SO2 NOx PM Fine PM Coarse SO2 NOx PM

98th Percentile 

Impact (dv)3

98th Percentile 

Improvement (dv)

Class I 

Area

Meterological 

Year

Modeling preformed by Minnkota1,4

Precontrol 7231.2 2855.2 5.5 36.7 No control No control Existing ESP 3.770 NA TRNP-SU 2002

Run 1 7231.2 1070.7 5.5 36.7 No control ASOFA+SNCR Existing ESP 2.766 1.004 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 2A 723.1 2855.2 5.5 36.7 FGD at 90% No control Existing ESP 1.768 2.002 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 2B 361.6 2855.2 5.5 36.7 FGD at 95% No control Existing ESP 1.694 2.076 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 3A 7231.2 2855.2 5.8 38.5 No control No control CD Rate w/ dry FGD 3.552 0.218 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 3B 7231.2 2855.2 11.6 77.1 No control No control CD Rate w/ wet FGD 3.568 0.202 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 4 723.1 1070.7 11.6 77.1 FGD at 90% ASOFA+SNCR CD Rate w/ wet FGD 0.847 2.923 TRNP-SU 2002

Modeling preformed by ND Dept. of Health2,5

ND Run 1 361.6 288.5 11.6 77.1 FGD at 95% ASOFA+SCR CD Rate w/ wet FGD 0.294 3.476 TRNP-SU 2002

1

See Appendix C.4 of SIP

2

See Appendix B.4 of SIP

4

The precontrol NOx emission rate reflects actual operation from the highest emitting day of the years 2000-2002 (meteorological period modeled per the NDDH BART protocol) and a heat 

input rate of 3180 MMBtu/hr. By contrast, the control scenario NOx emission rates assume operation at a more representative heat input rate of 2955 MMBtu/hr. For SO2, the assumed 

percent reduction from the given control technology was appliled to the precontrol emission rate.

5

For NOx, NDDH applied the assumed percent reduction for the given control scenario to the precontrol emission rate.

Scenario

3

Visibility impacts are influenced by new, taller stack for all control scenario runs.

Milton R. Young Unit 1 CALPUFF Modeling

Emission Rate (lbs/hr) Control Option

9/20/2011
SO2 NOx PM Fine PM Coarse SO2 NOx PM

98th Percentile 

Impact (dv)

98th Percentile 

Improvement (dv)

Class I 

Area

Meterological 

Year

Modeling preformed by Minnkota1,3

Precontrol 6879.0 5364.2 28.1 178.7 Existing Wet Scrubber No control Existing ESP/Wet Scrubber 4.503 NA TRNP-SU 2002

Run 1 6879.0 2011.6 28.1 178.7 Existing Wet Scrubber ASOFA+SNCR Existing ESP/Wet Scrubber 3.008 1.495 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 2A 1574.4 5364.2 28.1 178.7 FGD at 90% No control Existing ESP/Wet Scrubber 3.08 1.423 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 2B 773.7 5364.2 28.1 178.7 FGD at 95% No control Existing ESP/Wet Scrubber 2.876 1.627 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 3 6879.0 5364.2 21.0 133.7 Existing Wet Scrubber No control CD Rate 4.338 0.165 TRNP-SU 2002

Run 4 1574.4 2011.6 21.0 133.7 FGD at 90% ASOFA+SNCR CD Rate 1.612 2.891 TRNP-SU 2002

Modeling preformed by ND Dept. of Health2,4

ND Run 1 773.7 2011.6 21.0 133.7 FGD at 95% ASOFA+SNCR CD Rate 1.124 3.379 TRNP-SU 2002

ND Run 2 773.7 536.4 21.0 133.7 FGD at 95% ASOFA+SCR CD Rate 0.558 3.945 TRNP-SU 2002

1

See Appendix C.4 of SIP

2

See Appendix B.4 of SIP

3

The precontrol NOx emission rate reflects actual operation from the highest emitting day of the years 2000-2002 (meteorological period modeled per the NDDH BART protocol) and a heat input rate of 5991 

MMBtu/hr. By contrast, the control scenario NOx emission rates assume operation at a more representative heat input rate of 5158 MMBtu/hr. For SO2, the assumed percent reduction from the given control 

technology was appliled to the precontrol emission rate.

4

For NOx, NDDH applied the assumed percent reduction for the given control scenario to the precontrol emission rate.

Control Option

Milton R. Young Unit 2 CALPUFF Modeling

Scenario

Emission Rate (lbs/hr)

7/14/2011