within 1000 ft of the property line This area was known as the ldquoprimary study areardquo

2 Mid-size sources (maximum heat input equal to or greater than 50 mmBtuhr) within 2000 m from the edge of the ldquoprimary study areardquo This area was known as the ldquosecondary study areardquo and

3 Major existingproposed electric generating sources within 10 km from the edge of the ldquosecondary study areardquo

Extensive NYSDEC file reviews and site visits were conducted to develop the off-site emission inventories In addition off-site emission inventories developed for the proposed Con Ed East River Repowering Project SCS Power Project and Orion Power Astoria Repowering Project were incorporated into the off-site inventories All of these off-site sources were then modeled along with the existing and proposed project sources at the applicantrsquos facility For comparison to the NAAQS and NYAAQS the modeled air quality concentrations due to the proposed project existing facility sources and the off-site inventory sources were then summed with background ambient air quality concentrations The background ambient air quality concentrations were recorded at NYSDEC operated monitors located within the New York Metropolitan Area and were considered representative of the air quality in the modeling domain The maximum monitored ambient concentration during the five year period (1997-2001) for each pollutant and averaging period was conservatively used to represent the background air quality concentration and was summed with the modeled air quality concentration

62 Modeling Results Results of the three cumulative modeling analyses showed that all of the total air quality concentrations (ie sum of the modeled concentrations and background air quality concentrations) were less than their respective NAAQS and NYAAQS for the ground-level and flagpole receptors Considering that some of the proposed sources included in the cumulative analyses have never been built and some of the existing sources modeled in the analysis have been shutdown since 2002 or have switched fuels notably to ultra-low sulfur (00015) distillate fuel oil now available in New York City results of the previous cumulative analyses could be considered conservative compared to the current air quality status

63 Proposed Repowering Project Impacts The proposed Repowering Project consists of the installation of four CC-FAST trains with 300 mmBtuhr natural gas-fired duct burners and the removal of the seven existing Westinghouse liquid-fuel fired industrial gas turbines and the 24 existing dual fuel-fired Pratt amp Whitney TwinPacs These proposed modifications will result in a net decrease in CO (-5600 tonsyear) and NOx (-6474 tonsyear) emissions for the Astoria area while SO2 and PM-10 emissions will have minimal net changes of 74 tonsyear and 996 tonsyear respectively These NOx and CO emission decreases will benefit the Astoria area and the New York Metropolitan Area as a whole Thus the proposed Repowering Project along with the modifications at the existing facilities modeled previously will enhance the results of the previous cumulative analyses by further decreasing the pollutant emissions-loading in the area

70 ACCIDENTAL AMMONIA RELEASE Aqueous ammonia will be used as the reducing agent in the Repowering Projectrsquos SCR system for controlling NOx emissions from the combustion turbines The NOx reduction achieved by the SCR system is affected by the ratio of NH3 to NOx Because of the need for a constant supply aqueous ammonia (a mixture containing less than 19 by weight ammonia in water) will be stored on-site in a steel storage tank approximately 220 ft from the facilityrsquos closest fenceproperty line The tank is expected to be affixed vertically with a diameter of approximately 12 ft and 28 ft in height with a capacity of 10000 gallons The tank will be designed in accordance with nationally recognized standards and other applicable regulations Due to the dilute concentration of the aqueous ammonia (less than 19) the Repowering Projectrsquos ammonia solution is not subject to the US EPArsquos Risk Management Program for hazardous materials (40 CFR Part 68) However to ensure the health and safety of the community surrounding the proposed Repowering Project NRG has assessed the potential for off-site impacts resulting from a worst-case ammonia release scenario (eg rupture of the tank wall) The proposed ammonia storage tank will be installed in an impervious secondary containment building that has sufficient volume to contain over 100 of the liquid from the tank and minimizes the exposed area while surrounding the tank The proposed building enclosure for the tank approximately 17 ft by 17 ft by 35 ft high will accommodate these requirements This yields a liquid surface area of 289 square feet

71 Accidental Release Modeling In order to assess the potential for off-site impacts resulting from a worst-case release scenario (ie a rupture of the tank walls) an evaluation of this unlikely event was performed using the protocols established in US EPArsquos Risk Management Program regulations (40 CFR Part 68) While the Repowering Projectrsquos use of 19 aqueous ammonia is not subject to these regulations due to its dilute concentration the protocol provides a conservative approach to estimating the potential for off-site impacts from releases of hazardous substances A determination of the potential for an off-site impact from an accidental worst-case ammonia release scenario was conducted using the US EPA-approved Areal Locations of Hazardous

Atmospheres (ALOHA) model (version 541) This accidental release model was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is routinely utilized by first responders in estimating impact areas associated with hazardous material releases The use of the NOAA and US EPArsquos RMPCompTM model was also considered for this analysis however the minimum distance to toxic endpoints (ie the minimum distance to the nearest receptor) available in the model is 01 mile This equates to 528 ft The nearest receptor for this assessment is located 220 ft from the proposed tank Thus the RMPCompTM model would not be sufficient for determining the potential impact at the nearest receptor ALOHA is a computer program that uses information provided by its operator and physical property data from its extensive chemical library to estimate how a hazardous gas cloud might disperse in the atmosphere after an accidental chemical release ALOHA can estimate rates of chemical release from broken gas pipes leaking tanks and evaporating puddles and can model the dispersion of both neutrally-buoyant and heavier-than-air gases ALOHA originated as a NOAA in-house tool to aid in emergency response and was based on a simple model a continuous point source with a Gaussian plume distribution It has evolved over the years into a tool used for response planning training and academic purposes and is distributed worldwide to thousands of users in government and industry Inputs to the ALOHA model for this assessment were developed based on the proposed Repowering Project design and the guidance provided in the US EPArsquos Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (US EPA 1999) The Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (US EPA 1999) was developed by the US EPA as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) Title III Risk Management Program Water solutions such as aqueous ammonia are treated as a liquid release according to the Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (US EPA 1999) Thus the ALOHA model requires the input of the following source information

bull Area of the evaporating puddle bull Volume of the initial puddle bull Puddle containment or ground type and bull Ground and initial puddle temperatures

In this assessment the area of the evaporating puddle was based on the area of the proposed building enclosure (ie 289 ft2) and the volume of the initial puddle was based on the amount of aqueous ammonia proposed to be stored in the tank (ie 10000 gallons) The building enclosure will have a concrete containment area and the temperatures of the ground and the initial puddle release were set equal to the ambient temperature modeled (ie 93F see below) Worst-case atmospheric data were also an input to the ALOHA model As required by the Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (US EPA 1999) a wind speed of 15 meters per second (ms) and a stability of ldquoFrdquo (highly stable atmosphere) were input to the model The proposed Repowering Project will be located in an urban setting and therefore the ldquourban or forestrdquo ground roughness option was selected in the ALOHA model Because a model other than RMPCompTM was used in the assessment the Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (US EPA 1999) requires that the highest daily maximum temperature and average humidity at the site over the last three years be input to the model NRG determined the highest daily maximum temperature and average humidity based on the five years (2000-2004) of hourly surface meteorological data recorded at the LaGuardia Airport and used in the air quality modeling analysis (see Section 324) The highest daily maximum temperature was estimated to be 93F and the average humidity was 65 Thus these values were input to the ALHOA model to simulate the worst-case atmospheric conditions

72 Accidental Release Modeling Results Results of the accidental ammonia release assessment using the ALOHA model are presented in Appendix E As the ALOHA output shows the maximum outdoor downwind concentration at 220 ft based on the worst-case atmospheric conditions will be 1390 parts per million (ppm) NRG is proposing to enclose the aqueous ammonia tank in a building which is considered a passive mitigation measure for any accidental releases from the tank According to Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (US EPA 1999) a control efficiency of 90 is used in calculating the controlled evaporation rate from a liquid inside of a building Thus applying the 90 control efficiency due to the building yields a maximum outdoor downwind concentration at 220 ft of 139 ppm Ammonia is considered neutrally buoyant with a prescribed toxic endpoint level of 0105 milligrams per liter (mgl) which is approximately equivalent to 150 ppm The toxic endpoint

value was based on the existing short-term exposure value from the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) (AIHA 2008) This value is an ERPG-2 level toxic endpoint and was most recently revised in 2000 The ammonia ERPG-2 of 150 ppm represents the maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to an hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious adverse health effects Therefore the defined worst-case accidental release scenario (10000 gallons consisting of 19 aqueous ammonia solution in an impervious building) will not result in an exceedance of the ERPG-2 guideline (150 ppm) for ammonia beyond the NRG fenceproperty boundary

80 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS An assessment of the proposed Repowering Project emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) was conducted based on publicly available information and is generally consistent with the NYSDECrsquos Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement (NYSDEC 2009)

81 Repowering Project Emissions The proposed Repowering Project will be primarily fueled by natural gas with provisions to use ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil as the back-up fuel Potential CO2 emissions from the Repowering Project will be from the combustion process One metric ton (1000 kilograms) of CO2 is taken as the standard measurement and emissions may be expressed in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (abbreviated MTCDE) More commonly emissions are expressed in terms of metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) Carbon comprises 1244 of the mass of CO2 thus to convert from CO2 equivalent to carbon equivalent one multiplies by 1244 This section reports the CO2 equivalent in both the units of MTCE or million MTCE (MMTCE) as well as US short tons (TCE) A metric ton is equivalent to 110231 US short tons The US EPA AP-42 emission factors for stationary gas turbines are 110 lbmmBtu when firing natural gas and 157 lbmmBtu when firing ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil The maximum annual CO2 potential for the existing facility is 565 MMTCE (623 MTCE US short tons) which is equivalent to 154 MMTCE or 170 MTCE (short tons) The maximum annual estimated direct CO2 emissions based on the Repowering Projectrsquos proposed capped operating potential will be 36 MMTCDE or 397 MTCDE (US short tons) which is equivalent to 098 MMTCE or 108 MTCE (US short tons) Assuming a 30-year life cycle for the proposed Repowering Project results in a maximum total of approximately 294 MMTCE or 324MTCE (US short tons) being released during the Repowering Projectrsquos lifetime Permanent indirect emissions are not expected to vary significantly from current operations as facility staffing and transportation needs are not expected to change as discussed in Section 48 of the DEIS The Repowering Project will not affect local transportation patterns and will not change the expected number of trucksvehicles arriving at or departing the facility on a typical operating day The Repowering Project does anticipate the incorporation of up to 75 Kw of solar

panels Using the statewide average emission factor of 850 pounds of CO2 per MWhr presented in the July 15 2009 NYSDEC Policy Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements the solar panels could displace and avoid emissions of up to 253 MTCE or 279 TCE (US short tons) per year or 7593 MTCE or 8370 TCE (US short tons) over the 30 year life of the facility Emissions during construction will also decrease as the Westinghouse turbines must be removed at the start of Phase I and the Pratt amp Whitney turbines will be removed at the start of Phase II Phase I construction will result in the removal of the 131 MMTCE or 144 MTCE (US short tons) emissions potential for the Westinghouse units Phase II will result in the removal of the 24 Pratt amp Whitney turbines with 298 MMTCE or 328 MTCE (US short tons) potential emissions Construction equipment emissions will be dwarfed by the net reductions from the Westinghouse units and the Pratt amp Whitney units removed at the onset of each phase of construction

82 State National and Global Emissions The proposed Repowering Project will conservatively emit approximately 098 MMTCE or 108 MTCE (US short ton) per year This value is based on 8460 hryr of natural gas-firing (for the turbine and the natural gas fired duct burner in the heat recovery steam generator) and 100 hryr of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-firing (turbine only) in each of the four CC-FAST trains The annual CO2 emissions for the State of New York for the years 1990 through 2002 are shown in Table 7-1 The total annual inventory of CO2 (expressed as carbon equivalents) for New York State has averaged approximately 55 MMTCE or 602 MTCE (US short tons) On the State level the maximum annual emissions from proposed Repowering Project would compare to a level of approximately 18 percent of the total New York CO2 inventory However this is under the maximum case assumption that the generation from the Repowering Project is at peak available operating hours at all times and does not displace any emissions from less-efficient uncontrolled fossil-fueled electric generating units Because this is a new highly efficient facility it will replace the existing NRG Astoria units and when dispatched will displace other lower efficiency generation units throughout New York City Thus the expected impacts would be to reduce emissions by displacement of less efficient equipment

The annual emissions of CO2 for the United States are presented in Table 7-2 As shown in the table the annual emissions have increased since 1990 to a value of 1591 MMTCE or 1754 MTCE (US short tons) On a national scale the proposed Repowering Project would contribute only 006 percent (at a maximum) to the total national CO2 emissions The maximum annual CO2 emissions from the proposed Repowering Project may also be compared to the global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 strictly due to the combustion of fossil fuels According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center the global annual carbon emission rate from the combustion of fossil fuels in 2007 is estimated to be on the order of 8470 MMTCE or 9337 MTCE (US short tons) (CDIAC 2009) On this scale the proposed Repowering Project emissions of carbon equivalents would be less than 0012 percent of the total annual global emission rate In both cases these comparisons assume no displacement and so represent the worst-case assumption

83 Significance of CO2 Emissions It is difficult to quantify the significance of the emissions of the Repowering Project as it relates to increasing the emissions of CO2 with respect to climate change To be sure the clearing of land in developing nations through open burning generates substantial emissions of CO2 while reducing the level of carbon sinks available The emissions from open burning may be considered extremely important because such burning clears land which may be used for farming and ultimately feed the population of the country However the emissions of this proposed Repowering Project can be related to existing emissions of CO2 In general because of the regulated daily and hourly markets operated by the New York State Independent System Operator (ISO) for the matching of generation with load there is a very high likelihood that energy generated by the proposed Repowering Project will primarily displace electricity that would have been generated by much less efficient and much higher pollution emitting oil gas coal or heavy fuel oil power plants These sources contribute more emissions of CO2 on a per megawatt basis than those that will result from the primarily natural gas-fired equipment for the proposed Repowering Project Therefore a general statement can be made regarding the importance of high efficiency combined cycle generation of electricity The nature of the regulated ISO electricity market favors high efficiency combined cycle generation Displacement and reduction of emissions of CO2 is a goal of the NYSDEC the New York City PlaNYC and 2009 State Energy Plan In this way the development of efficient power

generation facilities such as this Project is vital to achieving Local State and National reductions in CO2 emissions Project actions and alternatives that might mitigate CO2 emissions could include construction of alternative energy facilities using coal with carbon sequestration powered by wind powered by geothermal powered by tidal currents or nuclear Coal and nuclear facilities have substantial facility size requirements dwarfing the 15 acres of land owned by NRG Furthermore these technologies have other issues that make them difficult to locate in a populated area Wind power is not available due to the small facility size and the restrictions placed on building heights and structures due to the nearby LaGuardia Airport Geothermal and tidal currents are not available for development at this site Alternative fuels are either not readily available or demonstrated to offer significant CO2 emissions reduction benefits beyond those expected from natural gas and low sulfur fuel oil In conclusion not constructing the Repowering Project would result in older fuel inefficient equipment continuing to operate indefinitely The Repowering Project results in a net reduction of 205 MMTCDE (226 MTCDE US short tons) from the maximum annual potential of the existing facility Furthermore the proposed high efficiency equipment will further reduce CO2 emissions by displacing other less efficient units throughout New York City Finally large CO2 decreases will occur during the five year construction before the new units are operational when the older turbines are taken offline and removed for each project phase

Table 8-1 New York State CO2 Emissions Inventory by Sector (MMTCE)

Sector Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Commercial 73 72 75 77 75 73 76 80 75 82 87 83 82 Industrial 57 56 59 59 60 65 71 69 68 57 55 52 48 Residential 91 89 98 97 96 93 99 94 86 93 106 104 95 Transportation 173 168 164 168 165 169 178 177 179 180 181 181 185 Electric Power 173 161 147 130 129 139 127 142 153 155 152 149 138 TOTAL 567 546 543 530 525 539 551 563 560 567 581 568 549

Source httpyosemiteepagovoarglobalwarmingnsfcontentEmissionsStateEnergyCO2Inventorieshtml (US EPA 2009)

Table 8-2 United States CO2 Emissions Inventory by Sector (MMTCE)

Sector Year 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Coal Fired Utility 4138 4912 4930 5173 5034 5044 5147 5174

Transportation Fuel Consumption 3986 4528 4697 4819 4783 4906 4912 5060 Industrial Fuel Consumption 2321 2378 2315 2353 2348 2297 2303 2355

Residential Fuel Consumption 922 910 961 1009 986 982 1033 1008 Commercial Fuel Consumption 607 594 596 625 613 612 643 616

Natural Gas Fired Utility 482 679 712 767 790 833 757 807 Petroleum Fired Utility 275 284 263 248 277 212 265 265

Iron and Steel Production 232 185 174 178 158 149 145 140 US Territories 76 91 94 98 132 118 133 140

Cement Manufacturing 91 107 109 112 113 117 118 124 Ammonia Production and

Urea Application 53 60 56 53 46 50 42 46

Waste Combustion 30 47 48 49 51 52 53 53 Lime Manufacturing 31 38 37 36 35 34 35 37 Natural Gas Flaring 16 18 19 16 17 17 17 16

Aluminum Production 19 17 18 17 12 13 13 12 Limestone and Dolomite Usage 15 20 22 16 16 16 13 18

Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption 11 12 11 11 11 11 11 11

Petrochemical Production 06 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 Titanium Dioxide Production 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 Phosphoric Acid Production 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04

Carbon Dioxide Consumption 02 02 02 03 02 03 04 03 Ferroalloys 05 05 05 05 04 03 03 04

Zinc Production 02 03 03 03 03 02 01 01 Geothermal 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01

Lead Production 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Silicon Carbide Consumption 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 003

TOTAL 13330 14909 15081 15610 15450 15490 15667 15910 Source US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2004 (US EPA 2006)

90 1-HOUR NO2 NAAQS ANALYSIS On February 9 2010 the US EPA published the Final Rule for Primary NAAQS for NO2 (NO2 NAAQS Rule) in the Federal Register and it will become effective on April 12 2010 In addition to the existing annual NO2 NAAQS the NO2 NAAQS Rule included a new 1-hour NAAQS which limits NO2 to 100 ppb based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations The applicability of the NO2 NAAQS Rule in particular the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to air permit applications currently under review is unknown However NRG has assessed the Repowering Project with respect to the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in a March 24 2010 letter to NYSDEC and subsequent electronic mail All of the correspondence is provided in Appendix A to this document and the contents of the letter are presented in this section

91 NO2 NAAQS Rule In the preamble to the NO2 NAAQS Rule the US EPA acknowledged that the rule does have implications with respect to current and future air permitting actions However the only policy and guidance with respect to determining specific permitting implications in the NO2 NAAQS Rule provided by the US EPA was that applicants are initially required to demonstrate that their proposed emissions increases of NOx will not cause or contribute to a violation of both the 1-hour or annual NO2 NAAQS and the annual NO2 PSD increment If the US EPA were to develop a 1-hour NO2 PSD increment then the applicant would also need to demonstrate compliance with it The NO2 NAAQS Rule did not establish any new significant emission thresholds for potential NOx emissions or significant impact levels or significant monitoring concentrations for 1-hour NO2 concentrations However the US EPA will evaluate the need for these additional thresholds At this time applicants that trigger NSR andor PSD review only need to conduct a compliance demonstration for the 1-hour and annual NO2 NAAQS and the annual PSD increment On February 25 2010 the US EPArsquos Air Quality Modeling Group (AQMG) provided air quality dispersion modeling guidance Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2

NAAQS to assist applicants with the appropriate modeling methodology in conducting analyses for the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS However as stated in the guidance document the US EPA has yet to develop a post-processor program to correctly extract the modeled average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations Without a post-processing program the resultant output files generated following the AQMGrsquos guidance are too large to process Therefore until the US EPA releases an approved post-processor program applicants may use conservative modeled concentrations (ie concentrations that are sure to be greater than the modeled average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations) to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS

92 Applicability to Repowering Project Based on the information presented in the Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application (ARG 2010) NRG has shown that the Repowering Project will not trigger NSRPSD review Thus demonstrating compliance with the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is not required However as part of the Projectrsquos Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application (ARG 2010) NRG agreed to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS and New York Ambient Air Quality Standards for the other criteria pollutants and averaging periods Thus NRG has completed a compliance demonstration for the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS

93 Proposed Repowering Project Impacts As discussed in Section 3 two separate air quality modeling analyses were conducted for the Repowering Project The first analysis was performed to identify the maximum modeled air quality concentrations attributable to the Repowering Project during normal operations The second analysis analyzed the potential air quality impacts during periods of start-up and shutdown While not explicitly identified in Section 3 the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 air quality concentrations attributable to the Repowering Project during normal operations are included in the results of the combustion turbine load analyses presented in Appendix B The overall maximum modeled 1-hour ground-level NO2 concentration was 295 ugm3 and the overall maximum modeled 1-hour flagpole receptor NO2 concentration was 254 ugm3 Both of these maximum modeled concentrations were due to operating Case 13 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel

oil firing at 100 load at -5degF) The maximum modeled ground-level concentration was located beyond the 100-m spaced receptors thus a separate 2000 m by 2000 m Cartesian receptor grid with 100 m spaced receptors was centered on the initial maximum modeled concentration location presented in Appendix B to ensure the overall maximum modeled concentration was determined Results of modeling this refined Cartesian grid indicates that initial maximum modeled concentration location presented in Appendix B is indeed the location of the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentration The modeling input and output files used in the refined Cartesian grid modeling have been included on CDROM in Appendix C The maximum modeled flagpole receptor concentration was located at the top of a building and therefore no refinement of the flagpole receptors was necessary Comparing these normal operation maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations to the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb which is approximately equivalent to188 ugm3 shows that the Repowering Projectrsquos maximum 1-hour NO2 air quality impacts will be less than 16 of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Air quality impacts including 1-hour NO2 impacts during start-up and shutdown periods were also discussed in Section 3 Specifically results of the start-up modeling analysis for 1-hour NO2 show that the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations were 627 ugm3 at a ground-level receptor and 605 ugm3 at a flagpole receptor These overall maximum modeled start-up concentrations are less than 34 of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS As mentioned in Section 3 the estimated NOx emission rates used in the start-up modeling analysis were highly conservative compared to the stack test data received for a fast start system and thus these modeled start-up NO2 concentrations are considered highly conservative with respect to actual conditions Use of the overall 1-year maximum modeled 1-hour concentration is an overly conservative estimate to represent the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations Therefore for start-up periods NRG followed the methodology presented in recent guidance provided by the US EPArsquos AQMG with respect to a NAAQS compliance demonstration for PM25 Specifically in the US EPArsquos AQMG February 26 2010 memorandum titled Model Clearinghouse Review of Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM25 NAAQS the US EPA recommends the use of the average of the maximum modeled 24-hour PM25 concentrations over the five years of meteorological data

modeled as representative of the modeled contribution to determine the total 24-hour PM25 concentration for comparison to the 24-hour PM25 NAAQS Averaging the five years of the overall maximum modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations yields a modeled 1-hr NO2 concentration greater than the average of the five years of 98th percentile (or highest eighth-highest) modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations (ie the basis for 1-hr NO2 NAAQS compliance) Thus following this methodology for estimating the modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations for normal operation and start-up conditions are highly conservative compared to the methodology presented in the AQMGrsquos February 25 2010 Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS NRG averaged the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations from the five years (2000-2004) of meteorological data modeled for start-up periods at the ground-level and flagpole receptors The table below shows each modeled yearrsquos maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentration for start-up periods and the average of these 1-hour NO2 concentrations

Maximum Modeled 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (ugm3) Modeled

Meteorological Year

Ground-Level Receptors

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

The average maximum modeled start-up concentrations are less than 27 of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and were summed with the background 1-hour NO2 concentrations for comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS

94 Background 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations Because the NAAQS are applicable to the total ambient air quality not just the contribution of a single source background 1-hour NO2 ambient air quality concentrations were required to sum with the Repowering Projectrsquos modeled 1-hour NO2 air quality concentrations To obtain background hourly NO2 concentrations recorded at the nearest representative NO2 monitor to the

Repowering Project site NRG accessed the ambient air quality data available on the US EPArsquos Technology Transfer Network (TTN) ndash Air Quality System (AQS) at the website httpwwwepagovttnairsairsaqsdetaildatadownloadaqsdatahtm As presented in Section 23 the nearest representative NO2 monitor to the Repowering Project site is the monitor at IS 52 which is located approximately 31 km north of the site Section 23 presents ambient air quality data representative of the Repowering Project site for a three-year period from 2005 through 2007 However since these data were obtained for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ndash Air Quality Analyses submitted to the NYSDEC in February 2009 ambient air quality data for 2008 have become available Thus NRG used the background 1-hour NO2 concentration data for the three-year period from 2006 through 2008 at the IS 52 monitor to determine the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations Three years (2006-2008) of 1-hour NO2 concentrations were obtained from the US EPArsquos TTN-AQS for the IS 52 monitor The three years of monitoring data from the IS 52 monitor were then processed to obtain the appropriate background 1-hour NO2 ambient air concentration to sum with the modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS First each dayrsquos recorded 1-hour maximum NO2 concentration during the three years (2006-2008) of monitoring data was determined Second each yearrsquos daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentrations determined in the first step were sorted to identify the eighth-highest daily 1-hour maximum concentration The eighth-highest concentration is representative of the 98th percentile concentration from the distribution of daily 1-hour maximum concentrations From the 2006 monitoring data the eighth-highest daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentration was determined to be 72 ppb while the eighth-highest daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentrations from the 2007 and 2008 monitoring data were determined to be 72 ppb and 67 ppb respectively Averaging these values yields a representative 3-year average background 1-hour NO2 air quality concentration of 703 ppb or approximately 1322 ugm3

95 Total 1-Hour NO2 Impacts For normal operations summing the 3-year average 98th percentile background 1-hour NO2 concentration (1322 ugm3) with the overall maximum modeled ground-level 1-hour NO2 concentration (295 ugm3) yields a total 1-hour NO2 concentration of 1617 ugm3 which is less

than the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Similarly at 1576 ugm3 the sum of the 3-year average 98th percentile background 1-hour NO2 concentration and the overall maximum modeled flagpole receptor 1-hour NO2 concentration (254 ugm3) is less than the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS It should be noted that the Repowering Project 1-hour NO2 modeled concentrations used in this analysis were the overall maximum modeled 1-hour concentrations not the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum modeled concentrations Thus the results of the analysis are highly conservative During start-up and shutdown periods the sum of the Repowering Projectrsquos average maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations at the ground-level (487 ugm3) and flagpole (499 ugm3) receptors and the background concentration (1322 ugm3) yields total 1-hour NO2 concentrations at ground-level receptors (1809 ugm3) and flagpole receptors (1821 ugm3) less than the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Although the use of the five-year average maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations is not as conservative as the use of the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations (as used for in the assessment of normal operations) it remains a very conservative estimate for the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations as required under the NO2 NAAQS Rule

96 Summary Although the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is not applicable to the proposed Repowering Project because it is not subject to NSRPSD review NRG voluntarily addressed the Repowering Projectrsquos compliance status with regards to this new NAAQS Results of the air quality analysis show that the proposed Repowering Project will comply with the requirements of the Final Rule for Primary NAAQS for NO2 published in the Federal Register on February 9 2010 The results of the compliance demonstration are highly conservative because the demonstration assumes that all of the emitted NOx is converted to NO2 although the US EPA allows the use of a default ratio of NOxNO2 of 75 to account for the conversion of NOx to NO2 in compliance demonstrations for the annual NO2 NAAQS Furthermore the US EPA has not provided approved post-processing programs to account for the requirements of the new standard therefore the use of the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations provides a conservative estimate of the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations for comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS

100 REFERENCES AIHA 2009 Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) ndash Current AIHA ERPG Values

(2008) American Industrial Hygiene Association website httpwwwaihaorgcontentinsideaihavolunteer+groupserpcommhtm accessed on February 26 2009

ARG 2010 Updated Title V Permit Modification Application Prepared by Air Resources

Group LLC (ARG) for NRG Energy Inc February 2010 Auer 1978 Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies Journal of

Applied Meteorology 17(5) 636-643 CDIAC 2009 Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

website httpcdiacornlgovtrendsemismeth_reghtml accessed on February 26 2009 England GC 2004 Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and Speciation Profiles

for Oil- and Gas-Fired Combustion Systems Final Report 2004 NYCDEP 1993 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual New York

City Department of Environmental Protection December 1993 NYSDEC 2009 Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an

Environmental Impact Statement Issued July 15 2009 NYSDEC 2007 New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2007 2007 Data Tables

downloaded from wwwdecnygovchemical8536html Data access on February 25 2009

NYSDEC 2006a New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2006 2006 Data Tables

NYSDEC 2006b DAR-10 NYSDEC Guidelines on Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air

Quality Analysis Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Conservation ndash DEC Program Policy May 9 2006

NYSDEC 2005 New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2005 2005 Data Tables

NYSDEC 2003 CP-33Assessing and Mitigating Impacts of Fine Particulate Matter Emissions

New York State Department of Conservation Policy Issued December 29 2003

TRC 2007 Air Quality Modeling Protocol Prepared by TRC for NRG Energy Inc December 2007

US Census 2007 Annual Estimates of the Population for the Counties April 1 2000 to July 1

2006rdquo New York US Census Bureau Website at httpwwwcensusgovpopestcountiesCO-EST2006-01html Data access December 4 2007

USDOC 2003 Local Climatological Data ndash Annual Summary with Comparative Data ndash New

York La Guardia Airport National Climatic Data Center Asheville North Carolina 2003

US EPA 2009 Global Warming ndash Emissions Energy CO2 Inventories US EPA webpage

httpyosemiteepagovoarglobalwarmingnsfcontentEmissionsStateEnergyCO2Inventorieshtml accessed on February 26 2009

US EPA 2007 Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) Appendix W to Title 40 US

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 52 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park North Carolina July 1 2007

US EPA 2006 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2004 Global Warming ndash

Publications US Emissions Inventory 2006 US EPA webpage httpyosemiteepagovOARglobalwarmingnsfcontentResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionsInventory2006html accessed on February 26 2009

US EPA 2005 Impact on CAIR Analysis of the DC Circuit Decision in New York vs EPA

CAIR Technical Support Document December 2005 US EPA 1999 Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis EPA-

550-B-99-009 April 1999 US EPA 1985 Guidelines for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height

(Technical Support Document for the Stack Height Regulations-Revised) EPA-4504-80-023R June 1985

Appendix A NYSDEC Correspondence

February 26 2008 Mr Leon Sedefian Chief Impact Assessment amp Meteorology Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Stationary Sources 2nd Floor 625 Broadway Albany New York 12233-3254 Subject Response to Comments on the Air Quality Modeling Protocol for

the Proposed Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC (formerly Berrians Project)

Dear Mr Sedefian In your February 20 2008 letter summarizing the New York State Department of Environmental Conservationrsquos (NYSDECrsquos) review of the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (December 2007) you requested the land use characteristics to be used in AERMETAERMOD model for the La Guardia National Weather Service (NWS) Station be provided for review prior to conducting the air quality modeling analysis Please find enclosed a copy of the output from the US Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (US EPArsquos) AERSURFACE program which was used to process the land use characteristics for the La Guardia NWS Station We also understand that should the proposed Project trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Commissionerrsquos Policy CP-33 that a revised air quality modeling protocol may be required However at this time NRG believes that the net emission increases due to the proposed Project will not trigger PSD or CP-33 review If you should have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed La Guardia NWS land use characteristics please call me at (570) 265-3327 or email me at jsnydertrcsolutionscom Sincerely

Jay A Snyder Air Quality Scientist

Mr Leon Sedefian February 26 2008 Page 2 of 2

cc Tom Coates NRG Jon Baylor NRG Al Filippi NRG Dave Alexander ARG

laguardout Generated by AERSURFACE dated 08009 Center Latitude (decimal degrees) 40778000 Center Longitude (decimal degrees) -73873000 Datum NAD83 Study radius (km) for surface roughness 10 Airport Y Continuous snow cover Y Surface moisture Average Arid region N MonthSeason assignments Default Late autumn after frost and harvest or winter with no snow 0 Winter with continuous snow on the ground 12 1 2 Transitional spring (partial green coverage short annuals) 3 4 5 Midsummer with lush vegetation 6 7 8 Autumn with unharvested cropland 9 10 11 FREQ_SECT MONTHLY 12 SECTOR 1 0 30 SECTOR 2 30 60 SECTOR 3 60 90 SECTOR 4 90 120 SECTOR 5 120 150 SECTOR 6 150 180 SECTOR 7 180 210 SECTOR 8 210 240 SECTOR 9 240 270 SECTOR 10 270 300 SECTOR 11 300 330 SECTOR 12 330 360 Month Sect Alb Bo Zo SITE_CHAR 1 1 031 035 0018 SITE_CHAR 1 2 031 035 0003 SITE_CHAR 1 3 031 035 0006 SITE_CHAR 1 4 031 035 0047 SITE_CHAR 1 5 031 035 0103 SITE_CHAR 1 6 031 035 0134 SITE_CHAR 1 7 031 035 0148 SITE_CHAR 1 8 031 035 0107 SITE_CHAR 1 9 031 035 0111 SITE_CHAR 1 10 031 035 0060 SITE_CHAR 1 11 031 035 0022 SITE_CHAR 1 12 031 035 0021 SITE_CHAR 2 1 031 035 0018 SITE_CHAR 2 2 031 035 0003 SITE_CHAR 2 3 031 035 0006 SITE_CHAR 2 4 031 035 0047 SITE_CHAR 2 5 031 035 0103 SITE_CHAR 2 6 031 035 0134 SITE_CHAR 2 7 031 035 0148 SITE_CHAR 2 8 031 035 0107 SITE_CHAR 2 9 031 035 0111 SITE_CHAR 2 10 031 035 0060 SITE_CHAR 2 11 031 035 0022 SITE_CHAR 2 12 031 035 0021 SITE_CHAR 3 1 016 074 0020 SITE_CHAR 3 2 016 074 0003 SITE_CHAR 3 3 016 074 0006 SITE_CHAR 3 4 016 074 0050 SITE_CHAR 3 5 016 074 0103 SITE_CHAR 3 6 016 074 0135 SITE_CHAR 3 7 016 074 0152 SITE_CHAR 3 8 016 074 0109 SITE_CHAR 3 9 016 074 0114 SITE_CHAR 3 10 016 074 0061 SITE_CHAR 3 11 016 074 0022 SITE_CHAR 3 12 016 074 0022 SITE_CHAR 4 1 016 074 0020 SITE_CHAR 4 2 016 074 0003 SITE_CHAR 4 3 016 074 0006 SITE_CHAR 4 4 016 074 0050 SITE_CHAR 4 5 016 074 0103 SITE_CHAR 4 6 016 074 0135 SITE_CHAR 4 7 016 074 0152 SITE_CHAR 4 8 016 074 0109 SITE_CHAR 4 9 016 074 0114 SITE_CHAR 4 10 016 074 0061 SITE_CHAR 4 11 016 074 0022 SITE_CHAR 4 12 016 074 0022 SITE_CHAR 5 1 016 074 0020 SITE_CHAR 5 2 016 074 0003 SITE_CHAR 5 3 016 074 0006

laguardout SITE_CHAR 5 4 016 074 0050 SITE_CHAR 5 5 016 074 0103 SITE_CHAR 5 6 016 074 0135 SITE_CHAR 5 7 016 074 0152 SITE_CHAR 5 8 016 074 0109 SITE_CHAR 5 9 016 074 0114 SITE_CHAR 5 10 016 074 0061 SITE_CHAR 5 11 016 074 0022 SITE_CHAR 5 12 016 074 0022 SITE_CHAR 6 1 016 071 0020 SITE_CHAR 6 2 016 071 0003 SITE_CHAR 6 3 016 071 0006 SITE_CHAR 6 4 016 071 0051 SITE_CHAR 6 5 016 071 0103 SITE_CHAR 6 6 016 071 0136 SITE_CHAR 6 7 016 071 0155 SITE_CHAR 6 8 016 071 0110 SITE_CHAR 6 9 016 071 0115 SITE_CHAR 6 10 016 071 0062 SITE_CHAR 6 11 016 071 0022 SITE_CHAR 6 12 016 071 0023 SITE_CHAR 7 1 016 071 0020 SITE_CHAR 7 2 016 071 0003 SITE_CHAR 7 3 016 071 0006 SITE_CHAR 7 4 016 071 0051 SITE_CHAR 7 5 016 071 0103 SITE_CHAR 7 6 016 071 0136 SITE_CHAR 7 7 016 071 0155 SITE_CHAR 7 8 016 071 0110 SITE_CHAR 7 9 016 071 0115 SITE_CHAR 7 10 016 071 0062 SITE_CHAR 7 11 016 071 0022 SITE_CHAR 7 12 016 071 0023 SITE_CHAR 8 1 016 071 0020 SITE_CHAR 8 2 016 071 0003 SITE_CHAR 8 3 016 071 0006 SITE_CHAR 8 4 016 071 0051 SITE_CHAR 8 5 016 071 0103 SITE_CHAR 8 6 016 071 0136 SITE_CHAR 8 7 016 071 0155 SITE_CHAR 8 8 016 071 0110 SITE_CHAR 8 9 016 071 0115 SITE_CHAR 8 10 016 071 0062 SITE_CHAR 8 11 016 071 0022 SITE_CHAR 8 12 016 071 0023 SITE_CHAR 9 1 016 077 0020 SITE_CHAR 9 2 016 077 0003 SITE_CHAR 9 3 016 077 0006 SITE_CHAR 9 4 016 077 0051 SITE_CHAR 9 5 016 077 0103 SITE_CHAR 9 6 016 077 0136 SITE_CHAR 9 7 016 077 0155 SITE_CHAR 9 8 016 077 0109 SITE_CHAR 9 9 016 077 0115 SITE_CHAR 9 10 016 077 0062 SITE_CHAR 9 11 016 077 0022 SITE_CHAR 9 12 016 077 0023 SITE_CHAR 10 1 016 077 0020 SITE_CHAR 10 2 016 077 0003 SITE_CHAR 10 3 016 077 0006 SITE_CHAR 10 4 016 077 0051 SITE_CHAR 10 5 016 077 0103 SITE_CHAR 10 6 016 077 0136 SITE_CHAR 10 7 016 077 0155 SITE_CHAR 10 8 016 077 0109 SITE_CHAR 10 9 016 077 0115 SITE_CHAR 10 10 016 077 0062 SITE_CHAR 10 11 016 077 0022 SITE_CHAR 10 12 016 077 0023 SITE_CHAR 11 1 016 077 0020 SITE_CHAR 11 2 016 077 0003 SITE_CHAR 11 3 016 077 0006 SITE_CHAR 11 4 016 077 0051 SITE_CHAR 11 5 016 077 0103 SITE_CHAR 11 6 016 077 0136 SITE_CHAR 11 7 016 077 0155 SITE_CHAR 11 8 016 077 0109 SITE_CHAR 11 9 016 077 0115 SITE_CHAR 11 10 016 077 0062

laguardout SITE_CHAR 11 11 016 077 0022 SITE_CHAR 11 12 016 077 0023 SITE_CHAR 12 1 031 035 0018 SITE_CHAR 12 2 031 035 0003 SITE_CHAR 12 3 031 035 0006 SITE_CHAR 12 4 031 035 0047 SITE_CHAR 12 5 031 035 0103 SITE_CHAR 12 6 031 035 0134 SITE_CHAR 12 7 031 035 0148 SITE_CHAR 12 8 031 035 0107 SITE_CHAR 12 9 031 035 0111 SITE_CHAR 12 10 031 035 0060 SITE_CHAR 12 11 031 035 0022 SITE_CHAR 12 12 031 035 0021

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Air Resources Bureau of Stationary Sources 2nd Floor 625 Broadway Albany New York 12233-3254 Phone (518) 402-8403 middot FAX (518) 402-9035 Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder Air Quality Scientist TRC 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071 Dear Mr Snyder Thank you for your recent letter regarding the surface characteristics analysis for the proposed Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project using AERSURFACE We have the following comments 1 We have determined the correct latitude and longitude for the LaGardia Airport met

tower to be 40779000 and -73881000 respectively This makes a difference in the land characteristics we have calculated and recommend you use these values

2 In order to better separate surface features the following five sectors should be used 40

to 80 80 to 135 135 to 285 285 to 325 and 325 to 40 degrees instead of the standard 30 degree sectors

Please let me know if you have any questions

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin Air Pollution Meteorologist V

cc L Sedefian

M Jennings S Tomasik DEP S Lieblich Region 2 D Alexander ARG

From Phil GalvinTo Snyder Jay (LyndhurstNJ-US) cc dalexanderairresourcesgroupcom Leon Sedefian Mike Jennings

Stephen Tomasik Sam Lieblich Date Wednesday January 14 2009 111635 AMAttachments NRGastoriaJSwpd

Jay Please find attached a letter discussing updates to your modeling protocol that may be necessary Thanks Phil

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Air Resources

Bureau of Stationary Sources 2nd Floor

625 Broadway Albany New York 12233-3254

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Air Quality Scientist

1200 Wall Street West

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

As a result of our recent meeting with Air Resources Group and NRG on January 8 2009 I wanted to alert you to some changes that may be necessary to your air modeling protocol for the proposed Astoria gas turbine repowering project

The latest version of AERSURFACE should be used as EPA has made a number of significant changes since your protocol was submitted Also if the project is a major source of PM25 then the nonattainment provisions of the final NSR rule will apply and a net benefit analysis will be needed That rule will be implemented by EPA Region II In addition the requirements in the recently approved Part 231 will be implemented by DEC If the source is a minor source for PM25 at a minimum standards compliance will need to be demonstrated in the context of DEC Commissionerrsquos Policy CP-33 and the EPA final rule

In addition we also assume that any other project changes which might impact the modeling approach in the original protocol will be incorporated in the analysis Please let me know if you have any questions

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

Air Pollution Meteorologist V

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasisik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

Mr Jay Snyder Air Quality Scientist TRC 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071 Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

cc L Sedefian M Jennings S Tomasisik DEP S Lieblich Region 2 D Alexander ARG

From Phil GalvinTo Snyder Jay (LyndhurstNJ-US) cc Leon Sedefian Stephen Tomasik

Sam Lieblich Subject Astoria gas turbine repowerDate Thursday March 13 2008 10604 PMAttachments astoriawpd

Jay Please find attached our comments on your AERSURFACE analysis Thanks Phil

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the surface characteristics analysis for the proposed Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project using AERSURFACE We have the following comments

1We have determined the correct latitude and longitude for the LaGardia Airport met tower to be 40779000 and -73881000 respectively This makes a difference in the land characteristics we have calculated and recommend you use these values

2In order to better separate surface features the following five sectors should be used 40 to 80 80 to 135 135 to 285 285 to 325 and 325 to 40 degrees instead of the standard 30 degree sectors

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

January 21 2009 Mr Philip J Galvin Air Pollution Meteorologist V Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Stationary Sources 2nd Floor 625 Broadway Albany New York 12233-3254 Subject Response to the Updated Comments on the Air Quality Modeling

Protocol for the Proposed Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC Dear Mr Galvin Thank you for your timely updated review of the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (December 2007) and for the comments provided in your January 14 2009 letter We will be sure to use the latest versions of all air quality models and programs in the air quality modeling analysis We will also take your comments into consideration during the preparation of the permit application and completion of the modeling analyses to ensure the proper level of analysis is performed Finally any project changes from the Air Quality Modeling Protocol (December 2007) will be appropriately incorporated into the modeling analysis If you should have any questions or comments regarding these responses please call me at (570) 265-3327 or email me at jsnydertrcsolutionscom Sincerely

Jay A Snyder Air Quality Scientist cc Tom Coates NRG L Sedefian NYSDEC M Jennings NYSDEC

S Tomasik NYSDEC S Lieblich NYSDEC Dave Alexander ARG

Date Tuesday December 15 2009 316 PM

From Katherine Keslick ltkkeslickairresourcesgroupcomgt

To Jay Snyder ltjsnyderairresourcesgroupcomgt

Subject FW NRG Astoria Application 2-6301-00191

-----Original Message----- From Stephen Tomasik [smtomasigwdecstatenyus] Sent Thursday May 21 2009 1137 AM To dalexanderairresourcesgroupcom Kathy Keslick Cc Leon Sedefian Mike Jennings Phil Galvin Patricia Mastrianni Subject NRG Astoria Application 2-6301-00191 David The Division of Air Resources (DAR) is reviewing the revised projected emissions expected from the project and will provide formal comments when they are prepared However DAR noted that the information submitted to date does not include any modeling results for either the new emissions proposed or the start-up emissions as was requested DEC has also asked for an impact analysis of projected emissions This repeats the proposal to test these conditions and provide data after operations The information provided may be sufficient to establish permit limits but a modeled demonstration that impacts are acceptable even if based on conservative emissions is also required Stephen Tomasik Project Manager Energy Projects and Management Division of Environmental Permits NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany New York 12233-1750 PH (518) 486-9955 FAX (518) 402-9168

12162009httpsmailbizrrcomdomailmessagepreviewmsgId=INBOXDELIM1448ampl=en-US

6281 Johnston Road Albany New York 12203 Tel 5184527000 Fax 5184522674 wwwairresourcesgroupcom

Air Quality and Environmental Services

November 3 2009 Mr Stephen Tomasik Project Manager Energy Projects and Management Division of Environmental Permits New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway ndash 4th Floor Albany New York 12233-1750 Subject NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project

Air Quality Modeling in Support of the Revised PM25 Emission Factor and Combustion Turbine Start-ups

Dear Mr Tomasik As requested in your May 21 2009 email to Mr David Alexander of Air Resources Group LLC (ARG) enclosed are the results of updating the air quality modeling analyses for fine particulate (PM25) conducted in support of the proposed NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project (Project) This analysis reflects the revised natural gas-fired PM25 emission factor and information on the fast start technology proposed for the Astoria turbines Also requested in your email was the need for an air quality modeling analysis for the start-up of the turbines A brief description of the modeling methodology used in the start-up modeling analysis and results of the analysis are included in this letter as well Revised PM25 Analyses The initial permit application and supporting air quality modeling analyses for the proposed Project were based on a natural gas-fired PM25 emission factor of 000028 pounds per million British thermal units (lbmmBtu) for the combustion turbines The initial emission factor contained in NRGrsquos application was developed from the United States Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (US EPArsquos) 2002 National Emissions Inventory adjusted PM25 emission factor which was based on the 95 confidence interval of actual tested facilities from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) report on Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and Speciation Profiles for Oil- and Gas-Fired Combustion Systems Final Report 2004 However after subsequent discussions with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the US EPA Region 2 NRG has decided to base the proposed natural gas-fired PM25 emission factor for the combustion turbines on actual stack test results of 00019 lbmmBtu This PM25 emission factor is based on results of the PM10 stack testing program conducted at the Goldendale Generating Station in Washington State and is supported by other facility stack test results as detailed in ARGrsquos August 10 2009 letter to NYSDEC on PM issues

Mr Stephen Tomasik Page 2 November 3 2009

Because of the change in the combustion turbine natural gas-fired PM25 emission factor NYSDEC requested that NRG revise all of the PM25 air quality modeling analyses to incorporate the Goldendale Generating Station derived PM25 emission factor The modeling methodology and model inputs used in the revised modeling analyses remained the same as used in the initial analyses except for the increased natural gas-fired PM25 emission rates from the combustion turbines Results of the modeling analyses using the revised PM25 emission factor indicate that the conclusions of the initial analyses have not changed Namely use of the revised PM25 emission factor will result in insignificant modeled air quality concentrations (ie all maximum modeled PM25 concentrations will be less than their respective significant impact levels [SILs]) and the proposed Project will present a net benefit with respect to PM25 air quality impacts

In the initial significance analysis the maximum modeled 24-hour PM25 concentration due to the proposed Project was from ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing in the combustion turbines Revising the natural gas-fired PM25 emission rates does not increase the natural gas-fired maximum modeled 24-hour concentration above the maximum modeled 24-hour concentration due to the turbines firing ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil Thus the maximum modeled 24-hour PM25 concentrations presented in the NRG Astoria Air Quality Modeling Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Analyses remain unchanged The maximum modeled annual PM25 concentrations were estimated for 6000 hours per year of natural gas firing and 100 hours per year of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing in each turbine The maximum modeled annual ground-level PM25 concentration increased from 15x10-2 ugm3 to 23x10-2 ugm3 and the maximum modeled annual flagpole receptor PM25 concentration increased from 21x10-2 ugm3 to 33x10-2 ugm3 Both of these revised maximum modeled annual PM25 concentrations remain well below the NYSDEC annual PM25 SIL of 03 ugm3 Thus the proposed Project will have insignificant annual air quality impacts and no further modeling is necessary In the PM25 net benefit analysis the emissions associated with the new equipment for the proposed Project were modeled along with the emission reductions associated with the shutdown of the existing units at the facility As discussed in the significance analysis above the maximum modeled 24-hour PM25 concentration due to the proposed Project occurred during use of the ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing in the combustion turbines Thus the 24-hour results of the PM25 net benefit analysis presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Analyses remain unchanged Updating the annual PM25 net benefit analysis to account for the revised natural gas-fired PM25 emission factor yielded a range of maximum modeled annual ground-level PM25 concentrations from a decrease of 003 ugm3 to an increase of 0007 ugm3 over the modeled area Figures 5-3 and 5-4 from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Analyses have been revised to reflect the updated modeling results and are attached to this letter The figures show that within approximately 1 kilometer (km) of the facility there will be a net decrease in modeled annual PM25 concentrations Beyond 1 km there will be a very slight (less than 0007 ugm3) increase in modeled annual PM25 concentrations

Results of the updated net benefit modeling analysis for the flagpole receptors shows a range of maximum modeled annual PM25 concentrations from a decrease of 00005 ugm3 to an increase of 0011 ugm3 The revised maximum modeled ground-level and flagpole receptor annual PM25 concentrations remain well below the NYSDEC annual PM25 SIL (03 ugm3) and therefore as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Analyses the proposed Project will not have an adverse impact to the surrounding air quality Attached are the revised Tables 3-1 4-1 and 4-2 and Appendix B from the Air Quality Modeling Report and revised Tables 3-1 3-3 3-4 Figures 5-3 and 5-4 and Appendix B from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Analyses These are the only tables and figures in the air quality modeling reports affected by the revised PM25 emission factor Also included with this letter are the modeling files used in these revised modeling analyses on a DVD for your review Turbine Start-up Modeling Analysis As requested by the NYSDEC NRG performed an air quality modeling analysis for start-up conditions for the proposed combustion turbines Because the turndown software technology proposed for the combustion turbines is new and has not be implemented on other equipment the exhaust parameters and emission rates used in the start-up modeling analysis are based on the latest available data and engineering judgment Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM25) from the turbines are directly related to the fuel type and fuel flow rate into the turbines and thus with NYSDECrsquos concurrence (May 28 2009 discussion with Mr Leon Sedefian at NYSDEC) these pollutants were not modeled in the start-up analysis The analysis did examine the potential 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) and 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air quality impacts during the start-up period It should be noted that due to the proposed turndown software technology on the turbines the oxidation catalyst will be functional very early in the start-up period and the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system will also be functional for most of the start-up time period (assumed to be 30 minutes) For this modeling analysis control of the CO emissions due to the oxidation catalyst was accounted for during the start-up period while oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions during the start-up period were assumed to be uncontrolled even though significant control of NOx is expected The same model (AERMOD version 07026) Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack heights meteorological data (2000-2004 LaGuadia Airport) and receptor grids (ground-level and flagpole receptors) used in the significance analysis for the proposed Project and presented in the Air Quality Modeling Report were used in the turbine start-up modeling analysis The modeled exhaust temperature (188F or 360 Kelvin) and velocity (342 feet per second or 104 meters per second) were approximated based on performance data for the turbines at 40 operating load Potential controlled CO and uncontrolled NOx emissions during the 30-minute start-up period were estimated to be 446 pounds per hour (lbhr) and 2978 lbhr respectively Although the start-up period will last 30-minutes or less to reach 100 operating load the modeling analysis conservatively assumed that the start-up conditions lasted for the entire modeled averaging periods Therefore start-up conditions were assumed for both the entire 1-

hour and 8-hour averaging periods to estimate 1-hour and 8-hour CO and 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) modeled concentrations To ensure the ldquoworst-caserdquo operating scenario (ie the operating scenario that yields the maximum modeled concentrations) was determined four different operating scenarios were modeled The scenarios were

In addition to these four operating scenarios different combinations of turbines were also examined similar to the operating load analysis presented in the Air Quality Modeling Report For example operating scenario 2 presented above examined the possibility of the two Phase I turbines starting one of the Phase II turbines starting and the remaining Phase II turbine operating at the worst-case natural gas-fired load and the possibility of the two Phase II turbines starting one of the Phase I turbines starting and the remaining Phase I turbine operating at the worst-case natural gas-fired load The NYSDEC and US EPA have established a 1-hour SIL of 2000 ugm3 and an 8-hour SIL of 500 ugm3 for CO If the maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are less than these SILs then no further modeling is required as the proposed Project impacts will not significantly impact the air quality The maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO ground-level concentrations were 62 ugm3 and 21 ugm3 respectively Both maximums were located within the area of 100 meter spaced receptors therefore no refinement of the modeling grid was required Operating scenario 4 presented above resulted in the maximum modeled 1-hour CO concentration while operating scenario 3 presented above resulted in the maximum modeled 8-hour CO concentration For the flagpole receptors the maximum modeled 1-hour CO concentration was 59 ugm3 and the maximum modeled 8-hour CO concentration was 15 ugm3 These maximum modeled CO concentrations were located at the top of a building thus refining the modeled receptors was not necessary Operating scenario 3 presented above resulted in the maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO flagpole receptor concentrations All of the ground-level and flagpole receptor maximum modeled CO concentrations are well below their respective SILs and thus during the start-up periods the proposed Project will have insignificant CO air quality impacts

The NYSDEC and US EPA have not finalized short-term SILs or Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for NO2 However in the July 15 2009 Federal Register the US EPA proposed a new short-term NO2 NAAQS based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile (or the fourth-highest) of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations US EPA proposes to set the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS within the range of 80 to 100 parts per billion (ppb) or approximately 150 ugm3 to 188 ugm3 Comments on the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS being as low as 65 ppb (122 ugm3) and as high as 150 ppb (282 ugm3) were also accepted by the US EPA NRG also looked to other State Agencies to find a surrogate short-term NO2 AAQS A brief review of some State AAQS yielded two states with 1-hour NO2 AAQS The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has a 1-hour NO2 AAQS of 470 ugm3 and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) - Air Resources Board (ARB) has a 1-hour NO2 AAQS of 018 parts per million (ppm) or approximately 338 ugm3 Results of the start-up modeling analysis for 1-hour NO2 were then compared to the proposed NO2 NAAQS and these State NO2 AAQS The maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 ground-level concentration for turbine start-up was determined to be 187 ugm3 and was due to operating scenario 1 presented above Operating scenario 2 above resulted in the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentration (192 ugm3) at a flagpole receptor The maximum modeled ground-level concentration was located in an area of 100 meter spaced receptors and the maximum modeled flagpole receptor concentration was located at the top of a building Thus these receptor grids did not need to be refined Both the ground-level and flagpole receptor maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations for start-up periods are approximately 16 of the lowest 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (122 ugm3) currently being considered by the US EPA 4 of the NJDEPrsquos 1-hour NO2 AAQS and less than 6 of the CalEPA-ARBrsquos 1-hour NO2 AAQS Compared to these AAQS it is anticipated that the potential short-term NO2 air quality impacts during start-up periods will be minimal All AERMOD input and output modeling files used in the combustion turbine start-up modeling analysis have been included electronically on the attached DVD for your review NRG believes that the updated air quality modeling analyses to account for the revised natural gas-fired combustion turbine PM25 emission factor and the air quality modeling analysis conducted for turbine start-up periods provided satisfy your May 21 2009 email request If you need further information or have any questions or comments on the air quality modeling analyses please contact me at (570) 265-3327 or jsnyderairresourcesgroupcom or Mr David Alexander of ARG at (518) 452-7000 or dalexanderairresourcesgoupcom

Sincerely Jay A Snyder Air Quality Specialist cc D Alexander ARG T Coates NRG L Sedefian NYSDEC R Caiazza NRG K Keslick ARG

ATTACHMENTS

Revised Pages for the NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project ndash Air Quality Modeling Report

Table 3-1 Combustion Turbine Modeling Data1 (Revised November 3 2009)

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Potential Emission Rates (gs)

CO SO2 PM-10 PM-25 NOx 1 Natural Gas -5 100+DB2 3654 2015 172 016 101 101 287 2 Natural Gas -5 100 3721 2043 121 015 046 046 245 3 Natural Gas -5 70 3663 1636 095 011 036 036 191 4 Natural Gas -5 60 3693 1535 087 010 033 033 175 5 Natural Gas 546 100+DB 3766 2082 163 015 098 098 273 6 Natural Gas 546 100 3788 2084 114 014 043 043 231 7 Natural Gas 546 70 3675 1590 090 011 034 034 181 8 Natural Gas 546 60 3645 1461 082 010 031 031 166 9 Natural Gas 100 100+DB+EC3 3958 2055 151 014 090 090 254 10 Natural Gas 100 100+EC 3948 2041 107 013 041 041 216 11 Natural Gas 100 70 3846 1594 084 010 032 032 169 12 Natural Gas 100 60 3805 1423 073 0088 028 028 148 13 Fuel Oil -5 100 3794 2085 868 039 708 424 820 14 Fuel Oil -5 70 3729 1656 669 030 546 327 632 15 Fuel Oil 546 100 3879 2242 847 038 691 414 801 16 Fuel Oil 546 70 3742 1644 653 029 533 319 617 17 Fuel Oil 100 100+EC 4022 2164 788 035 643 386 745 18 Fuel Oil 100 70 3908 1665 616 028 502 301 582

Table 4-1 Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Concentrations (Revised November 3 2009)

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Maximum Modeled Concentration Location Distance

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

Proposed Project (deg)

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

NO2 Annual3 1 66x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237 1 Maximum modeled concentrations of four combustion turbines operating at the worst-case operating scenario simultaneously 2 Modeled annual concentration based on 6000 hours per year of natural gas firing summed with 100 hours of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing per combustion turbine regardless of maximum modeled concentration locations for natural gas firing and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing 3 The location of the maximum modeled annual natural gas-fired concentrations presented in the table

Table 4-2 Maximum Modeled Flagpole Receptor Concentrations (Revised November 3 2009)

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Maximum Modeled Concentration Location Distance from

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

NO2 Annual3 1 93x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 1 Maximum modeled concentrations of four combustion turbines operating at the worst-case operating scenario simultaneously 2 Modeled annual concentration based on 6000 hours per year of natural gas firing summed with 100 hours of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing per combustion turbine regardless of maximum modeled concentration locations for natural gas firing and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing 3 The location of the maximum modeled annual natural gas-fired concentrations presented in the table

Appendix BFour Combustion Turbines Load Analysis

Ground-Level Receptors(Revised November 3 2009)

NRG Astoria - Units 1 2 3 and 4 Operating - Co-located GEP Stacks (250 ft for Units 1amp2 213 ft for Units 3amp4) - Ground-Level Receptors1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 385957 2040209 593570 4513504 124 1109 664 388 388 062 2409 148CASE2 374624 2040209 593570 4513504 124 918 454 173 173 054 2409 148CASE3 41819 2040209 593445 4513720 105 799 395 150 150 047 2159 148CASE4 424181 2040209 593445 4513720 105 744 368 140 140 044 2159 148CASE5 364186 2040209 593570 4513504 124 995 593 358 358 056 2409 148CASE6 36077 2040209 593570 4513504 124 833 413 157 157 050 2409 148CASE7 421051 2040209 593445 4513720 105 762 377 143 143 045 2159 148CASE8 43873 2040209 593445 4513720 105 727 360 137 137 043 2159 148CASE9 340878 2040209 593570 4513504 124 865 516 306 306 049 2409 148

CASE10 343471 2040209 593570 4513504 124 741 367 139 139 044 2409 148CASE11 399183 2040209 593445 4513720 105 676 335 127 127 040 2159 148CASE12 422115 2040209 593445 4513720 105 624 309 118 118 037 2159 148CASE13 359809 2040209 593570 4513504 124 2951 3122 2548 1527 141 2409 148CASE14 407244 2040209 593445 4513720 105 2574 2724 2223 1332 123 2159 148CASE15 333545 2040209 593570 4513504 124 2670 2825 2306 1382 127 2409 148CASE16 40673 2040209 593445 4513720 105 2511 2657 2168 1299 119 2159 148CASE17 322946 2040209 593695 4513287 78 2406 2546 2078 1245 115 2659 149CASE18 385468 2040209 593570 4513504 124 2243 2373 1936 1161 107 2409 1483-Hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 152096 4051509 590999 4513729 125 437 262 153 153 025 2245 216CASE2 14442 4051509 590838 4513537 113 354 175 067 067 021 2495 216CASE3 170834 4051509 590999 4513729 125 326 161 061 061 019 2245 216CASE4 173622 4051509 590999 4513729 125 305 151 057 057 018 2245 216CASE5 140109 120415 593471 4512633 86 383 228 138 138 022 3145 158CASE6 138984 120415 593471 4512633 86 321 159 060 060 019 3145 158CASE7 172191 4051509 590999 4513729 125 312 154 059 059 018 2245 216CASE8 182171 4051509 591159 4513920 108 302 149 057 057 018 1996 215CASE9 132682 120415 593557 4512398 86 337 201 119 119 019 3395 158

CASE10 133494 120415 593557 4512398 86 288 143 054 054 017 3395 158CASE11 158107 4051509 590999 4513729 125 268 133 050 050 016 2245 216CASE12 17159 4051509 590999 4513729 125 254 126 048 048 015 2245 216CASE13 138667 120415 593471 4512633 86 1137 1203 982 588 054 3145 158CASE14 164 4051509 590999 4513729 125 1037 1097 895 536 049 2245 216CASE15 130326 120415 593557 4512398 86 1043 1104 901 540 050 3395 158CASE16 16356 4051509 590999 4513729 125 1010 1068 872 522 048 2245 216CASE17 126977 120415 593557 4512398 86 946 1001 817 490 045 3395 158CASE18 149327 4051509 590999 4513729 125 869 919 750 450 041 2245 2168-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 100107 1072416 593152 4516295 00 288 172 101 101 016 1124 49CASE2 093329 1072416 593216 4516372 00 229 113 043 043 014 1224 48CASE3 11822 1072416 593152 4516295 00 226 112 042 042 013 1124 49CASE4 121257 1072416 593152 4516295 00 213 105 040 040 013 1124 49CASE5 088627 1072416 593216 4516372 00 242 144 087 087 014 1224 48CASE6 087087 1072416 593216 4516372 00 201 100 038 038 012 1224 48CASE7 119705 1072416 593152 4516295 00 217 107 041 041 013 1124 49CASE8 130918 1072416 593152 4516295 00 217 107 041 041 013 1124 49CASE9 082184 3091816 590771 4515157 48 209 124 074 074 012 1586 256

CASE10 082979 3091816 590771 4515157 48 179 089 034 034 011 1586 256CASE11 108172 3091816 591066 4515209 00 183 091 034 034 011 1287 254CASE12 12102 3091816 591066 4515209 00 179 089 034 034 011 1287 254CASE13 086661 1072416 593216 4516372 00 711 752 614 368 034 1224 48CASE14 110968 1072416 593152 4516295 00 701 742 606 363 033 1124 49CASE15 078793 3091816 590771 4515157 48 631 667 545 326 030 1586 256CASE16 110509 1072416 593152 4516295 00 682 722 589 353 032 1124 49CASE17 076892 3091816 590771 4515157 48 573 606 495 296 027 1586 256CASE18 101313 3091816 591066 4515209 00 590 624 509 305 028 1287 254

1 of 32

24-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 039575 3091824 590771 4515157 48 114 068 040 040 006 1586 256CASE2 037579 3091824 590771 4515157 48 092 046 017 017 005 1586 256CASE3 047895 3091824 591066 4515209 00 091 045 017 017 005 1287 254CASE4 050151 3091824 591066 4515209 00 088 044 017 017 005 1287 254CASE5 036008 3091824 590771 4515157 48 098 059 035 035 006 1586 256CASE6 035569 3091824 590771 4515157 48 082 041 015 015 005 1586 256CASE7 048941 3091824 591066 4515209 00 089 044 017 017 005 1287 254CASE8 053959 3091824 591066 4515209 00 089 044 017 017 005 1287 254CASE9 033333 3091824 590771 4515157 48 085 050 030 030 005 1586 256

CASE10 033701 3091824 590771 4515157 48 073 036 014 014 004 1586 256CASE11 044718 3091824 591066 4515209 00 076 038 014 014 005 1287 254CASE12 050915 3091824 591066 4515209 00 075 037 014 014 004 1287 254CASE13 035444 3091824 590771 4515157 48 291 308 251 150 0138 1586 256CASE14 045657 3091824 590869 4515174 22 289 305 249 149 0137 1486 255CASE15 031766 3091824 590771 4515157 48 254 269 220 132 012 1586 256CASE16 045656 3091824 590869 4515174 22 282 298 243 146 013 1486 255CASE17 030886 3091824 590771 4515157 48 230 243 199 119 011 1586 256CASE18 041783 3091824 590869 4515174 22 243 257 210 126 012 1486 255Annual XOQ Year UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 003125 2003 590713 4514452 62 0061 0037 0022 0022 00035 1937 235CASE2 002957 2003 588331 4513077 74 0050 0025 0009 0009 00029 4683 238CASE3 003716 2003 591223 4515008 89 0049 0024 0009 0009 00029 1213 243CASE4 003882 2003 591223 4515008 89 0047 0023 0009 0009 00028 1213 243CASE5 002864 2003 588331 4513077 74 0054 0032 0019 0019 00030 4683 238CASE6 002838 2003 588331 4513077 74 0045 0022 0008 0008 00027 4683 238CASE7 003794 2003 591223 4515008 89 0047 0023 0009 0009 00028 1213 243CASE8 004269 2003 591223 4515008 89 0048 0024 0009 0009 00029 1213 243CASE9 002668 2004 588331 4513077 74 0046 0028 0016 0016 00026 4683 238

2 of 32

Appendix BThree Combustion Turbines Load Analysis

NRG Astoria - Units 1 2 and 3 Operating - GEP Stacks (Co-located 250 ft for Units 1amp2 Single 213 ft for Unit 3) - Ground-Level Receptors1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 315173 2040209 593445 4513720 105 905 542 317 317 051 2159 148CASE2 306384 2040209 593445 4513720 105 750 371 141 141 044 2159 148CASE3 338417 2040209 593395 4513807 153 646 320 122 122 038 2059 148CASE4 342733 2040209 593395 4513807 153 601 298 113 113 036 2059 148CASE5 297482 2040209 593445 4513720 105 813 485 293 293 046 2159 148CASE6 294542 2040209 593445 4513720 105 680 337 128 128 040 2159 148CASE7 340478 2040209 593395 4513807 153 616 305 116 116 036 2059 148CASE8 353249 2040209 593395 4513807 153 585 290 110 110 035 2059 148CASE9 277989 2040209 593570 4513504 124 706 421 250 250 040 2409 148

3 of 32

4 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 1 3 and 4 Operating - GEP Stacks (Single 250 ft for Unit 1 Co-located 213 ft for Units 3amp4) - Ground-Level Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 316115 2040209 593445 4513720 105 908 544 318 318 051 2159 148CASE2 307925 2040209 593445 4513720 105 754 373 142 142 045 2159 148CASE3 338745 2040209 593395 4513807 153 647 320 122 122 038 2059 148CASE4 34303 2040209 593395 4513807 153 602 298 113 113 036 2059 148CASE5 301509 2040209 593445 4513720 105 824 491 297 297 046 2159 148CASE6 299403 2040209 593445 4513720 105 691 343 130 130 041 2159 148CASE7 340792 2040209 593395 4513807 153 617 305 116 116 036 2059 148CASE8 353486 2040209 593395 4513807 153 586 290 110 110 035 2059 148CASE9 287148 2040209 593445 4513720 105 729 435 258 258 041 2159 148

5 of 32

6 of 32

Appendix BTwo Combustion Turbines Load Analysis

NRG Astoria - Units 1 and 2 Operating - Co-located GEP Stacks (250 ft for Units 1amp2) - Ground-Level Receptors1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 192171 2040209 593445 4513720 105 552 331 193 193 031 2159 148CASE2 185657 2040209 593445 4513720 105 455 225 086 086 027 2159 148CASE3 208465 2040209 593395 4513807 153 398 197 075 075 024 2059 148CASE4 211572 2040209 593395 4513807 153 371 184 070 070 022 2059 148CASE5 178973 2040209 593570 4513504 124 489 292 176 176 028 2409 148CASE6 176925 2040209 593570 4513504 124 409 202 077 077 024 2409 148CASE7 209949 2040209 593395 4513807 153 380 188 071 071 022 2059 148CASE8 219105 2040209 593395 4513807 153 363 180 068 068 022 2059 148CASE9 16492 2040209 593570 4513504 124 419 250 148 148 023 2409 148

7 of 32

8 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 3 and 4 Operating - Co-located GEP Stacks (213 ft for Units 3amp4) - Ground-Level Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 194859 2040209 593570 4513504 124 560 335 196 196 031 2409 148CASE2 189414 2040209 593570 4513504 124 464 230 087 087 027 2409 148CASE3 209785 2040209 593445 4513720 105 401 198 075 075 024 2159 148CASE4 212772 2040209 593445 4513720 105 373 185 070 070 022 2159 148CASE5 185213 2040209 593570 4513504 124 506 302 182 182 028 2409 148CASE6 183845 2040209 593570 4513504 124 425 210 080 080 025 2409 148CASE7 211211 2040209 593445 4513720 105 382 189 072 072 023 2159 148CASE8 22005 2040209 593445 4513720 105 365 180 068 068 022 2159 148CASE9 175959 2040209 593570 4513504 124 447 266 158 158 025 2409 148

9 of 32

10 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 1 and 3 Operating - Separate GEP Stacks (250 ft for Unit 1 and 213 ft for Unit 3) - Ground-Level Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 247709 2040209 593345 4513893 88 712 426 249 249 040 1959 148CASE2 242308 2040209 593395 4513807 153 594 294 112 112 035 2059 148CASE3 261508 2040209 593295 4513980 69 500 247 094 094 030 1859 148CASE4 263976 2040209 593295 4513980 69 463 229 087 087 028 1859 148CASE5 238336 2040209 593395 4513807 153 651 388 235 235 037 2059 148CASE6 236941 2040209 593395 4513807 153 547 271 103 103 033 2059 148CASE7 262686 2040209 593295 4513980 69 475 235 089 089 028 1859 148CASE8 270048 2040209 593295 4513980 69 447 222 084 084 027 1859 148CASE9 228703 2040209 593395 4513807 153 581 346 205 205 033 2059 148

11 of 32

12 of 32

Appendix BOne Combustion Turbine Load Analysis

NRG Astoria - Unit 1 or 2 Operating - GEP Stack (250 ft) - Ground-Level Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 12423 2040209 593345 4513893 88 357 214 125 125 020 1959 148CASE2 121288 2040209 593345 4513893 88 297 147 056 056 018 1959 148CASE3 131773 2040209 593295 4513980 69 252 125 047 047 015 1859 148CASE4 133024 2040209 593295 4513980 69 233 115 044 044 014 1859 148CASE5 119077 2040209 593395 4513807 153 325 194 117 117 018 2059 148CASE6 118385 2040209 593395 4513807 153 273 135 051 051 016 2059 148CASE7 13237 2040209 593295 4513980 69 240 119 045 045 014 1859 148CASE8 13609 2040209 593245 4514067 55 225 112 042 042 013 1759 148CASE9 114338 2040209 593395 4513807 153 290 173 103 103 016 2059 148

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

Flagpole Receptors(Revised November 3 2009)

NRG Astoria - Units 1 2 3 and 4 Operating - Co-located GEP Stacks (250 ft for Units 1amp2 213 ft for Units 3amp4) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 351222 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 1009 605 353 353 057 8871 192CASE2 331382 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 812 402 153 153 048 8871 192CASE3 397233 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 759 375 143 143 045 8871 192CASE4 40408 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 709 351 133 133 042 8871 192CASE5 316075 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 864 515 311 311 049 8871 192CASE6 310967 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 718 356 135 135 043 8871 192CASE7 400592 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 725 359 136 136 043 8871 192CASE8 420249 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 696 345 131 131 041 8871 192CASE9 291547 2052706 586000 4512395 186 2590 740 442 262 262 042 7053 243

CASE10 292989 2052706 586000 4512395 186 2590 632 313 119 119 038 7053 243CASE11 367949 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 624 309 117 117 037 8871 192CASE12 399993 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 592 293 111 111 035 8871 192CASE13 309539 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 2539 2686 2192 1314 121 8871 192CASE14 381435 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 2411 2551 2082 1248 115 8871 192CASE15 28821 2052706 586000 4512395 186 2590 2307 2441 1992 1194 110 7053 243CASE16 380491 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 2349 2485 2028 1215 112 8871 192CASE17 281766 2052706 586000 4512395 186 2590 2099 2221 1813 1086 100 7053 243CASE18 345896 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 2013 2129 1738 1042 096 8871 1923-Hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 148268 4051509 590820 4513270 121 183 426 255 149 149 024 2725 213CASE2 142028 4051509 590820 4513270 121 183 348 172 065 065 021 2725 213CASE3 168318 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 322 159 060 060 019 2871 302CASE4 170893 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 300 148 056 056 018 2871 302CASE5 137262 4051509 590820 4513270 121 183 375 224 135 135 021 2725 213CASE6 135654 4051509 590820 4513270 121 183 313 155 059 059 019 2725 213CASE7 16962 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 307 152 058 058 018 2871 302CASE8 174471 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 289 143 054 054 017 2871 302CASE9 132439 3120912 586900 4512297 128 2790 336 201 119 119 019 6311 239

CASE10 132768 3120912 586900 4512297 128 2790 286 142 054 054 017 6311 239CASE11 159246 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 270 134 051 051 016 2871 302CASE12 170582 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 252 125 048 048 015 2871 302CASE13 135205 4051509 590820 4513270 121 183 1109 1173 957 574 053 2725 213CASE14 163182 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 1032 1091 891 534 049 2871 302CASE15 131354 3120912 586900 4512297 128 2790 1052 1113 908 544 050 6311 239CASE16 163001 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 1006 1065 869 521 048 2871 302CASE17 130074 3120912 586900 4512297 128 2790 969 1025 837 502 046 6311 239CASE18 149668 4112803 589869 4517071 41 1506 871 921 752 451 041 2871 3028-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 090698 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 261 156 091 091 015 2871 302CASE2 087692 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 215 106 040 040 013 2871 302CASE3 097557 4090916 592333 4517381 29 122 186 092 035 035 011 1827 1CASE4 10022 4090916 592333 4517381 29 122 176 087 033 033 010 1827 1CASE5 085092 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 233 139 084 084 013 2871 302CASE6 084213 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 194 096 037 037 012 2871 302CASE7 0988 4090916 592333 4517381 29 122 179 089 034 034 011 1827 1CASE8 10556 3091308 588809 4514286 114 1585 175 087 033 033 010 3720 250CASE9 078901 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 200 119 071 071 011 2871 302

CASE10 079654 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 172 085 032 032 010 2871 302CASE11 094005 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 159 079 030 030 009 2871 302CASE12 100408 4090916 592333 4517381 29 122 149 074 028 028 009 1827 1CASE13 083962 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 689 729 595 356 033 2871 302CASE14 095147 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 601 636 519 311 029 2871 302CASE15 076765 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 615 650 531 318 029 2871 302CASE16 095082 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 587 621 507 304 028 2871 302CASE17 075078 3120916 586900 4512297 128 2790 559 592 483 289 027 6311 239CASE18 091308 4112808 589869 4517071 41 1506 531 562 459 275 025 2871 302

17 of 32

24-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 052327 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 150 090 053 053 008 3720 250CASE2 049371 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 121 060 023 023 007 3720 250CASE3 06266 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 120 059 023 023 007 3720 250CASE4 0648 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 114 056 021 021 007 3720 250CASE5 047014 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 128 077 046 046 007 3720 250CASE6 046301 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 107 053 020 020 006 3720 250CASE7 063675 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 115 057 022 022 007 3720 250CASE8 068384 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 113 056 021 021 007 3720 250CASE9 042509 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 108 064 038 038 006 3720 250

CASE10 043066 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 093 046 017 017 006 3720 250CASE11 058488 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 099 049 019 019 006 3720 250CASE12 065214 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 096 048 018 018 006 3720 250CASE13 046099 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 378 400 326 1956 01801 3720 250CASE14 059926 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 379 401 327 1960 01805 3720 250CASE15 04045 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 324 343 280 168 015 3720 250CASE16 059898 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 370 391 319 191 0176 3720 250CASE17 038847 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 289 306 250 150 014 3720 250CASE18 054516 32124 588809 4514286 114 1585 317 336 274 164 015 3720 250Annual XOQ Year UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 004529 2003 588809 4514286 114 1585 0089 0053 0031 0031 00050 3720 250CASE2 004339 2004 586900 4512297 128 2790 0073 0036 0014 0014 00043 6311 239CASE3 005274 2003 588809 4514286 114 1585 0069 0034 0013 0013 00041 3720 250CASE4 005426 2003 588809 4514286 114 1585 0065 0032 0012 0012 00039 3720 250CASE5 004265 2004 586900 4512297 128 2790 0080 0048 0029 0029 00045 6311 239CASE6 004241 2004 586900 4512297 128 2790 0067 0033 0013 0013 00040 6311 239CASE7 005346 2003 588809 4514286 114 1585 0066 0033 0012 0012 00039 3720 250CASE8 00581 2003 588809 4514286 114 1585 0066 0033 0012 0012 00039 3720 250CASE9 004085 2004 586900 4512297 128 2790 0071 0042 0025 0025 00040 6311 239

18 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 1 2 and 3 Operating - GEP Stacks (Co-located 250 ft for Units 1amp2 Single 213 ft for Unit 3) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 288451 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 829 496 290 290 047 8871 192CASE2 280072 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 686 339 129 129 041 8871 192CASE3 301128 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 575 285 108 108 034 8871 192CASE4 301807 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 529 262 100 100 032 8871 192CASE5 272723 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 745 444 268 268 042 8871 192CASE6 270116 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 624 309 117 117 037 8871 192CASE7 301517 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 546 270 103 103 032 8871 192CASE8 31916 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 529 262 099 099 031 3666 261CASE9 253665 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 644 384 228 228 036 8871 192

19 of 32

20 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 1 3 and 4 Operating - GEP Stacks (Single 250 ft for Unit 1 Co-located 213 ft for Units 3amp4) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 279426 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 803 481 281 281 045 8871 192CASE2 270312 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 662 328 125 125 039 8871 192CASE3 309168 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 591 292 111 111 035 3666 261CASE4 317691 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 557 276 105 105 033 3666 261CASE5 26269 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 718 428 259 259 040 8871 192CASE6 260039 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 601 298 113 113 036 8871 192CASE7 313205 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 567 281 107 107 034 3666 261CASE8 33735 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 559 277 105 105 033 3666 261CASE9 243724 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 619 369 219 219 035 8871 192

21 of 32

22 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 1 and 2 Operating - Co-located GEP Stacks (250 ft for Units 1amp2) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 169227 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 486 291 170 170 027 8871 192CASE2 160527 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 393 195 074 074 023 8871 192CASE3 188386 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 360 178 068 068 021 8871 192CASE4 191043 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 335 166 063 063 020 8871 192CASE5 15545 4010411 586900 4512297 128 2790 425 253 153 153 024 6311 239CASE6 153966 4010411 586900 4512297 128 2790 356 176 067 067 021 6311 239CASE7 189699 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 343 170 065 065 020 8871 192CASE8 196917 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 326 162 061 061 019 8871 192CASE9 146762 2052706 586000 4512395 186 2590 373 222 132 132 021 7053 243

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

NRG Astoria - Units 1 and 3 Operating - Separate GEP Stacks (250 ft for Unit 1 and 213 ft for Unit 3) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 237865 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 683 409 239 239 038 3666 261CASE2 227929 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 558 276 105 105 033 3666 261CASE3 266995 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 510 252 096 096 030 3666 261CASE4 272604 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 478 237 090 090 029 3666 261CASE5 220245 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 602 359 217 217 034 3666 261CASE6 219188 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 506 251 095 095 030 8871 192CASE7 26966 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 488 242 092 092 029 3666 261CASE8 285311 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 473 234 089 089 028 3666 261CASE9 215923 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 548 327 194 194 031 8871 192

27 of 32

28 of 32

NRG Astoria - Unit 1 or 2 Operating - GEP Stack (250 ft) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors 1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 1086 4010411 586900 4512297 128 2790 312 187 109 109 018 6311 239CASE2 105955 4010411 586900 4512297 128 2790 260 128 049 049 015 6311 239CASE3 116304 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 222 110 042 042 013 3666 261CASE4 118902 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 209 103 039 039 012 3666 261CASE5 103948 4010411 586900 4512297 128 2790 284 169 102 102 016 6311 239CASE6 103293 4010411 586900 4512297 128 2790 239 118 045 045 014 6311 239CASE7 117538 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 213 105 040 040 013 3666 261CASE8 124803 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 207 102 039 039 012 3666 261CASE9 100192 4051506 590400 4506890 30 2730 254 152 090 090 014 8871 192

29 of 32

30 of 32

NRG Astoria - Unit 3 or 4 Operating - GEP Stack (213 ft) - Flagpole (ie Building) Receptors1-hour XOQ yymmddhh UTMX UTMY ELEV (m) FLAG (m) NOx CO PM10 PM25 SO2 Distance DirectionCASE1 134949 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 388 232 136 136 022 3666 261CASE2 129538 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 317 157 060 060 019 3666 261CASE3 150691 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 288 142 054 054 017 3666 261CASE4 153702 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 270 133 051 051 016 3666 261CASE5 12534 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 343 204 123 123 019 3666 261CASE6 124001 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 286 142 054 054 017 3666 261CASE7 152122 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 275 136 052 052 016 3666 261CASE8 160508 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 266 132 050 050 016 3666 261CASE9 116418 4022110 588690 4514952 62 1783 296 176 105 105 017 3666 261

31 of 32

32 of 32

Revised Pages for the NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project ndash Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Analyses

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

(Revised November 3 2009)

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Date Monday March 22 2010 1150 AM

From Dave Alexander ltdalexanderairresourcesgroupcomgt

To jsnyderairresourcesgroupcom

Cc kkeslickairresourcesgroupcom

Subject FW 1 hour NO2 standard

-----Original Message----- From Stephen Tomasik [smtomasigwdecstatenyus] Sent Thursday March 11 2010 426 PM To dalexanderairresourcesgroupcom Subject 1 hour NO2 standard David From what I am told the 1 hour NO2 standard will be applicable starting April 12 for that states without approved NSR rules (like NY) DAR staff are in discussion with EPA regarding the rule but we are asking ARGNRG to determine if you will discuss how you will comply with the new standard at this point in time or will you wait until the public comment period Also Patty Desnoyers has had a conversation with Gail Suchman regarding organization of the DEIS and we expect to have some comments in that regard next week Stephen Tomasik Project Manager Energy Projects and Management Division of Environmental Permits NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany New York 12233-1750 PH (518) 486-9955 FAX (518) 402-9168

482010httpsmailbizrrcomdomailmessagepreviewmsgId=INBOXDELIM1691ampl=en-USampv

March 24 2010 Mr Stephen Tomasik Project Manager Energy Projects and Management Division of Environmental Permits New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway ndash 4th Floor Albany New York 12233-1750 Subject NRG Astoria Repowering Project

Compliance Demonstration for 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS Dear Mr Tomasik In response to your March 11 2010 email to Mr David Alexander of Air Resources Group LLC NRG Energy Inc (ldquoNRGrdquo) submits this letter to demonstrate compliance by the proposed NRG Astoria Repowering Project (the ldquoProjectrdquo) with the new 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (ldquoNAAQSrdquo) for nitrogen dioxide (ldquoNO2rdquo) promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) The US EPA published the Final Rule for Primary NAAQS for NO2 (the ldquoNO2 NAAQS Rulerdquo) in the Federal Register on February 9 2010 and it will become effective on April 12 2010 At this time the applicability of the NO2 NAAQS Rule in particular the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to air permit applications currently under review is unknown (see electronic mail from Mr Leon Sedefian of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ldquoNYSDECrdquo dated February 10 2010 and attached hereto as Attachment A) However NRG has reviewed the information previously provided to the NYSDEC on February 5 2010 in the Projectrsquos Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application and Updated Air Quality Modeling Report and believes that the proposed Project will comply with the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Specifically NRG has extracted (i) the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations presented in Appendix B of the Updated Air Quality Modeling Report for normal operations and (ii) the average of the five years (2000-2004) of maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations from the start-up modeling analysis presented in Section 43 of the Updated Air Quality Modeling Report These results were then compared to the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Because the NAAQS apply to the total ambient air quality not just the change in air quality due to a project NRG obtained the most recently available background monitored 1-hour NO2 air quality concentrations and summed them with the modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations comparing the total concentrations to the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS This comparison shows that the total 1-hour NO2 air quality concentrations (ie the sum of the Projectrsquos modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations and the background ambient 1-hour NO2 air quality concentration) are less than the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS during normal operations and start-up conditions

Mr Stephen Tomasik March 24 2010 Page 2

Additional details on the methodology and results of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS compliance demonstration are presented herein New 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS On February 9 2010 the US EPA published the NO2 NAAQS Rule in the Federal Register In addition to the existing annual NO2 NAAQS the NO2 NAAQS Rule included the new 1-hour NAAQS which limits NO2 to 100 parts per billion (ldquoppbrdquo) based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations Requirements for a NO2 monitoring network were also established in the NO2 NAAQS Rule which will become effective on April 12 2010 In the preamble to the NO2 NAAQS Rule the US EPA acknowledged that the rule does have implications with respect to current and future air permitting actions However the only policy and guidance with respect to determining specific permitting implications in the NO2 NAAQS Rule provided by the US EPA was that applicants are initially required to demonstrate that their proposed emissions increases of nitrogen oxides (ldquoNOxrdquo) will not cause or contribute to a violation of both the 1-hour or annual NO2 NAAQS and the annual NO2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (ldquoPSDrdquo) increment If the US EPA were to develop a 1-hour NO2 PSD increment then the applicant would also need to demonstrate compliance with it The NO2 NAAQS Rule did not establish any new significant emission thresholds for potential NOx emissions or significant impact levels or significant monitoring concentrations for 1-hour NO2 concentrations However the US EPA will evaluate the need for these additional thresholds At this time applicants that trigger New Source Review (ldquoNSRrdquo) andor PSD review only need to conduct a compliance demonstration for the 1-hour and annual NO2 NAAQS and the annual PSD increment On February 25 2010 the US EPArsquos Air Quality Modeling Group (ldquoAQMGrdquo) provided air quality dispersion modeling guidance Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS to assist applicants with the appropriate modeling methodology in conducting analyses for the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS However as stated in the guidance document the US EPA has yet to develop a post-processor program to correctly extract the modeled average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations Until the US EPA releases an approved post-processor program applicants may use conservative modeled concentrations (ie concentrations that are sure to be greater than the modeled average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations) to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Applicability to Proposed Project Based on the information presented in the Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application NRG has shown that the proposed Project will not trigger NSRPSD review Thus demonstrating compliance with the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is not required However as part of the Projectrsquos Updated Title V Air Permit Modification Application NRG agreed to

demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS and New York Ambient Air Quality Standards for the other criteria pollutants and averaging periods Thus NRG has completed a compliance demonstration presented herein solely for the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Proposed Project Air Quality Impacts In the Projectrsquos Updated Air Quality Modeling Report two separate air quality modeling analyses were conducted The first analysis was performed to identify the maximum modeled air quality concentrations attributable to the proposed Project during normal operations The second analysis analyzed the potential air quality impacts during periods of start-up and shutdown While not explicitly identified in the Projectrsquos Updated Air Quality Modeling Report the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 air quality concentrations attributable to the proposed Project during normal operations were included in Appendix B The overall maximum modeled 1-hour ground-level NO2 concentration was 295 ugm3 and the overall maximum modeled 1-hour flagpole receptor NO2 concentration was 254 ugm3 Both of these maximum modeled concentrations were due to operating Case 13 (ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing at 100 load at -5degF) The maximum modeled ground-level concentration was located beyond the 100-meter (ldquomrdquo) spaced receptors thus a separate 2000 m by 2000 m Cartesian receptor grid with 100 m spaced receptors was centered on the initial maximum modeled concentration location presented in Appendix B to ensure the overall maximum modeled concentration was determined Results of modeling this refined Cartesian grid indicates that initial maximum modeled concentration location presented in Appendix B is indeed the location of the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentration The modeling input and output files used in the refined Cartesian grid modeling have been included on CDROM as Attachment B The maximum modeled flagpole receptor concentration was located at the top of a building and therefore no refinement of the flagpole receptors was necessary Comparing these normal operation maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations to the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb which is approximately equivalent to188 ugm3 shows that the proposed Projectrsquos maximum 1-hour NO2 air quality impacts will be less than 16 of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Air quality impacts including 1-hour NO2 impacts during start-up and shutdown periods were discussed in Section 43 of the Updated Air Quality Modeling Report Specifically results of the start-up modeling analysis for 1-hour NO2 show that the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations were 627 ugm3 at a ground-level receptor and 605 ugm3 at a flagpole receptor These overall maximum modeled start-up concentrations are less than 34 of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS As mentioned in Section 32 of the Updated Air Quality Modeling Report the estimated NOx emission rates used in the start-up modeling analysis were highly conservative compared to the stack test data received for a fast start system and thus these modeled start-up NO2 concentrations are considered highly conservative with respect to actual conditions Use of the overall 1-year maximum modeled 1-hour concentration is an overly conservative estimate to represent the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour

daily maximum concentrations Therefore for start-up periods NRG followed the recent guidance provided by the US EPArsquos AQMG with respect to a NAAQS compliance demonstration for fine particulate (ldquoPM25rdquo) Specifically in the US EPArsquos AQMG February 26 2010 memorandum titled Model Clearinghouse Review of Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM25 NAAQS the US EPA recommends the use of the average of the maximum modeled 24-hour PM25 concentrations over the five years of meteorological data modeled as representative of the modeled contribution to determine the total 24-hour PM25 concentration for comparison to the 24-hour PM25 NAAQS Following this methodology NRG averaged the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations from the five years (2000-2004) of meteorological data modeled for start-up periods at the ground-level and flagpole receptors The table below shows each modeled yearrsquos maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentration for start-up periods and the average of these 1-hour NO2 concentrations

Modeled Meteorological

Maximum Modeled 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (ugm3)

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

The average maximum modeled start-up concentrations are less than 27 of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and were summed with the background 1-hour NO2 concentrations for comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Background Ambient Air Quality Data Because the NAAQS are applicable to the total ambient air quality not just the contribution of a single source background 1-hour NO2 ambient air quality concentrations were required to sum with the Projectrsquos modeled 1-hour NO2 air quality concentrations To obtain background hourly NO2 concentrations recorded at the nearest representative NO2 monitor to the Project site NRG accessed the ambient air quality data available on the US EPArsquos Technology Transfer Network (ldquoTTNrdquo) ndash Air Quality System (ldquoAQSrdquo) at the website httpwwwepagovttnairsairsaqsdetaildatadownloadaqsdatahtm As presented in Section 23 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ndash Updated Air Quality Analyses submitted to the NYSDEC on February 17 2010 the nearest representative NO2 monitor to the Project site is the monitor at Intermediate School (ldquoISrdquo) 52 which is located approximately 31 kilometers (km) north of the Project site The Draft Environmental Impact

Statement ndash Air Quality Analyses which was submitted to the NYSDEC in February 2009 and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ndash Updated Air Quality Analyses presented ambient air quality data representative of the Project site for a three-year period from 2005 through 2007 However since the submittal of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ndash Air Quality Analyses in February 2009 ambient air quality data for 2008 have become available Thus NRG used the background 1-hour NO2 concentration data for the three-year period from 2006 through 2008 at the IS52 monitor to determine the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations Three years (2006-2008) of 1-hour NO2 concentrations were obtained from the US EPArsquos TTN-AQS for the IS52 monitor The three years of monitoring data from the IS52 monitor were then processed to obtain the appropriate background 1-hour NO2 ambient air concentration to sum with the modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS First each dayrsquos recorded 1-hour maximum NO2 concentration during the three years (2006-2008) of monitoring data was determined Second each yearrsquos daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentrations determined in the first step were sorted to identify the eighth-highest daily 1-hour maximum concentration The eighth-highest concentration is representative of the 98th percentile concentration from the distribution of daily 1-hour maximum concentrations From the 2006 monitoring data the eighth-highest daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentration was determined to be 72 ppb while the eighth-highest daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentrations from the 2007 and 2008 monitoring data were determined to be 72 ppb and 67 ppb respectively Averaging these values yields a representative 3-year average background 1-hour NO2 air quality concentration of 703 ppb or approximately 1322 ugm3 Total Project Air Quality Impacts For normal operations summing the 3-year average 98th percentile background 1-hour NO2 concentration (1322 ugm3) with the overall maximum modeled ground-level 1-hour NO2 concentration (295 ugm3) yields a total 1-hour NO2 concentration of 1617 ugm3 which is less than the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Similarly at 1576 ugm3 the sum of the 3-year average 98th percentile background 1-hour NO2 concentration and the overall maximum modeled flagpole receptor 1-hour NO2 concentration (254 ugm3) is less than the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS It should be noted that the Project 1-hour NO2 modeled concentrations used in this analysis were the overall maximum modeled 1-hour concentrations not the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum modeled concentrations Thus the results of the analysis are highly conservative During start-up and shutdown periods the sum of the Projectrsquos average maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations at the ground-level (487 ugm3) and flagpole (499 ugm3) receptors and the background concentration (1322 ugm3) yields total 1-hour NO2 concentrations at ground-level receptors (1809 ugm3) and flagpole receptors (1821 ugm3) less than the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS Although the use of the five-year average maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations is not as conservative as the use of the overall maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations (as used for in the assessment of normal operations) it remains a very

conservative estimate for the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations as required under the NO2 NAAQS Rule Summary Although the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project is not subject to NSRPSD review NRG voluntarily addressed the Projectrsquos compliance status with regards to this new NAAQS Results of the air quality analysis show that the proposed Project will comply with the requirements of the Final Rule for Primary NAAQS for NO2 published in the Federal Register on February 9 2010 The results of the compliance demonstration are highly conservative because the demonstration assumes that all of the emitted NOx is converted to NO2 although the US EPA allows the use of a default ratio of NOxNO2 of 75 to account for the conversion of NOx to NO2 in compliance demonstrations for the annual NO2 NAAQS Furthermore the US EPA has not updated the regulatory dispersion models to account for the requirements of the new standard therefore the use of the maximum modeled 1-hour NO2 concentrations provides a conservative estimate of the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations for comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS If you should have any questions or comments on the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS analysis please contact me at (570) 265-3327 or jsnyderairresourcesgroupcom or Mr David Alexander at (518) 452-7000 or dalexanderairresourcesgoupcom Sincerely

Jay A Snyder Air Quality Specialist Attachment A Electronic Mail from Mr Leon Sedefian of NYSDEC Attachment B CDROM of Refined Cartesian Grid Input and Output Air Quality

Modeling Files cc D Alexander ARG T Coates NRG L Sedefian NYSDEC P Gavin NYSDEC

M Jennings NYSDEC L Davis NRG

R Caiazza NRG K Keslick ARG

Attachment A

Date Wednesday February 10 2010 828 AM

From Leon Sedefian ltlxsedefigwdecstatenyusgt

To ltDavid Alexander ltdalexanderairresourcesgroupcomgt ltJay Snyder ltjsnyderairresourcesgroupcomgt ltKathy Keslick ltkkeslickairresourcesgroupcomgt Jack Nasca ltjanascagwdecstatenyusgt Mike Jennings ltmxjenningwdecstatenyusgt Patricia Desnoyers ltpjdesnoygwdecstatenyusgt Phil Galvin ltpjgalvingwdecstatenyusgt Ricky Leone ltrmleonegwdecstatenyusgt Stephen Tomasik ltsmtomasigwdecstatenyusgt leedavisnrgenergycom ltThomas Coates ltTomCoatesnrgenergycomgt ltGail Suchman ltgsuchmanstroockcomgt

Subject Re NRG Astoria meeting attendance

I have just received a notice of the final 1 hour NO2 standard (see attached) It is effective 41210 We have asked EPA to clarify the applicability for permitting especially for final permits still pending Depending on that determination NRG might have to address this issue prior to final permit (unless you want to do it beforehand) gtgtgt Stephen Tomasik 292010 307 PM gtgtgt Attached Again thanks to all for participating Stephen Tomasik Project Manager Energy Projects and Management Division of Environmental Permits NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway - 4th Floor Albany New York 12233-1750 PH (518) 486-9955 FAX (518) 402-9168

NO2NAAQSFRNoticepdf

3242010httpsmailbizrrcomdomailmessagepreviewmsgId=INBOXDELIM1593ampl=en-USamp

Attachment B

NO2_email_2From Leon Sedefian [mailtolxsedefigwdecstatenyus] Sent Friday March 26 2010 1105 AMTo Dave Alexander Stephen TomasikCc kkeslickairresourcesgroupcom Mike Jennings Phil GalvinTomCoatesnrgenergycomSubject Re NRG Astoria 1-hour NO2 Compliance Letter

Hi Dave we have reviewed the letter on the 1 hour NO2 NAAQS and have aquestion In refining the startup impacts use is made of a 22610 EPAmemo on PM25 but there is a 22510 EPA guidance procedure on how toaddress the NO2 1 hour NAAQS in modeling Please explain why the latter wasnot followed and if appropriate discuss how your approach has emulated thesame or is a more conservative approach

gtgtgt Dave Alexander ltdalexanderairresourcesgroupcomgt 3242010 108 PMgtgtgt

Here is the letter addressing the new 1-hour NO2 standard Along with theletter I am including the modeling output and input files Should you haveany questions regarding this letter please contact Jay Snyder or myself

David Alexander

Managing Principal

6281 Johnston Road

Albany New York 12203

(518) 452-7000

Fax (518) 452-2674

wwwairresourcesgroupcom

Date Monday April 5 2010 1229 PM

Cc Dave ltdalexanderairresourcesgroupcomgt Kathy ltkkeslickairresourcesgroupcomgt Stephen Tomasik ltsmtomasigwdecstatenyusgt Tom lttomcoatesnrgenergycomgt

Subject Re 1-Hour NO2 Responses

Ok thanks Jay this is fine gtgtgt ltjsnyderairresourcesgroupcomgt 412010 350 PM gtgtgt Hello Leon In response to our discussion last week please see below As discussed in the March 24 2010 letter regarding compliance with the new 1-hr NO2 NAAQS we used two different methods to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hr NO2 NAAQS For normal operations we summed the overall maximum modeled 1-hr NO2 concentration with the background 1-hr NO2 concentration For start-up conditions we summed the average of the five year maximum modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations with the background 1-hr NO2 concentration Both of these methods are highly conservative compared to the method provided in the EPAs February 25 2010 Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS guidance document because the method presented in this document and the NAAQS are based on the average of the 98th percentile modeled concentrations Initially we reviewed the 22510 EPA guidance document Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS that explains how to generate the appropriate modeled 1-hr NO2 concentration for comparison to the new 1-hr NO2 NAAQS However the methodology does not lend itself feasible for a normal modeling analysis at this time because of the vast amount of data generated by the process and a lack of post-processing program (as EPA noted it still needs to develop) In our analyses we have modeled 1423 ground-level receptors and 711 flagpole receptors The guidance document states that results for every receptor for every hour must be output to the POSTFILE for post-processing Thus we would need to be able to process over 12 million hourground-level receptor data points for each year and over 6 million hourflagpole receptor data points for each year In the five year modeled dataset we would need to process nearly 100 million data points to develop the appropriate modeled 1-hr NO2 concentration This level of data is more than Excel or most data editors can handle Furthermore the POSTFILE is written in binary code thus leaving programs such as Excel useless for processing these data without a conversion program As stated in our letter until EPA releases a post-processing program to process these POSTFILE files applicants are left to their own devices If ARG were to independently develop or purchase a post-processing program it would need to undergo rigorous testing by EPA and DEC to ensure the correct values are output Because we could not generate the modeled 98th percentile 1-hr NO2 concentrations for normal operation or start-up conditions we used two conservative methodologies We used the overall maximum modeled 1-hr NO2 concentration for normal operation emissions that yielded a total 1-hr NO2 concentration (ie sum of modeled and background concentrations) less than the 1-hr NO2 NAAQS This method was too conservative for start-up conditions so the methodology presented in the EPAs 22610 Model Clearinghouse Memo for demonstrating compliance with the 24-hr PM25 NAAQS was used to conservatively estimate the modeled 98th percentile 1-hr NO2 concentration in lieu of a post-processing program Averaging the five years of the overall maximum modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations yields a modeled 1-hr NO2 concentration greater than the average of the five years of 98th percentile (or highest eighth-highest) modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations (ie the basis for 1-hr NO2 NAAQS compliance) Thus the methodologies presented in the letter for estimating the modeled 1-hr NO2 concentrations for normal operation and start-up conditions are highly conservative compared to the methodology presented in the EPAs 22510 guidance document If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further please let me know Jay -- Jay A Snyder Air Quality Specialist Air Resources Group LLC

RR4 Box 4194A Wyalusing PA 18853 Phone 570-265-3327 Fax 570-265-3327 (Please call before faxing)

Appendix B Results of Combustion Turbine Load Analyses

1 of 32

Annual results presented based on 8560 hryr of natural gas firing (Cases 1 through 12) and 100 hryr of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing (Cases 13 through 18)

2 of 32

3 of 32

Annual results presented based on 8560 hryr of natural gas firing (Cases 1 through 12) and 100 hryr of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil firing (Cases 13 through 18

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

17 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

18 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

19 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

20 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

21 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

22 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

23 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

24 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

25 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

26 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

27 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

28 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

29 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

30 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

31 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

32 of 32

Appendix C Modeling Input and Output Files

Appendix D Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors and Combustion Turbine Load Analysis

Appendix D1Combustion Turbine Non-Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors

Combustion Turbine emissions based on USEPAs AP-42 emission factors except as notedDuct Burner emissions based on USEPAs AP-42 emission factors for boilers except as noted Notes Key a indicates compound is one of US EPAs list of 188 HAPs

b indicates compound is subset of POM or PAH (PAH is a subset of POM)c compound is listed on US EPAs list of 188 HAPs and is a subset of POM or PAH

Pollutant Note (lbmmBtu) PAHs are broken out for turbines using the same split for boilers13-Butadiene a lt 4300E-07 lt 1600E-05 Turbine PAH Emission Rate Firing Natural Gas 220E-06 lbMMBtu from AP-42 Table 31-3111-Trichloroethane a Turbine PAH Emission Rate Firing Fuel Oil 400E-05 lbMMBtu from AP-42 Table 31-42-Methylnapthalene 2400E-05 2353E-083-Methylchloranthrene b lt 1800E-06 1765E-09 Percent of Percent of712-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene b lt 1600E-05 1569E-08 Total Total Acenaphthene b 8534E-08 1360E-05 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09 Fuel Oil Natural Gas Fuel OilAcenaphthylene b 8534E-08 1631E-07 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09 lbmgal () ()Acetaldehyde a 4000E-05 Acenaphthene lt 180E-06 211E-05 388 3400Acrolein a 6400E-06 Acenaphthylene lt 180E-06 253E-07 388 041Ammonia 260E-03 320E-03 260E-03 Anthracene lt 240E-06 122E-06 517 197Anthracene b 1138E-07 7864E-07 lt 2400E-06 2353E-09 Benz(a)Anthracene lt 180E-06 401E-06 388 646Arsenic a lt 1100E-05 2000E-04 1961E-07 Benzo(a)pyrene lt 120E-06 259 000Barium 4400E-03 4314E-06 Benzo(b)fluoranthene lt 180E-06 148E-06 388 239Benz(a)anthracene b 8534E-08 2585E-06 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09 Benzo(ghI)perylene lt 120E-06 226E-06 259 364Benzene a 1200E-05 5500E-05 2100E-03 2059E-06 Benzo(k)fluoranthene lt 180E-06 148E-06 388 239Benzo(a)pyrene b 5690E-08 lt 1200E-06 1176E-09 Chrysene lt 180E-06 238E-06 388 384Benzo(b)fluoranthene b 8534E-08 9540E-07 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene lt 120E-06 167E-06 259 269Benzo(bk)fluoranthene b Fluoranthene 300E-06 484E-06 647 780Benzo(ghi)perylene b 5690E-08 1457E-06 lt 1200E-06 1176E-09 Fluorene 280E-06 447E-06 603 720Benzo(k)fluoranthene b 8534E-08 9540E-07 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09 Indeno(123-cd)pyrene lt 180E-06 214E-06 388 345Beryllium a lt 3100E-07 lt 1200E-05 1176E-08 Phenanathrene 170E-05 105E-05 3664 1692Butane 2100E+00 2059E-03 Pyrene 500E-06 425E-06 1078 685Cadmium a 4800E-06 1100E-03 1078E-06 Totals 464E-05 621E-05 100 100Chromium a 1100E-05 1400E-03 1373E-06 Emission factors from AP-42 Table 13-9 and 14-3Chrysene b 8534E-08 1534E-06 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09Cobalt a 8400E-05 8235E-08 Ammonia slip (NH3) emission factors from cycle deck engineering performance dataCopper 8500E-04 8333E-07Dibenzo(ah)anthracene b 5690E-08 1076E-06 lt 1200E-06 1176E-09 Sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) emission factors from US EPA CAIR Technical Support DocumentDichlorobenzene a 1200E-03 1176E-06Ethane 3100E+00 3039E-03 Vinyl chloride emission factor from AP-42 Stationary Internal Combustion SourcesEthylbenzene a 3200E-05 Background Document All LoadsFluoranthene b 1422E-07 3120E-06 3000E-06 2941E-09Fluorene b 1328E-07 2881E-06 2800E-06 2745E-09Formaldehyde a 7100E-04 2800E-04 7500E-02 7353E-05Hexane a 1800E+00 1765E-03Indeno(123-cd)pyrene b 8534E-08 1379E-06 lt 1800E-06 1765E-09Lead a 1400E-05 5000E-04 4902E-07Manganese a 7900E-04 3800E-04 3725E-07Mercury a 1200E-06 2600E-04 2549E-07Molybdenum 1100E-03 1078E-06Napthalene c 1300E-06 3500E-05 6100E-04 5980E-07Nickel a lt 4600E-06 2100E-03 2059E-06OCDDPAH b lt 2200E-06 lt 4000E-05Pentane 2600E+00 2549E-03Phenanathrene b 8060E-07 6768E-06 1700E-05 1667E-08POM aPropane 1600E+00 1569E-03Propylene aPropylene Oxide a lt 2900E-05Pyrene b 2371E-07 2740E-06 5000E-06 4902E-09Selenium a lt 2500E-05 lt 2400E-05 2353E-08Sulfuric Acid 000002756 350E-05 000002756Toluene a 1300E-04 3400E-03 3333E-06Vanadium 2300E-03 2255E-06Vinyl Chloride a 5270E-05Xylenes a 6400E-05Zinc 2900E-02 2843E-05

Sample CalculationAcenaphthene emissions for Turbine Operating Case 1

Acenaphthene Emissions (lbhr) = Turbine Heat Input (mmBtuhr)(Gas Fired Turbine Acenaphthene EF(lbmmBtu)+(Duct Burner Heat Imput (mmBtuhr)Gas Fired Duct Burner Acenaphthene EF (lbmmBtu)Acenaphthene Emissions (lbhr) = 1925 mmBtuhr8534E-08 lbmmBtu+216 mmBtuhr1765e-09 lbmmBtuAcenaphthene Emissions (lbhr) = 164E-04 lbhr+381e-07 lbhrAcenaphthene Emissions (lbhr) = 165e-04 lbhr

AP-42Emission Factor

Natural GaslbmmCF

(lbmmBtu) (lbmmBtu)

Pollutant

(lbmmscf)

Tables 14-2 14-3 and 14-4 Gas Fired Duct Burner

AP-42 5th Edition (42000) Table 31-3 Table 31-4 and 31-5

Gas Fired Turbines Oil-Fired Turbines

5 of 1

Appendix D2Four Combustion Turbines Non-Criteria Pollutant Load Analysis

NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project - Two Co-located 250 ft Turbine Stacks (GEP) amp Two Co-located 213 ft Turbine Stacks (GEP)AERMOD Maximum Modeled Ground-Level (Polar and Fenceline Receptors) Concentrations (ugm3)

CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 CASE 5 CASE 6 CASE 7 CASE 8 CASE 9 CASE 10 CASE 11 CASE 12 CASE 13 CASE 14 CASE 15 CASE 16 CASE 17 CASE 18Toxic Air Pollutant 385957 374624 41819 424181 364186 36077 421051 43873 340878 343471 399183 422115 359809 407244 333545 40673 322946 385468

13-Butadiene 403E-04 391E-04 340E-04 317E-04 358E-04 355E-04 324E-04 309E-04 313E-04 315E-04 288E-04 266E-04 150E-02 131E-02 136E-02 128E-02 122E-02 114E-02111-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+002-Methylnapthalene 247E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 235E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 198E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+003-Methylchloranthrene 186E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 177E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 148E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00712-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 165E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 157E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 132E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Acenaphthene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 127E-02 111E-02 115E-02 108E-02 104E-02 968E-03Acenaphthylene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 153E-04 133E-04 138E-04 130E-04 125E-04 116E-04Acetaldehyde 374E-02 363E-02 316E-02 295E-02 333E-02 330E-02 302E-02 288E-02 291E-02 293E-02 268E-02 247E-02 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Acrolein 599E-03 581E-03 506E-03 471E-03 533E-03 528E-03 483E-03 461E-03 466E-03 470E-03 429E-03 396E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Ammonia 271E+00 236E+00 206E+00 191E+00 243E+00 215E+00 196E+00 187E+00 211E+00 191E+00 174E+00 161E+00 300E+00 262E+00 271E+00 255E+00 244E+00 228E+00Anthracene 107E-04 103E-04 900E-05 838E-05 950E-05 939E-05 858E-05 819E-05 831E-05 835E-05 762E-05 703E-05 737E-04 643E-04 667E-04 627E-04 601E-04 560E-04Arsenic 206E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 196E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 165E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 103E-02 899E-03 932E-03 877E-03 840E-03 783E-03Barium 454E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 432E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 363E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Benz(a)anthracene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 242E-03 211E-03 219E-03 206E-03 197E-03 184E-03Benzene 114E-02 109E-02 949E-03 884E-03 102E-02 990E-03 905E-03 863E-03 891E-03 880E-03 804E-03 742E-03 515E-02 449E-02 466E-02 438E-02 420E-02 392E-02Benzo(a)pyrene 534E-05 517E-05 450E-05 419E-05 475E-05 470E-05 429E-05 409E-05 415E-05 417E-05 381E-05 352E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Benzo(b)fluorathene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 894E-04 780E-04 809E-04 760E-04 729E-04 679E-04Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Benzo(ghi)perylene 534E-05 517E-05 450E-05 419E-05 475E-05 470E-05 429E-05 409E-05 415E-05 417E-05 381E-05 352E-05 136E-03 119E-03 123E-03 116E-03 111E-03 104E-03Benzo(k)fluoranthene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 894E-04 780E-04 809E-04 760E-04 729E-04 679E-04Beryllium 124E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 118E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 989E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 290E-04 253E-04 263E-04 247E-04 237E-04 221E-04Butane 217E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 206E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 173E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Cadmium 113E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 108E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 906E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 450E-03 392E-03 407E-03 383E-03 367E-03 342E-03Chromium 144E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 137E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 115E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 103E-02 899E-03 932E-03 877E-03 840E-03 783E-03Chrysene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 144E-03 125E-03 130E-03 122E-03 117E-03 109E-03Cobalt 866E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 824E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 692E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Copper 876E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 834E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 700E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Dibenz(ah)anthracene 534E-05 517E-05 450E-05 419E-05 475E-05 470E-05 429E-05 409E-05 415E-05 417E-05 381E-05 352E-05 101E-03 880E-04 913E-04 858E-04 822E-04 766E-04Dichlorobenzene 124E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 118E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 989E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Ethane 320E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 304E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 255E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Ethylbenzene 300E-02 291E-02 253E-02 236E-02 267E-02 264E-02 241E-02 230E-02 233E-02 235E-02 214E-02 198E-02 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Fluoranthene 133E-04 129E-04 112E-04 105E-04 119E-04 117E-04 107E-04 102E-04 104E-04 104E-04 953E-05 879E-05 292E-03 255E-03 264E-03 249E-03 238E-03 222E-03Fluorene 125E-04 121E-04 105E-04 978E-05 111E-04 110E-04 100E-04 955E-05 969E-05 974E-05 889E-05 821E-05 270E-03 235E-03 244E-03 230E-03 220E-03 205E-03Formaldehyde 672E-01 645E-01 561E-01 523E-01 599E-01 586E-01 536E-01 511E-01 523E-01 521E-01 476E-01 439E-01 262E-01 229E-01 237E-01 223E-01 214E-01 199E-01Hexane 186E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 177E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 148E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 801E-05 775E-05 675E-05 628E-05 713E-05 704E-05 644E-05 614E-05 623E-05 626E-05 572E-05 527E-05 129E-03 113E-03 117E-03 110E-03 105E-03 982E-04Lead 516E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 491E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 412E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 131E-02 114E-02 119E-02 112E-02 107E-02 997E-03Manganese 392E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 373E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 313E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 740E-01 646E-01 670E-01 630E-01 603E-01 562E-01Mercury 268E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 255E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 214E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 112E-03 981E-04 102E-03 957E-04 917E-04 854E-04Molybdenum 113E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 108E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 906E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Naphthalene 128E-03 118E-03 103E-03 957E-04 114E-03 107E-03 981E-04 935E-04 997E-04 954E-04 871E-04 803E-04 328E-02 286E-02 297E-02 279E-02 267E-02 249E-02Nickel 217E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 206E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 173E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 431E-03 376E-03 390E-03 367E-03 351E-03 328E-03OCDD 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00PAH 206E-03 200E-03 174E-03 162E-03 183E-03 182E-03 166E-03 158E-03 160E-03 161E-03 147E-03 136E-03 375E-02 327E-02 339E-02 319E-02 306E-02 285E-02Pentane 268E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 255E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 214E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Phenanthrene 756E-04 732E-04 637E-04 594E-04 673E-04 665E-04 608E-04 580E-04 588E-04 591E-04 540E-04 498E-04 634E-03 553E-03 574E-03 540E-03 517E-03 482E-03POM 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Propane 165E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 157E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 132E-01 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Propylene 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Propylene Oxide 271E-02 263E-02 229E-02 214E-02 242E-02 239E-02 219E-02 209E-02 211E-02 213E-02 194E-02 179E-02 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Pyrene 222E-04 215E-04 187E-04 175E-04 198E-04 196E-04 179E-04 171E-04 173E-04 174E-04 159E-04 147E-04 257E-03 224E-03 232E-03 218E-03 209E-03 195E-03Selenium 247E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 235E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 198E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 234E-02 204E-02 212E-02 199E-02 191E-02 178E-02Sulfuric Acid 287E-02 250E-02 218E-02 203E-02 257E-02 227E-02 208E-02 198E-02 224E-02 202E-02 185E-02 170E-02 327E-02 286E-02 296E-02 279E-02 267E-02 249E-02Toluene 122E-01 118E-01 103E-01 957E-02 109E-01 107E-01 981E-02 935E-02 949E-02 954E-02 871E-02 803E-02 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Vanadium 237E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 226E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 190E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Vinyl Chloride 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 494E-02 431E-02 447E-02 420E-02 403E-02 375E-02Xylenes 599E-02 581E-02 506E-02 471E-02 533E-02 528E-02 483E-02 461E-02 466E-02 470E-02 429E-02 396E-02 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Zinc 299E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 285E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 239E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00

1-HourNatural Gas Ultra-Low Sulfur Distillate Fuel Oil

6 of 2

13-Butadiene 318E-06 301E-06 295E-06 283E-06 275E-06 273E-06 286E-06 294E-06 239E-06 241E-06 237E-06 238E-06 135E-06 128E-06 122E-06 125E-06 110E-06 105E-06111-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+002-Methylnapthalene 196E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 181E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 151E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+003-Methylchloranthrene 147E-09 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 136E-09 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 113E-09 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00712-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 131E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 121E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 101E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Acenaphthene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 114E-06 109E-06 103E-06 106E-06 932E-07 895E-07Acenaphthylene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 137E-08 131E-08 124E-08 127E-08 112E-08 107E-08Acetaldehyde 296E-04 280E-04 275E-04 263E-04 256E-04 254E-04 266E-04 274E-04 223E-04 224E-04 220E-04 221E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Acrolein 474E-05 449E-05 439E-05 421E-05 410E-05 406E-05 425E-05 438E-05 356E-05 359E-05 352E-05 354E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Ammonia 214E-02 182E-02 179E-02 171E-02 186E-02 165E-02 173E-02 178E-02 162E-02 146E-02 143E-02 144E-02 269E-04 257E-04 243E-04 250E-04 219E-04 211E-04Anthracene 845E-07 797E-07 781E-07 749E-07 730E-07 722E-07 756E-07 779E-07 635E-07 638E-07 626E-07 630E-07 662E-08 631E-08 598E-08 614E-08 539E-08 518E-08Arsenic 163E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 151E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 126E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 926E-07 882E-07 836E-07 859E-07 754E-07 724E-07Barium 359E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 332E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 277E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Benz(a)anthracene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 218E-07 207E-07 196E-07 202E-07 177E-07 170E-07Benzene 906E-05 841E-05 824E-05 790E-05 784E-05 761E-05 797E-05 821E-05 682E-05 673E-05 661E-05 664E-05 463E-06 441E-06 418E-06 430E-06 377E-06 362E-06Benzo(a)pyrene 422E-07 399E-07 391E-07 375E-07 365E-07 361E-07 378E-07 389E-07 318E-07 319E-07 313E-07 315E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Benzo(b)fluorathene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 803E-08 765E-08 725E-08 745E-08 654E-08 628E-08Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Benzo(ghi)perylene 422E-07 399E-07 391E-07 375E-07 365E-07 361E-07 378E-07 389E-07 318E-07 319E-07 313E-07 315E-07 123E-07 117E-07 111E-07 114E-07 998E-08 959E-08Benzo(k)fluoranthene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 803E-08 765E-08 725E-08 745E-08 654E-08 628E-08Beryllium 979E-09 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 905E-09 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 756E-09 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 261E-08 249E-08 236E-08 242E-08 212E-08 204E-08Butane 171E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 158E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 132E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Cadmium 897E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 829E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 693E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 404E-07 385E-07 365E-07 375E-07 329E-07 316E-07Chromium 114E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 106E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 882E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 926E-07 882E-07 836E-07 859E-07 754E-07 724E-07Chrysene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 129E-07 123E-07 117E-07 120E-07 105E-07 101E-07Cobalt 685E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 633E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 529E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Copper 693E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 641E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 536E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Dibenz(ah)anthracene 422E-07 399E-07 391E-07 375E-07 365E-07 361E-07 378E-07 389E-07 318E-07 319E-07 313E-07 315E-07 906E-08 863E-08 818E-08 841E-08 738E-08 708E-08Dichlorobenzene 979E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 905E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 756E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Ethane 253E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 234E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 195E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Ethylbenzene 237E-04 224E-04 220E-04 211E-04 205E-04 203E-04 213E-04 219E-04 178E-04 180E-04 176E-04 177E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Fluoranthene 106E-06 997E-07 977E-07 937E-07 913E-07 902E-07 945E-07 973E-07 794E-07 798E-07 783E-07 787E-07 263E-07 250E-07 237E-07 244E-07 214E-07 205E-07Fluorene 986E-07 930E-07 912E-07 874E-07 852E-07 842E-07 882E-07 908E-07 741E-07 745E-07 731E-07 735E-07 243E-07 231E-07 219E-07 225E-07 197E-07 190E-07Formaldehyde 532E-03 498E-03 487E-03 468E-03 460E-03 450E-03 472E-03 486E-03 400E-03 398E-03 391E-03 393E-03 236E-05 225E-05 213E-05 219E-05 192E-05 184E-05Hexane 147E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 136E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 113E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 634E-07 598E-07 586E-07 562E-07 548E-07 541E-07 567E-07 584E-07 476E-07 479E-07 470E-07 472E-07 116E-07 111E-07 105E-07 108E-07 945E-08 908E-08Lead 408E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 377E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 315E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 118E-06 112E-06 106E-06 109E-06 959E-07 921E-07Manganese 310E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 287E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 239E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 665E-05 634E-05 600E-05 617E-05 541E-05 520E-05Mercury 212E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 196E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 164E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 101E-07 962E-08 912E-08 937E-08 822E-08 790E-08Molybdenum 897E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 829E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 693E-07 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Naphthalene 101E-05 911E-06 893E-06 856E-06 878E-06 825E-06 863E-06 889E-06 762E-06 729E-06 716E-06 719E-06 295E-06 281E-06 266E-06 273E-06 240E-06 230E-06Nickel 171E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 158E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 132E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 387E-07 369E-07 350E-07 359E-07 315E-07 303E-07OCDD 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00PAH 163E-05 154E-05 151E-05 145E-05 141E-05 140E-05 146E-05 151E-05 123E-05 123E-05 121E-05 122E-05 337E-06 321E-06 304E-06 312E-06 274E-06 263E-06Pentane 212E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 196E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 164E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Phenanthrene 598E-06 565E-06 553E-06 531E-06 517E-06 511E-06 535E-06 551E-06 450E-06 452E-06 444E-06 446E-06 570E-07 543E-07 514E-07 529E-07 464E-07 445E-07POM 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Propane 131E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 121E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 101E-03 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Propylene 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Propylene Oxide 215E-04 203E-04 199E-04 191E-04 186E-04 184E-04 193E-04 198E-04 162E-04 163E-04 160E-04 160E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Pyrene 176E-06 166E-06 163E-06 156E-06 152E-06 150E-06 157E-06 162E-06 132E-06 133E-06 130E-06 131E-06 231E-07 220E-07 208E-07 214E-07 188E-07 180E-07Selenium 196E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 181E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 151E-08 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 210E-06 200E-06 190E-06 195E-06 171E-06 165E-06Sulfuric Acid 227E-04 193E-04 189E-04 181E-04 198E-04 175E-04 183E-04 189E-04 171E-04 155E-04 152E-04 153E-04 294E-06 280E-06 266E-06 273E-06 240E-06 230E-06Toluene 966E-04 911E-04 893E-04 856E-04 835E-04 825E-04 863E-04 889E-04 726E-04 729E-04 716E-04 719E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Vanadium 188E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 173E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 145E-06 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Vinyl Chloride 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 444E-06 423E-06 400E-06 412E-06 361E-06 347E-06Xylenes 474E-04 449E-04 439E-04 421E-04 410E-04 406E-04 425E-04 438E-04 356E-04 359E-04 352E-04 354E-04 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00Zinc 237E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 219E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 183E-05 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00 000E+00

NoteModeled annual concentrations for 8560 hours per year of natural gas firing and 100 hours of distillate fuel oil firing

Ultra-Low Sulfur Distillate Fuel OilNatural GasAnnual

7 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project - Two Co-located 250 ft Turbine Stacks (GEP) amp Two Co-located 213 ft Turbine Stacks (GEP)AERMOD Maximum Modeled FlagpoleReceptors Concentrations (ugm3)

9 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

Natural Gas Ultra-Low Sulfur Distillate Fuel OilAnnual

10 of 2

Appendix E ALOHA Aqueous Ammonia Accidental Release Output

Text Summary ALOHAreg 541

SITE DATA Location ASTORIA NEW YORK Building Air Exchanges Per Hour 048 (unsheltered single storied) Time March 3 2009 1133 hours EST (using computers clock)

CHEMICAL DATA Chemical Name AQUEOUS AMMONIA Solution Strength 19 (by weight) Ambient Boiling Point 1213deg F Partial Pressure at Ambient Temperature 050 atm Ambient Saturation Concentration 496376 ppm or 496 Hazardous Component AMMONIA Molecular Weight 1703 gmol ERPG-1 25 ppm ERPG-2 150 ppm ERPG-3 750 ppm IDLH 300 ppm LEL 160000 ppm UEL 250000 ppm

ATMOSPHERIC DATA (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) Wind 15 meterssecond from S at 3 meters Ground Roughness urban or forest Cloud Cover 5 tenths Air Temperature 93deg F Stability Class F (user override) No Inversion Height Relative Humidity 65

SOURCE STRENGTH Evaporating Puddle (Note chemical is flammable) Puddle Area 289 square feet Puddle Volume 10000 gallons Ground Type Concrete Ground Temperature 93deg F Initial Puddle Temperature Ground temperature Release Duration ALOHA limited the duration to 1 hour Max Average Sustained Release Rate 105 poundsmin (averaged over a minute or more) Total Amount Hazardous Component Released 562 pounds

THREAT ZONE Model Run Gaussian Orange 267 yards --- (150 ppm = ERPG-2)

THREAT AT POINT Concentration Estimates at the point Downwind 220 feet Off Centerline 0 feet Max Concentration Outdoor 1390 ppm Indoor 464 ppm

10 INTRODUCTION

20 EXISTING CONDITIONS

21 Surrounding Topography

22 Local Climate

23 Existing Background Ambient Air Quality


Sources New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2005 2006 and 2007 (NYSDEC 2005 2006a and 2007) and the US EPArsquos Technology Transfer Network ndash Air Quality System for 1-hour NO2 concentrations

30 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

31 Air Quality Assessment Methodology

32 Model Selection and Inputs

321 Dispersion Parameters

322 Source Exhaust Characteristics and Emission Rates

323 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height

324 Meteorological Data

325 Receptor Grid

3251 Ground-Level Grid

3252 Flagpole Receptors

33 Air Quality Assessment Results

331 Ground-Level Receptors


333 Turbine Start-up

334 Summary of Results


Case No

Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature (F)

Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature (K)

Exhaust Velocity (ms)


CO

SO2

PM-10

PM-25

NOx

1

-5

100+DB2

3654

2015

2

-5

100

3721

2043

3

-5

70

3663

1636

4

-5

60

3693

1535

5

546

100+DB

3766

2082

6

546

100

3788

2084

7

546

70

3675

1590

8

546

60

3645

1461

9

100

100+DB+EC3

3958

2055

10

100

100+EC

3948

2041

11

100

70

3846

1594

12

100

60

3805

1423

13

Fuel Oil

-5

100

3794

2085

14

Fuel Oil

-5

70

3729

1656

15

Fuel Oil

546

100

3879

2242

16

Fuel Oil

546

70

3742

1644

17

Fuel Oil

100

100+EC

4022

2164

18

Fuel Oil

100

70

3908

1665

1 Each set of co-located stacks will have a physical stack height of 250 ft (762 m) above grade The modeled GEP stack height of the Phase I co-located stacks is 250 ft while the modeled GEP stack height of the Phase II co-located stacks is 213 ft Each turbine stack will have an inner diameter of 18 ft (549 m) and an equivalent inner diameter of 255 ft (776 m) when the co-located stacks are operating simultaneously

2 DB ndash Duct Burning

3 EC ndash Evaporative Cooling


Building Description

Height (ft)


Distance from Phase I Co-Located Turbine Stacks1 (ft)

Distance from Phase II Co-Located Turbine Stacks2 (ft)

ldquo5Lrdquo Distance (ft)


Proposed Repowering Project

NYPA Combined Cycle Facility

1 Phase I co-located combustion turbine stacks consist of Units No 1 and 2

2 Phase II co-located combustion turbine stacks consist of Units No 3 and 4







40 NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANT ASSESSMENT

41 Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions

42 Non-Criteria Pollutant Impacts

50 FINE PARTICULATE NET BENEFIT ANALYSIS

51 Net Benefit Modeling Methodology

52 Net Benefit Modeling Results

53 Secondary PM-25 Formation

54 Practical PM-25 Mitigation Strategies and Control Technologies

60 CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

61 Modeling Methodology for Prior Cumulative Impact Studies

62 Modeling Results

63 Proposed Repowering Project Impacts

70 ACCIDENTAL AMMONIA RELEASE

71 Accidental Release Modeling

72 Accidental Release Modeling Results

80 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

81 Repowering Project Emissions

82 State National and Global Emissions

83 Significance of CO2 Emissions



90 1-HOUR NO2 NAAQS ANALYSIS

91 NO2 NAAQS Rule

92 Applicability to Repowering Project


94 Background 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations

95 Total 1-Hour NO2 Impacts

96 Summary

100 REFERENCES

05a - Appendix A - Air Quality - (((((NEEDS REVISION))))) (With New Correspondence)pdf

NRG Astoria DEIS AQ Section Updated 02-16-10pdf

Appendix Apdf

DEC_Protocol_Comments

Feb_26_08

laguard

Astoria gas turbine repower

March_13_08

Mail

Jan_14_09

Jan_21_09

Complete SPDES mod Berrians 3-5-09pdf

astoria figure 3-1 2007pdf

Slide Number 1


Slide Number 1

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1-1

20 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1

21 Surrounding Topography 2-1 22 Local Climate 2-1 23 Existing Background Ambient Air Quality 2-4

30 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3-1

31 Air Quality Assessment Methodology 3-1 32 Model Selection and Inputs 3-1 321 Dispersion Parameters 3-2 322 Source Exhaust Characteristics and Emission Rates 3-3 323 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height 3-5 324 Meteorological Data 3-6 325 Receptor Grid 3-8 3251 Ground-Level Grid 3-8 3252 Flagpole Receptors 3-9 33 Air Quality Assessment Results 3-10 331 Ground-Level Receptors 3-10 332 Flagpole Receptors 3-11 333 Turbine Start-up 3-12 334 Summary of Results 3-15

40 NON-CRITERIA POLLUTANT ASSESSMENT 4-1

41 Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions 4-1 42 Non-Criteria Pollutant Impacts 4-1

50 FINE PARTICULATE NET BENEFIT ANALYSIS 5-1

51 Net Benefit Modeling Methodology 5-1 52 Net Benefit Modeling Results 5-3 53 Secondary PM-25 Formation 5-4 54 Practical PM-25 Mitigation Strategies and Control Technologies 5-5

60 CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 6-1

61 Modeling Methodology for Prior Cumulative Impact Studies 6-1 62 Modeling Results 6-3 63 Proposed Repowering Project Impacts 6-3

70 ACCIDENTAL AMMONIA RELEASE 7-1

71 Accidental Release Modeling 7-1 72 Accidental Release Modeling Results 7-3

80 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 8-1

81 Repowering Project Emissions 8-1

Section Page

22 Local Climate

Pollutant Averaging

1-Hour 40000 40000 2530 2645 2645 CO 8-Hour 10000 10000 1725 1955 1610

24-Hour 365 365 110 89 94 SO2

Annual 80 80 29 24 21

24-Hour 150 -- --3 60 53 PM-10 Annual 50 -- --3 23 25

24-Hour 354 -- 368 366 339 PM-25 Annual 154 -- 137 125 127 IS52

1-Hour 1885 -- 1526 1356 1356 NO2 Annual 100 100 39 32 32 IS52

O3 8-Hour 1477 -- 151 141 149 IS52

WIND ROSE PLOT

PROJECT NO

WEST EAST

WIND SPEED (Knots)

gt= 22

17 - 22

11 - 17

7 - 11

Calms 279

CALM WINDS

DATA PERIOD

2000-2004 Jan 1 - Dec 310000 - 2300

AVG WIND SPEED

952 Knots

DISPLAY

HGEP = HB + 15L

325 Receptor Grid

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Located Turbine

Stacks1 (ft)

Tank 40 600 8788 3156 2000 1000

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 67 593470 4513704 99 2186 148 CO 8-Hour 500 17 593152 4516295 00 1124 49 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256 SO2

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height (m)

Distance from

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 61 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192 CO 8-Hour 500 16 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 SO2

Arsenic 424E-05 -- -- -- 428E-05 -- -- -- 384E-05 -- -- --

Barium 933E-04 -- -- -- 941E-04 -- -- -- 844E-04 -- -- --

Beryllium 254E-06 -- -- -- 257E-06 -- -- -- 230E-06 -- -- --

Butane 445E-01 -- -- -- 449E-01 -- -- -- 403E-01 -- -- --

Cadmium 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Chromium 297E-04 -- -- -- 299E-04 -- -- -- 269E-04 -- -- --

Cobalt 178E-05 -- -- -- 180E-05 -- -- -- 161E-05 -- -- --

Copper 180E-04 -- -- -- 182E-04 -- -- -- 163E-04 -- -- --

Ethane 657E-01 -- -- -- 663E-01 -- -- -- 595E-01 -- -- --

Hexane 382E-01 -- -- -- 385E-01 -- -- -- 345E-01 -- -- --

Lead 106E-04 -- -- -- 107E-04 -- -- -- 959E-05 -- -- --

Manganese 806E-05 -- -- -- 813E-05 -- -- -- 729E-05 -- -- --

Mercury 551E-05 -- -- -- 556E-05 -- -- -- 499E-05 -- -- --

Molybdenum 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Nickel 445E-04 -- -- -- 449E-04 -- -- -- 403E-04 -- -- --

OCDD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Pentane 551E-01 -- -- -- 556E-01 -- -- -- 499E-01 -- -- --

POM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Propane 339E-01 -- -- -- 342E-01 -- -- -- 307E-01 -- -- --

Selenium 509E-06 -- -- -- 513E-06 -- -- -- 460E-06 -- -- --

Vanadium 488E-04 -- -- -- 492E-04 -- -- -- 441E-04 -- -- --

Vinyl Chloride -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Source Stack

Height (m) Exhaust

Velocity (ms) Stack

Meteorological Year

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

Sincerely

cc L Sedefian

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasisik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

Sincerely

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

ATTACHMENTS

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

Attachment A

NO2NAAQSFRNoticepdf

Attachment B

David Alexander

Managing Principal

6281 Johnston Road

(518) 452-7000

Fax (518) 452-2674

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

17 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

18 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

19 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

20 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

21 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

22 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

23 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

24 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

25 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

26 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

27 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

28 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

29 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

30 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

31 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

32 of 32

Natural GaslbmmCF

(lbmmBtu) (lbmmBtu)

Pollutant

(lbmmscf)

5 of 1

6 of 2

7 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

9 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

10 of 2

10 INTRODUCTION


22 Local Climate











325 Receptor Grid









Case No

Fuel Type


Turbine Load




CO

SO2

PM-10

PM-25

NOx

1

-5

100+DB2

3654

2015

2

-5

100

3721

2043

3

-5

70

3663

1636

4

-5

60

3693

1535

5

546

100+DB

3766

2082

6

546

100

3788

2084

7

546

70

3675

1590

8

546

60

3645

1461

9

100

100+DB+EC3

3958

2055

10

100

100+EC

3948

2041

11

100

70

3846

1594

12

100

60

3805

1423

13

Fuel Oil

-5

100

3794

2085

14

Fuel Oil

-5

70

3729

1656

15

Fuel Oil

546

100

3879

2242

16

Fuel Oil

546

70

3742

1644

17

Fuel Oil

100

100+EC

4022

2164

18

Fuel Oil

100

70

3908

1665






Height (ft)


























62 Modeling Results












91 NO2 NAAQS Rule





96 Summary

100 REFERENCES



Appendix Apdf


Feb_26_08

laguard


March_13_08

Mail

Jan_14_09

Jan_21_09



Slide Number 1


Slide Number 1

Section Page

22 Local Climate

Pollutant Averaging

1-Hour 40000 40000 2530 2645 2645 CO 8-Hour 10000 10000 1725 1955 1610

24-Hour 365 365 110 89 94 SO2

Annual 80 80 29 24 21

24-Hour 150 -- --3 60 53 PM-10 Annual 50 -- --3 23 25

24-Hour 354 -- 368 366 339 PM-25 Annual 154 -- 137 125 127 IS52

1-Hour 1885 -- 1526 1356 1356 NO2 Annual 100 100 39 32 32 IS52

O3 8-Hour 1477 -- 151 141 149 IS52

WIND ROSE PLOT

PROJECT NO

WEST EAST

WIND SPEED (Knots)

gt= 22

17 - 22

11 - 17

7 - 11

Calms 279

CALM WINDS

DATA PERIOD

2000-2004 Jan 1 - Dec 310000 - 2300

AVG WIND SPEED

952 Knots

DISPLAY

HGEP = HB + 15L

325 Receptor Grid

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Located Turbine

Stacks1 (ft)

Tank 40 600 8788 3156 2000 1000

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 67 593470 4513704 99 2186 148 CO 8-Hour 500 17 593152 4516295 00 1124 49 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256 SO2

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height (m)

Distance from

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 61 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192 CO 8-Hour 500 16 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 SO2

Arsenic 424E-05 -- -- -- 428E-05 -- -- -- 384E-05 -- -- --

Barium 933E-04 -- -- -- 941E-04 -- -- -- 844E-04 -- -- --

Beryllium 254E-06 -- -- -- 257E-06 -- -- -- 230E-06 -- -- --

Butane 445E-01 -- -- -- 449E-01 -- -- -- 403E-01 -- -- --

Cadmium 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Chromium 297E-04 -- -- -- 299E-04 -- -- -- 269E-04 -- -- --

Cobalt 178E-05 -- -- -- 180E-05 -- -- -- 161E-05 -- -- --

Copper 180E-04 -- -- -- 182E-04 -- -- -- 163E-04 -- -- --

Ethane 657E-01 -- -- -- 663E-01 -- -- -- 595E-01 -- -- --

Hexane 382E-01 -- -- -- 385E-01 -- -- -- 345E-01 -- -- --

Lead 106E-04 -- -- -- 107E-04 -- -- -- 959E-05 -- -- --

Manganese 806E-05 -- -- -- 813E-05 -- -- -- 729E-05 -- -- --

Mercury 551E-05 -- -- -- 556E-05 -- -- -- 499E-05 -- -- --

Molybdenum 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Nickel 445E-04 -- -- -- 449E-04 -- -- -- 403E-04 -- -- --

OCDD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Pentane 551E-01 -- -- -- 556E-01 -- -- -- 499E-01 -- -- --

POM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Propane 339E-01 -- -- -- 342E-01 -- -- -- 307E-01 -- -- --

Selenium 509E-06 -- -- -- 513E-06 -- -- -- 460E-06 -- -- --

Vanadium 488E-04 -- -- -- 492E-04 -- -- -- 441E-04 -- -- --

Vinyl Chloride -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Source Stack

Height (m) Exhaust

Velocity (ms) Stack

Meteorological Year

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

Sincerely

cc L Sedefian

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasisik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

Sincerely

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

ATTACHMENTS

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

Attachment A

NO2NAAQSFRNoticepdf

Attachment B

David Alexander

Managing Principal

6281 Johnston Road

(518) 452-7000

Fax (518) 452-2674

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

17 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

18 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

19 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

20 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

21 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

22 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

23 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

24 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

25 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

26 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

27 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

28 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

29 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

30 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

31 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

32 of 32

Natural GaslbmmCF

(lbmmBtu) (lbmmBtu)

Pollutant

(lbmmscf)

5 of 1

6 of 2

7 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

9 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

10 of 2

10 INTRODUCTION


22 Local Climate











325 Receptor Grid









Case No

Fuel Type


Turbine Load




CO

SO2

PM-10

PM-25

NOx

1

-5

100+DB2

3654

2015

2

-5

100

3721

2043

3

-5

70

3663

1636

4

-5

60

3693

1535

5

546

100+DB

3766

2082

6

546

100

3788

2084

7

546

70

3675

1590

8

546

60

3645

1461

9

100

100+DB+EC3

3958

2055

10

100

100+EC

3948

2041

11

100

70

3846

1594

12

100

60

3805

1423

13

Fuel Oil

-5

100

3794

2085

14

Fuel Oil

-5

70

3729

1656

15

Fuel Oil

546

100

3879

2242

16

Fuel Oil

546

70

3742

1644

17

Fuel Oil

100

100+EC

4022

2164

18

Fuel Oil

100

70

3908

1665






Height (ft)


























62 Modeling Results












91 NO2 NAAQS Rule





96 Summary

100 REFERENCES



Appendix Apdf


Feb_26_08

laguard


March_13_08

Mail

Jan_14_09

Jan_21_09



Slide Number 1


Slide Number 1

22 Local Climate

Pollutant Averaging

1-Hour 40000 40000 2530 2645 2645 CO 8-Hour 10000 10000 1725 1955 1610

24-Hour 365 365 110 89 94 SO2

Annual 80 80 29 24 21

24-Hour 150 -- --3 60 53 PM-10 Annual 50 -- --3 23 25

24-Hour 354 -- 368 366 339 PM-25 Annual 154 -- 137 125 127 IS52

1-Hour 1885 -- 1526 1356 1356 NO2 Annual 100 100 39 32 32 IS52

O3 8-Hour 1477 -- 151 141 149 IS52

WIND ROSE PLOT

PROJECT NO

WEST EAST

WIND SPEED (Knots)

gt= 22

17 - 22

11 - 17

7 - 11

Calms 279

CALM WINDS

DATA PERIOD

2000-2004 Jan 1 - Dec 310000 - 2300

AVG WIND SPEED

952 Knots

DISPLAY

HGEP = HB + 15L

325 Receptor Grid

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Located Turbine

Stacks1 (ft)

Tank 40 600 8788 3156 2000 1000

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 67 593470 4513704 99 2186 148 CO 8-Hour 500 17 593152 4516295 00 1124 49 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256 SO2

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height (m)

Distance from

Direction from

1-Hour 2000 61 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192 CO 8-Hour 500 16 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250 SO2

Arsenic 424E-05 -- -- -- 428E-05 -- -- -- 384E-05 -- -- --

Barium 933E-04 -- -- -- 941E-04 -- -- -- 844E-04 -- -- --

Beryllium 254E-06 -- -- -- 257E-06 -- -- -- 230E-06 -- -- --

Butane 445E-01 -- -- -- 449E-01 -- -- -- 403E-01 -- -- --

Cadmium 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Chromium 297E-04 -- -- -- 299E-04 -- -- -- 269E-04 -- -- --

Cobalt 178E-05 -- -- -- 180E-05 -- -- -- 161E-05 -- -- --

Copper 180E-04 -- -- -- 182E-04 -- -- -- 163E-04 -- -- --

Ethane 657E-01 -- -- -- 663E-01 -- -- -- 595E-01 -- -- --

Hexane 382E-01 -- -- -- 385E-01 -- -- -- 345E-01 -- -- --

Lead 106E-04 -- -- -- 107E-04 -- -- -- 959E-05 -- -- --

Manganese 806E-05 -- -- -- 813E-05 -- -- -- 729E-05 -- -- --

Mercury 551E-05 -- -- -- 556E-05 -- -- -- 499E-05 -- -- --

Molybdenum 233E-04 -- -- -- 235E-04 -- -- -- 211E-04 -- -- --

Nickel 445E-04 -- -- -- 449E-04 -- -- -- 403E-04 -- -- --

OCDD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Pentane 551E-01 -- -- -- 556E-01 -- -- -- 499E-01 -- -- --

POM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Propane 339E-01 -- -- -- 342E-01 -- -- -- 307E-01 -- -- --

Selenium 509E-06 -- -- -- 513E-06 -- -- -- 460E-06 -- -- --

Vanadium 488E-04 -- -- -- 492E-04 -- -- -- 441E-04 -- -- --

Vinyl Chloride -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Source Stack

Height (m) Exhaust

Velocity (ms) Stack

Meteorological Year

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

Sincerely

cc L Sedefian

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasisik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

Sincerely

Phone (518) 402-8403 bull FAX (518) 402-9035

Website wwwdecnygov

Mr Jay Snyder

Lyndhurst NJ 07071

Dear Mr Snyder

Sincerely

Philip J Galvin

ccL Sedefian

M Jennings

S Tomasik DEP

S Lieblich Region 2

D Alexander ARG

ATTACHMENTS

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Case No Fuel Type

Ambient Temperature

(F) Turbine Load

Exhaust Temperature

Exhaust Velocity

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

from Proposed

Project (m)

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

CO 1-Hour 2000 312 593570 4513504 124 2409 148

8-Hour 500 75 593216 4516372 00 1224 48

SO2 3-Hour 25 06 593371 4512433 86 3298 161

24-Hour 5 01 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 37x10-3 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-10 24-Hour 5 25 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 1 24x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

PM-25 24-Hour 5 15 590771 4515157 48 1586 256

Annual3 03 23x10-2 (2) 590613 4514452 68 2020 237

Pollutant Averaging

Period

(ugm3)

Maximum Modeled

Proposed Project

Direction from

UTM East (m)

UTM North (m)

Elevation (m)

Flagpole Height

(m) CO 1-Hour 2000 269 590400 4506890 30 2730 8871 192

8-Hour 500 73 589869 4517071 41 1506 2871 302

SO2 3-Hour 25 05 590820 4513270 121 183 2725 213

24-Hour 5 02 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 50x10-3 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-10 24-Hour 5 33 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 1 35x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

PM-25 24-Hour 5 20 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

Annual3 03 33x10-2 (2) 588809 4514286 114 1585 3720 250

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

17 of 32

18 of 32

19 of 32

20 of 32

21 of 32

22 of 32

23 of 32

24 of 32

25 of 32

26 of 32

27 of 32

28 of 32

29 of 32

30 of 32

31 of 32

32 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

2000 452 436 2001 430 439 2002 627 512 2003 498 504 2004 430 605

Average 487 499

Attachment A

NO2NAAQSFRNoticepdf

Attachment B

David Alexander

Managing Principal

6281 Johnston Road

(518) 452-7000

Fax (518) 452-2674

1 of 32

2 of 32

3 of 32

4 of 32

5 of 32

6 of 32

7 of 32

8 of 32

9 of 32

10 of 32

11 of 32

12 of 32

13 of 32

14 of 32

15 of 32

16 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

17 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

18 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

19 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

20 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

21 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

22 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

23 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

24 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

25 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

26 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

27 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

28 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

29 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

30 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

31 of 32

Flagpole Receptors

32 of 32

Natural GaslbmmCF

(lbmmBtu) (lbmmBtu)

Pollutant

(lbmmscf)

5 of 1

6 of 2

7 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

9 of 2

Flagpole Receptors

10 of 2

10 INTRODUCTION


22 Local Climate











325 Receptor Grid









Case No

Fuel Type


Turbine Load




CO

SO2

PM-10

PM-25

NOx

1

-5

100+DB2

3654

2015

2

-5

100

3721

2043

3

-5

70

3663

1636

4

-5

60

3693

1535

5

546

100+DB

3766

2082

6

546

100

3788

2084

7

546

70

3675

1590

8

546

60

3645

1461

9

100

100+DB+EC3

3958

2055

10

100

100+EC

3948

2041

11

100

70

3846

1594

12

100

60

3805

1423

13

Fuel Oil

-5

100

3794

2085

14

Fuel Oil

-5

70

3729

1656

15

Fuel Oil

546

100

3879

2242

16

Fuel Oil

546

70

3742

1644

17

Fuel Oil

100

100+EC

4022

2164

18

Fuel Oil

100

70

3908

1665






Height (ft)


























62 Modeling Results












91 NO2 NAAQS Rule





96 Summary

100 REFERENCES



Appendix Apdf


Feb_26_08

laguard


March_13_08

Mail

Jan_14_09

Jan_21_09



Slide Number 1


Slide Number 1

Documents

NRG ENERGY, INC. ASTORIA GAS TURBINE POWER LLC