DAQ-2024-011940

DAQE-AN161540001-24

{{$d1 }}

Teisha Black
XCL AssetCo, LLC
600 North Shepherd Drive, Suite 390
Houston, TX 77007
[e-mail]

Dear Ms. Black:

Re: Approval Order: New Patry Natural Gas Booster Station
Project Number: N161540001

The attached Approval Order (AO) is issued pursuant to the Notice of Intent (NOI) received on June 8,
2023. XCL AssetCo, LLC must comply with the requirements of this AO, all applicable state
requirements (R307), and Federal Standards.

The project engineer for this action is Mr. Tim DeJulis, who can be contacted at [phone] or
[e-mail]. Future correspondence on this AO should include the engineer's name as well as the
DAQE number shown on the upper right-hand corner of this letter. No public comments were received on
this action.

Sincerely,

{{$s }}

Bryce C. Bird
Director

BCB:TD:jg

cc: TriCounty Health Department

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

SPENCER J. COX
Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
Bryce C. Bird
Director

December 4, 2024

STATE OF UTAH
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Air Quality

{{#s=Sig_es_:signer1:signature}}
{{#d1=date1_es_:signer1:date:format(date, "mmmm d, yyyy")}}
{{#d2=date1_es_:signer1:date:format(date, "mmmm d, yyyy"):align(center)}}

APPROVAL ORDER
DAQE-AN161540001-24
New Patry Natural Gas Booster Station

Prepared By
Mr. Tim DeJulis, Engineer
[phone]
[e-mail]

Issued to
XCL AssetCo, LLC - Patry Gas Booster Station

Issued On
{{$d2 }}

Issued By

{{$s }}

Bryce C. Bird
Director
Division of Air Quality

December 4, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE/SIGNATURE PAGE ....................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 3
CONTACT/LOCATION INFORMATION ............................................................................... 3
SOURCE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 3
General Description ................................................................................................................ 3
NSR Classification .................................................................................................................. 3
Source Classification .............................................................................................................. 3
Applicable Federal Standards ................................................................................................. 3
Project Description.................................................................................................................. 4
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS .................................................................................................... 4
SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................... 5
SECTION II: PERMITTED EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 5
SECTION II: SPECIAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................................... 6
PERMIT HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 10
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... 11

DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 3

GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTACT/LOCATION INFORMATION

Owner Name Source Name
XCL AssetCo, LLC XCL AssetCo, LLC - Patry Gas Booster Station

Mailing Address Physical Address
600 North Shepherd Drive, Suite 390 SE Section 31, T12S-R2W
Houston, TX 77007 Duchesne County, UT

Source Contact UTM Coordinates
Name: Teisha Black 572,744 m Easting
Phone: [phone],457,487 m Northing
Email: [e-mail] Datum NAD83
UTM Zone 12
SIC code 1311 (Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas)

SOURCE INFORMATION
General Description
XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL) owns and operates a natural gas booster station in Duchesne County. The
facility compresses natural gas pumped from several nearby well sites. The natural gas is initially routed
to an inlet scrubber for water removal before being sent to the compressor station. The facility will be
comprised of three (3) natural gas compressor engines, liquid condensate storage tanks, and an enclosed
flare for combustion of storage tank vapors.

NSR Classification
New Minor Source

Source Classification
Located in Uinta Basin O3 NAA
Duchesne County
Airs Source Size: B

Applicable Federal Standards
NSPS (Part 60), A: General Provisions
NSPS (Part 60), JJJJ: Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines
NSPS (Part 60), OOOOb: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities
for which Construction, Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After November 15, 2021
MACT (Part 63), A: General Provisions
MACT (Part 63), HH: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Oil and
DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 4

Natural Gas Production Facilities
MACT (Part 63), ZZZZ: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Project Description
XCL has requested a new AO for the natural gas booster station to be located near Roosevelt, Duchesne
County. The facility will employ three (3) 1,380-hp natural gas-fueled compressor engines, one (1)
natural gas-fueled scrubbing device, two (2) storage tanks, and a flare device.

The natural gas is gathered from several nearby well sites and routed to an inlet scrubber to remove water.
The gas is then sent to three (3) natural gas-fueled compression engines. Any liquid condensate from
compression will be routed to the storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion.

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS

The emissions listed below are an estimate of the total potential emissions from the source. Some
rounding of emissions is possible.

Criteria Pollutant Change (TPY) Total (TPY)
CO2 Equivalent 20314.00
Carbon Monoxide 56.38
Nitrogen Oxides 23.38
Particulate Matter - PM10 1.42
Particulate Matter - PM2.5 1.42
Sulfur Dioxide 0.09
Volatile Organic Compounds 16.95

Hazardous Air Pollutant Change (lbs/yr) Total (lbs/yr)
Acetaldehyde (CAS #75070) 2400
Acrolein (CAS #107028) 1476
Benzene (Including Benzene From Gasoline) (CAS #71432) 126
Formaldehyde (CAS #50000) 15160
Generic HAPs (CAS #GHAPS) 320
Hexane (CAS #110543) 320
Methanol (CAS #67561) 718
Naphthalene (CAS #91203) 21
Xylenes (Isomers And Mixture) (CAS #1330207) 53
Change (TPY) Total (TPY)
Total HAPs 10.30

DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 5

SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

I.1 All definitions, terms, abbreviations, and references used in this AO conform to those used in the UAC R307 and 40 CFR. Unless noted otherwise, references cited in these AO conditions refer to those rules. [R307-101] I.2 The limits set forth in this AO shall not be exceeded without prior approval. [R307-401]
I.3 Modifications to the equipment or processes approved by this AO that could affect the emissions covered by this AO must be reviewed and approved. [R307-401-1] I.4 All records referenced in this AO or in other applicable rules, which are required to be kept by the owner/operator, shall be made available to the Director or Director's representative upon request, and the records shall include the two-year period prior to the date of the request. Unless otherwise specified in this AO or in other applicable state and federal rules, records shall be kept for a minimum of two (2) years. [R307-401-8]
I.5 At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners and operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any equipment approved under this AO, including associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Director which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source. All maintenance performed on equipment authorized by this AO shall be recorded. [R307-401-4] I.6 The owner/operator shall comply with UAC R307-107. General Requirements: Breakdowns. [R307-107]
I.7 The owner/operator shall comply with UAC R307-150 Series. Emission Inventories. [R307-150] I.8 The owner/operator shall submit documentation of the status of construction or modification to the Director within 18 months from the date of this AO. This AO may become invalid if construction is not commenced within 18 months from the date of this AO or if construction is discontinued for 18 months or more. To ensure proper credit when notifying the Director, send the documentation to the Director, attn.: NSR Section. [R307-401-18]

SECTION II: PERMITTED EQUIPMENT
II.A THE APPROVED EQUIPMENT
II.A.1 Patry Gas Booster Station
II.A.2 Scrubber One (1) Water/Gas Scrubber Device
II.A.3 Storage Tanks Two (2) Storage Tanks (TK-301, TK-302)
Capacity: 21,000 gallons each
Contents: Condensate/Water
DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 6

II.A.4 Compressor Engines Three (3) Compressor Engines Rating: 1,380 hp each Fuel: Natural Gas Manufacture date: 2024 NSPS Subpart JJJJ MACT Subpart ZZZZ
II.A.5 Flare One (1) Flare Device Capacity: 2.5 MMBtu/hr

SECTION II: SPECIAL PROVISIONS II.B REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

II.B.1 Site-Wide Requirements
II.B.1.a The owner/operator shall not allow visible emissions from any stationary point or fugitive emission source to exceed 10% opacity. [R307-401-8]

II.B.1.a.1 Opacity observations of emissions from stationary sources shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9. [R307-401-8]
II.B.1.b All emissions from the storage tanks, oil/condensate truck loading operations, and the pipeline
pigging unit shall be routed through the flare device before being vented to the atmosphere. [R307-401-8]

II.B.1.c All emissions from the compressor blowdown/startup process and the combustion of produced gas during compressor downtime, routine maintenance, and midstream facility downtime shall be routed through the flare device before being vented to the atmosphere. [R307-401-8]
II.B.2 Compressor Engine Requirements II.B.2.a The owner/operator shall only use natural gas as fuel in each of the compressor engines. [R307-401-8]
II.B.2.b The owner/operator shall not emit more than the following rates and concentrations from each 1,380 hp engine:

Pollutant (lb/hr) NOx 1.52
CO 6.09
VOC 1.31 Formaldehyde 2.52
[R307-401-8]
II.B.2.b.1 Compliance Demonstration To demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations above, the owner/operator shall perform stack testing on the emissions unit according to the stack testing conditions contained in this AO. [R307-165-2, R307-401-8]
II.B.2.b.2 Initial Test The owner/operator shall conduct an initial stack test on the emission unit within 180 days after
startup of the emission unit. [R307-165-2]
DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 7

II.B.2.b.3 Test Frequency To demonstrate compliance with the NOx, CO, and VOC limits, the owner/operator shall conduct a stack test on each emission unit every 8,760 hours of operation or every three (3) years, whichever comes first, after the date of the most recent stack test of the emission unit. The Director may require the owner/operator to perform a stack test at any time. [40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ, R307-165-2, R307-401-8] II.B.3 Stack Testing Requirements
II.B.3.a The owner/operator shall conduct any stack testing required by this AO according to the following conditions. [R307-401-8] II.B.3.a.1 Notification
At least 30 days prior to conducting a stack test, the owner/operator shall submit a source test protocol to the Director. The source test protocol shall include the items contained in R307-165-3. If directed by the Director, the owner/operator shall attend a pretest conference.
[R307-165-3, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.2 Testing & Test Conditions The owner/operator shall conduct testing according to the approved source test protocol and according to the test conditions contained in R307-165-4. [R307-165-4, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.3 Access
The owner/operator shall provide Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)- or Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-approved access to the test location.
[R307-401-8]

II.B.3.a.4 Reporting No later than 60 days after completing a stack test, the owner/operator shall submit a written report of the results from the stack testing to the Director. The report shall include validated results and supporting information. [R307-165-5, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.5 Possible Rejection of Test Results
The Director may reject stack testing results if the test did not follow the approved source test protocol or for a reason specified in R307-165-6. [R307-165-6, R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b Test Methods When performing stack testing, the owner/operator shall use the appropriate EPA-approved test methods as acceptable to the Director. Acceptable test methods for pollutants are listed below. [R307-401-8] II.B.3.b.1 Standard Conditions

A. Temperature - 68 degrees Fahrenheit (293 K)
B. Pressure - 29.92 in Hg (101.3 kPa)

C. Averaging Time - As specified in the applicable test method.

[40 CFR 60 Subpart A, 40 CFR 63 Subpart A, R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b.2 NOx 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 7; Method 7E; or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]
II.B.3.b.3 VOC
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 18; Method 25; Method 25A; 40 CFR 63, Appendix A,
Method 320; or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]

DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 8

II.B.3.b.4 CO 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 10, or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8] II.B.3.b.5 Formaldehyde
40 CFR 63, Appendix A, Method 323, or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]
II.B.4 Storage Tank Requirements
II.B.4.a The owner/operator shall not produce more than 52,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) total of natural gas condensate and produced water per rolling 12-month period. [R307-401-8]
II.B.4.a.1 The owner/operator shall: A. Determine natural gas condensate and produced water production with process flow meters and/or sales records B. Record natural gas condensate and produced water production on a daily basis C. Use the monthly production data reported to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to calculate a new 12-month total by the 20th day of each month using data from the previous 12 months D. Keep the production records for all periods the plant is in operation. [R307-401-8]
II.B.4.b The owner/operator shall keep the storage tank thief hatches and other tank openings closed and sealed except during tank unloading or other maintenance activities. [R307-401-8]

II.B.4.c At least once each month, the owner/operator shall inspect each closed vent system (including tank openings, thief hatches, and bypass devices) for defects that could result in air emissions according to 40 CFR 60.5416a(c). Records of inspections shall include the date of the inspection and the results of the inspection. [40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOa, R307-401-8] II.B.4.d The owner/operator shall comply with all applicable requirements of R307-506. Oil and Gas
Industry: Storage Vessels. [R307-401-8]

II.B.5 Truck Loading Requirements II.B.5.a The owner/operator shall load the tanker trucks on site by the use of bottom filling or a
submerged fill pipe. [R307-401-8, R307-504]

II.B.5.b The owner/operator shall comply with all applicable requirements of R307-504. Oil and Gas Industry: Tank Truck Loading. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6 Flare Device Requirements
II.B.6.a The owner/operator shall use natural gas or plant gas as fuel for the pilot light in the flare device. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6.b The flare device shall operate with a continuous pilot flame and be equipped with an auto-igniter.
[R307-401-8]

II.B.6.b.1 The owner or operator shall maintain records demonstrating the date of installation and manufacturer specifications for the auto-igniter required under R307-503-4. [R307-503-4]
DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 9

II.B.6.c The owner/operator shall install a flare device that are each certified to meet a VOC control efficiency of no less than 98%. [R307-401-8] II.B.6.c.1 To demonstrate compliance with the above condition, the owner/operator shall maintain records of the manufacturer's emissions guarantee for the installed flare device. [R307-401-8]

II.B.7 Monitoring Requirements of Fugitive Emissions (Leak Detection and Repair) II.B.7.a The owner/operator shall develop a fugitive emissions monitoring plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
A. Monitoring frequency
B. Monitoring technique and equipment C. Procedures and timeframes for identifying and repairing leaks
D. Recordkeeping practices

E. Calibration and maintenance procedures.
[R307-401-8]

II.B.7.a.1 The plan shall address monitoring for "difficult-to-monitor" and "unsafe-to-monitor" components. [R307-401-8]
II.B.7.b The owner/operator shall conduct monitoring surveys on site to observe each "fugitive emissions component" for "fugitive emissions."

A. "Fugitive emissions component" means any component that has the potential to emit fugitive emissions of VOCs, including but not limited to valves, connectors, pressure
relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges, covers, and closed vent systems, thief
hatches or other openings, compressors, instruments, and meters
B. "Fugitive emissions" are considered any visible emissions observed using optical gas
imaging or a Method 21 instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater.
[R307-401-8]

II.B.7.b.1 Monitoring surveys shall be conducted according to the following schedule: A. No later than 60 days after startup of production, as defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a B. Semiannually after the initial monitoring survey. Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys shall be conducted at least four (4) months apart C. Annually after the initial monitoring survey for "difficult-to-monitor" components D. As required by the owner/operator's monitoring plan for "unsafe-to-monitor" components. [R307-401-8]
DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 10

II.B.7.b.2 Monitoring surveys shall be conducted using one or both of the following to detect fugitive emissions: A. Optical gas imaging (OGI) equipment. OGI equipment shall be capable of imaging gases in the spectral range for the compound of highest concentration in the potential fugitive emissions B. Monitoring equipment that meets U.S. EPA Method 21, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. [R307-401-8]
II.B.7.c If fugitive emissions are detected at any time, the owner/operator shall repair the fugitive emissions component as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days after detection.
If the repair or replacement is technically infeasible, would require a vent blowdown, a well shutdown, or a well shut-in, or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the repair
or replacement must be completed during the next well shutdown or well shut-in after an
unscheduled, planned, or emergency vent blowdown or within 24 months, whichever is earlier. [R307-401-8]

II.B.7.c.1 The owner/operator shall resurvey the repaired or replaced fugitive emissions component no later than 30 calendar days after the fugitive emissions component was repaired. [R307-401-8]
II.B.7.d The owner/operator shall maintain records of the fugitive emissions monitoring plan, monitoring
surveys, repairs, and resurveys. [R307-401-8]

PERMIT HISTORY

This Approval Order shall supersede (if a modification) or will be based on the following documents:
Is Derived From NOI dated June 8, 2023 Incorporates Additional information dated August 14, 2023 Incorporates DAQE-MN161540001-24 dated September 13, 2023 Incorporates Additional information dated February 7, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated April 10, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated June 19, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated June 21, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated July 18, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated August 19, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated August 24, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated September 23, 2024
DAQE-AN161540001-24
Page 11

ACRONYMS

The following lists commonly used acronyms and associated translations as they apply to this document:

40 CFR Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
AO Approval Order
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CDS Classification Data System (used by Environmental Protection Agency to classify
sources by size/type)
CEM Continuous emissions monitor
CEMS Continuous emissions monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS Continuous monitoring system
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent - Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98,
Subpart A, Table A-1
COM Continuous opacity monitor
DAQ/UDAQ Division of Air Quality
DAQE This is a document tracking code for internal Division of Air Quality use
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDCP Fugitive dust control plan
GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) - Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 52.21 (b)(49)(i)
GWP Global Warming Potential - Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 86.1818-
12(a)
HAP or HAPs Hazardous air pollutant(s)
ITA Intent to Approve
LB/YR Pounds per year MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MMBTU Million British Thermal Units NAA Nonattainment Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review
PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTE Potential to Emit
R307 Rules Series 307
R307-401 Rules Series 307 - Section 401
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
Title IV Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Title V Title V of the Clean Air Act
TPY Tons per year
UAC Utah Administrative Code
VOC Volatile organic compounds

DAQE-IN161540001-24

October 24, 2024

Teisha Black
XCL AssetCo, LLC
600 North Shepherd Drive, Suite 390
Houston, TX 77007
[e-mail]

Dear Ms. Black:

Re: Intent to Approve: New Patry Natural Gas Booster Station
Project Number: N161540001

The attached document is the Intent to Approve (ITA) for the above-referenced project. The ITA is
subject to public review. Any comments received shall be considered before an Approval Order (AO) is
issued. The Division of Air Quality is authorized to charge a fee for reimbursement of the actual costs
incurred in the issuance of an AO. An invoice will follow upon issuance of the final AO.

Future correspondence on this ITA should include the engineer's name, Mr. Tim DeJulis, as well as the
DAQE number as shown on the upper right-hand corner of this letter. Mr. Tim DeJulis, can be reached at
[phone] or [e-mail], if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

{{$s }}

Alan D. Humpherys, Manager
New Source Review Section

ADH:TD:jg

cc: TriCounty Health Department

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

SPENCER J. COX
Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
Bryce C. Bird
Director

STATE OF UTAH
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Air Quality

INTENT TO APPROVE
DAQE-IN161540001-24
New Patry Natural Gas Booster Station

Prepared By
Mr. Tim DeJulis, Engineer
[phone]
[e-mail]

Issued to
XCL AssetCo, LLC - Patry Gas Booster Station

Issued On
October 24, 2024

{{$s }}

New Source Review Section Manager
Alan D. Humpherys
{{#s=Sig_es_:signer1:signature}}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE/SIGNATURE PAGE ....................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 3
CONTACT/LOCATION INFORMATION ............................................................................... 3
SOURCE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 3
General Description ................................................................................................................ 3
NSR Classification .................................................................................................................. 3
Source Classification .............................................................................................................. 3
Applicable Federal Standards ................................................................................................. 3
Project Description.................................................................................................................. 4
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS .................................................................................................... 4
PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT............................................................................................... 5
SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................... 5
SECTION II: PERMITTED EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 6
SECTION II: SPECIAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................................... 6
PERMIT HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 11
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... 12

DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 3

GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTACT/LOCATION INFORMATION

Owner Name Source Name
XCL AssetCo, LLC XCL AssetCo, LLC - Patry Gas Booster Station

Mailing Address Physical Address
600 North Shepherd Drive, Suite 390 SE Section 31, T12S-R2W
Houston, TX 77007 Duchesne County, UT

Source Contact UTM Coordinates
Name: Teisha Black 572,744 m Easting
Phone: [phone],457,487 m Northing
Email: [e-mail] Datum NAD83
UTM Zone 12
SIC code 1311 (Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas)

SOURCE INFORMATION
General Description
XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL) owns and operates a natural gas booster station in Duchesne County. The
facility compresses natural gas pumped from several nearby well sites. The natural gas is initially routed
to an inlet scrubber for water removal before being sent to the compressor station. The facility will be
comprised of three (3) natural gas compressor engines, liquid condensate storage tanks, and an enclosed
flare for combustion of storage tank vapors.

NSR Classification
New Minor Source

Source Classification
Located in Uinta Basin O3 NAA
Duchesne County
Airs Source Size: B

Applicable Federal Standards
NSPS (Part 60), A: General Provisions
NSPS (Part 60), JJJJ: Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines
NSPS (Part 60), OOOOb: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities
DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 4

for which Construction, Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After November 15, 2021
MACT (Part 63), A: General Provisions
MACT (Part 63), HH: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities
MACT (Part 63), ZZZZ: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Project Description
XCL has requested a new AO for the natural gas booster station to be located near Roosevelt, Duchesne
County. The facility will employ three (3) 1,380-hp natural gas-fueled compressor engines, one (1)
natural gas-fueled scrubbing device, two (2) storage tanks, and a flare device.

The natural gas is gathered from several nearby well sites and routed to an inlet scrubber to remove water.
The gas is then sent to three (3) natural gas-fueled compression engines. Any liquid condensate from
compression will be routed to the storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion.

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS

The emissions listed below are an estimate of the total potential emissions from the source. Some
rounding of emissions is possible.

Criteria Pollutant Change (TPY) Total (TPY)
CO2 Equivalent 20314.00
Carbon Monoxide 56.38
Nitrogen Oxides 23.38
Particulate Matter - PM10 1.42
Particulate Matter - PM2.5 1.42
Sulfur Dioxide 0.09
Volatile Organic Compounds 16.95

Hazardous Air Pollutant Change (lbs/yr) Total (lbs/yr)
Acetaldehyde (CAS #75070) 2400
Acrolein (CAS #107028) 1476
Benzene (Including Benzene From Gasoline) (CAS #71432) 126
Formaldehyde (CAS #50000) 15160
Generic HAPs (CAS #GHAPS) 320
Hexane (CAS #110543) 320
Methanol (CAS #67561) 718
Naphthalene (CAS #91203) 21
Xylenes (Isomers And Mixture) (CAS #1330207) 53
Change (TPY) Total (TPY)
Total HAPs 10.30

DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 5

PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT
The NOI for the above-referenced project has been evaluated and has been found to be consistent with the requirements of UAC R307. Air pollution producing sources and/or their air control facilities may not be
constructed, installed, established, or modified prior to the issuance of an AO by the Director. A 30-day public comment period will be held in accordance with UAC R307-401-7. A notification of the
intent to approve will be published in the Uintah Basin Standard on October 30, 2024. During the public comment period the proposal and the evaluation of its impact on air quality will be available for the public to review and provide comment. If anyone so requests a public hearing within 15 days of
publication, it will be held in accordance with UAC R307-401-7. The hearing will be held as close as practicable to the location of the source. Any comments received during the public comment period and
the hearing will be evaluated. The proposed conditions of the AO may be changed as a result of the
comments received.

SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

The intent is to issue an air quality AO authorizing the project with the following recommended
conditions and that failure to comply with any of the conditions may constitute a violation of the AO.

I.1 All definitions, terms, abbreviations, and references used in this AO conform to those used in the UAC R307 and 40 CFR. Unless noted otherwise, references cited in these AO conditions refer to those rules. [R307-101] I.2 The limits set forth in this AO shall not be exceeded without prior approval. [R307-401]
I.3 Modifications to the equipment or processes approved by this AO that could affect the emissions covered by this AO must be reviewed and approved. [R307-401-1] I.4 All records referenced in this AO or in other applicable rules, which are required to be kept by the owner/operator, shall be made available to the Director or Director's representative upon request, and the records shall include the two-year period prior to the date of the request. Unless otherwise specified in this AO or in other applicable state and federal rules, records shall be kept for a minimum of two (2) years. [R307-401-8]
I.5 At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners and operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any equipment approved under this AO, including associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Director which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source. All maintenance performed on equipment authorized by this AO shall be recorded. [R307-401-4]
I.6 The owner/operator shall comply with UAC R307-107. General Requirements: Breakdowns. [R307-107]
I.7 The owner/operator shall comply with UAC R307-150 Series. Emission Inventories. [R307-150]
DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 6

I.8 The owner/operator shall submit documentation of the status of construction or modification to the Director within 18 months from the date of this AO. This AO may become invalid if construction is not commenced within 18 months from the date of this AO or if construction is discontinued for 18 months or more. To ensure proper credit when notifying the Director, send the documentation to the Director, attn.: NSR Section. [R307-401-18]

SECTION II: PERMITTED EQUIPMENT

The intent is to issue an air quality AO authorizing the project with the following recommended
conditions and that failure to comply with any of the conditions may constitute a violation of the AO.
II.A THE APPROVED EQUIPMENT II.A.1 Patry Gas Booster Station
II.A.2 Scrubber One (1) Water/Gas Scrubber Device II.A.3 Storage Tanks Two (2) Storage Tanks (TK-301, TK-302) Capacity: 21,000 gallons each Contents: Condensate/Water
II.A.4 Compressor Engines Three (3) Compressor Engines Rating: 1,380 hp each Fuel: Natural Gas Manufacture date: 2024 NSPS Subpart JJJJ MACT Subpart ZZZZ II.A.5 Flare One (1) Flare Device Capacity: 2.5 MMBtu/hr

SECTION II: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

The intent is to issue an air quality AO authorizing the project with the following recommended
conditions and that failure to comply with any of the conditions may constitute a violation of the AO. II.B REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS II.B.1 Site-Wide Requirements
II.B.1.a The owner/operator shall not allow visible emissions from any stationary point or fugitive emission source to exceed 10% opacity. [R307-401-8] II.B.1.a.1 Opacity observations of emissions from stationary sources shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9. [R307-401-8]
DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 7

II.B.1.b All emissions from the storage tanks, oil/condensate truck loading operations, and the pipeline pigging unit shall be routed through the flare device before being vented to the atmosphere. [R307-401-8] II.B.1.c All emissions from the compressor blowdown/startup process and the combustion of produced
gas during compressor downtime, routine maintenance, and midstream facility downtime shall be routed through the flare device before being vented to the atmosphere. [R307-401-8]
II.B.2 Compressor Engine Requirements
II.B.2.a The owner/operator shall only use natural gas as fuel in each of the compressor engines. [R307-401-8]
II.B.2.b The owner/operator shall not emit more than the following rates and concentrations from each 1,380 hp engine: Pollutant (lb/hr) NOx 1.52 CO 6.09 VOC 1.31 Formaldehyde 2.52 [R307-401-8] II.B.2.b.1 Compliance Demonstration
To demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations above, the owner/operator shall
perform stack testing on the emissions unit according to the stack testing conditions contained in this AO. [R307-165-2, R307-401-8]

II.B.2.b.2 Initial Test The owner/operator shall conduct an initial stack test on the emission unit within 180 days after startup of the emission unit. [R307-165-2]
II.B.2.b.3 Test Frequency To demonstrate compliance with the NOx, CO, and VOC limits, the owner/operator shall conduct
a stack test on each emission unit every 8,760 hours of operation or every three (3) years,
whichever comes first, after the date of the most recent stack test of the emission unit. The Director may require the owner/operator to perform a stack test at any time.
[40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ, R307-165-2, R307-401-8]

II.B.3 Stack Testing Requirements II.B.3.a The owner/operator shall conduct any stack testing required by this AO according to the
following conditions. [R307-401-8]

II.B.3.a.1 Notification At least 30 days prior to conducting a stack test, the owner/operator shall submit a source test protocol to the Director. The source test protocol shall include the items contained in R307-165-3. If directed by the Director, the owner/operator shall attend a pretest conference. [R307-165-3, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.2 Testing & Test Conditions
The owner/operator shall conduct testing according to the approved source test protocol and
according to the test conditions contained in R307-165-4. [R307-165-4, R307-401-8]

II.B.3.a.3 Access The owner/operator shall provide Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)- or Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-approved access to the test location. [R307-401-8]
DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 8

II.B.3.a.4 Reporting No later than 60 days after completing a stack test, the owner/operator shall submit a written report of the results from the stack testing to the Director. The report shall include validated results and supporting information. [R307-165-5, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.5 Possible Rejection of Test Results The Director may reject stack testing results if the test did not follow the approved source test protocol or for a reason specified in R307-165-6. [R307-165-6, R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b Test Methods When performing stack testing, the owner/operator shall use the appropriate EPA-approved test methods as acceptable to the Director. Acceptable test methods for pollutants are listed below. [R307-401-8] II.B.3.b.1 Standard Conditions
A. Temperature - 68 degrees Fahrenheit (293 K).

B. Pressure - 29.92 in Hg (101.3 kPa).
C. Averaging Time - As specified in the applicable test method.
[40 CFR 60 Subpart A, 40 CFR 63 Subpart A, R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b.2 NOx 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 7; Method 7E; or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]
II.B.3.b.3 VOC 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 18; Method 25; Method 25A; 40 CFR 63, Appendix A,
Method 320; or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b.4 CO 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 10, or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8] II.B.3.b.5 Formaldehyde
40 CFR 63, Appendix A, Method 323 or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the
Director. [R307-401-8]
II.B.4 Storage Tank Requirements
II.B.4.a The owner/operator shall not produce more than 52,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) total of
natural gas condensate and produced water per rolling 12-month period. [R307-401-8]
DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 9

II.B.4.a.1 The owner/operator shall: A. Determine natural gas condensate and produced water production with process flow meters and/or sales records. B. Record natural gas condensate and produced water production on a daily basis. C. Use the monthly production data reported to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to calculate a new 12-month total by the 20th day of each month using data from the previous 12 months. D. Keep the production records for all periods the plant is in operation. [R307-401-8]
II.B.4.b The owner/operator shall keep the storage tank thief hatches and other tank openings closed and
sealed except during tank unloading or other maintenance activities. [R307-401-8]
II.B.4.c At least once each month, the owner/operator shall inspect each closed vent system (including tank openings, thief hatches, and bypass devices) for defects that could result in air emissions according to 40 CFR 60.5416a(c). Records of inspections shall include the date of the inspection and the results of the inspection. [40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOa, R307-401-8]
II.B.4.d The owner/operator shall comply with all applicable requirements of R307-506. Oil and Gas Industry: Storage Vessels. [R307-401-8]

II.B.5 Truck Loading Requirements
II.B.5.a The owner/operator shall load the tanker trucks on site by the use of bottom filling or a submerged fill pipe. [R307-401-8, R307-504]

II.B.5.b The owner/operator shall comply with all applicable requirements of R307-504. Oil and Gas Industry: Tank Truck Loading. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6 Flare Device Requirements
II.B.6.a The owner/operator shall use natural gas or plant gas as fuel for the pilot light in the flare device. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6.b The flare device shall operate with a continuous pilot flame and be equipped with an auto-igniter.
[R307-401-8]
II.B.6.b.1 The owner or operator shall maintain records demonstrating the date of installation and manufacturer specifications for the auto-igniter required under R307-503-4. [R307-503-4] II.B.6.c The owner/operator shall install a flare device that are each certified to meet a VOC control
efficiency of no less than 98%. [R307-401-8]

II.B.6.c.1 To demonstrate compliance with the above condition, the owner/operator shall maintain records of the manufacturer's emissions guarantee for the installed flare device. [R307-401-8]

DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 10

II.B.7 Monitoring Requirements of Fugitive Emissions (Leak Detection and Repair) II.B.7.a The owner/operator shall develop a fugitive emissions monitoring plan. At a minimum, the plan
shall include: A. Monitoring frequency.
B. Monitoring technique and equipment.
C. Procedures and timeframes for identifying and repairing leaks. D. Recordkeeping practices.
E. Calibration and maintenance procedures.
[R307-401-8]
II.B.7.a.1 The plan shall address monitoring for "difficult-to-monitor" and "unsafe-to-monitor" components. [R307-401-8] II.B.7.b The owner/operator shall conduct monitoring surveys on site to observe each "fugitive emissions
component" for "fugitive emissions."
A. "Fugitive emissions component" means any component that has the potential to emit
fugitive emissions of VOC, including but not limited to valves, connectors, pressure
relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges, covers, and closed vent systems, thief hatches or other openings, compressors, instruments, and meters.

B. "Fugitive emissions" are considered any visible emissions observed using optical gas imaging or a Method 21 instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater.

[R307-401-8]
II.B.7.b.1 Monitoring surveys shall be conducted according to the following schedule: A. No later than 60 days after startup of production, as defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a. B. Semiannually after the initial monitoring survey. Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys shall be conducted at least four (4) months apart. C. Annually after the initial monitoring survey for "difficult-to-monitor" components. D. As required by the owner/operator's monitoring plan for "unsafe-to-monitor" components. [R307-401-8]
II.B.7.b.2 Monitoring surveys shall be conducted using one or both of the following to detect fugitive
emissions:

A. Optical gas imaging (OGI) equipment. OGI equipment shall be capable of imaging
gases in the spectral range for the compound of highest concentration in the potential
fugitive emissions.

B. Monitoring equipment that meets U.S. EPA Method 21, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.

[R307-401-8]

DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 11

II.B.7.c If fugitive emissions are detected at any time, the owner/operator shall repair the fugitive emissions component as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days after detection. If the repair or replacement is technically infeasible, would require a vent blowdown, a well shutdown, or well shut-in, or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the repair or replacement must be completed during the next well shutdown, well shut-in, after an unscheduled, planned, or emergency vent blowdown, or within 24 months, whichever is earlier. [R307-401-8] II.B.7.c.1 The owner/operator shall resurvey the repaired or replaced fugitive emissions component no later than 30 calendar days after the fugitive emissions component was repaired. [R307-401-8]

II.B.7.d The owner/operator shall maintain records of the fugitive emissions monitoring plan, monitoring surveys, repairs, and resurveys. [R307-401-8]

PERMIT HISTORY

This Approval Order shall supersede (if a modification) or will be based on the following documents: Is Derived From NOI dated June 7, 2023 Incorporates Additional information dated August 14, 2023 Incorporates DAQE-MN161540001-24 dated September 13, 2023 Incorporates Additional information dated February 7, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated April 10, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated June 19, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated June 21, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated July 18, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated August 19, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated August 24, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated September 23, 2024

DAQE-IN161540001-24
Page 12

ACRONYMS

The following lists commonly used acronyms and associated translations as they apply to this document:

40 CFR Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
AO Approval Order
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CDS Classification Data System (used by Environmental Protection Agency to classify
sources by size/type)
CEM Continuous emissions monitor
CEMS Continuous emissions monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS Continuous monitoring system
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent - Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98,
Subpart A, Table A-1
COM Continuous opacity monitor
DAQ/UDAQ Division of Air Quality
DAQE This is a document tracking code for internal Division of Air Quality use
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDCP Fugitive dust control plan
GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) - Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 52.21 (b)(49)(i)
GWP Global Warming Potential - Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 86.1818-
12(a)
HAP or HAPs Hazardous air pollutant(s)
ITA Intent to Approve
LB/YR Pounds per year MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MMBTU Million British Thermal Units NAA Nonattainment Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review
PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTE Potential to Emit
R307 Rules Series 307
R307-401 Rules Series 307 - Section 401
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
Title IV Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Title V Title V of the Clean Air Act
TPY Tons per year
UAC Utah Administrative Code
VOC Volatile organic compounds

XCL AssetCo, LLC - Page 1 of 2
FILER
Jeree Greenwood
[e-mail]
[phone]
FILING FOR
Uintah Basin Standard
Columns Wide:1
Total Column Inches:1.24
Number of Lines:n/a
Ad Class:Legals
INTERIM AD DRAFT
This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run in Uintah Basin Standard on the dates indicated below.
If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at [phone].
Notice ID: T5qgmF4HuJm5NkKocMN7 | Proof Updated: Oct. 23, 2024 at 09:01am MDT
Notice Name: XCL AssetCo, LLC
This is not an invoice. Below is an estimated price, and it is
subject to change. You will receive an invoice with the final
price upon invoice creation by the publisher.
10/30/2024: Display Ad 15.02
Upload Fee 0.25
Subtotal $15.27
Tax $0.00
Processing Fee $0.00
Total $15.27
See Proof on Next Page
XCL AssetCo, LLC - Page 2 of 2
Expected print dimensions of advertisement:Newspaper page size: Width: 11.63 in., Height: 21.13 in.
Width: 1.56 in., Height: 1.24 in.Publisher may wrap or break notice between pages.
Uintah Basin Standard
Publication Name:
Uintah Basin Standard
Publication URL:
Publication City and State:
Roosevelt, UT
Publication County:
Duchesne
Notice Popular Keyword Category:
Notice Keywords:
XCL AssetCo
Notice Authentication Number:
202410300958104521530
3429962642
Notice URL:
Back
Notice Publish Date:
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Notice Content
NOTICE A Notice of Intent for the following project submitted in accordance with R307-401-1, Utah Administrative Code (UAC), has been
received for consideration by the Director: Company Name: Location: XCL AssetCo, LLC XCL AssetCo, LLC - Patry Gas Booster Station - SE
Section 31, T12S-R2W, Duchesne County, UT Project Description: XCL AssetCo, LLC has requested a new Approval Order for the natural gas
booster station to be located near Roosevelt, Duchesne County. The facility will employ three (3) 1,380-hp natural gas-fueled compressor
engines, one (1) natural gas-fueled scrubbing device, two (2) storage tanks, and a flare device. The natural gas is gathered from several
nearby well sites and routed to an inlet scrubber to remove water. The gas is then sent to three (3) natural gas-fueled compression engines.
Any liquid condensate from compression will be routed to the storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion. The completed engineering evaluation and air quality impact analysis showed the proposed project meets the requirements of
federal air quality regulations and the State air quality rules. The Director intends to issue an Approval Order pending a 30-day public
comment period. The project proposal, estimate of the effect on local air quality, and draft Approval Order are available for public inspection
and comment at the Utah Division of Air Quality, 195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116. Written comments received by the Division
at this same address on or before November 29, 2024, will be considered in making the final decision on the approval/disapproval of the
proposed project. Email comments will also be accepted at [e-mail]. If anyone so requests to the Director in writing within 15 days
of publication of this notice, a hearing will be held in accordance with R307-401-7, UAC. Under Section 19-1-301.5, a person who wishes to
challenge a Permit Order may only raise an issue or argument during an adjudicatory proceeding that was raised during the public comment
period and was supported with sufficient information or documentation to enable the Director to fully consider the substance and significance
of the issue. Date of Notice: October 30, 2024
Back

DAQE-NN161540001-24

October 24, 2024

Uintah Basin Standard
Legal Advertising Department
268 South 200 East
Roosevelt, UT 84066

RE: Legal Notice of Intent to Approve

This letter will confirm the authorization to publish the attached NOTICE in the Uintah Basin Standard
on October 30, 2024.

Please mail the invoice and affidavit of publication to the Utah State Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Air Quality, P.O. Box 144820, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820. If you have any
questions, contact Jeree Greenwood, who may be reached at [phone].

Sincerely,

{{$s }}

Jeree Greenwood
Office Technician

Enclosure

cc: Duchesne County
cc: Uintah Basin Association of Governments

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

SPENCER J. COX
Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
Bryce C. Bird
Director

DAQE-NN161540001-24
Page 2
NOTICE

A Notice of Intent for the following project submitted in accordance with R307-401-1, Utah
Administrative Code (UAC), has been received for consideration by the Director:

Company Name: XCL AssetCo, LLC
Location: XCL AssetCo, LLC - Patry Gas Booster Station – SE Section 31, T12S-R2W,
Duchesne County, UT
Project Description: XCL AssetCo, LLC has requested a new Approval Order for the natural
gas booster station to be located near Roosevelt, Duchesne County. The
facility will employ three (3) 1,380-hp natural gas-fueled compressor
engines, one (1) natural gas-fueled scrubbing device, two (2) storage
tanks, and a flare device.

The natural gas is gathered from several nearby well sites and routed to an
inlet scrubber to remove water. The gas is then sent to three (3) natural
gas-fueled compression engines. Any liquid condensate from compression
will be routed to the storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are
routed to a flare for combustion.

The completed engineering evaluation and air quality impact analysis showed the proposed project meets
the requirements of federal air quality regulations and the State air quality rules. The Director intends to
issue an Approval Order pending a 30-day public comment period. The project proposal, estimate of the
effect on local air quality, and draft Approval Order are available for public inspection and comment at
the Utah Division of Air Quality, 195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116. Written comments
received by the Division at this same address on or before November 29, 2024, will be considered in
making the final decision on the approval/disapproval of the proposed project. Email comments will also
be accepted at [e-mail]. If anyone so requests to the Director in writing within 15 days of
publication of this notice, a hearing will be held in accordance with R307-401-7, UAC.

Under Section 19-1-301.5, a person who wishes to challenge a Permit Order may only raise an issue or
argument during an adjudicatory proceeding that was raised during the public comment period and was
supported with sufficient information or documentation to enable the Director to fully consider the
substance and significance of the issue.

Date of Notice: October 30, 2024

{{#s=Sig_es_:signer1:signature}}

DAQE-

RN161540001
October 8, 2024
Teisha Black
XCL AssetCo, LLC 600 North Shepherd Drive Suite 390 Houston, TX 77007 [e-mail]
Dear Teisha Black,
Re: Engineer Review:
New Patry Natural Gas Booster Station Project Number: N161540001
The DAQ requests a company representative review and sign the attached Engineer Review (ER). This ER identifies all applicable elements of the New Source Review permitting program. XCL AssetCo, LLC should complete this review within 10 business days of receipt.
XCL AssetCo, LLC should contact Mr. Tim DeJulis at [phone] if there are questions or concerns with the review of the draft permit conditions. Upon resolution of your concerns, please email Mr. Tim DeJulis at [e-mail] the signed cover letter. Upon receipt of the signed cover letter, the DAQ will prepare an ITA for a 30-day public comment period. At the completion of the comment period, the DAQ will address any comments and will prepare an Approval Order (AO) for signature by the DAQ
Director.
If XCL AssetCo, LLC does not respond to this letter within 10 business days, the project will move forward without source concurrence. If XCL AssetCo, LLC has concerns that cannot be resolved and the project becomes stagnant, the DAQ Director may issue an Order prohibiting construction.
Approval Signature _______________________________10/16/2024______________________________ (Signature & Date)
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director
DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird Director State of Utah
SPENCER J. COX Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 1
UTAH DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
ENGINEER REVIEW

SOURCE INFORMATION
Project Number N161540001 Owner Name XCL AssetCo, LLC Mailing Address 600 North Shepherd Drive Suite 390 Houston, TX, 77007 Source Name XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station Source Location SE Section 31, T12S-R2W Duchesne County, UT
UTM Projection 572,744 m Easting, 4,457,487 m Northing UTM Datum NAD83 UTM Zone UTM Zone 12
SIC Code 1311 (Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas) Source Contact Teisha Black
Phone Number [phone] Email [e-mail]
Billing Contact Teisha Black Phone Number [phone] Email [e-mail] Project Engineer Mr. Tim DeJulis, Engineer Phone Number [phone] Email [e-mail]
Notice of Intent (NOI) Submitted June 8, 2023 Date of Accepted Application August 15, 2023

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 2
SOURCE DESCRIPTION General Description
XCL Assets (XCL) owns and operates a natural gas booster station in Duchesne County. The facility compresses natural gas pumped from several nearby well sites. The natural gas is initially routed to an inlet scrubber for water removal, before being sent to the compressor station. The
facility will be comprised of three (3) natural gas compressor engines, liquid condensate storage tanks, and an enclosed flare for combustion of storage tank vapors.
NSR Classification: New Minor Source
Source Classification Located in Uinta Basin O3 NAA Duchesne County
Airs Source Size: B Applicable Federal Standards NSPS (Part 60), A: General Provisions NSPS (Part 60), JJJJ: Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines NSPS (Part 60), OOOOb: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which Construction, Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After November 15,
2021 MACT (Part 63), A: General Provisions MACT (Part 63), HH: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities MACT (Part 63), ZZZZ: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
Project Proposal New Patry Natural Gas Booster Station
Project Description XCL has requested a new AO for the natural gas booster station to be located near Roosevelt,
Duchesne County. The facility will employ three (3) 1,380 hp natural gas fueled compressor engines, one (1) natural gas fueled scrubbing device, two (2) storage tanks, and a flare device. The natural gas is gathered from several nearby well sites and routed to an inlet scrubber to remove water. The gas is then sent to three (3) natural gas fueled compression engines. Any liquid condensate from compression will be routed to the storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for combustion.

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 3
EMISSION IMPACT ANALYSIS All criteria pollutants except for NOx are below the modeling thresholds contained in R307-410-4. All HAP emissions with the exception of formaldehyde are below their respective emission threshold values in R307-410-5. The summary for NOx is shown below: Pollutant Period Total Percent
(µg/m3) NOx 1-Hour 178.8 95.11 Formaldehyde from the compressor engines is the source of the formaldehyde emissions from this booster
plant. Formaldehyde subject to a NESHAP or MACT (MACT Subpart ZZZZ) is excluded from modeling review under R307-410-5(1)(a)(i). [Last updated January 17, 2024]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 4
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS The emissions listed below are an estimate of the total potential emissions from the source. Some rounding of emissions is possible.
Criteria Pollutant Change (TPY) Total (TPY) CO2 Equivalent 20314.00
Carbon Monoxide 56.38
Nitrogen Oxides 23.38
Particulate Matter - PM10 1.42
Particulate Matter - PM2.5 1.42
Sulfur Dioxide 0.09 Volatile Organic Compounds 16.95 Hazardous Air Pollutant Change (lbs/yr) Total (lbs/yr)
Acetaldehyde (CAS #75070) 2400
Acrolein (CAS #107028) 1476
Benzene (Including Benzene From Gasoline) (CAS #71432) 126
Formaldehyde (CAS #50000) 15160 Generic HAPs (CAS #GHAPS) 320 Hexane (CAS #110543) 320
Methanol (CAS #67561) 718
Naphthalene (CAS #91203) 21
Xylenes (Isomers And Mixture) (CAS #1330207) 53
Change (TPY) Total (TPY)
Total HAPs 10.30 Note: Change in emissions indicates the difference between previous AO and proposed modification.

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 5
Review of BACT for New/Modified Emission Units 1. BACT review regarding Process Equipment
Compressor Engines The three (3) natural gas fueled compressor engines generate PM10/PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, VOC and HAP emissions. The PM10/PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are too low to require any additional controls
on these emissions. Conducting proper maintenance as per the engine manufacturer and following good combustion practices is considered BACT for PM and SO2. There are several options for the control of the NOx, CO, and VOC. The compressor engines can operate with a non-selective catalytic reactive (NSCR) combustor, a selective catalytic reactive (SCR) combustor, or an oxidative catalyst to control the emissions. The source has selected lean burn compressor engines. NSCR considered operating with a rich burn compressor engine. Control of the CO and VOC will be controlled by 90% and 45% respectively. The compressor engines are not a rich burn style engine; therefore, this is an infeasible control option and this is eliminated from consideration as
BACT. . An Oxidation Catalyst is a post-combustion technology that has been shown to reduce CO emissions in lean-burn engines. In a catalytic oxidation system, CO passes over a catalyst, usually a noble metal, which oxidizes the CO to CO2 at efficiencies of approximately 90% for 4-cycle lean burn engines. When used in conjunction with a SCR system, the CO2, water, and NOx then enter the SCR catalyst, where the NOx reacts with the ammonia. The SCR will control the emissions of NOx, CO, and VOC on a lean burn engine at a cost of $20,956/engine (in 2023 dollars). The
control of these emissions by SCR is economically infeasible for these compressor engines. The lean burn compressor engines operate with emission standards below, except for CO, the
required standards in 40 CFR 60 (NSPS) Subpart JJJJ. The emission standards in NSPS Subpart JJJJ are as follows: CO - 2.0 g/hp-hr tons/yr, NOx - 1.0 g/hp-hr, and VOC - 0.70 g/hp-hr. The manufactured emission standards for the compressor engines are CO - 2.2 g/hp-hr, NOx - 0.50 g/hp-hr, and VOC - 0.43 g/hp-hr. XCL will achieve the NSPS Subpart JJJJ standards for all pollutants, including CO (see below comment on this). Operating this way is BACT. The three (3) compressor engines shall operate with a 10% opacity standard. The NSPS Subpart JJJJ emission standard for CO will be enforced by the DAQ in the stack testing
provision, as per XCL Assets at 2.0 g/hp-hr, even though the manufacturer lists 2.2 g/hp-hr per generator engine. The NSPS Subpart JJJJ emission standard for generator engines is NOx is 1.0 g/hp-hr. XCL Assets has proposed to install a generator engine capable of achieving 0.5 g/hp-hr NOx. XCL Assets offered an analysis to the DAQ showing the 0.25 g/hp-hr at a cost of $41,371 is economically infeasible. As a result, the NOx emissions rate of 0.5 g/hp-hr is currently considered as BACT for the generator engine proposed to be installed.
[Last updated October 8, 2024]
2. BACT review regarding Process Equipment (part 2) Storage Tanks
The storage tanks VOC/HAP emissions are routed to a flare device for control. The flare device is 98% effective at controlling the emissions from the storage tanks. This is economically feasible and is considered BACT.

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 6
Truck Loading The VOC/HAP emissions from the loading of the liquids into a truck are routed to a flare device
for control these emissions. The flare device is 98% effective at controlling the emissions from truck loading. This is economically feasible and is considered BACT. Flare Devices The flare device is used to control the VOC/HAP emissions from the storage tanks and the truck loading. The flare device is 98% effective at controlling the emissions. This is economically feasible and is considered BACT. [Last updated August 1, 2024]

SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

The intent is to issue an air quality AO authorizing the project with the following recommended conditions and that failure to comply with any of the conditions may constitute a violation of the AO. (New or Modified conditions are indicated as “New” in the Outline Label):

I.1 All definitions, terms, abbreviations, and references used in this AO conform to those used in the UAC R307 and 40 CFR. Unless noted otherwise, references cited in these AO conditions refer to those rules. [R307-101]

I.2 The limits set forth in this AO shall not be exceeded without prior approval. [R307-401]
I.3 Modifications to the equipment or processes approved by this AO that could affect the emissions covered by this AO must be reviewed and approved. [R307-401-1]
I.4 All records referenced in this AO or in other applicable rules, which are required to be kept by
the owner/operator, shall be made available to the Director or Director's representative upon request, and the records shall include the two-year period prior to the date of the request. Unless otherwise specified in this AO or in other applicable state and federal rules, records
shall be kept for a minimum of two (2) years. [R307-401-8] I.5 At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners and operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any equipment approved under this AO, including associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available
to the Director which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source. All maintenance performed on equipment authorized by this AO shall be recorded. [R307-
401-4] I.6 The owner/operator shall comply with UAC R307-107. General Requirements: Breakdowns. [R307-107]

I.7 The owner/operator shall comply with UAC R307-150 Series. Emission Inventories. [R307-
150]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 7
I.8 The owner/operator shall submit documentation of the status of construction or modification to the Director within 18 months from the date of this AO. This AO may become invalid if construction is not commenced within 18 months from the date of this AO or if construction is discontinued for 18 months or more. To ensure proper credit when notifying the Director, send the documentation to the Director, attn.: NSR Section. [R307-401-18]

SECTION II: PERMITTED EQUIPMENT
The intent is to issue an air quality AO authorizing the project with the following recommended conditions and that failure to comply with any of the conditions may constitute a violation of the AO. (New or Modified conditions are indicated as “New” in the Outline Label): II.A THE APPROVED EQUIPMENT
II.A.1
NEW
Patry Gas Booster Station

II.A.2 NEW Scrubber One (1) Water/Gas Scrubber Device II.A.3 NEW Storage Tanks Two (2) Storage Tanks (TK-301, TK-302)
Capacity: 21,000 gallons each Contents: Condensate/Water
II.A.4
NEW
Compressor Engines
Three (3) Compressor Engines Rating: 1,380 hp each Fuel: Natural Gas
Manufacture date: 2024 NSPS Subpart JJJJ MACT Subpart ZZZZ

II.A.5 NEW Flare One (1) Flare Device Capacity: 2.5 MMBtu/hr

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 8
SECTION II: SPECIAL PROVISIONS The intent is to issue an air quality AO authorizing the project with the following recommended conditions and that failure to comply with any of the conditions may constitute a violation of the
AO. (New or Modified conditions are indicated as “New” in the Outline Label): II.B REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
II.B.1 NEW Site-Wide Requirements
II.B.1.a NEW The owner/operator shall not allow visible emissions from any stationary point or fugitive emission source to exceed 10% opacity. [R307-401-8]
II.B.1.a.1
NEW
Opacity observations of emissions from stationary sources shall be conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9. [R307-401-8]
II.B.1.b NEW All emissions from the storage tanks, oil/condensate truck loading operations, and the pipeline pigging unit shall be routed through the flare device before being vented to the atmosphere. [R307-401-8]
II.B.1.c NEW All emissions from the compressor blowdown/startup process and the combustion of produced gas during compressor downtime, routine maintenance, and midstream facility downtime shall be routed through the flare device before being vented to the atmosphere. [R307-401-8]

II.B.2 NEW Compressor Engine Requirements
II.B.2.a NEW The owner/operator shall only use natural gas as fuel in each of the compressor engines. [R307-401-8]
II.B.2.b
NEW
The owner/operator shall not emit more than the following rates and concentrations from each
1,380 hp engine: Pollutant (lb/hr) NOx 1.52 CO 6.09
VOC 1.31 Formaldehyde 2.52
[R307-401-8] II.B.2.b.1 NEW Compliance Demonstration To demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations above, the owner/operator shall perform stack testing on the emissions unit according to the stack testing conditions contained in this AO. [R307-165-2, R307-401-8]
II.B.2.b.2 NEW Initial Test The owner/operator shall conduct an initial stack test on the emission unit within 180 days after startup of the emission unit. [R307-165-2]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 9
II.B.2.b.3 NEW Test Frequency To demonstrate compliance with the NOx, CO and VOC limits, the owner/operator shall conduct a stack test on each emission unit every 8,760 hours of operation or every three (3) years, whichever comes first, after the date of the most recent stack test of the emission unit. The Director may require the owner/ operator to perform a stack test at any time. [40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ, R307-165-2, R307-401-8]

II.B.3
NEW
Stack Testing Requirements
II.B.3.a NEW The owner/operator shall conduct any stack testing required by this AO according to the following conditions. [R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.1 NEW Notification At least 30 days prior to conducting a stack test, the owner/operator shall submit a source test protocol to the Director. The source test protocol shall include the items contained in R307-165-3. If directed by the Director, the owner/operator shall attend a pretest conference.
[R307-165-3, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.2 NEW Testing & Test Conditions The owner/operator shall conduct testing according to the approved source test protocol and according to the test conditions contained in R307-165-4. [R307-165-4, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.3 NEW Access The owner/operator shall provide Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)- or Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-approved access to the test location. [R307-
401-8] II.B.3.a.4 NEW Reporting No later than 60 days after completing a stack test, the owner/operator shall submit a written
report of the results from the stack testing to the Director. The report shall include validated results and supporting information. [R307-165-5, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.a.5 NEW Possible Rejection of Test Results The Director may reject stack testing results if the test did not follow the approved source test protocol or for a reason specified in R307-165-6. [R307-165-6, R307-401-8]
II.B.3.b NEW Test Methods When performing stack testing, the owner/operator shall use the appropriate EPA-approved
test methods as acceptable to the Director. Acceptable test methods for pollutants are listed below. [R307-401-8]
II.B.3.b.1
NEW
Standard Conditions A. Temperature - 68 degrees Fahrenheit (293 K) B. Pressure - 29.92 in Hg (101.3 kPa) C. Averaging Time - As specified in the applicable test method.
[40 CFR 60 Subpart A, 40 CFR 63 Subpart A, R307-401-8]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 10
II.B.3.b.2 NEW NOx 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 7; Method 7E; or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]
II.B.3.b.3
NEW
VOC
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 18; Method 25; Method 25A; 40 CFR 63, Appendix A, Method 320; or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b.4 NEW CO 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 10 or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]

II.B.3.b.5 NEW Formaldehyde 40 CFR 63, Appendix A, Method 323 or other EPA-approved testing method as acceptable to the Director. [R307-401-8]

II.B.4
NEW
Storage Tank Requirements
II.B.4.a NEW The owner/operator shall not produce more than 52,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) total of natural gas condensate and produced water per rolling 12-month period., [R307-401-8]
II.B.4.a.1 NEW The owner/operator shall: A. Determine natural gas condensate and produced water production with process flow meters and/or sales records. B. Record natural gas condensate and produced water production on a
daily basis. C. Use the monthly production data reported to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas,
and Mining to calculate a new 12-month total by the 20th day of each month using data from the previous 12 months. D. Keep the production records for all periods the plant is in operation.
[R307-401-8] II.B.4.b NEW The owner/operator shall keep the storage tank thief hatches and other tank openings closed and sealed except during tank unloading or other maintenance activities. [R307-401-8]

II.B.4.c NEW At least once each month, the owner/operator shall inspect each closed vent system (including tank openings, thief hatches, and bypass devices) for defects that could result in air emissions according to 40 CFR 60.5416a(c). Records of inspections shall include the date of the inspection and the results of the inspection. [40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOa, R307-401-8]
II.B.4.d NEW The owner/operator shall comply with all applicable requirements of R307-506. Oil and Gas Industry: Storage Vessels. [R307-401-8]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 11
II.B.5 NEW Truck Loading Requirements
II.B.5.a NEW The owner/operator shall load the tanker trucks on site by the use of bottom filling or a submerged fill pipe. [R307-401-8, R307-504]
II.B.5.b
NEW
The owner/operator shall comply with all applicable requirements of R307-504. Oil and Gas
Industry: Tank Truck Loading. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6 NEW Flare Device Requirements
II.B.6.a NEW The owner/operator shall use natural gas or plant gas as fuel for the pilot light in the flare device. [R307-401-8]

II.B.6.b NEW The flare device shall operate with a continuous pilot flame and be equipped with an auto-igniter. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6.b.1 NEW The owner or operator shall maintain records demonstrating the date of installation and manufacturer specifications for the auto-igniter required under R307-503-4. [R307-503-4]

II.B.6.c NEW The owner/operator shall install a flare device that are each certified to meet a VOC control efficiency of no less than 98%. [R307-401-8]
II.B.6.c.1 NEW To demonstrate compliance with the above condition, the owner/operator shall maintain records of the manufacturer's emissions guarantee for the installed flare device. [R307-401-8]
II.B.7 NEW Monitoring Requirements of Fugitive Emissions (Leak Detection and Repair)
II.B.7.a NEW The owner/operator shall develop a fugitive emissions monitoring plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
A. Monitoring frequency B. Monitoring technique and equipment C. Procedures and timeframes for identifying and repairing leaks D. Recordkeeping practices E. Calibration and maintenance procedures. [R307-401-8]

II.B.7.a.1 NEW The plan shall address monitoring for "difficult-to-monitor" and "unsafe-to-monitor" components. [R307-401-8]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 12
II.B.7.b NEW The owner/operator shall conduct monitoring surveys on site to observe each "fugitive emissions component" for "fugitive emissions." A. "Fugitive emissions component" means any component that has the potential to emit fugitive emissions of VOC, including but not limited to valves, connectors, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges, covers and closed vent systems, thief
hatches or other openings, compressors, instruments, and meters. B. "Fugitive emissions" are considered any visible emissions observed using optical gas imaging or a Method 21 instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater.
[R307-401-8] II.B.7.b.1 NEW Monitoring surveys shall be conducted according to the following schedule: A. No later than 60 days after startup of production, as defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a. B. Semiannually after the initial monitoring survey. Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys shall be conducted at least four (4) months apart. C. Annually after the initial monitoring survey for "difficult-to-monitor" components. D. As required by the owner/operator's monitoring plan for "unsafe-to-monitor" components.
[R307-401-8] II.B.7.b.2 NEW Monitoring surveys shall be conducted using one or both of the following to detect fugitive emissions: A. Optical gas imaging (OGI) equipment. OGI equipment shall be capable of imaging gases in the spectral range for the compound of highest concentration in the potential
fugitive emissions. B. Monitoring equipment that meets U.S. EPA Method 21, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. [R307-401-8]

II.B.7.c NEW If fugitive emissions are detected at any time, the owner/operator shall repair the fugitive emissions component as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days after detection. If the repair or replacement is technically infeasible, would require a vent blowdown, a well shutdown or well shut-in, or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the repair or replacement must be completed during the next well shutdown, well shut-in, after an
unscheduled, planned or emergency vent blowdown or within 24 months, whichever is earlier. [R307-401-8]
II.B.7.c.1
NEW
The owner/operator shall resurvey the repaired or replaced fugitive emissions component no
later than 30 calendar days after the fugitive emissions component was repaired. [R307-401-8]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 13
II.B.7.d NEW The owner/operator shall maintain records of the fugitive emissions monitoring plan, monitoring surveys, repairs, and resurveys. [R307-401-8]
PERMIT HISTORY
When issued, the approval order shall supersede (if a modification) or will be based on the following documents:
Is Derived From NOI dated June 7, 2023 Incorporates Additional information dated August 14, 2023 Incorporates Modeling Review Completed dated September 13, 2023 Incorporates Additional information dated February 7, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated April 10, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated June 19, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated June 21, 2024
Incorporates Additional information dated July 18, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated August 19, 2024 Incorporates Additional information dated August 24, 2024
Incorporates Additional information dated September 23, 2024
REVIEWER COMMENTS

1. Comment regarding Emission Estimates: The emission estimates are calculated as follows: Emission estimates from the compressor engines are from the manufacturer and from AP-42 Section
3.2 Emission estimates from the water/gas separator tank and the storage tanks are from Tanks 4.0.9d Emissions estimates from the flare device are from AP-42 Section 13.5 [Last updated October 8,
2024] 2. Comment regarding NSPS and MACT: 40 CFR 60 (NSPS) 40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ applies to owners and operators of the ICE that commence construction or are reconstructed after June 12, 2006. The engines commenced construction after the 2006 date. NSPS Subpart JJJJ will apply to this plant. 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOa applies to owners and operators of crude oil and natural gas facilities that were constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September 18, 2015 and before December 6, 2022. This facility was constructed after the latest date; therefore, NSPS Subpart OOOOa does not apply this plant. 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOb applies to owners and operators of crude oil and natural gas facilities that were constructed, modified, or reconstructed after December 6, 2022. This facility was constructed after this date; therefore, NSPS Subpart OOOOb applies to this plant.
40 CFR 63 (MACT)

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 14
40 CFR 63 Subpart HH applies to owners and operators of oil and natural gas production facilities. The area source processes (upgrades, or stores) hydrocarbon liquids. Subpart HH applies to this
plant. 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ applies to owners and operators of stationary RICE at a major or area source of HAP emissions. Since this source will have a stationary RICE at an area source of HAP
emissions, MACT Subpart ZZZZ will apply to this plant. [Last updated August 20, 2024] 3. Comment regarding Title V Requirements:
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act (Title V) applies to the following: 1. Any major source 2. Any source subject to a standard, limitation, or other requirement under Section 111 of the Act, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;
3. Any source subject to a standard or other requirement under Section 112 of the Act, Hazardous Air Pollutants. 4. Any Title IV affected source.
This facility is not a major source and is not a Title IV source. The facility is subject to 40 CFR 60
(NSPS) and 40 CFR 63 (MACT) regulations. The facility is not subject to 40 CFR 61 (NESHAP) regulations. Title V does not apply because NSPS Subpart JJJJ and Subpart OOOOb, and MACT Subpart HH and ZZZZ exempt sources from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70
(Title V permit) if the source is not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit. There are no other reasons why this source would be required to obtain a part 70 permit as an area source; therefore, Title V does not apply to this facility as per R307-415-4(2)(c).
[Last updated August 20, 2024] 4. Comment regarding CO Emissions Reductions:
XCL Assets will lower the amount generated in each engine from 2.2 g/hp-hr to 2.0 g/hp-hr, enforced by the DAQ during regular stack testing to be in line with 40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ. This lowering of the amount of CO released will reduce the amount of CO emitted from 60.93 tpy to
56.38 tpy. [Last updated October 8, 2024] 5. Comment regarding NOx Emitted by the Generator Engines: During the original review of XCL Assets NOI for the Patry compressor station, the NOx emissions were presented to us as a predicted outcome of 134.1 ug/m3. During a subsequent modeling effort,
the NOx emissions were calculated as a predicted outcome of 178.1 ug/m3. The 44 ug/m3 increase shows up in the emission impact analysis the DAQ performed and the 178.1 ug/m3 has been evaluated by the DAQ according to UAC R307-410-4. [Last updated October 8, 2024]

Engineer Review N161540001: XCL AssetCo, LLC- Patry Gas Booster Station October 8, 2024 Page 15
ACRONYMS The following lists commonly used acronyms and associated translations as they apply to this document:
40 CFR Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations AO Approval Order BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CDS Classification Data System (used by EPA to classify sources by size/type)
CEM Continuous emissions monitor CEMS Continuous emissions monitoring system CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS Continuous monitoring system CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent - 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart A, Table A-1 COM Continuous opacity monitor DAQ/UDAQ Division of Air Quality DAQE This is a document tracking code for internal UDAQ use EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDCP Fugitive dust control plan GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) - 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(49)(i) GWP Global Warming Potential - 40 CFR Part 86.1818-12(a)
HAP or HAPs Hazardous air pollutant(s) ITA Intent to Approve LB/HR Pounds per hour
LB/YR Pounds per year MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
NAA Nonattainment Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOI Notice of Intent NOx Oxides of nitrogen NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PTE Potential to Emit
R307 Rules Series 307 R307-401 Rules Series 307 - Section 401 SO2 Sulfur dioxide
Title IV Title IV of the Clean Air Act Title V Title V of the Clean Air Act TPY Tons per year
UAC Utah Administrative Code VOC Volatile organic compounds
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
XCL Assets Roosevelt Engineering Review
3 messages
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 4:05 PM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>
Teisha,
Here is XCL Assets engineering review. Please inspect this and if it's acceptable, sign the first page and return it to me.
Otherwise we can discuss anything.
We went ahead and processed this engineering review for your inspection; however, we're missing the written notice from
XCL Assets allowing us to use the CO emission rate in the stack testing of 2.0 g/hp-hr. Please provide this notice to us, as
we won't be starting the public comment period until we have the written notice. It can be under an email, unless XCL
Assets wants to formally submit the notice, on company letterhead. It can be delivered with the signed document, if it's
available.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
RN161540001-23.XCL Asset - Roosevelt.v 6a.docx
151K
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 4:06 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black
<[e-mail]>
Good aernoon, Tim,

Please see the aached dra permit with the following comments:
II.B.2.b:
NOX rate is currently listed at 0.76 lb/hr, this converts to 0.25 g/hp-hr. Please update to 1.52 lb/hr to be
consistent with the BACT.
Secon 1. of the BACT review Regarding Process Equipment, II.B.3.b.4, Secon 4. of the Reviewer Comments:
XCL formally confirms that the permit shall include stack tesng of CO, which shall be limited to 2.0
g/hp-hr.

If there are any quesons, please contact me at the earliest available me to connue the perming process.
10/15/24, 10:09 AM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets Roosevelt Engineering Review
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5478987519473770079&simpl=msg-a:r-307314509465701…1/3

Thank you,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Sr. Consultant
W: hps://airregconsulng.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 5:06 PM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>; Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>
Subject: XCL Assets Roosevelt Engineering Review

Teisha,

Here is XCL Assets engineering review. Please inspect this and if it's acceptable, sign the first page and return it to me.
Otherwise we can discuss anything.

We went ahead and processed this engineering review for your inspection; however, we're missing the written notice from
XCL Assets allowing us to use the CO emission rate in the stack testing of 2.0 g/hp-hr. Please provide this notice to us, as
we won't be starting the public comment period until we have the written notice. It can be under an email, unless XCL
Assets wants to formally submit the notice, on company letterhead. It can be delivered with the signed document, if it's
available.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
10/15/24, 10:09 AM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets Roosevelt Engineering Review
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5478987519473770079&simpl=msg-a:r-307314509465701…2/3
RN161540001-23.XCL Asset - Roosevelt.v 6a_ARC Comments.docx
163K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:05 AM
To: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black
<[e-mail]>
Here is the change to the engineering review for the NOx emissions requirement, in the stack testing language on II.B.2.b.
I appreciate XCL Assets checking of the language we used.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
2 attachments
~WRD0002.jpg
1K
RN161540001-23.XCL Asset - Roosevelt.v 6b.docx
151K
10/15/24, 10:09 AM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets Roosevelt Engineering Review
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5478987519473770079&simpl=msg-a:r-307314509465701…3/3

From: Carroll, John J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:50 PM
To: Ryan Sokolowski <[e-mail]>
Cc: Horwitz, Jeremy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Selective Catalyst Reduction System

Good afternoon, Ryan

As-is, all Caterpillar 3516B’s and/or 3516J’s can achieve .5g NOx/hp-hr, regardless the quantity or
quality of catalyst elements due to its high air/fuel ratio. The only way for ‘Ultra-Lean burn’ engines
(B’s and J’s) to reduce NOx further is with a Selective Catalyst Reduction system. Which a number
of producers have pursued information on in California and Pennsylvania, but NONE have moved
forward with due to the exorbitant cost and upkeep for nominal reduction.

Please see the table below for the estimated total cost to install and maintain an SCR, per unit (Cat
3516B equivalent). Please note, there is also a ~$20,000/year cost PER system/unit to maintain and
replenish the Urea solution.
Selective Catalyst Reduction: Cost is per unit
SCR System $
205,000 lump sum cost
Foundation, tanks, PLC,
electrical
$
150,000 lump sum cost
Estimated Trucking $
35,000 lump sum cost
Estimated Misc. Labor $
10,000
Urea solution, maintenance,
refill
$
20,000
Initial cost +
annual
$
420,000

Please let us know if there is anything else we can provide for you here.

Thanks,
John

John Carroll
ARCHROCK®
Senior Account Manager | Denver,
CO
303-681-1274
[e-mail]

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Air Pollution Control Cost Estima
For Selective Catalytic Red
This spreadsheet allows users to estimate the capital and annualized costs for installing and
post-combustion control technology for reducing NOx emissions that employs a metal-based
The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range to p
The calculation methodologies used in this spreadsheet are those presented in the U.S. EPA'
be used in combination with the SCR chapter and cost estimation methodology in the Contro
technology and the cost methodologies, see Section 4, Chapter 2 of the Air Pollution Contro
Manual is available on the U.S. EPA's "Technology Transfer Network" website at: http://www
U.S. Environmental Protection
Air Economics Group
Health and Environmental Impac
Office of Air Quality Planning and
(June 2019)
The size and costs of the SCR are based primarily on five parameters: the boiler size or heat
reagent consumption rate, and catalyst costs. The equations for utility boilers are identical t
were developed based on the IPM equations for utility boilers. This approach provides study
in the spreadsheet is taken from the SCR Control Cost Manual and other sources such as the
vary from those calculated here due to site-specific conditions. Selection of the most cost-ef
study and cost quotations from system suppliers. The methodology used in this spreadshee
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (version 6). For additional information regarding the IPM,
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling. The Agency wishes to note that al
to show an example calculation.
The spreadsheet can be used to estimate capital and annualized costs for applying SCR, and
Coal-fired utility boilers with full load capacities greater than or equal to 25 MW.
Fuel oil- and natural gas-fired utility boilers with full load capacities greater than o
Coal-fired industrial boilers with maximum heat input capacities greater than or e
Fuel oil- and natural gas-fired industrial boilers with maximum heat input capacitie
Step 4: Complete all of the cells highlighted in yellow. If you do not know the catalyst volum
these values will be calculated for you. As noted in step 1 above, some of the highlighted cel
should document the source of all values entered in accordance with what is recommended
the default values in this spreadsheet, if appropriately documented, is acceptable. You may
(cells highlighted in blue) from their default values of 0.005 and 0.03, respectively. The defau
Integrated Planning Model (IPM). If you elect to adjust these factors, you must document wh
Step 5: Once all of the data fields are complete, select the SCR Design Parameters tab to se
the calculated cost data for the installation and operation of the SCR.
Step 1: Please select on the Data Inputs tab and click on the Reset Form button. This will cl
Instructions
Step 2: Select the type of combustion unit (utility or industrial) using the pull down menu. In
existing boiler. If the SCR will be installed on an existing boiler, enter a retrofit factor betwee
For more difficult retrofits, you may use a retrofit factor greater than 1; however, you must
Step 3: Select the type of fuel burned (coal, fuel oil, and natural gas) using the pull down me
be prepopulated with default values. If you select coal, then you must complete the coal inp
menu. The weight percent sulfur content, HHV, and NPHR will be pre-populated with defaul
you to enter your own values for these parameters, if they are known, since the actual fuel p
pre-selected as the default method for calculating the catalyst replacement cost. For coal-fir
catalyst replacement cost by selecting appropriate radio button.
ation Spreadsheet
uction (SCR)
operating a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) control device. SCR is a
d catalyst and an ammonia-based reducing reagent (urea or ammonia).
produce N2 and water vapor.
's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. This spreadsheet is intended to
ol Cost Manual. For a detailed description of the SCR control
l Cost Manual (as updated March 2019). A copy of the Control Cost
w3.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo.
n Agency

cts Division
d Standards

input, the type of fuel burned, the required level of NOx reduction,
o those used in the IPM. However, the equations for industrial boilers
y-level estimates (±30%) of SCR capital and annual costs. Default data
e U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The actual costs may
ffective control option should be based on a detailed engineering
t is based on the U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)'s
see the EPA Clean Air Markets webpage at
ll spreadsheet data inputs other than default data are merely available

particularly to the following types of combustion units:

or equal to 25 MW.
qual to 250 MMBtu/hour.
es greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour.
e (Volcatalyst) or flue gas flow rate (Qflue gas), please enter "UNK" and
lls are pre-populated with default values based on 2014 data. Users
in the Control Cost Manual, and the use of actual values other than
also adjust the maintenance and administrative charges cost factors
ult values for these two factors were developed for the CAMD
hy the alternative values used are appropriate.
e the calculated design parameters and the Cost Estimate tab to view

ear many of the input cells and reset others to default values.

ndicate whether the SCR is for new construction or retrofit of an
en 0.8 and 1.5. Use 1 for retrofits with an average level of difficulty.
document why the value used is appropriate.
enu. If you select fuel oil or natural gas, the HHV and NPHR fields will
put box by first selecting the type of coal burned from the drop down
t factors based on the type of coal selected. However, we encourage
parameters may vary from the default values provided. Method 1 is
red units, you choose either method 1 or method 2 for calculating the

Is the combustion unit a utility or industrial boiler?What type of fuel does the unit burn?
Is the SCR for a new boiler or retrofit of an existing boiler?
Complete all of the highlighted data fields:
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
What is the maximum heat input rate (QB)?10.92 MMBtu/hour Type of coal burned:

What is the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel?1,008 Btu/scf
What is the estimated actual annual fuel consumption?94,935,457 scf/Year

Enter the net plant heat input rate (NPHR)8.2 MMBtu/MW

Fraction in
Coal Blend %S HHV (Btu/lb)
If the NPHR is not known, use the default NPHR value: Fuel Type Default NPHR 0 1.84 11,841
Coal 10 MMBtu/MW 0 0.41 8,826
Fuel Oil 11 MMBtu/MW 0 0.82 6,685
Natural Gas 8.2 MMBtu/MW
Plant Elevation 5400 Feet above sea level
Data Inputs
Enter the following data for your combustion unit:
BituminousSub-Bituminous
Enter the sulfur content (%S) =percent by weight

Coal Type

Not applicable to units buring fuel oil or natural gas
Note: The table below is pre-populated with default values for HHV and %S. Please enter the actual values for
these parameters in the table below. If the actual value for any parameter is not known, you may use the
default values provided.

Lignite
Please click the calculate button to calculate weighted average
values based on the data in the table above.
For coal-fired boilers, you may use either Method 1 or Method 2 to calculate the
catalyst replacement cost. The equations for both methods are shown on rows 85
and 86 on the Cost Estimate tab. Please select your preferred method:

Method 1
Method 2
Not applicable
Enter the following design parameters for the proposed SCR:
Number of days the SCR operates (tSCR)365 days Number of SCR reactor chambers (nscr)1
Number of days the boiler operates (tplant)365 days Number of catalyst layers (Rlayer)3
Inlet NOx Emissions (NOxin) to SCR 0.069596 lb/MMBtu Number of empty catalyst layers (Rempty)1
Outlet NOx Emissions (NOxout) from SCR (Assume 85% reduction)0.0104 lb/MMBtu Ammonia Slip (Slip) provided by vendor 2 ppm
Stoichiometric Ratio Factor (SRF)0.525 UNK
*The SRF value of 0.525 is a default value. User should enter actual value, if known.
UNK

Estimated operating life of the catalyst (Hcatalyst)20,000 hours
Estimated SCR equipment life 20 Years*Gas temperature at the SCR inlet (T)973
* For industrial boilers, the typical equipment life is between 20 and 25 years.1780
Concentration of reagent as stored (Cstored)50 percent*
Density of reagent as stored (ρstored)71 lb/cubic feet*
Number of days reagent is stored (tstorage)14 days Densities of typical SCR reagents:
50% urea solution 71 lbs/ft3
29.4% aqueous NH3 56 lbs/ft3
Select the reagent used
Enter the cost data for the proposed SCR:
Desired dollar-year 2023
CEPCI for 2023 802.9 Enter the CEPCI value for 2023 541.7 2016 CEPCI CEPCI = Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
Annual Interest Rate (i)8.0 Percent
Reagent (Costreag)1.660 $/gallon for 50% urea*
Electricity (Costelect)0.0743 $/kWh
Catalyst cost (CC replace)420.00
Operator Labor Rate 60.00 $/hour (including benefits)*
Operator Hours/Day 4.00 hours/day*
Volume of the catalyst layers (Volcatalyst)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Flue gas flow rate (Qfluegas)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Cubic feet
acfm
oF
ft3/min-MMBtu/hourBase case fuel gas volumetric flow rate factor (Qfuel)
*The reagent concentration of 50% and density of 71 lbs/cft are default values for urea reagent. User should enter actual values for reagent, if different from the default values provided.

* $1.66/gallon is a default value for 50% urea. User should enter actual value, if known.

$/cubic foot (includes removal and disposal/regeneration of existing
catalyst and installation of new catalyst

* $60/hour is a default value for the operator labor rate. User should enter actual value, if known.
Note: The use of CEPCI in this spreadsheet is not an endorsement of the index, but is there merely to allow for availability of a well-known cost index to spreadsheet users.
Use of other well-known cost indexes (e.g., M&S) is acceptable.
* 4 hours/day is a default value for the operator labor. User should enter actual value, if known.
Maintenance and Administrative Charges Cost Factors:0.015
Maintenance Cost Factor (MCF) =0.005
Administrative Charges Factor (ACF) =0.03
Data Sources for Default Values Used in Calculations:
Data Element Default Value
Reagent Cost ($/gallon)$1.66/gallon 50%
urea solution
Electricity Cost ($/kWh)0.0743
Percent sulfur content for Coal (% weight)
Higher Heating Value (HHV) (Btu/lb)1,033
Catalyst Cost ($/cubic foot)420
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)$60.00
Interest Rate (Percent)8.0 Default bank prime rate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA’s Power Sector
Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model. Office of Air and Radiation.
May 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documentation-epas-power-
sector-modeling-platform-v6.
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
2016 natural gas data compiled by the Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) from data reported on EIA Form EIA-923, Power
Plant Operations Report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

A replacement cost based on related BACT analysis submitted for like-sized engines to
UDAQ for approval.
Sources for Default Value
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA's Power Sector
Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model, Updates to the Cost and
Performance for APC Technologies, SCR Cost Development Methodology, Chapter 5,
Attachment 5-3, January 2017. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-
3 scr cost development methodology pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly. Table 5.3. Published
January 2023. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a.

Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Maximum Annual Heat Input Rate (QB) = HHV x Max. Fuel Rate =11 MMBtu/hour
Maximum Annual fuel consumption (mfuel) =(QB x 1.0E6 x 8760)/HHV =94,900,000 scf/Year
Actual Annual fuel consumption (Mactual) =94,935,457 scf/Year
Heat Rate Factor (HRF) =NPHR/10 =0.82
Total System Capacity Factor (CFtotal) =(Mactual/Mfuel) x (tscr/tplant) =1.000 fraction
Total operating time for the SCR (top) =CFtotal x 8760 =8763 hours
NOx Removal Efficiency (EF) =(NOxin - NOxout)/NOxin =85.0 percent
NOx removed per hour =NOxin x EF x QB =0.65 lb/hour
Total NOx removed per year =(NOxin x EF x QB x top)/2000 =2.83 tons/year
NOx removal factor (NRF) = EF/80 =1.06
Volumetric flue gas flow rate (qflue gas) =Qfuel x QB x (460 + T)/(460 + 700)nscr =24,012 acfm
Space velocity (Vspace) =qflue gas/Volcatalyst =239.46 /hour
Residence Time 1/Vspace 0.00 hour
Coal Factor (CoalF) =
1 for oil and natural gas; 1 for bituminous; 1.05 for sub-
bituminous; 1.07 for lignite (weighted average is used for
coal blends)
1.00
SO2 Emission rate = (%S/100)x(64/32)*1x106)/HHV =
Elevation Factor (ELEVF) = 14.7 psia/P =1.22
Atmospheric pressure at sea level (P) =2116 x [(59-(0.00356xh)+459.7)/518.6]5.256 x (1/144)* =12.1 psia
Retrofit Factor (RF)New Construction 0.80
Catalyst Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Future worth factor (FWF) =(interest rate)(1/((1+ interest rate)Y -1) , where Y = Hcatalyts/(tSCR x
24 hours) rounded to the nearest integer 0.4808 Fraction
Catalyst volume (Volcatalyst) =2.81 x QB x EF adj x Slipadj x NOxadj x Sadj x (Tadj/Nscr)100.28 Cubic feet
Cross sectional area of the catalyst (Acatalyst) =qflue gas /(16ft/sec x 60 sec/min)25 ft2
SCR Design Parameters
The following design parameters for the SCR were calculated based on the values entered on the Data Inputs tab. These values were used to prepare the costs shown on the Cost Estimate tab.
Not applicable; factor applies on
coal-fired boilers

* Equation is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Atmosphere Model. Available at
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/atmos.html.
Height of each catalyst layer (Hlayer) = (Volcatalyst/(Rlayer x Acatalyst)) + 1 (rounded to next highest
integer)2 feet
SCR Reactor Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Cross sectional area of the reactor (ASCR) = 1.15 x Acatalyst 29 ft2
Reactor length and width dimensions for a square
reactor = (ASCR)0.5 5.4 feet
Reactor height =(Rlayer + Rempty) x (7ft + hlayer) + 9ft 46 feet
Reagent Data:
Type of reagent used Urea 60.06 g/mole
Density =71 lb/ft3
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Reagent consumption rate (mreagent) = (NOxin x QB x EF x SRF x MWR)/MWNOx =0
Reagent Usage Rate (msol) =mreagent/Csol =1
(msol x 7.4805)/Reagent Density 0
Estimated tank volume for reagent storage =(msol x 7.4805 x tstorage x 24)/Reagent Density =100
Capital Recovery Factor:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = i (1+ i)n/(1+ i)n - 1 =0.1019
Where n = Equipment Life and i= Interest Rate
Other parameters Equation Calculated Value Units
Electricity Usage:
Electricity Consumption (P) = A x 1,000 x 0.0056 x (CoalF x HRF)0.43 =5.62 kW
where A = (0.1 x QB) for industrial boilers.
Units
lb/hour
lb/hour
gal/hour
gallons (storage needed to store a 14 day reagent supply rounde
Molecular Weight of Reagent (MW) =

nly to

ed to th
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers between 275 and 5,500 MMBTU/hour :
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers between 205 and 4,100 MMBTU/hour :
Total Capital Investment (TCI) =$960,267 in 2023 dollars
Direct Annual Costs (DAC) =$16,564 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Costs (IDAC) =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total annual costs (TAC) = DAC + IDAC $117,101 in 2023 dollars
Annual Maintenance Cost =0.005 x TCI =$4,801 in 2023 dollars
Annual Reagent Cost =msol x Costreag x top =$1,357 in 2023 dollars
Annual Electricity Cost =P x Costelect x top = $3,656 in 2023 dollars
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost =$6,750 in 2023 dollars

nscr x Volcat x (CCreplace/Rlayer) x FWF
Direct Annual Cost = $16,564 in 2023 dollars
Administrative Charges (AC) = 0.03 x (Operator Cost + 0.4 x Annual Maintenance Cost) =$2,686 in 2023 dollars
Capital Recovery Costs (CR)=CRF x TCI =$97,851 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC) =AC + CR =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC) =$117,101
NOx Removed =2.83 tons/year
Cost Effectiveness = $41,371 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
TCI = 86,380 x (200/BMW )0.35 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
per year in 2023 dollars
Annual Costs
IDAC = Administrative Charges + Capital Recovery Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost/ NOx Removed/year
Direct Annual Costs (DAC)
DAC = (Annual Maintenance Cost) + (Annual Reagent Cost) + (Annual Electricity Cost) + (Annual Catalyst Cost)
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC)
TAC = Direct Annual Costs + Indirect Annual Costs
Cost Estimate
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TCI for Oil and Natural Gas Boilers
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers >500 MW:
TCI = 62,680 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers >5,500 MMBtu/hour:
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers >4,100 MMBtu/hour:
TCI = 7,640 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 5,700 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 10,530 x (1,640/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers between 25MW and 500 MW:
TCI = 7,850 x (2,200/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
XCL Assets BACT Analysis
16 messages
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:45 AM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>
Teisha,
We are in the midst of the final inspection of the engineering review (ER) before it is turned over to XCL Assets (XCL) for
their review of our work. There are questions about the BACT analysis we continue to have. We have the following
questions.
We think that the emission values presented by XCL are inaccurate with the equipment list. Could we have an
accurate emission summary, including each of the HAPs, of all the equipment listed in the NOI?
I used the outline of the BACT analysis provided by XCL in my BACT summary and there are questions we have going
forward. The NSCR in the case of a rich-burn engine is listed as a non-viable option to control the NOx, since there isn't
any control of the NOx in the NSCR. Why is this not a control for the CO and VOC? Please add information to the
description of the rich-burn engine for the CO and VOC to further illustrate why this option is non-viable.
In the evaluation of the SCR for the use in the generator engines, a figure of $20,956/engine for NOx, in 2023 dollars, was
used by XCL. No supporting documentation was presented to support this figure. Could we get documentation of the
$20,956/engine for the NOx value? Also, we need the supporting information for CO, VOC, and formaldehyde (and of
course, the documentation that accompanies it) as this is important to describe these pollutants in my BACT summary.
We discussed the BACT for NOx being for each engine a value of 0.25 g/hp-hr and it was represented to us that if this
standard came up after the NOI was offered, XCL shouldn't have to get this 0.25 g/hp-hr standard. Can we get a
detailed explanation from the generator engine supplier/vendor to document the standard for NOx being what is
represented in the BACT analysis supplied by XCL and why the 0.25 g/hp-hr is unavailable for these engines?
Formaldehyde emissions from the generator engines are estimated to be 2.23 tons/yr. If these emissions values remain
after the emission table is recalculated, we might have this formaldehyde value stack tested the same time as the NOx,
CO, and VOC are stack tested. In order to do this, please provide the ppmv of formaldehyde being emitted so that we can
include this into the stack testing.
I am available for any clarification of these four items, if there are questions. Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
g/hp-hr
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>
Teisha,
We are waiting for XCL Assets to address the information contained in the above email sent on April 10, 2024. If I can be
of any assistance in describing what we need or if there are any other questions please let me know.
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…1/19
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:05 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>
Tim,

Someone from ARC had been in touch on this. Perhaps a call to discuss would be best to make sure the 4 items are
addressed. If you could propose some mes that work for you this week and next, that would be great.

To address a few of the main items for the NOx BACT, and related maers, we are reiterang some points below:

The proposed Caterpillar 3516ULB series engines (Cat 3516B or Cat 3516J) are “ultra lean burn” or ULB and only
capable of 0.5g/hp-hr NOx due to the higher rao of air in the air/fuel mixture. The proposed engines meet will meet
the 0.5g NOx without catalyst elements. Due to the amount of air in the mixture, lean burn engines are not able to
reduce NOx with catalyst elements.

The 0.25g/hp-hr NOx rate that the DAQ was referencing were for rich burn engines. The comparison is not apples to
apples for what XCL proposed in ULB.

Rich burn engines have higher uncontrolled emissions, but use 3-way catalyst elements, which reduce CO, VOCs,
HCHO, and NOx. Rich burn essenally burns more gas, but allows for an air to fuel rao that allows the use of
catalysts (where ULBs use less fuel and do not have this opon).

We look forward to discussing again and more with you. Please let us know mes that will work for you.

Best.

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…2/19
Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 9:38 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>
Eric,
A phone or virtual call would be great, but what we are asking for is something from the engine manufacturer or internal
testing that indicates the 0.25 g/hp-hr will be applicable in practice. We need this information because it is represented in
XCL Asset's (XCL) NOI.
We need the other four items in order to make progress on XCL: we need the emission values of all pollutants (including
CO2e) to be recalculated; we need a revised BACT analysis listing the rich-burn engines; we need a list showing the
where the $20,956/engine came from, the actual calculation of this figure; and we need a discussion of the
formaldehyde from each engine.
We need this information soon. If I can be of any service or answer any question for you please let me know.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:01 AM
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Good morning, Mr. Humpherys,

Please find aached the response to Mr. DeJulis’s requests below for the Patry Gas Booster Staon’s NOI applicaon.

Please contact ARC if there are any quesons. Please inform us of the next steps, if any, so we may finalize this dra
permit for review.

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…3/19
Thank you,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Sr. Consultant
W: hps://airregconsulng.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn
From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: XCL Assets BACT Analysis
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>

Eric,

A phone or virtual call would be great, but what we are asking for is something from the engine manufacturer or internal
testing that indicates the 0.25 g/hp-hr will be applicable in practice. We need this information because it is represented in
XCL Asset's (XCL) NOI.

We need the other four items in order to make progress on XCL: we need the emission values of all pollutants (including
CO2e) to be recalculated; we need a revised BACT analysis listing the rich-burn engines; we need a list showing the
where the $20,956/engine came from, the actual calculation of this figure; and we need a discussion of the
formaldehyde from each engine.

We need this information soon. If I can be of any service or answer any question for you please let me know.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…4/19
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Teisha,

[Quoted text hidden]

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:45 AM Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]> wrote:
Teisha,

We are in the midst of the final inspection of the engineering review (ER) before it is turned over to XCL Assets
(XCL) for their review of our work. There are questions about the BACT analysis we continue to have. We have the
following questions.
We think that the emission values presented by XCL are inaccurate with the equipment list. Could we have an
accurate emission summary, including each of the HAPs, of all the equipment listed in the NOI?

I used the outline of the BACT analysis provided by XCL in my BACT summary and there are questions we have
going forward. The NSCR in the case of a rich-burn engine is listed as a non-viable option to control the NOx, since
there isn't any control of the NOx in the NSCR. Why is this not a control for the CO and VOC? Please add
information to the description of the rich-burn engine for the CO and VOC to further illustrate why this option is non-
viable.

In the evaluation of the SCR for the use in the generator engines, a figure of $20,956/engine for NOx, in 2023
dollars, was used by XCL. No supporting documentation was presented to support this figure. Could we get
documentation of the $20,956/engine for the NOx value? Also, we need the supporting information for CO, VOC,
and formaldehyde (and of course, the documentation that accompanies it) as this is important to describe these
pollutants in my BACT summary.

We discussed the BACT for NOx being for each engine a value of 0.25 g/hp-hr and it was represented to us that if
this standard came up after the NOI was offered, XCL shouldn't have to get this 0.25 g/hp-hr standard. Can we get a
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…5/19
detailed explanation from the generator engine supplier/vendor to document the standard for NOx being what is
represented in the BACT analysis supplied by XCL and why the 0.25 g/hp-hr is unavailable for these engines?

Formaldehyde emissions from the generator engines are estimated to be 2.23 tons/yr. If these emissions values
remain after the emission table is recalculated, we might have this formaldehyde value stack tested the same time
as the NOx, CO, and VOC are stack tested. In order to do this, please provide the ppmv of formaldehyde being
emitted so that we can include this into the stack testing.

I am available for any clarification of these four items, if there are questions. Thank you.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
g/hp-hr
XCL Patry_Requested Revisions_07152024.pdf
1742K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:53 AM
To: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Teisha,
We appreciate this information being supplied. I will review the information and if it's satisfactory, this will go back to my
supervisor. I anticipate XCL Assets getting the review to inspect next week. Thank you!
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…6/19
~WRD0000.jpg
1K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]
Teisha,
Again thank you for supplying the BACT analysis for the Patry compressor station. We have one issue with the BACT
analysis.
The engine standards used in the BACT analysis are not the NSPS Subpart JJJJ 2010 standards XCL Assets should be
using. Now the VOC and NOx evaluated are below the standards in the 2010 emission standards, but CO is above the
NSPS Subpart JJJJ standard at 2.2 g/hp-hr. Is this actually the standard emissions XCL Assets will use in the BACT
analysis
and in practice? If not, please give me the actual number with a review in the calculations in an emailed document to us. If
so, we need XCL Assets to re-evaluate the compressor engines used at the Patry compressor station. I can explain the
issue further if needed.
I realize we discussed this on July 31st with Ryan, but the CO must be addressed in order for us to proceed. All the other
issues presented in the latest BACT analysis were good.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 11:42 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Teisha Black
<[e-mail]>
Good aernoon, Tim,

The manufacturer’s CO ‘guarantee’ data is egregious and highly overesmated and should be updated to correctly
align with AP-42, Chapter 3.2, Table 3.2-2. Therefore, the CO emissions should be updated to 0.317 lb/MMBtu and
calculated as 3.06 lb/hr and 13.41 tpy.

Thank you,

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…7/19
Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 11:29 AM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: XCL Assets BACT Analysis

Teisha,

Again thank you for supplying the BACT analysis for the Patry compressor station. We have one issue with the BACT
analysis.

The engine standards used in the BACT analysis are not the NSPS Subpart JJJJ 2010 standards XCL Assets should be
using. Now the VOC and NOx evaluated are below the standards in the 2010 emission standards, but CO is above the
NSPS Subpart JJJJ standard at 2.2 g/hp-hr. Is this actually the standard emissions XCL Assets will use in the BACT
analysis
and in practice? If not, please give me the actual number with a review in the calculations in an emailed document to us. If
so, we need XCL Assets to re-evaluate the compressor engines used at the Patry compressor station. I can explain the
issue further if needed.

I realize we discussed this on July 31st with Ryan, but the CO must be addressed in order for us to proceed. All the other
issues presented in the latest BACT analysis were good.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…8/19

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:53 AM Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]> wrote:
Teisha,

We appreciate this information being supplied. I will review the information and if it's satisfactory, this will go back to my
supervisor. I anticipate XCL Assets getting the review to inspect next week. Thank you!

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

Error! Filename
not specified.Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…9/19
Teisha,

[Quoted text hidden]

Error! Filename
not specified.Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:45 AM Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]> wrote:
Teisha,

We are in the midst of the final inspection of the engineering review (ER) before it is turned over to XCL Assets
(XCL) for their review of our work. There are questions about the BACT analysis we continue to have. We have
the following questions.
We think that the emission values presented by XCL are inaccurate with the equipment list. Could we have an
accurate emission summary, including each of the HAPs, of all the equipment listed in the NOI?

I used the outline of the BACT analysis provided by XCL in my BACT summary and there are questions we
have going forward. The NSCR in the case of a rich-burn engine is listed as a non-viable option to control the
NOx, since there isn't any control of the NOx in the NSCR. Why is this not a control for the CO and VOC?
Please add information to the description of the rich-burn engine for the CO and VOC to further illustrate why
this option is non-viable.

In the evaluation of the SCR for the use in the generator engines, a figure of $20,956/engine for NOx, in 2023
dollars, was used by XCL. No supporting documentation was presented to support this figure. Could we get
documentation of the $20,956/engine for the NOx value? Also, we need the supporting information for CO,
VOC, and formaldehyde (and of course, the documentation that accompanies it) as this is important to
describe these pollutants in my BACT summary.

We discussed the BACT for NOx being for each engine a value of 0.25 g/hp-hr and it was represented to us
that if this standard came up after the NOI was offered, XCL shouldn't have to get this 0.25 g/hp-hr standard.
Can we get a detailed explanation from the generator engine supplier/vendor to document the standard for
NOx being what is represented in the BACT analysis supplied by XCL and why the 0.25 g/hp-hr is unavailable
for these engines?
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…10/19

Formaldehyde emissions from the generator engines are estimated to be 2.23 tons/yr. If these emissions
values remain after the emission table is recalculated, we might have this formaldehyde value stack tested the
same time as the NOx, CO, and VOC are stack tested. In order to do this, please provide the ppmv of
formaldehyde being emitted so that we can include this into the stack testing.

I am available for any clarification of these four items, if there are questions. Thank you.

Error! Filename
not specified.Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
g/hp-hr
1 Compressor Engines_v2.pdf
60K
Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 12:28 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Tim,
The consultant is wrong. We need to use manufacturer data when we have it.
Thanks,
Alan
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Alan Humpherys
Manager | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA
requirements.
2 attachments
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r32869451896392…11/19
~WRD0001.jpg
1K
1 Compressor Engines_v2.pdf
60K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 7:34 AM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Teisha,
Could we get a written confirmation that XCL Assets wants the emissions from the compression engines on site to be
regulated with regular stack testing please? This can be an email stating this. Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 7:49 AM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Sorry, that was sent in error. We already have a stack test on the compression engines.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:44 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]
Thanks, Tim. Is the dra permit near ready for XCL’s review?
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…12/19
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:53 AM Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]> wrote:
Teisha,

We appreciate this information being supplied. I will review the information and if it's satisfactory, this will go back
to my supervisor. I anticipate XCL Assets getting the review to inspect next week. Thank you!

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…13/19
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:52 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
I've got a bunch of meetings this morning. I'll have that on XCL Assets desk this afternoon.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 6:35 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Did you send the dra?
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 3:06 PM
To: Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Sydney,
Unfortunately, my supervisor still has more comments for me to address, that we need the answers to.
One of the questions that Alan continues to ask me about this permit is the existence of a dehydrator. I explained that
there isn't any dehydrator in the calculations or on the process diagram, but Alan has raised this with me...again. Could
XCL Assets (XCL) describe how the water is released from the gas stream? Is it in a dehydrator or in a pressurized
separation vessel?
Alan also thinks that you must have a secondary flare device, which I brought up to XCL in a previous phone call and we
addressed this. I don't see any calculations for a secondary flare device in the calculations or on the process diagram.
Please describe why you don't have a secondary flare in use at the Patry station.
Could XCL Assets please provide information consistent with the conversation with what we discussed on 08/09/24? We
need this information to be included in the BACT analysis in the document we are writing, and if no information can be
provided, we will go with the NOx emission rate of 0.5 /hp-hr. I tried to get XCL to accept the 0.5 g/hp-hr, but XCL told me
that the engine only emitted 0.25 g/hp-hr.
Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…14/19
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 4:22 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Good aernoon, Tim,

I appreciate your phone call earlier to discuss the areas of concern.

You are correct, the XCL Asset facility does not have a dehydrator as part of their compressing system. The facility will
ulize a pressurized water separator, as incorporated into the NOI as part of the process flow, referred to the ‘slug
catcher’. Addionally, the facility will not ulize a secondary flare, as shown in the PTE and diagrams from the NOI,
the facility will ulize a single flare. Lastly, the proposed engines are ULB and only capable of 0.5g/hp-hr NOx due to
the higher rao of air in the air/fuel mixture. The engines meet will meet the 0.5g NOx without catalyst elements;
therefore, XCL will accept the 0.5 g NOx/hp-hr for the engines.

Please connue to reach out if there are any other quesons that connue to hold up the dra permit.

Thank you,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 4:06 PM
To: Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>; Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; Teisha Black
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: XCL Assets BACT Analysis

Sydney,
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…15/19

Unfortunately, my supervisor still has more comments for me to address, that we need the answers to.

One of the questions that Alan continues to ask me about this permit is the existence of a dehydrator. I explained that
there isn't any dehydrator in the calculations or on the process diagram, but Alan has raised this with me...again. Could
XCL Assets (XCL) describe how the water is released from the gas stream? Is it in a dehydrator or in a pressurized
separation vessel?

Alan also thinks that you must have a secondary flare device, which I brought up to XCL in a previous phone call and we
addressed this. I don't see any calculations for a secondary flare device in the calculations or on the process diagram.
Please describe why you don't have a secondary flare in use at the Patry station.

Could XCL Assets please provide information consistent with the conversation with what we discussed on 08/09/24? We
need this information to be included in the BACT analysis in the document we are writing, and if no information can be
provided, we will go with the NOx emission rate of 0.5 /hp-hr. I tried to get XCL to accept the 0.5 g/hp-hr, but XCL told me
that the engine only emitted 0.25 g/hp-hr.

Thank you.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 6:36 AM Eric Sturm <[e-mail]> wrote:
Did you send the dra?

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…16/19
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 9:52 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: XCL Assets BACT Analysis

I've got a bunch of meetings this morning. I'll have that on XCL Assets desk this afternoon.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:44 AM Eric Sturm <[e-mail]> wrote:
Thanks, Tim. Is the dra permit near ready for XCL’s review?

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…17/19
From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:50 AM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>; Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer -
ARC <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: XCL Assets BACT Analysis

Sorry, that was sent in error. We already have a stack test on the compression engines.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 7:34 AM Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]> wrote:
Teisha,

Could we get a written confirmation that XCL Assets wants the emissions from the compression engines on site to
be regulated with regular stack testing please? This can be an email stating this. Thank you.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…18/19
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Alan Humpherys
Manager | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
8/19/24, 4:35 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL Assets BACT Analysis
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5116331977181617169&simpl=msg-a:r3286945189639…19/19

CORROSION ALLOWANCE:
WET:DRY:
PWHT:
RADIOGRAPHY:
DESIGN DATA
Estimated Weights
VACUUM PRESSURE:
TEST PRESSURE:
DESIGN TEMPERATURE:
MDMT:
-
DESIGN PRESSURE:
DESIGN CODE:ASME Section VIII Division 1 2021 Edition
250 PSI0 PSI325 PSI180 Degrees F-20 Degrees F0.00"RT 3N/AXCL-2Ph 2
Rev 2
Item:QTY:Service Nom. Size Inches Rating:Type:Material:ANSI:Pipe Data Sch: Wall: Material Pipe Length Reinforcment: Size Material I/P Flange Attachment Shell Attachment
Shell Outside Weld Detail
Internal Weld Detail
Reinforcment Weld detail
Shell 1 48" OD SA-516-70 .375" X 96" Long 96"A2
Shell 1 48" OD SA-516-70 .375" X 24" Long 24"A2
Head 2 48" OD SA-516-70 .375" Nom A2N11Outlet6"150#Flange SA-105 B16.5 XH .432" SA-106B 3.5"N/A .5"D2 C2 .375".250"N/A
N2 1 Outlet 3"150#Flange SA-105 B16.5 XH .300" SA-106B 4"N/A .250"D2 C2 .3125".250"N/A
N3, N4 2 Inlet 6"150#Flange SA-105 B16.5 XH .432" SA-106B 3.5"2" X .250" SA-516-70 .50"D2 B6 .375".250".250"
N5, N10, N16,N17 2 Misc.2"150#Flange SA-105 B16.5 XH .218" SA-106B 4.250"N/A .250"D2 C2 .375".250"N/A
N6, N11 2 Misc.4"150#Flange SA-105 B16.5 XH .337" SA-106B 4.00"2" X .250 SA-516-70 .50"D2 B6 .375".125".250"
N7,N8,N9, N12,N13,N14 6 Misc.3/4"3000#Couplet SA-105 B16.11 3/4" 3000# Couplet N/A N/A N/A C5 .250"N/A N/A
N15 1 Drain 2"150#Flange SA-105 B16.5 XH .218" SA-106B 4.250"N/A Flush D2 C2 .375"N/A N/A
Skirt 1 44"N/A N/A SA-36 N/A .250" SA-36 24"Skirt Opening 4 8"N/A N/A SA-53B N/A .188" SA-53B 2"
Bill Of Material
AA
B
C
D
12345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:FRACTIONALANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
WPS: FP-02-01 FP-DS-01
MATERIAL
FINISH
SIZEB DWG. NO.REV
SCALE: 1:1
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
SHEET 1 OF 6 DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
AA
B
C
D
12345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
SIZEB
SCALE: 1:48 SHEET 2 OF 6
48.00
30.00 30.38
30.38
30.00
N16N10N12N110°
N390°
N17N6N5N7180°
N4270°
N8N9210°
N13N1430°N2
124.00
0

4
8
.
0
0

6
0
.
0
0

1
8
.
0
0

8
.
0
0

1
0
8
.
0
0

7
0
.
0
0

2
6
.
0
1

2
5
.
7
6

166.07
N6N11
N13N8N12N7 N9N10N5N14
N17N16 N4N3 SO #2SO #3SO #4SO #1
SKIRT
N1
N15
AA
B
C
D
12345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
SIZEB
SCALE: 1:48 SHEET 3 OF 6
6.85
6.00
.43
6.63
WPS: N1
0.375
0.25
0.375
8.21
7.62
.30
3.50
WPS: N2
0.3125
0.25
0.375
54.38
.43
6.63 7.48
WPS: N3
6.38
.43
6.63 7.48
WPS:
REPAD: 2 x 0.25
N4
0.25
0.375
0.25 FULL PEN
0.25
0.375 FULL PEN
7.03
6.38
.22
2.38
WPS: N6
0.25
0.125
0.375 FULL PEN
1.00
1.50 WPS: N7
0.25
0.22
1.50
1.00
WPS: N8
0.25
0.22
1.50 WPS: N9
0.25
0.22
AA
B
C
D
12345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
SIZEB
SCALE: 1:12 SHEET 4 OF 6
7.11
6.38
.34
4.50
WPS:
REPAD: 2 x 0.25
N10
0.25
0.375
0.25 FULL PEN
0.25
0.375 FULL PEN
7.03
6.38
.22
2.38
WPS: N11
0.25
0.125
0.375 FULL PEN
1.00
1.50 WPS: N12
0.25
0.22
WPS: N13 1.50 WPS: N14
0.25
0.22
6.00
.22
2.38
WPS: N15
0.25
0.375
AA
B
C
D
12345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
SIZEB
SCALE: 1:32 SHEET 5 OF 6
0
5.50
SUPPORT SKIRT ASSEMBLY SECTION
SUPPORT SKIRT ASSEMBLY SECTION
SKIRT ASSEMBLY
23.50 44.50 .25
45.00°
39.13
51.13 1.13 BASE RING
AA
B
C
D
12345678
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
SIZEB
SCALE: 1:16 SHEET 6 OF 6

AIR REGULATIONS CONSULTING,LLC•5455 RED ROCK LN, STE 13, LINCOLN, NE 68516•402.817.7887•AIRREGCONSULTING.COM

July 15, 2024

Attn: Alan Humphreys
Permits, Division of Air Quality
P.O. Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

{Submitted via electronic copy to: [e-mail] and [e-mail]}

RE: Revision to the BACT Analysis for New Patry Gas Booster Station
Including Review of BACT for NOX Emissions
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, UT

Dear Mr. Alan Humphreys,

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is submitting a revision
to the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for the new Patry Gas Booster Station
for the Notice of Intent (NOI).

Included in the revised analysis are the updates requested by Timothy DeJulis, Environmental
Engineer for the Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Air Quality (DAQ or
Division). Mr. DeJulis requested (1) a recalculation of the emission values of all pollutants
(including CO2e); (2) a revision of the BACT analysis to include the rich-burn engines; (3) a list
showing where the $20,956/engine came from; and (4) a discussion of the formaldehyde for each
engine.

Included in this revision are:
(1) The potential to emit (PTE) calculations updated to include CO2e. The flare emissions were
recalculated to utilize AP-42 Chapter 13.5.
(2) A revised BACT incorporates data on how rich-burn engines are not feasible for the
compressor engines.
(3) A document utilizing an EPA spreadsheet is provided to show how the $20,956 per ton of
NOX removed is found. This document also shows the calculation for the annual cost per
engine.
(4) A calculation for the PPMV per engine of Formaldehyde is being provided as part of the
requested information.

This BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division’s Form 01b for
BACT determinations. Please find the enclosed BACT analysis for DAQ’s review.
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Patry Gas Booster Station BACT, v2
July 15, 2024
Page 2 of 2

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact me at
402.817.7887 or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC Senior Consultant

Enclosures

Cc: Timothy DeJulis, DAQ
Eric Sturm, ARC
Teisha Black, XCL

Prepared with Assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
Attachment 1
PTE Update
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLCEmission Calculations
Facility PTE
Engine #1 Engine #2 Engine #3 Flare Flare Pilot TK-301 TK-302 TOTAL PTE(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)
NOX 6.66 6.66 6.66 3.38 0.01 0.00 0.00 23.38
CO 15.17 15.17 15.17 15.42 0.01 0.00 0.00 60.93
SO2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 7.23E-04 0.00 0.00 0.09
VOC 5.65 5.65 5.65 0.00 7.88E-05 0.01 0.01 16.95
PM 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.00 2.50E-04 0.00 0.00 1.42
PM10 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.00 9.99E-04 0.00 0.00 1.42
PM2.5 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.00 9.99E-04 0.00 0.00 1.42
Engine #1 Engine #2 Engine #3 Flare Flare Pilot TK-301 TK-302 TOTAL PTE(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)
CO2 5,263 5,263 5,263 0.00 38 0.00 0.00 15,828
Methane 59.81 59.81 59.81 0.00 7.24E-05 0.00 0.00 179
Nitrous Oxide 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.24E-04 0.00 0.00 0
20,314
Engine #1 Engine #2 Engine #3 Flare Flare Pilot TK-301 TK-302 TOTAL PTE(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.91E-03 1.91E-03 1.91E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.74E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.52E-03 1.52E-03 1.52E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.56E-03
1,3-Butadiene 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.83E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 1.26E-03 1.26E-03 1.26E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.79E-032-Methylnaphthalene 1.59E-03 1.59E-03 1.59E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.77E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 1.20E-02 1.20E-02 1.20E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.59E-02
Acenaphthene 5.98E-05 5.98E-05 5.98E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.79E-04
Acenaphthylene 2.65E-04 2.65E-04 2.65E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.94E-04Acetaldehyde4.00E-01 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.20E+00
Acrolein 2.46E-01 2.46E-01 2.46E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.38E-01
Benzene 2.11E-02 2.11E-02 2.11E-02 0.00E+00 2.76E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.32E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.94E-06 7.94E-06 7.94E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.38E-05Benzo(e)pyrene 1.99E-05 1.99E-05 1.99E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.96E-05
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.98E-05 1.98E-05 1.98E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.94E-05
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.76E-03 1.76E-03 1.76E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.27E-03
Chlorobenzene 1.45E-03 1.45E-03 1.45E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.36E-03
Chloroform 1.36E-03 1.36E-03 1.36E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.09E-03
Chrysene 3.32E-05 3.32E-05 3.32E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 9.95E-05
Dichlorobenzene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.58E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.58E-07
Ethylbenzene 1.90E-03 1.90E-03 1.90E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.70E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 2.12E-03 2.12E-03 2.12E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.36E-03
Fluoranthene 5.31E-05 5.31E-05 5.31E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.59E-04
Formaldehyde 2.53E+00 2.53E+00 2.53E+00 0.00E+00 9.86E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.58E+00
Lead Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.57E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.57E-08
Methanol 1.20E-01 1.20E-01 1.20E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.59E-01
Methylene Chloride 9.57E-04 9.57E-04 9.57E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.87E-03
n-Hexane 5.31E-02 5.31E-02 5.31E-02 0.00E+00 2.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-01
Naphthalene 3.56E-03 3.56E-03 3.56E-03 0.00E+00 8.02E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.07E-02
PAH 1.29E-03 1.29E-03 1.29E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.86E-03Phenanthrene4.98E-04 4.98E-04 4.98E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.49E-03
Phenol 1.15E-03 1.15E-03 1.15E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.45E-03
POM[4]0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.32E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.32E-05
Pyrene 6.51E-05 6.51E-05 6.51E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.95E-04Styrene1.13E-03 1.13E-03 1.13E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.39E-03
Tetrachloroethane 1.19E-04 1.19E-04 1.19E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.56E-04
Toluene 1.95E-02 1.95E-02 1.95E-02 0.00E+00 4.47E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.86E-02
Vinyl Chloride 7.13E-04 7.13E-04 7.13E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.14E-03Xylene8.80E-03 8.80E-03 8.80E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.64E-02
Arsenic Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.63E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.63E-08
Beryllium Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.58E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.58E-09
Cadmium Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.45E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.45E-07
Chromium Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.84E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.84E-07
Cobalt Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.10E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.10E-08
Manganese Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.99E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.99E-08
Mercury Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.42E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.42E-08
Nickel Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.76E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.76E-07
Selenium Compounds 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.15E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.15E-09
10.33
7.58
CO2e
Single Max HAP - Formaldehyde
TOTAL HAPs
Criteria Pollutant
GHG
HAPs
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
G3516B Caterpillar Engine #1
Rated Power 1,380 bhp
Fuel Flow 163 scfm
HHV 7,916 Btu/bhp-hr
Operation Hours 8,760 hr/yr
Emission Rate PTE (lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
NOX 4.08 0.03 0.5 1.10E-03 1.52 6.66
CO 0.32 2.51E-03 2.2 4.85E-03 3.46 15.17
SO2 5.88E-04 4.65E-06 - 4.65E-06 0.01 0.03
VOC 0.12 9.34E-04 0.43 9.48E-04 1.29 5.65
PM10 9.91E-03 7.84E-05 - 7.84E-05 1.08E-01 4.74E-01
PM2.5 9.91E-03 7.84E-05 -7.84E-05 1.08E-01 4.74E-01
Emission Rate PTE
(lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
CO2 110 0.87 465 1.03 1,201.65 5,263.22
Methane 1.25 0.01 -0.01 13.66 59.81
6,758
Emission Rate PTE (lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.17E-07 - 3.17E-07 4.37E-04 1.91E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 2.52E-07 -2.52E-07 3.47E-04 1.52E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.11E-06 -2.11E-06 2.92E-03 1.28E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.09E-07 -2.09E-07 2.88E-04 1.26E-03
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 2.63E-07 -2.63E-07 3.63E-04 1.59E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 1.98E-06 -1.98E-06 2.73E-03 1.20E-02
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 9.90E-09 -9.90E-09 1.37E-05 5.98E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 4.38E-08 -4.38E-08 6.04E-05 2.65E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 6.62E-05 -6.62E-05 9.13E-02 4.00E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.07E-05 -4.07E-05 5.61E-02 2.46E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 3.48E-06 -3.48E-06 4.81E-03 2.11E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.31E-09 -1.31E-09 1.81E-06 7.94E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 3.29E-09 -3.29E-09 4.53E-06 1.99E-05
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 3.28E-09 -3.28E-09 4.52E-06 1.98E-05
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 2.91E-07 -2.91E-07 4.01E-04 1.76E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.41E-07 -2.41E-07 3.32E-04 1.45E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.26E-07 -2.26E-07 3.11E-04 1.36E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 5.49E-09 -5.49E-09 7.57E-06 3.32E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.14E-07 -3.14E-07 4.34E-04 1.90E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 3.51E-07 -3.51E-07 4.84E-04 2.12E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 8.79E-09 -8.79E-09 1.21E-05 5.31E-05
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 4.18E-04 0.42 9.26E-04 5.77E-01 2.53E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 1.98E-05 -1.98E-05 2.73E-02 1.20E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.58E-07 -1.58E-07 2.18E-04 9.57E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 8.79E-06 -8.79E-06 1.21E-02 5.31E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 5.89E-07 -5.89E-07 8.13E-04 3.56E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.13E-07 -2.13E-07 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 8.23E-08 -8.23E-08 1.14E-04 4.98E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 1.90E-07 -1.90E-07 2.62E-04 1.15E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.08E-08 -1.08E-08 1.49E-05 6.51E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 1.87E-07 -1.87E-07 2.58E-04 1.13E-03
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 1.96E-08 -1.96E-08 2.71E-05 1.19E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.23E-06 -3.23E-06 4.46E-03 1.95E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.18E-07 -1.18E-07 1.63E-04 7.13E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.46E-06 -1.46E-06 2.01E-03 8.80E-03
0.79 3.44
[1] AP-42, Vol. I, 3:2 Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines, Table 3.2-2 4-Stroke Lean-Burn Engines
[2] Manufacturer's Specification Sheet
[3] AP-42, Appenidx A: Miscellaneous Data and Conversion Factors, 1 lb/23.8 ft3
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
TOTAL HAPs
Engine Specs[2]
Criteria Pollutant
GHG
HAPs
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
CO2e
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
G3516B Caterpillar Engine #2
Rated Power 1,380 bhp
Fuel Flow 163 scfm
HHV 7,916 Btu/bhp-hr
Operation Hours 8,760 hr/yr
Emission Rate PTE
(lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
NOX 4.08 0.03 0.5 1.10E-03 1.52 6.66
CO 0.32 2.51E-03 2.2 4.85E-03 3.46 15.17
SO2 5.88E-04 4.65E-06 - 4.65E-06 0.01 0.03
VOC 0.12 9.34E-04 0.43 9.48E-04 1.29 5.65
PM10 9.91E-03 7.84E-05 - 7.84E-05 1.08E-01 4.74E-01
PM2.5 9.91E-03 7.84E-05 - 7.84E-05 1.08E-01 4.74E-01
Emission Rate PTE (lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
CO2 110 0.87 465 1.03 1,201.65 5,263.22
Methane 1.25 0.01 -0.01 13.66 59.81
6,758
Emission Rate PTE (lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.17E-07 - 3.17E-07 4.37E-04 1.91E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 2.52E-07 -2.52E-07 3.47E-04 1.52E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.11E-06 -2.11E-06 2.92E-03 1.28E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.09E-07 -2.09E-07 2.88E-04 1.26E-03
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 2.63E-07 -2.63E-07 3.63E-04 1.59E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 1.98E-06 -1.98E-06 2.73E-03 1.20E-02
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 9.90E-09 -9.90E-09 1.37E-05 5.98E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 4.38E-08 -4.38E-08 6.04E-05 2.65E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 6.62E-05 -6.62E-05 9.13E-02 4.00E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.07E-05 -4.07E-05 5.61E-02 2.46E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 3.48E-06 -3.48E-06 4.81E-03 2.11E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.31E-09 -1.31E-09 1.81E-06 7.94E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 3.29E-09 -3.29E-09 4.53E-06 1.99E-05
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 3.28E-09 -3.28E-09 4.52E-06 1.98E-05
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 2.91E-07 -2.91E-07 4.01E-04 1.76E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.41E-07 -2.41E-07 3.32E-04 1.45E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.26E-07 -2.26E-07 3.11E-04 1.36E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 5.49E-09 -5.49E-09 7.57E-06 3.32E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.14E-07 -3.14E-07 4.34E-04 1.90E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 3.51E-07 -3.51E-07 4.84E-04 2.12E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 8.79E-09 -8.79E-09 1.21E-05 5.31E-05
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 4.18E-04 0.42 9.26E-04 5.77E-01 2.53E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 1.98E-05 -1.98E-05 2.73E-02 1.20E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.58E-07 -1.58E-07 2.18E-04 9.57E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 8.79E-06 -8.79E-06 1.21E-02 5.31E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 5.89E-07 -5.89E-07 8.13E-04 3.56E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.13E-07 -2.13E-07 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 8.23E-08 -8.23E-08 1.14E-04 4.98E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 1.90E-07 -1.90E-07 2.62E-04 1.15E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.08E-08 -1.08E-08 1.49E-05 6.51E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 1.87E-07 -1.87E-07 2.58E-04 1.13E-03
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 1.96E-08 -1.96E-08 2.71E-05 1.19E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.23E-06 -3.23E-06 4.46E-03 1.95E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.18E-07 -1.18E-07 1.63E-04 7.13E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.46E-06 -1.46E-06 2.01E-03 8.80E-03
0.79 3.44
[1] AP-42, Vol. I, 3:2 Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines, Table 3.2-2 4-Stroke Lean-Burn Engines
[2] Manufacturer's Specification Sheet
[3] AP-42, Appenidx A: Miscellaneous Data and Conversion Factors, 1 lb/23.8 ft3
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
TOTAL HAPs
HAPs
GHG
CO2e
Criteria Pollutant
Engine Specs[2]
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
G3516B Caterpillar Engine #3
Rated Power 1,380 bhp
Fuel Flow 163 scfm
HHV 7,916 Btu/bhp-hr
Operation Hours 8,760 hr/yr
Emission Rate PTE (lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
NOX 4.08 0.03 0.5 1.10E-03 1.52 6.66
CO 0.32 2.51E-03 2.2 4.85E-03 3.46 15.17
SO2 5.88E-04 4.65E-06 - 4.65E-06 0.01 0.03
VOC 0.12 9.34E-04 0.43 9.48E-04 1.29 5.65
PM10 9.91E-03 7.84E-05 - 7.84E-05 1.08E-01 4.74E-01
PM2.5 9.91E-03 7.84E-05 -7.84E-05 1.08E-01 4.74E-01
Emission Rate PTE
(lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
CO2 110 0.87 465 1.03 1,201.65 5,263.22
Methane 1.25 0.01 -0.01 13.66 59.81
6,758
Emission Rate PTE (lb/MMBtu)(lb/bhp-hr)(g/bhp-hr)(lb/bhp-hr)(lb/hr)(tpy)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.17E-07 - 3.17E-07 4.37E-04 1.91E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 2.52E-07 -2.52E-07 3.47E-04 1.52E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.11E-06 -2.11E-06 2.92E-03 1.28E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.09E-07 -2.09E-07 2.88E-04 1.26E-03
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 2.63E-07 -2.63E-07 3.63E-04 1.59E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 1.98E-06 -1.98E-06 2.73E-03 1.20E-02
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 9.90E-09 -9.90E-09 1.37E-05 5.98E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 4.38E-08 -4.38E-08 6.04E-05 2.65E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 6.62E-05 -6.62E-05 9.13E-02 4.00E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.07E-05 -4.07E-05 5.61E-02 2.46E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 3.48E-06 -3.48E-06 4.81E-03 2.11E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.31E-09 -1.31E-09 1.81E-06 7.94E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 3.29E-09 -3.29E-09 4.53E-06 1.99E-05
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 3.28E-09 -3.28E-09 4.52E-06 1.98E-05
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 2.91E-07 -2.91E-07 4.01E-04 1.76E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.41E-07 -2.41E-07 3.32E-04 1.45E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.26E-07 -2.26E-07 3.11E-04 1.36E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 5.49E-09 -5.49E-09 7.57E-06 3.32E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.14E-07 -3.14E-07 4.34E-04 1.90E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 3.51E-07 -3.51E-07 4.84E-04 2.12E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 8.79E-09 -8.79E-09 1.21E-05 5.31E-05
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 4.18E-04 0.42 9.26E-04 5.77E-01 2.53E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 1.98E-05 -1.98E-05 2.73E-02 1.20E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.58E-07 -1.58E-07 2.18E-04 9.57E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 8.79E-06 -8.79E-06 1.21E-02 5.31E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 5.89E-07 -5.89E-07 8.13E-04 3.56E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.13E-07 -2.13E-07 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 8.23E-08 -8.23E-08 1.14E-04 4.98E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 1.90E-07 -1.90E-07 2.62E-04 1.15E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.08E-08 -1.08E-08 1.49E-05 6.51E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 1.87E-07 -1.87E-07 2.58E-04 1.13E-03
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 1.96E-08 -1.96E-08 2.71E-05 1.19E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.23E-06 -3.23E-06 4.46E-03 1.95E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.18E-07 -1.18E-07 1.63E-04 7.13E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.46E-06 -1.46E-06 2.01E-03 8.80E-03
0.79 3.44
[1] AP-42, Vol. I, 3:2 Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines, Table 3.2-2 4-Stroke Lean-Burn Engines
[2] Manufacturer's Specification Sheet
[3] AP-42, Appenidx A: Miscellaneous Data and Conversion Factors, 1 lb/23.8 ft3
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
TOTAL HAPs
Criteria Pollutant
HAPs
GHG
CO2e
Engine Specs[2]
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
Uncontrolled EF[1]Emissions Data[2]
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
Enclosed Flare
Heat Input 12 MMBtu/hr
Max Fuel Usage 40 MMscf/yr
Heating Value 2,500 Btu/scf
Emission Rate
(lb/MMscf)(lb/MMBtu)(lb/hr)(lb/yr)(tpy)
NOX 0.07 0.80 6,763.45 3.38
CO 0.31 3.63 30,833.38 15.42
VOC 0.57 6.67 56,693.63 28.35
SO2
PM
PM10PM2.5
Emission Rate
(kg/MMBtu)(lb/MMBtu)(lb/hr)(lb/yr)(tpy)
CO2 53.06 116.98 1,328 11,634,852 5,817
CH4 1.00E-04 2.20E-04 2.50E-03 22 1.10E-02
N2O 1.00E-03 2.20E-03 2.50E-02 219 1.10E-01
5,850
[1] CIMARRON Manufacturer's Specifications
[2] AP-42 Section 13.5, Table 13.5-1
[3] 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart A, Table A-1 and Subpart C, Table C-1 and C-2
CO2e
GHG
Criteria Pollutant
Design Specs[1]
Emission Factor[2]PTE
Negligible due to Fuel Type
N/A Smokeless Design
N/A Smokeless Design
N/A Smokeless Design
Emission Factor[3]PTE
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
Flare Pilot
Heat Input 30 scf/hr
Max Fuel Usage 0.26 MMscf/yr
Heating Value 2,500 Btu/scf
Emission Rate
(lb/MMscf)(lb/MMBtu)(lb/hr)(lb/yr)(tpy)
NOX 100 25.00 3.00E-03 26.28 0.01
CO 84 29.76 2.52E-03 22.08 0.01
VOC 5.5 454.55 1.65E-04 1.45 7.23E-04
SO2 0.60 4,166.67 1.80E-05 0.16 7.88E-05
PM 1.90 1,315.79 5.70E-05 0.50 2.50E-04
PM10 7.60 328.95 2.28E-04 2.00 9.99E-04
PM2.5 7.60 328.95 2.28E-04 2.00 9.99E-04
Emission Rate
(kg/MMBtu)(lb/MMBtu)(lb/hr)(lb/yr)(tpy)
CO2 5.31E+01 1.17E+02 8.77 76,854 38
CH4 1.00E-04 2.20E-04 0.01 0.14 7.24E-05
N2O 1.00E-03 2.20E-03 0.07 1.45 7.24E-04
39
Emission Rate
(lb/MMscf)(lb/MMBtu)(lb/hr)(lb/yr)(tpy)
Benzene 2.10E-03 8.40E-07 6.30E-02 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Dichlorobenzene 1.20E-03 4.80E-07 3.60E-02 3.15E-04 1.58E-07
Formaldehyde 7.50E-02 3.00E-05 2.25E+00 0.02 9.86E-06
Hexane 1.80E+00 7.20E-04 5.40E+01 0.47 2.37E-04
Lead Compounds 5.00E-04 2.00E-07 1.50E-02 1.31E-04 6.57E-08
Naphthalene 6.10E-04 2.44E-07 1.83E-02 1.60E-04 8.02E-08
POM[4]8.82E-05 3.53E-08 2.65E-03 2.32E-05 1.16E-08
Toluene 3.40E-03 1.36E-06 1.02E-01 8.94E-04 4.47E-07
Arsenic Compounds 2.00E-04 8.00E-08 6.00E-03 5.26E-05 2.63E-08
Beryllium Compounds 1.20E-05 4.80E-09 3.60E-04 3.15E-06 1.58E-09
Cadmium Compounds 1.10E-03 4.40E-07 3.30E-02 2.89E-04 1.45E-07
Chromium Compounds 1.40E-03 5.60E-07 4.20E-02 3.68E-04 1.84E-07
Cobalt Compounds 8.40E-05 3.36E-08 2.52E-03 2.21E-05 1.10E-08
Manganese Compounds 3.80E-04 1.52E-07 1.14E-02 9.99E-05 4.99E-08
Mercury Compounds 2.60E-04 1.04E-07 7.80E-03 6.83E-05 3.42E-08
Nickel Compounds 2.10E-03 8.40E-07 6.30E-02 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Selenium Compounds 2.40E-05 9.60E-09 7.20E-04 6.31E-06 3.15E-09
0.50 2.48E-04
[1] CIMARRON Manufacturer's Specifications Notes Section
[2] AP-42 Section 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3
[3] 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart A, Table A-1 and Subpart C, Table C-1 and C-2
TOTAL HAPs
GHG
Emission Factor[3]PTE
CO2e
Design Specs[1]
Criteria Pollutant
Emission Factor[2]PTE
HAPs
Emission Factor[2]PTE
Patry Gas Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
21,000-Gal Tanks (TK-301 and TK-302)
(lb/yr)(tpy)
VOC 33 0.02
[1] Tanks 4.0.9d Calculations
Criteria Pollutant
PTE[1]
Prepared with Assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
Attachment 2
Revised BACT
XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 1 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is providing a revision
to the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for the new Patry Gas Booster Station
(Patry) for the Notice of Intent (NOI). This BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-
401-5 and the Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division) Form 01b for BACT determinations. XCL
is planning to install the Patry Gas Booster Station, calculated to be a minor source, to compress
natural gas pumped from multiple well sites. The facility will be comprised of three (3) natural
gas stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines for compression, two (2) liquid
condensate storage tanks, and an enclosed flare for combustion of storage tank vapors. The Gas
Booster Station will be located in a remote location of Duchesne County, approximately 6.5 miles
West via US-191/40 and 2000S from Roosevelt, Utah.
This report contains analysis of BACT for particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission for the Gas Booster
Station. For reference, UAC R307-101-2, defines BACT specifically to the following:
“BACT means an emission limitation and/or other controls to include design,
equipment, work practice, operation standard or combination thereof, based on a
maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act and/or the Utah Air Conservation Act emitted from or which results
from any emitting installation, which the Air Quality Board, on a case-by-case basis
taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such installation through application of production
process and available methods, systems and techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such
pollutant. In no event shall application of BACT result in emission of pollutants
which will exceed the emissions allowed by section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act.”

XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 2 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
As the rule states, XCL and ARC are obligated to base proposed BACT on the most effective
engineering techniques and control equipment to minimize emission of air contaminants from
its process to the extent achievable within the industry. Furthermore, based on this definition
and the DAQ’s Form 01b Guidance on BACT, this analysis for Patry includes consideration of
energy impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts, other considerations, and cost
calculation. XCL and ARC are extremently well versed in natural gas compression facilities and
have been involved in many other natural gas compressor stations throughout Utah. The
proposed BACT for XCL follows Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division) Form 01b, UAC R307-401-
5, EPA federal standards, and feasible technologies of the natural gas industry nationwide.

XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 3 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
2 BACT ANALYSIS
2.1 Energy Impacts
Energy impacts are the first criteria when conducting BACT analysis. Certain types of control
technologies have inherent energy penalties associated with their use and industry application.
New modern gas compression engines utilize clean technology that are NSPS site compliant
capable. The three proposed engines for Patry are equipped with ADEM 3 technology that
enables the highest performance and safety while maintaining low emissions. It provides
integrated control of ignition, speed governing, protection, and controls, including detonation-
sensitive variable ignition timing. The enclosed flared has been tested and approved in
accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH to be included on the EPA’s
Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List.
The use of post-manufacturing add-on controls would require additional energy consumption for
the manufacturing and transport of the physical equipment, in addition to the transport of
manpower required for assembly and troubleshooting. It is difficult to estimate the amount of
energy needed, however the low-emissions levels of the engines and enclosed flare from the
manufacturer deem these add-ons as infeasible for BACT on the compressor station.
2.2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts include any unconventional or unusual impacts of using a control device,
such as the generation of solid or hazardous waste, water discharges, visibility impacts, or
emissions of unregulated pollutants. In the case of the natural gas compressor station, spent
catalyst reduction agent that could be considered hazardous would need to be disposed of, or
otherwise handled, every two to four years dependent on vendor and technology selected.
2.3 Economic Impacts
2.3.a Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant emissions from the internal combustion engines include NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and
VOCs. Annual operation of the engines will be 8,760 hours. The potential emissions from the
engines are provided in Table 1. The following analysis will illustrate that the use of the engines
XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 4 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
as supplied by the manufacturer without any additional emissions control methods is
recommended due to meeting or being below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ, and any additional control technologies would create an
undue cost burden on the facility.
Table 1 – Internal Combustion Engine Emissions
Component Operating
Hours Size NOx
(tons/yr)
PM10/PM2.5
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
VOC
(tons/yr)
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 0.47 15.17 5.65
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 0.47 15.17 5.65
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 0.47 15.17 5.65

Based on research and engineering experience, the control technologies for internal combustion
engines listed in Table 2 were considered for this BACT analysis.
Table 2 – Control Technologies for Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant Control Technology
CO/VOC Oxidation Catalyst
NOx
Exhaust Recirculation1.
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)
Lean Combustion (LC)
Good Combustion Practices
PM10/PM2.5
Fabric Filters
Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Wet ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Good Combustion Practices
1. Exhaust gas recirculation is not part of the original manufacturer design. Therefore, it is not
feasible without substantial engineering overhaul of the units.
The engines are subject to the NOx, CO, and VOC standards outlined in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart JJJJ for non-emergency spark ignition natural gas engines greater than or equal to 500
hp manufactured after July 1, 2007. The engines, as manufactured, meet and exceed the
standards, therefore no additional control technology will be required or used with the engines.

XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 5 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Table 3 –Engine Emissions, As Manufactured, Compared to Standard
Pollutant JJJJ Standard
(g/hp-hr) 1.
G3516 Engine
(g/hp-hr) % of Standard
CO 4.0 2.20 0.55
VOC 1.0 0.43 0.43
NOx 2.0 0.50 25.0
1. Standard from Table 1, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ
Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) was evaluated. NSCR is often referred to as a three-way
conversion catalyst system because the catalyst reactor simultaneously reduces NOx, CO, and
hydrocarbons and involves placing a catalyst in the exhaust stream of the engine. However, NSCR
technology works with only rich-burn engines. Because the proposed engines are lean-burn units,
use of a NSCR is not applicable. When assessing rich-burn engines compared to the lean-burn
engines, the process would require a higher air to fuel ratio and therefore require a higher fuel
usage rate. The lean-burn engines, associated with gas compression, require lower combustion
temperatures and result in higher fuel efficiency. Rich burn engines have higher uncontrolled
emissions and require catalysts to reduce CO, VOCs, HCHO, and NOX. Comparatively, ultra-low
NOX burners utilize less fuel and in turn are not viable with a catalytic control.
Table 4 – Emission Comparisons: Lean-Burn, Rich-Burn, and Controlled Rich-Burn Engines
Pollutant Lean-Burn PTE
(tpy)
Uncontrolled Rich-
Burn PTE (tpy)
Ctrl Rich-Burn PTE
(tpy) 1.
Lean-Burn vs Ctrl
Rich-Burn (tpy)
CO 15.17 177.99 17.80 -2.63
VOC 0.56 1.42 0.14 5.50
NOx 6.66 105.74 10.57 -3.91
CO2e 6,758 5,538 5,538 1,220
HAPs 3.44 1.55 0.23 3.21
1. NSCR with 90% Control
Shown in Table 4 above, the NOX and CO emissions would increase with the comparison from the
lean-burn engines to the controlled rich-burn engines. This comparison shows that the controlled
rich-burn engines would contribute to the non-attainment status of ozone. Therefore, the lean-
burn option is BACT for Patry’s compression engines.
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used to reduce NOx emissions from lean-burn engines
through the use of a reducing agent, such as ammonia or urea. SCR systems inject the reduction
agent into the lean-burn exhaust stream.
XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 6 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
The agent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx, converting it to molecular nitrogen (N2) and
water vapor (H2O). Control for a SCR system is typically 80-95% reduction of NOx (EPA, AP-42
Section 3.2).
An Oxidation Catalyst is a post-combustion technology that has been shown to reduce CO
emissions in lean-burn engines. In a catalytic oxidation system, CO passes over a catalyst, usually
a noble metal, which oxidizes the CO to CO2 at efficiencies of approximately 90% for 4-cycle lean-
burn engines. When used in conjunction with a SCR system, the CO2, water, and NOx then enter
the SCR catalyst, where the NOx reacts with the ammonia.
The proposed engines, as provided by the manufacturer, are lean burning engines. Lean
combustion technology involves the increase of the air-to-fuel ratio to lower the peak
combustion temperature, thus reducing formation of NOx. Typically, engines operate at the air-
to-fuel ratio of about 20 to 35 pounds of air to pound of fuel. In a typical Lean Burn engine, this
ratio is increased to 45 to 50. With a conventional spark ignition, the air fuel ratio can only be
increased to a certain point before the onset of lean misfire. To avoid misfire problems and to
ensure complete combustion of very lean mixtures, the engine manufacturers have developed
torch ignition technology and the application of a controlled swirl. Some increase in fuel
consumption and CO and HC emissions results from the slower flame propagation for very lean
mixtures. At optimal settings, new lean burn engines can achieve NOx levels of 2 g/hp-hr or below.
This corresponds to an 80 to 90 percent control over conventional spark plug design engines. By
comparison, the proposed engines for the XCL Gas Booster Station have NOx levels of 0.5 g/hp-
hr.
The total estimated capital investment associated with the installation, startup, and equipment
costs of a SCR is $960,267 per engine unit in 2023 dollars, in accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports
and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated
06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry costs collected and validated by the EPA
in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI). It was estimated that each catalyst has an operational life of 20,000 hours. Because all
three engines will operate 8,760 hr/yr, it is determined that significant maintenance activities
XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 7 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
will be required every 27 months. Each SCR unit is anticipated to have a use life of 20 years before
requiring complete replacement. With an effectiveness in reducing NOx emissions by 85%, a SCR
would remove an estimated 5.66 tons/year per unit. This results in a cost effectiveness of
$118,630 per engine per year and $20,956 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars. Additional
background information pertaining to the SCR capital and annual costs is provided in the
subsequent pages of this BACT Analysis.
2.3.b Enclosed Flare
The enclosed flare manufactured by Cimarron (Model No. 48” HV ECD) is included on the EPA’s
Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List in
accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH. It was performance tested on August
12, 2014, by AIR Hygiene, Inc, and demonstrates performance requirements with a maximum
inlet flow rate of 4553 scfh. As such, XCL AssetCo, LLC is exempt from conducting performance
tests under 40 CFR 60.5413(a)(7), 60.5413a(a)(7), 63.772(e), and/or 63.1282(d), and from
submitting test results under 40 CFR 60.5413(e)(6), 60.5413a(e)(6), 63.775(d)(ii), and/or
63.1285(d)(1)(ii) and no additional control technology will be added to the enclosed flare.
2.4 Other Considerations
Form 01b for BACT determination guidance from the Division lists 11 “other considerations” for
BACT analyses. Per each consideration listed, XCL and ARC are providing response as follows.
1. “When exceeding otherwise appropriate costs by a moderate amount would result in a
substantial additional emissions reduction.”
Based on the manufacturer provided specification information for each engine and enclosed
flare, the emissions from each unit are below the standards for appropriate emissions as outlined
in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ. There are no control technologies that would result in a substantial
additional emissions reduction, therefore the cost associated with any add-on control technology
would be considered substantial and well beyond a moderate amount.
2. “When a control technology would achieve controls of more than one pollutant (including
HAPs).”
XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 8 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
The Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) is the only control technology available to reduce
both NOx and CO, however the technology only works with rich-burn engines. Because the
proposed engines are lean-burn units, use of a NSCR is not applicable.
3. “Where the proposed BACT level would cause a new violation of an applicable NAAQS or
PSD increment. A permit cannot be issued to a source that would cause a new violation of
either.”
The emission limits for the proposed new natural gas compressor station will not cause a violation
of the NAAQS or PSD increment.
4. “When there are legal constraints outside of the Clean Air Act, such as a SIP or state rule,
requiring the application of a more stringent technology than one which otherwise would
have been determined to be BACT.”
There are no additional legal constraints that would require more stringent technology be used
at the natural gas compressor station.
5. “Any time a permit limit founded in BACT is being considered for revision, a reopening of
the original BACT determination must be made, even if the permit limit is exceeded by less
than the significant amount. Therefore, all controls upstream of the emission point,
including existing controls, must be re-evaluated for BACT.”
The new XCL Gas Booster Station is not yet constructed, and there is no original BACT
determination.
6. “The cost of all controls, including existing controls and any proposed control
improvements, should be expressed in terms of a single dollar year, preferably the current
year. Any proposed improvements should then be added to that cost, also in today’s
dollars.”
The cost of control was determined using the dollar year 2023, adjusted for inflation, in
accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR
Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated 06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry
costs collected and validated by the EPA in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on the
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).
XCL Patry Gas Booster Station BACT Analysis, v2
July 2024
Page 9 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
7. “EPA cannot provide a specific cost figure for cost/ton of pollutant removed without
contradicting the PSD definition of BACT. They recognize that a case-by-case evaluation
is inherently judgmental and can be particularly difficult without a cost guideline.”
The impacts of energy and costs of control were determined using EPA emission factors, control
efficiencies, and published studies.
8. “A top-down type of BACT analysis is recommended by EPA and required by Utah.”
A top-down type of BACT analysis was used, and ARC and XCL was over inclusive in considering
several control technologies, including NOx reduction technologies.
9. “DAQ will review BACT determination for plants not yet built, if those plants have already
applied for AOs and BACT determinations have already been made or proposed.”
The new XCL Gas Booster Station is not yet constructed.
10. “Utah must ensure that any technically feasible improvements to existing controls that
would fall within the realm of reasonableness be considered, unless the improvement
would yield insignificant additional control.”
All reasonable controls have been considered for this analysis.
11. “In all cases, a complete BACT analysis must be submitted and must consider
environmental and energy, as well as economic impacts, unless an existing BACT
determination/approval is applicable to your source and is acceptable to the DAQ.”
The proposed BACT for XCL follows Form 01b, UAC R307-101-2, EPA federal standards, and
capability of the natural compressor facility techniques nationwide.
Prepared with Assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
Attachment 3
Annual Cost Permit Engine - EPA Spreadsheet
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers between 275 and 5,500 MMBTU/hour :
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers between 205 and 4,100 MMBTU/hour :
Total Capital Investment (TCI) =$960,267 in 2023 dollars
Direct Annual Costs (DAC) =$18,094 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Costs (IDAC) =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total annual costs (TAC) = DAC + IDAC $118,630 in 2023 dollars
Annual Maintenance Cost =0.005 x TCI =$4,801 in 2023 dollars
Annual Reagent Cost =msol x Costreag x top =$2,714 in 2023 dollars
Annual Electricity Cost =P x Costelect x top = $3,656 in 2023 dollars
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost =$6,922 in 2023 dollars

nscr x Volcat x (CCreplace/Rlayer) x FWF
Direct Annual Cost = $18,094 in 2023 dollars
Administrative Charges (AC) = 0.03 x (Operator Cost + 0.4 x Annual Maintenance Cost) =$2,686 in 2023 dollars
Capital Recovery Costs (CR)=CRF x TCI =$97,851 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC) =AC + CR =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC) =$118,630
NOx Removed =5.66 tons/year
Cost Effectiveness = $20,956 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars
TCI = 7,850 x (2,200/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
Cost Estimate
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TCI for Oil and Natural Gas Boilers
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers >500 MW:
TCI = 62,680 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers >5,500 MMBtu/hour:
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers >4,100 MMBtu/hour:
TCI = 7,640 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 5,700 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 10,530 x (1,640/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers between 25MW and 500 MW:
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
TCI = 86,380 x (200/BMW )0.35 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
per year in 2023 dollars
Annual Costs
IDAC = Administrative Charges + Capital Recovery Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost/ NOx Removed/year
Direct Annual Costs (DAC)
DAC = (Annual Maintenance Cost) + (Annual Reagent Cost) + (Annual Electricity Cost) + (Annual Catalyst Cost)
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC)
TAC = Direct Annual Costs + Indirect Annual Costs
Prepared with Assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
Attachment 4
Formaldehyde Concentration

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District: https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads.xcxl (Ver. 1.0)
Equation
=
PPMV Values
Pollutant PPMV Value Reference
Formaldehyde 43.28 Permit Application
Pollutant Properties
Pollutant Molar Weight Units Notes
Formaldehyde 30.031 g/mol N/A
Gas Properties
Input Value Units
Molar Volume 379.7 dscf/lb-mol at 1 atm and 60 °F
Fd Factor 8710
Corrected Oxygen 9.1 percent
lb/MMBtu Values - AP-42, Vol. I, 3:2
Pollutant lb/MMBtu Value
Formaldehyde 0.0528
Processed By: Air Regulations Consulting, LLC Date: July 10, 2024
CONVERT BETWEEN PPMV AND LB/MMBTU
dscf/MMBtu (for 1,050 Btu/scf natural Gas at 60 °F)
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year)Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 3.17E-01 3.06 13.41
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year)Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis)25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year)Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42
does not list certain
HAP for certain types
of engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1 Version 1.1
February 21, 2019
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year)Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 3.17E-01 3.06 13.41
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year)Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis)25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year)Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42
does not list certain
HAP for certain types
of engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1 Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

DAQE-MN161540001-23

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Tim Dejulis, NSR Engineer

FROM: Jason Krebs, Air Quality Modeler

DATE: September 13, 2023

SUBJECT: Modeling Analysis Review for the Notice of Intent for XCL AssetCo, LLC – Patry
Booster Station, Duchesne County, Utah
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This is not a Major Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Source.
I. OBJECTIVE
XCL AssetCo, LLC (Applicant) is seeking an approval order for their Patry Booster Station located
in Duchesne County, Utah.

This report, prepared by the Staff of the New Source Review Section (NSR), contains a review of
the air quality impact analysis (AQIA) including the information, data, assumptions and modeling
results used to determine if the facility will be in compliance with applicable State and Federal
concentration standards.

II. APPLICABLE RULE(S)
Utah Air Quality Rules:

R307-401-6 Condition for Issuing an Approval Order
R307-410-3 Use of Dispersion Models
R307-410-4 Modeling of Criteria Pollutants in Attainment Areas
III. MODELING METHODOLOGY

A. Applicability

Emissions from the facility include PM10, NOx, CO, SO2, and HAPs. This modeling is part of a modified approval order. The emission rates for NOx triggered the requirement to model under
R307-410. Modeling was performed by the applicant.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

SPENCER J. COX
Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
Bryce C. Bird
Director

: 3 *
JK
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 2
B. Assumptions

1. Topography/Terrain

The Plant is at an elevation 5355 feet with terrain features that have an affect on
concentration predictions.

a. Zone: 12
b. Approximate Location:
UTM (NAD83): 575,701.26 meters East
4,459,114.12 meters North
2. Urban or Rural Area Designation
After a review of the appropriate 7.5-minute quadrangles, it was concluded the area is “rural” for air modeling purposes.
3. Ambient Air
It was determined the Plant boundary used in the AQIA meets the State’s definition of
ambient air.

4. Building Downwash
The source was modeled with the AERMOD model. All structures at the plant were used in
the model to account for their influence on downwash.

5. Meteorology

Five (5) years of off-site surface and upper air data were used in the analysis consisting of
the following:

Surface – Vernal Airport, UT NWS: 2016-2020
Upper Air – Grand Junction Airport, CO NWS: 2016-2020

6. Background
The background concentrations were based on concentrations measured in Roosevelt, Utah.
7. Receptor and Terrain Elevations

The modeling domain used by the Applicant consisted of receptors including property
boundary receptors. This area of the state contains mountainous terrain and the modeling
domain has simple and complex terrain features in the near and far fields. Therefore,
receptor points representing actual terrain elevations from the area were used in the
analysis.
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 3
8. Model and Options

The State-accepted AERMOD model was used to predict air pollutant concentrations under
a simple/complex terrain/wake effect situation. In quantifying concentrations, the
regulatory default option was selected.

9. Air Pollutant Emission Rates

XCL AssetCo, LLC – Patry Booster Station
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing Nox
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
COMBST 575582 4459169 0.46 2.01 8760
ENG1 575619 4459112 1.52 6.66 8760
ENG2 575609 4459117 1.52 6.66 8760
ENG3 575598 4459123 1.52 6.66 8760

Total 5.02 21.99
Crusoe Energy Systems – Osguthorpe Facility
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
EU01 576128 4457887 0.83 3.64 8760
EU02 576128 4457869 0.83 3.64 8760
EU03 576128 4457851 0.83 3.64 8760
EU04 576128 4457833 0.83 3.64 8760
EU05 576128 4457815 0.83 3.64 8760
EU06 576202 4457887 0.83 3.64 8760
EU07 576202 4457869 0.83 3.64 8760
EU08 576202 4457851 0.83 3.64 8760
EU09 576202 4457833 0.83 3.64 8760
EU10 576202 4457815 0.83 3.64 8760

Total 8.30 36.35
Crusoe Energy Systems – Residue Booster
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
RES01 572727 4457532 0.83 3.64 8760
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 4
RES02 572727 4457514 0.83 3.64 8760
RES03 572727 4457496 0.83 3.64 8760
RES04 572727 4457478 0.83 3.64 8760
RES05 572727 4457460 0.83 3.64 8760
RES06 572801 4457532 0.83 3.64 8760
RES07 572801 4457514 0.83 3.64 8760
RES08 572801 4457496 0.83 3.64 8760
RES09 572801 4457478 0.83 3.64 8760
RES10 572801 4457460 0.83 3.64 8760
Total 8.30 36.35 Crusoe Energy Systems – Myton Facility
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
SRC00041 576596 4444511 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00042 576596 4444493 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00043 576596 4444456 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00044 576596 4444438 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00045 576512 4444511 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00046 576512 4444493 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00047 576512 4444474 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00048 576512 4444456 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00049 576512 4444438 0.83 3.64 8760
SRC00050 576596 4444474 0.83 3.64 8760

Total 8.30 36.35
Crusoe Energy Systems – West Lateral Facility
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
WLAT01 562442 4452957 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT02 562461 4452957 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT03 562479 4452957 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT04 562497 4452957 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT05 562515 4452957 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT06 562442 4452867 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT07 562461 4452867 0.83 3.64 8760
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 5
WLAT08 562479 4452867 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT09 562497 4452867 0.83 3.64 8760
WLAT10 562515 4452867 0.83 3.64 8760
Total 8.30 36.35 Crusoe Energy Systems – Mullins Tap Facility
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
MULL01 578212 4452907 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL02 578230 4452907 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL03 578248 4452907 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL04 578266 4452907 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL05 578285 4452907 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL06 578212 4452819 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL07 578230 4452819 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL08 578248 4452819 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL09 578266 4452819 0.83 3.64 8760
MULL10 578285 4452819 0.83 3.64 8760

Total 8.30 36.35
Crusoe Energy Systems - Duchesne Data Center Power Station
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
TURBINE 567796 4460080 13.33 58.40 8760
GEN1 567878 4460114 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN2 567878 4460095 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN3 567879 4460077 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN4 567879 4460060 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN5 567879 4460040 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN6 567951 4460114 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN7 567951 4460095 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN8 567952 4460077 0.83 3.62 8760
BOOST1 567793 4460065 0.17 0.76 8760
BOOST2 567793 4460048 0.17 0.76 8760
REB1 567757 4460042 0.05 0.24 8760
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 6
REB2 567763 4460047 0.05 0.24 8760
EGEN1 567879 4460019 2.45 10.73 100
EGEN2 567879 4460011 2.45 10.73 100
GEN9 567952 4460058 0.83 3.62 8760
GEN10 567952 4460041 0.83 3.62 8760
Total 26.95 96.80

Ovinitive USA Inc. – Pleasant Valley Compressor Station
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
ENGINE1 576727 4444313 2.95 12.92 8760
ENGINE2 576718 4444313 2.95 12.92 8760
ENGINE3 576700 4444313 2.95 12.92 8760
FLARE 576669 4444216 0.09 0.39 8760
HEATER 576716 4444266 0.09 0.40 8760
REBOILER 576748 4444267 0.13 0.55 8760
ENGINE4 576709 4444313 2.95 12.92 8760
TNKHTR1 576789 4444273 0.02 0.07 8760
TNKHTR2 576790 4444268 0.02 0.07 8760
INCINER 576788 4444251 0.47 2.06 8760
ENGINE5 576735 4444313 2.95 12.92 8760
PVGEN 576747 4444333 0.14 0.61 8760
TNKHTR3 576790 4444263 0.02 0.07 8760
TNKHTR4 576790 4444258 0.02 0.07 8760

Total 15.73 68.89
Kinder Morgan Compressor Stations
Source
UTM Coordinates Modeled Emission Rates
Easting Northing NOx
(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) hrs/year
CUMUL1 564020 4467280 78.19 342.48 8760
CUMUL2 551427 4463055 74.10 324.54 8760
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 7
CUMUL3 548123 4457879 93.45 409.33 8760

Total 245.74 1076.36
10. Source Location and Parameters
Source Type
Source Parameters
Elev, Ht Temp Flow Dia
(ft) (m) (ft) (K) (m/s) (ft)
COMBST POINT 5355.4 7.7 25.3 922 0.03 1.22
ENG1 POINT 5350.7 3.3 10.7 741 45.01 0.30
ENG2 POINT 5351.5 3.3 10.7 741 45.01 0.30
ENG3 POINT 5352.2 3.3 10.7 741 45.01 0.30
EU01 POINT 5307.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU02 POINT 5307.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU03 POINT 5307.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU04 POINT 5306.2 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU05 POINT 5304.3 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU06 POINT 5304.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU07 POINT 5305.2 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU08 POINT 5304.8 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU09 POINT 5302.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
EU10 POINT 5300.8 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
CUMUL1 POINT 6107.2 9.5 31.0 700 21.19 0.31
CUMUL2 POINT 6740.9 9.1 30.0 700 21.18 0.31
CUMUL3 POINT 5855.3 9.1 30.0 700 21.19 0.31
TURBINE POINT 5825.4 12.2 40.0 765 46.40 1.83
GEN1 POINT 5828.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN2 POINT 5828.4 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN3 POINT 5828.5 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN4 POINT 5827.4 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN5 POINT 5825.8 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN6 POINT 5822.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN7 POINT 5821.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN8 POINT 5821.1 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
BOOST1 POINT 5823.7 7.6 25.0 944 16.47 0.33
BOOST2 POINT 5821.7 7.6 25.0 944 16.47 0.33
REB1 POINT 5822.5 5.5 18.0 450 6.10 0.30
REB2 POINT 5822.4 5.5 18.0 450 6.10 0.30
EGEN1 POINT 5823.6 5.5 18.0 765 16.73 0.46
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 8
EGEN2 POINT 5820.9 5.5 18.0 765 16.73 0.46
GEN9 POINT 5820.3 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
GEN10 POINT 5818.8 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES01 POINT 5448.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES02 POINT 5448.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES03 POINT 5448.3 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES04 POINT 5447.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES05 POINT 5447.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES06 POINT 5446.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES07 POINT 5445.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES08 POINT 5445.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES09 POINT 5444.4 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
RES10 POINT 5444.1 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT01 POINT 5477.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT02 POINT 5476.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT03 POINT 5476.2 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT04 POINT 5476.4 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT05 POINT 5477.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT06 POINT 5488.1 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT07 POINT 5487.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT08 POINT 5487.5 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT09 POINT 5486.5 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
WLAT10 POINT 5484.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
ENGINE1 POINT 5375.5 15.8 52.0 806 58.16 0.30
ENGINE2 POINT 5375.5 15.8 52.0 806 58.16 0.30
ENGINE3 POINT 5375.4 15.8 52.0 806 58.16 0.30
FLARE POINT 5378.0 21.3 70.0 811 96.81 0.30
HEATER POINT 5375.8 3.0 10.0 373 3.80 0.15
REBOILER POINT 5375.7 3.0 10.0 373 3.80 0.15
ENGINE4 POINT 5375.5 15.8 52.0 730 49.71 0.30
TNKHTR1 POINT 5375.5 6.1 20.0 373 3.80 0.15
TNKHTR2 POINT 5375.5 6.1 20.0 373 3.80 0.15
INCINER POINT 5375.6 6.1 20.0 981 1.92 1.22
ENGINE5 POINT 5375.5 15.8 52.0 806 58.16 0.30
PVGEN POINT 5374.0 2.4 8.0 704 28.46 0.15
TNKHTR3 POINT 5375.5 6.1 20.0 373 3.80 0.15
TNKHTR4 POINT 5375.5 6.1 20.0 373 3.80 0.15
SRC00041 POINT 5365.5 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00042 POINT 5366.2 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00043 POINT 5368.3 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
DAQE- MN161660001-23
Page 9
SRC00044 POINT 5369.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00045 POINT 5366.2 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00046 POINT 5366.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00047 POINT 5367.5 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00048 POINT 5368.8 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00049 POINT 5370.3 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
SRC00050 POINT 5366.9 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL01 POINT 5270.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL02 POINT 5269.8 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL03 POINT 5268.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL04 POINT 5267.4 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL05 POINT 5266.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL06 POINT 5260.5 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL07 POINT 5259.6 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL08 POINT 5259.0 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL09 POINT 5258.7 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33
MULL10 POINT 5258.3 7.6 25.0 861 56.60 0.33

IV. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The below table provides a comparison of the predicted total air quality concentrations with the NAAQS. The predicted total concentrations are less than the NAAQS.

Air
Pollutant
Period Prediction Class II
Significant
Impact
Level
Background Nearby
Sources*
Total NAAQS Percent
(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) NAAQS
NO2
1-
Hour 134.1 7.5 10.0 34.7 178.8 188 95.11%
JK:jg

4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…1/17
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
24 messages
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:07 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Good afternoon, Tim,

On-line we show you are the assigned DAQ Engineer for AssetCo’s Residue Booster Station. The full NOI for the project
is attached along with order confirmation and payment receipt from June 7. We wanted to check in and see how the NOI
review and AO processing are going, and if there is anything we can do to help, i.e., a phone call or meeting to help digest
the information.

If you recall, I believe we worked together on NOIs for Ramsey Hill and Geofortis. It is nice to be working with you again.
Please let us know if there are any questions or requests from us.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:09:14 -0500
Subject: Order confirmation
Your order 5698870 for the amount of $2,700.00 has been successfully processed.
Order Details
Order Number: 5698870
Order Date: Jun 7, 2023
Product Name Quantity Price Each
Approval Order Notice of Intent 1 $2,700.00
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…2/17
Notes:
Your uploaded file(s):
Thank you for your purchase.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:09:14 -0500
Subject: Online Payment Receipt
Credit Card Payment Receipt
Your payment was successfully processed.
Item Quantity Item
Amount Total
Approval Order Notice of Intent
Pre-Payment of Notice of Intent Approval Order ($2200) and Filing Fee ($500). Please
provide C...
1 $2,700.00 $2,700.00
Total Amount:$2,700.00
Payment Processing Details
Order Number:5698870
Date of Transaction:Jun 7, 2023
Amount Paid:$2,700.00
Cardholder's Name:Eric Sturm
Credit Card Number:***************0918
Credit Card Type:Visa
Amount Charged:$2,700.00
3 attachments
XCL AssetCo Res Booster Air NOI_05052023vSigned.pdf
14396K
Order confirmation.eml
3K
Online Payment Receipt.eml
5K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 4:23 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Hi Eric.
XCL Assets project has passed the preliminary review and I am working on their project right now. I will have it ready for
the peer as early as next week. The next step in our process has the peer reviewer inspecting my engineering review. Do
you have any questions for me at this time?
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…3/17
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:31 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Tim.

No questions from ARC or AssetCo at this time, but we would like to request periodic status updates. Did the project go
to peer review this week as potentially indicated last week?

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 12:11 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hi Eric.
Our review of the NOI is now completed, except for the following informational item: what is the emitted ppmvd, for NOx,
CO, and VOC, corrected to 15% excess oxygen, for each of the 1,340 hp engines? Once we have this information, XCL
AssetCo engineering review will go to the peer. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…4/17
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:19 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

We appreciate the update on the NOI. We certainly have the engine exhaust ppms requested below, and they will be
provided.

I recently spoke with the owners, and they mentioned the site may be shifted in location. If so, ARC would update the NOI
for the adjusted location and resubmit ASAP. They indicated no other changes to the project, i.e., equipment, process
flow, capacity, design, etc. will all stay the same.

We will update you soon with supplemental NOI and engine ppms. I will probably be giving you a call as well to best
explain.

Sincerely.
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:14 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

As mentioned two weeks ago, the location of the plant shifted. With the shift, AssetCo would like the name to be Patry
Gas Booster Station in lieu of Residue Booster Station. If there are any concerns with that, let’s discuss. The shift also
triggered a rerun of emissions modeling, and an updated report is included in the attachment. Otherwise, everything for
the plant and previous NOI remains the same for flow, layout, units, emissions, etc. Please see attached.

Notably, the engine exhaust ppms you requested are included in the attachment.

If there are any questions or further information we can provide, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…5/17
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 9:20 PM
To: 'Tim Dejulis' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Hi Tim,

We appreciate the update on the NOI. We certainly have the engine exhaust ppms requested below, and they will be
provided.

I recently spoke with the owners, and they mentioned the site may be shifted in location. If so, ARC would update the NOI
for the adjusted location and resubmit ASAP. They indicated no other changes to the project, i.e., equipment, process
flow, capacity, design, etc. will all stay the same.

We will update you soon with supplemental NOI and engine ppms. I will probably be giving you a call as well to best
explain.

Sincerely.

Eric Sturm
[Quoted text hidden]
ARC XCL Residue Booster NOI Update_20230811_signed.pdf
5098K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Eric,
Thank you for the update. This redraft puts XCL Assets back at the starting point though; we need to see if this NOI has
everything required. But, I'm sure this process will go quickly.
The modelers will need the BPIP files and the stack design parameters (height, flow rate, exit temperature, etc.) to be
submitted electronically to us, so that they can perform their work reviewing XCL Assets model. Let me know if you
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…6/17
have any questions about this.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 4:10 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Good afternoon, Dave and Jason,

Attached are the modeling files as well as a PDF with the stack parameters for Patry Gas Booster Station.

Please let us know if there is anything else you need.

Thank you,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Environmental Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 4:09 PM
To: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

FYI, need to send new files to DAQ for XCL.
Eric Sturm, ARC
m. 402.310.4211

4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…7/17
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>

Eric,

Thank you for the update. This redraft puts XCL Assets back at the starting point though; we need to see if this NOI has
everything required. But, I'm sure this process will go quickly.

The modelers will need the BPIP files and the stack design parameters (height, flow rate, exit temperature, etc.) to be
submitted electronically to us, so that they can perform their work reviewing XCL Assets model. Let me know if you
have any questions about this.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

[Quoted text hidden]
Patry Gas Booster Modeling Files.zip
574K
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 2:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…8/17

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:09 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney
Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Yes, we got them. We'll review this and get back to you if anything else, with regards to the modeling, is needed.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:52 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Tim. Can you share the NOI, and does it contain a report for the modeling?
Jason Krebs | Environmental Scientist | Utah Division of Air Quality
Phone: [phone]
195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
[Quoted text hidden]
Dave Prey <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:02 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Tim, is this project 161540001 - I will log the modeling files in and put it in line
[Quoted text hidden]
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…9/17
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:05 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>
Yes, that is correct.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:48 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim,

How is the review process going for AssetCo? If there are any questions or updates, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…10/17
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>; Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:06 AM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim,

It has been quite a while since we heard from DEQ on this application. Are we nearing source review of a draft AO?

Bes.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…11/17
From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:48 PM
To: 'Tim DeJulis' <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; 'Sydney Stauffer - ARC' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim,

How is the review process going for AssetCo? If there are any questions or updates, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…12/17
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>; Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:36 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Eric,
I was on PTO for several weeks, but am back this week. I have sent XCL Resources to my peer for their review today.
Thank you for following up with me.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:20 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys
<[e-mail]>
Teisha,
We are preparing XCL Resources (XCL) - Patsy booster station's engineering review (ER). We are at the final stage of
our reviewing process before XCL has a turn at inspecting the ER. Several questions have come up with regard to the
BACT analysis offered in the notice of intent (NOI).
In the estimation of the cost of implementation of the SCR, $20,956/engine, documentation was not supplied to
accompany this determination. Could we get the economic calculation used to support this determination?
In the evaluation whether the engine complies with the NSPS Subpart JJJJ, the figures used for NOx (2.0 g/hp-hr), CO
(4.0 g/hp-hr), and VOC (1.0 g/hp-hr) are from 2008. These need to be from 2011. Current research on the BACT of other
compressor stations needs to be used in the analysis, as well. For example, another compressor station has reported a
NOx emissions value of 0.25 g/hp-hr and the DAQ has accepted this. Could we have a more detailed evaluation of the
engine emissions from XCL's Patsy booster station?
The dehydration unit wasn't addressed in the BACT analysis. Please include this dehydrator in the new BACT analysis.
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…13/17
Usually there is a reboiler included as a part of the dehydrator and if a reboiler is used in this case, these emissions also
weren't included in the total emissions and the BACT analysis. WIll a reboiler be used at the Patsy booster station?
Would the flare device indicated for use in the NOI be large enough to handle the blowdown/startup process? Based on
our experience with other compressor station sites, a larger flare would be used to control the blowdown/startup and then
the smaller unit would control the normal process emissions. How will XCL deal with the issues of the emissions from the
blowdown/startup? If a larger flare is used, these emissions need to be added to the total emissions.
If any of the NOx, CO, or VOC emissions are increased, we might need another modeling effort.
If you have any questions or concerns let me know. Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:32 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys
<[e-mail]>
Good aernoon, Tim,

Per item requested, please see the bullets below and aachments. As noted, we think a call might be best to make
sure these items are fully addressed.

SCR, $20,956/engine: Please see page 86 of the NOI.
NSPS JJJJ references: The engines meet the 2011 standard; the references to 2008 are a typo. My apologies on
that.
Engine BACT “more detail”: A call might be best to discuss. The engines for Patry Booster will be new (model
year 2023). At the me of our NOI submial, we did not see anything in the range of 0.25 g/hp-hr for NOx. If
that was approved aer our NOI submial, then it should not apply. We can only account for BACT decisions
as available at the me our submial.
Dehydrator BACT: There is no dehydrator unit for this staon.
Reboiler queson: There is no reboiler at for this staon.
Flare blowdown/startup: The flare is designed to accommodate and control all emissions from the blowdown
and startup processes. In the NOI, we address in the PTE that all of these emissions will be routed to the flare
for control.

Please let us know a good me to have a call and discuss the engine detail item. We look forward to discussing that
with you.
[Quoted text hidden]
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…14/17
ARC XCL Residue Booster NOI Update_20230811_signed.pdf
5098K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 5:21 PM
To: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys
<[e-mail]>, Andrea Riddle <[e-mail]>, Teri Houskeeper <[e-mail]>
Eric,
I have our finance department asking me a question about the name of your company. Wasatch Water Logistics, LLC dba
XCL Resources was permitted by us in 2022. I personally have two current projects being made into an AO: XCL Assets
and XCL Resources. Which one of these three names should we use in our work? Please advise.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:49 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Andrea Riddle
<[e-mail]>, Teri Houskeeper <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

Thank you for asking. For this project, the Patry Booster Staon, in the NOI we listed the company name as “XCL
AssetCo, LLC.” I suppose XCL Assets might be the closest match to the three names you listed. But, if you could
please make the AO for XCL AssetCo, that would be preferred.

Please let me know if that answers your queson.

Sincerely.

P.S. Separately, ARC is assisng on another project/AO. Dungan Adams is the Engineer processing that project. I will
make sure he has the right company name.
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 9:16 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys
<[e-mail]>, Andrea Riddle <[e-mail]>, Teri Houskeeper <[e-mail]>, Dungan Adams
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…15/17
<[e-mail]>
Thank you for the information, but we still have the question as to what to call your company. With the Pastry booster
station, it's XCL Asset Co. The Anderson sand mine is XCL Asset Co. as well. What about the Microgrid Pad One site
as XCL Resources? Are all of these dba under Wasatch Water Logistics? Are we to assign the company name actually
appearing on the notice-of-intent? Please advise.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Teri Houskeeper <[e-mail]>Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:08 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC
<[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Andrea Riddle <[e-mail]>, Dungan
Adams <[e-mail]>, Lauren Brown <[e-mail]>
Hello all,
I spoke with Lauren In January when converting the AO's to PBR's and asked some of the same
questions. I copied her on this email string so she can confirm if I am recapping this correctly.
Lauren:
"XCL AssetCo and XCL Resources are the same company – two different legal entities under the same umbrella.
Technically all of our assets sit under the XCL AssetCo entity, so I submitted a name change to DAQ awhile back to
change the name from XCL Resources to XCL AssetCo."
I asked about:
Wasatch Water Logistics LLC, dba XCL Resources LLC
XCL AssetCo, LLC- Residue Booster Station
XCL SandCo, LLC- Anderson Sand Mine
Should all the locations be changed to say: XCL AssetCo?
Lauren Replied:
"Wasatch Water Logistics and XCL SandCo are two other legal entities under the XCL Resources
umbrella so we should leave those as is since the assets under those AOs should stay with that entity".
I told her I would leave:
16087: Wasatch Water Logistics LLC, dba XCL Resources LLC (Minor - O&G) Recycle Water Pit 11, NW 1/4 of SEC. 24,
T2S, R3W, U.S. B. & M., Duchesne County, (Duchesne), UT
16187: XCL SandCo, LLC- Anderson Sand Mine (Minor Source) 5 Miles SE of Bluebell, Duchesne County, (Duchesne),
UT
All other sites would be changed to: XCL AssetCo. as the owner
She asked for them to be billed as separate owners. I have all 3 set up in the system as owners with the
same mailing address:
XCL AssetCo, LLC (All sites other than 2 listed above)
Customer ID VC237207
600 North Shepherd Drive Suite 390
Houston, Texas 77007
4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…16/17
XCL Resources LLC -- Owner for (Site ID 16087) Wasatch Water Logistics LLC, dba XCL Resources LLC
Customer ID VC261579
600 North Shepherd Drive Suite 390
Houston, Texas 77007
XCL SandCo, LLC
Has not been invoiced yet - no customer ID set up in FINET
600 North Shepherd Drive Suite 390
Houston, Texas 77007
I think the only outstanding question is in regards to the new NOI that was just received a few days
ago for Microgrid -- Which of the three entities above do you want it to be assigned to?
XCL AssetCo LLC
XCL Resources LLC
XCL SandCo, LLC
Tim is that what you are thinking as well?
Teri Houskeeper
Senior Business Analyst
Division of Air Quality
[phone]
[e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:27 AM
To: Teri Houskeeper <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC
<[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>, Andrea Riddle <[e-mail]>, Dungan
Adams <[e-mail]>, Lauren Brown <[e-mail]>
Teri,
Microgrid pad one is under XCL Resources and according to the above email where you describe what was dealt with for
these three entities, I will leave it as XCL Resources. I hope your explanation is good enough for Teri Weiss and Andrea to
process these sites in the future.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:42 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Teri Houskeeper <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>, Alan Humpherys
<[e-mail]>, Andrea Riddle <[e-mail]>, Dungan Adams <[e-mail]>, Lauren Brown
<[e-mail]>
Tim, Teri,

4/8/24, 4:40 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…17/17
It seems this email chain has evolved quite a bit and mulple people have been added. I will answer what I can for
the projects where ARC is the technical contact for the NOIs.

For the Patry Booster Staon, this is XCL AssetCo. That is the subject line of the email, and so we wanted to
clarify that first.

For the Anderson Sand Mind, this is XCL SandCo. Clarifying this one as well given Dungan was copied, and we
appreciate his efforts on that AO.

As for Wasatch Water, Microgrid, and other potenal XCL related sites, we will work with the client and get back with
the DAQ to confirm. Or, someone from XCL may follow up with the DAQ individually for the other sites.

Also, FYI, Lauren Brown is on maternity leave. We appreciate the DAQ’s understanding that this may cause some
slight delay in answering the enty name quesons.
[Quoted text hidden]

AIR REGULATIONS CONSULTING,LLC•5455 RED ROCK LN, STE 13, LINCOLN, NE 68516•402.817.7887•AIRREGCONSULTING.COM

May 5, 2023

Attn: Alan Humphreys
Permits, Division of Air Quality
P.O. Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

{Submitted via electronic copy submittal utahgove.co1.qualtrics.com and to: [e-mail]}

RE: Initial Minor Source NOI for New Residue Booster Station, UAR R307-401-5
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, UT

Dear Mr. Alan Humphreys,

XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL) is submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Approval Order (AO) pursuant to R307-
401-5 through 8 R307-401-9 for a new Residue Booster Station to be located near Roosevelt. The Booster
Station is a minor source of emissions, and its purpose is to compress natural gas pumped from multiple
well sites. The facility will be comprised of three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition internal
combustion engines for compression, liquid condensate storage tanks, and an enclosed flare for
combustion of storage tank vapors. The Residue Booster Station will be located 7.7 miles West via US-
191, 3000S, and 700 W from Roosevelt. The Station will operate in Duchesne County, which is classified
as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone. The three (3) internal combustion engines and single
enclosed combustor flare will emit 21.97 tons of NOx per twelve-month rolling period, as shown in the
potential-to-emit (PTE) calculations with this NOI. As such, the project will not cause significant emissions
as defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(2) and therefore, the project shall be considered a minor source
of emissions.

Per UDAQ Air Quality Modeling Guidance, emissions modeling of NO2 was not required for the project,
however modeling results for the emission units Engine 1 (ICE-1), Engine 2 (ICE-2), Engine 3 (ICE-3), and
Flare (FLR) are being provided as a review courtesy. The modeled impacts in the table below show that
the NAAQS and UDAQ AAQS will not be exacerbated.

Table 1: Maximum Ambient Air Quality Impacts
Criteria
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
Max Modeled
Conc. (μg/m3)
Background
(μg/m3)
Total Conc.
(μg/m3)
NAAQ Standard
(μg/m3)
Exceeds
NAAQS?
NO2 1-hour 132.72 Monthly 165.18 188.00 No

In accordance with Table 2 and R307-410-5(1)(c)(i)(C), ARC and XCL determined that SCREEN3 modeling
for formaldehyde was not required for emission units ICE-1, ICE-2, and ICE-3. While not required, the
SCREEN3 model run was conducted as a courtesy and found that the 8-hr time weighted average (TWA)
will not be exceeded for formaldehyde from the combustion of the three (3) compression engines. The
modeling section of this NOI application details the modeling determination calculations and the SCREEN3
results.
Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
XCL AssetCo, LLC - Residue Booster Station NOI
May 5, 2023
Page 2 of 2

In accordance with Statute 19-2-108(3)(a), a $500 filing fee and $2,200 review fee are needed for the
Minor New Source Review NOI, therefore a check for $2,700 is being provided with the NOI to the Division
of Air Quality. Should the DAQ have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please do not
hesitate to contact me, Eric Sturm at 402.817.7887 or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Eric Sturm
ARC Principal, Senior Consultant

Enclosures

Cc: Teisha Black, XCL AssetCo, LLC

XCL ASSETCO, LLC
NOTICE OF INTENT FOR
MINOR SOURCE
RESIDUE BOOSTER STATION
FACILITY LOCATED AT:
REMOTE LOCATION
UTM 12, 572743.87 E, 4457486.80 N
DUCHESNE COUNTY, UT
SUBMITTED TO:
PERMITS, DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
P.O. BOX 144820
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
SUBMITTAL DATE:
MAY 5, 2023

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 1
NOI APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Form 1 Date __________________
Notice of Intent (NOI) Application Checklist
Company __________________
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Source Identification Information [R307-401-5]
1. Company name, mailing address, physical address and telephone number †2. Company contact (Name, mailing address, and telephone number)†3. Name and contact of person submitting NOI application (if different than 2)†4. Source Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates †
5. Source Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code †
6. Area designation (attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment)†7. Federal/State requirement applicability (NAAQS, NSPS, MACT, SIP, etc.)†8. Source size determination (Major, Minor, PSD)†9. Current Approval Order(s) and/or Title V Permit numbers †
NOI Application Information:[R307-401]
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†N/A †
†N/A †
A. Air quality analysis (air model, met data, background data, source impact analysis) †N/A †
Detailed description of the project and source process
Discussion of fuels, raw materials, and products consumed/produced
Description of equipment used in the process and operating schedule
Description of changes to the process, production rates, etc.
Site plan of source with building dimensions, stack parameters, etc.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Analysis [R307-401-8]
$BACT analysis for all new and modified equipment
Emissions Related Information: [R307-401-2(b)]
$Emission calculations for each new/modified unit and site-wide(Include PM10, PM2.5,NOx, SO2, CO, VOCs, HAPs, and GHGs)
%References/assumptions, SDS, for each calculation and pollutant
&All speciated HAP emissions (list in lbs/hr)
Emissions Impact Analysis – Approved Modeling Protocol [R307-410]
$Composition and physical characteristics of effluent(emission rates, temperature, volume, pollutant types and concentrations)
Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas – Major NSR/Minor (offsetting only)[R307-403]
$NAAQS demonstration, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, Offset requirements
%Alternative site analysis, Major source ownership compliance certification
Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD) [R307-405, R307-406]
%Visibility impact analysis, Class I area impact
 6LJQDWXUHRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
†N/A †
Note: The Division of Air Quality will not accept documents containing confidential information or data.
Documents containing confidential information will be returned to the Source submitting the application.
N/A
N/A
May 5, 2023
XCL AssetCo, LLC
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 2
COMPANY INFORMATION

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 3
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Page 1 of 1
Form 3 Company____________________
Process Information Site________________________
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Process Information)RU1HZ3HUPLW21/<
1. Name of process: 2. End product of this process:
3. Process Description*:
Operating Data
4. Maximum operating schedule:
__________ hrs/day
__________days/week
__________weeks/year
5. Percent annual production by quarter:
Winter ________ Spring _______
Summer ________ Fall _______
6. Maximum Hourly production (indicate units.):
_____________
7. Maximum annual production (indicate units):
________________
8. Type of operation:
Continuous Batch Intermittent
9. If batch, indicate minutes per cycle ________
Minutes between cycles ________
10. Materials and quantities used in process.*
Material Maximum Annual Quantity (indicate units)
11.Process-Emitting Units with pollution control equipment*
Emitting Unit(s) Capacity(s) Manufacture Date(s)
*If additional space is required, please create a spreadsheet or Word processing document and attach to form.
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
Natural Gas Compressor
Engines (Three (3) Units)
Compressed Natural Gas
The Residue Booster Station, located in a remote location of Duchesne County, compresses
natural gas pumped from multiple well sites. The natural gas is routed to an inlet scrubber to
remove water and then it is sent to three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition internal
combustion engines for compression. Any liquid condensate from compression will be
routed to storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion.
24
7
52
25%
25%
25%
25%
0.6325 MMSCF 5,540.7 MMSCF
✔
N/A
N/A
Natural Gas 94.935 MMSCF/yr
ICE-01 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-02 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-03 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
FLR - Enclosed Vapor Combuster 11.7 MMBtu/hr 2024
TK-301 21,000-Gal 2024
TK-302 21,000-Gal 2024

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 5
EMISSIONS TOTALS
Page 1 of 1
Company___________________________
6LWH_____________________________
Form 
Emissions Information
Criteria/GHGs/ HAP’s
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Potential to Emit* Criteria Pollutants & GHGs
Criteria Pollutants Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emissions Increases
(tons/yr)
Proposed Emissions
(tons/yr)
PM10 Total
PM10 Fugitive
PM2.5
NOx
SO2
CO
VOC
VOC Fugitive
NH3
Greenhouse Gases CO2e CO2e CO2e
CO2CH4N2O
HFCs
PFCs
SF6
Total CO2e
*Potential to emit to include pollution control equipment as defined by R307-401-2.
Hazardous Air Pollutants**(**Defined in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act )
Hazardous Air
Pollutant***
Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(tons/yr)
Proposed
Emission (tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(lbs/hr)
Total HAP
*** Use additional sheets for pollutants if needed
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 21.97 21.97
0.00 0.07 0.07
0.00 89.63 89.63
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 19,957.00 19,957.00
0.00 159.01 159.01
0.00 0.11 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 20,116.12 20,116.12
1,3-Butadiene 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Acetaldehyde 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.24
Acrolein 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.15
Benzene 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.01
Biphenyl 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Formaldehyde 0.00 2.23 2.23 0.51
Methanol 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.07
n-Hexane 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.04
Toluene 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01
Xylene 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01
Other/Trace HAP 0.00 4.53 4.53 1.34
0.00 9.19 9.19 2.10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 4
FLARE SYSTEMS
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company___________________________
Site/Source__________________________
Form 4 Date_______________________________
Flare Systems
Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer:
_________________________
Model no.:
_________________________
(if available)
2. Design and operation shall be in accordance with 40CFR63.11. In addition
to the information listed in this form, provide the following: an assembly
drawing with dimensions, interior dimensions and features, flare’s
maximum capacity in BTU/hr.
3.Characteristics of Waste Gas Stream Input
Components Min. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68 oF, 14.7 psia)
Ave. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
Design Max.
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
4. Percent of time this
condition occurs
5. Flow rate: Minimum Expected Design Maximum Temp oF Pressure (psig)
Waste Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Fuel Added to Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Heat content of the gas to be flared ______________ BTU/ft3
6. Number of pilots 7. Type of fuel 8. Fuel Flow Rate (scfm @ 68oF & 14.7 psia) per pilot
Page 1 of 3
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Cimarron
48" HV ECD
Enclosed Flare 0.50 75.694 75.694
0% 100% 100%
0 MSCFD
30 SCFH
109 MSCFD
4553 SCFH
1200
1200
atm
8-10
2500
1 Natural Gas 0.50 SCFM
Page 2 of 3
Flare Systems
Form 4
(Continued)

Steam Injection
9. Steam pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
10. Total steam flow Rate (lb/hr)
11. Temperature (oF) 12. Velocity (ft/sec)
13. Number of jet streams 14. Diameter of steam jets (inches)
15. Design basis for steam injected (lb steam/lb hydrocarbon)
Water Injection
16. Water pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
17. Total Water Flow Rate (gpm)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
18. Number of water jets 19. Diameter of Water jets (inches)
20. Flare height (ft) 21. Flare tip inside diameter (ft)
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. Calculated emissions for this device
PM10 _________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr PM2.5 __________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
NOx __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr SOx ___________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
CO __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr VOC ___________Lbs/hr________Tons/yr
CO2 _________Tons/yr CH4 ___________Tons/yr
N2O _________Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)__________Tons/yr (speciate)
Submit calculations as an appendix. If other pollutants are emitted, include the emissions in the appendix.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
0.00862 0.15 0.00862 0.15
0.4542 1.99 0.00273 0.0119
0.3815 1.67 0.02498 0.11
5,995 0.0113
0.11
0.00858 0.0376
Page 3 of 3
Instructions - Form 4 Flare Systems
NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in filling out
this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
1. Specify the manufacturer and model number.
2. Supply an assembly drawing, dimensioned and to scale of the interior dimensions and features of the
equipment.
3. Supply the specifications of the fuel components in the waste gas stream.
4. Indicate what percent of the time the waste gas stream is at minimum, average, and maximum value.
5. Supply the specifications of the total waste gas stream and the fuel added to the gas stream.
6. Indicate the number of pilots in the flare.
7. Specify the type of fuel to be used.
8. Specify the fuel flow rate.
9. Indicate the minimum and design maximum steam pressure for steam injection.
10. Supply the steam flow rate.
11. Supply the temperature of the steam.
12. Specify the velocity of the steam.
13. Indicate the number of jet streams.
14. Give the diameter of the steam jets.
15. Give the design basis for the steam injection.
16. Specify the water pressure at minimum and design maximum using water injection.
17. Give the total water flow rate at minimum and design maximum.
18. Supply the number of water jets.
19. Give the diameter of the water jets.
20. Supply the flare height.
21. Supply the flare tip inside diameter.
22. Supply calculations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or Manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
U:aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\ Form04 Flare Systems.doc
Revised 12/20/10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-01)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
1

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-02)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
2

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-03)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
3

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #1

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-301
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #2

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-302
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
FACILITY-WIDE
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
Facility PTE
Emission Type
Process
Number Unit ID Description Site Rating
Operatong
Hours/Year
Particulate Matter <10μ
(PM10)
Particulate Matter <2.5μ
(PM2.5)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX)
Sulfur Oxides
(SOX)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs)
Point 001 ICE-01 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05
Point 002 ICE-02 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 003 ICE-03 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 004 FLR Enclosed Vapor Combustor 11.7 MMBtu/hr 8760 hr/year 0.15 0.15 1.99 0.012 1.67 0.11 0.038
Point 005 TK-301 500-BBL Tank 301 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065Point 006 TK-302 500-BBL Tank 302 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.19
Facility PTE (tpy)
PointFugitive
Facility PTE (tpy)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
ENCLOSED FLARE SYSTEM
EMITTING UNIT: FLR
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Total Emissions
Pollutant PTE Flare
(tpy)
PTE Pilot
(tons/yr)
PTE Combustor
(tpy)
PM 3.78E-02 0.0010 0.0388
PM10 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
PM2.5 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
SO2 1.19E-02 0.0001 0.0120
NOx 1.99 0.0131 2.0024
CO 1.67 0.0110 1.6820
VOC 0.11 0.0007 0.1101
Benzene 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Dichlorobenzene 2.39E-05 1.58E-07 2.40E-05
Formaldehyde 1.49E-03 9.86E-06 1.50E-03
Hexane 3.58E-02 2.37E-04 3.60E-02
Lead Compounds 9.95E-06 6.57E-08 1.00E-05
Naphthalene 1.21E-05 8.02E-08 1.22E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]1.75E-06 1.16E-08 1.77E-06
Toluene 6.76E-05 4.47E-07 6.81E-05
Arsenic Compounds 3.98E-06 2.63E-08 4.00E-06
Beryllium Compounds 2.39E-07 1.58E-09 2.40E-07
Cadmium Compounds 2.19E-05 1.45E-07 2.20E-05
Chromium Compounds 2.78E-05 1.84E-07 2.80E-05
Cobalt Compounds 1.67E-06 1.10E-08 1.68E-06
Manganese Compounds 7.56E-06 4.99E-08 7.61E-06
Mercury Compounds 5.17E-06 3.42E-08 5.21E-06
Nickel Compounds 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Selenium Compounds 4.77E-07 3.15E-09 4.81E-07
Total HAPs 3.76E-02 2.48E-04 3.78E-02
CO2 5,995 0.00 5995
CH4 1.13E-02 0.00 0.01
N2O 0.11 0.00 0.11
GHGs (mass basis) 5,995 0.00 5995
CO2e 6,029 0.00 6029
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Greenhouse Gases
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Flare Emissions
Designed Heat Input 11.7 MMBtu/hr (Max)
Max Natural Gas Usage 39.785 MMscf/yr
Enclosed vapor combustor
Pollutant Natural Gas Emission
Factor[1]Units PTE
(lbs/yr)
PTE
(tpy)
PM 1.90 75.59 3.78E-02
PM10 7.60 302.37 0.15
PM2.5 7.60 302.37 0.15
SO2 0.60 23.87 1.19E-02
NOx 100.00 3,979 1.99
CO 84.00 3,342 1.67
VOC 5.50 218.82 0.11
Benzene 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Dichlorobenzene 1.20E-03 4.77E-02 2.39E-05
Formaldehyde 7.50E-02 2.98 1.49E-03
Hexane 1.80 71.61 3.58E-02
Lead Compounds 5.00E-04 1.99E-02 9.95E-06
Naphthalene 6.10E-04 2.43E-02 1.21E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]8.82E-05 3.51E-03 1.75E-06
Toluene 3.40E-03 0.14 6.76E-05
Arsenic Compounds 2.00E-04 7.96E-03 3.98E-06
Beryllium Compounds 1.20E-05 4.77E-04 2.39E-07
Cadmium Compounds 1.10E-03 4.38E-02 2.19E-05
Chromium Compounds 1.40E-03 5.57E-02 2.78E-05
Cobalt Compounds 8.40E-05 3.34E-03 1.67E-06
Manganese Compounds 3.80E-04 1.51E-02 7.56E-06
Mercury Compounds 2.60E-04 1.03E-02 5.17E-06
Nickel Compounds 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Selenium Compounds 2.40E-05 9.55E-04 4.77E-07
75.13 3.76E-02
Greenhouse Gases Natural Gas Emission
Factor[2]Units PTE
(lbs/hr)
PTE
(tpy)
CO2 116.98 1,369 5,995
CH4 2.20E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
N2O 2.20E-03 2.58E-02 0.11
1,369 5,995
1,377 6,029
[1] AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, 1.4-3, and 1.4-4 (6/1998) for all emission factors except greenhouse gases.
[2] GHG Factors from 40 CFR 98 Tables A-1 (Oct. 30, 2009), C-1 and C-2 (Nov. 29, 2013). Emission factors converted from kg/MMBtu to lb/MMBtu.
40 CFR Part 98, Table A-1 to Subpart A of Part 98—Global Warming Potentials (GWP). CO2e = [1 x CO2] + [21 x CH4] + [310 x N2O].
[3] POM includes 2-Methylnaphthalene, 3-Methylchloranthrene, 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene,
Benz(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene,
Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Phenanathrene, and Pyrene.
CO2e
lb/106 SCF
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
lb/106 SCF
Total HAPs
lb/MMBtu
GHGs (mass basis)
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Pilot Emissions
Total Heat Input Capacity of Pilot 30.0 scf/hr
Pilot Natural Gas Usage 0.2628 MMscf/yr
Operating Time 8760 hr/yr
Pollutant Emission Factor1
(lb/MMscf)
Potential
Emission Rate
(lbs/yr)
Potential
Emission Rate
(tons/yr)
Particulate Matter (PM) 7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Particulate Matter (PM10)7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 26.2800 0.0131
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)0.6 0.1577 0.0001
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 84 22.0752 0.0110
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5.5 1.4454 0.0007
Individual HAPs
Benzene 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Dichlorobenzene 0.0012 3.15E-04 1.58E-07
Formaldehyde 0.075 1.97E-02 9.86E-06
Hexane 1.8 4.73E-01 2.37E-04
Lead Compounds 0.0005 1.31E-04 6.57E-08
Naphthalene 0.00061 1.60E-04 8.02E-08
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) 0.0000882 2.32E-05 1.16E-08
Toluene 0.0034 8.94E-04 4.47E-07
Arsenic Compounds (ASC) 0.0002 5.26E-05 2.63E-08
Beryllium Compounds (BEC) 0.000012 3.15E-06 1.58E-09
Cadmium Compounds (CDC) 0.0011 2.89E-04 1.45E-07
Chromium Compounds (CRC) 0.0014 3.68E-04 1.84E-07
Cobalt Compounds (COC) 0.000084 2.21E-05 1.10E-08
Manganese Compounds (MNC) 0.00038 9.99E-05 4.99E-08
Mercury Compounds (HGC) 0.00026 6.83E-05 3.42E-08
Nickel Compounds (NIC) 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Selenium Compounds (SEC) 0.000024 6.31E-06 3.15E-09
Total HAPs 1.89 0.4963 2.48E-04
1Emission Factors from AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3 (7/98)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #1
EMITTING UNIT: TK-301
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-301
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 301, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)3.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):3.0298 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):1.5988
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):1.5988 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.3122
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 13.28 3.03 16.31
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #2
EMITTING UNIT: TK-302
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-302
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 302, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)0.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):2.8485 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):0.9260
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):0.9260 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.1309
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 13.28 2.85 16.13
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FACILITY LAYOUT
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
OVERALL FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 1
CG
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
FACILITY OVERVIEW1
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
N
S
EW
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N/S: 0+00
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
N: 0+50
N: 1+50
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N: 0+50
N: 1+00
N: 1+50
N/S: 0+00
N: 2+00 N: 2+00
N: 2+50 N: 2+50
PROPOSED SUA
ENLARGED VIEW
SEE SHEET 2
74'-1034"
PIPE RACK
COMPRESSOR
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR
FURURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
100' RADIUS
SCRUBBER
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
N: 1+00
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
ENLARGED FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 2
CG
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
ENLARGED VIEW1
N S
E
W
S:

-
0
+
5
0
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
N:

0
+
5
0
N/
S
:

0
+
0
0
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
S:

-
1
+
0
0
71'-911
16"15'26'-49
16"15'
40'
10'
10'
15'
12'
135'
47'6'
100'
82'
3'
16'-6"
N:

1
+
0
0
N:

1
+
5
0
S:

-
1
+
5
0
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
6'
10'
20'
26'-4 9
16"15'15'-51
8"
20'
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR FUTURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
PIPE RACK
100' RADIUS
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
144.0000
2'
100'
6'-9"
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FLOW DIAGRAM
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

~
2
0
0

P
S
I
G
ESD.
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

7
5
0

P
S
I
G
PCV.
FE.
FE.PCV.
FE.
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
PSV.
CS300 CS150
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
PSV.
VENT
LP DRAIN
DISCHARGE
C-201 C-202 C-203
TK-301 TK-302
V-100
FL-400
V-100
SLUG CATCHER
6' O.D. X 20'-0"# PSIG @#°F
C-201
COMPRESSOR
C-202
COMPRESSOR
C-203
FUTURE COMPRESSOR
TK-301
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
TK-302
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
FL-400
COMBUSTOR
ESD.
PCV.
V-110
V-110
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
#' X #'-#"# PSIG @#°F
FE.
RESIDUE SUCTION
FUEL GAS
DRAWN BY: CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
LOS
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
NO. DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

12/28/22
NONE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
0RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD PFD SHEET 0.30
CG
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG 12/6/22

XCL AssetCo, LLC
BACT ANALYSIS
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 1 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is providing a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for a new Residue Booster Station for the Notice of
Intent (NOI). This BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division of
Air Quality (DAQ or Division) Form 01b for BACT determinations. XCL is planning to install a
Residue Booster Station, calculated to be a minor source, to compress natural gas pumped from
multiple well sites. The facility will be comprised of three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition
internal combustion engines for compression, two (2) liquid condensate storage tanks, and an
enclosed flare for combustion of storage tank vapors. The Residue Booster Station will be located
in a remote location of Duchesne County, approximately 7.7 miles West via US-191, 3000S, and
700 W from Roosevelt, Utah.

This report contains analysis of BACT for particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission for the Residue Booster
Station. For reference, UAC R307-101-2, defines BACT specifically to the following:

“BACT means an emission limitation and/or other controls to include design,
equipment, work practice, operation standard or combination thereof, based on a
maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act and/or the Utah Air Conservation Act emitted from or which results
from any emitting installation, which the Air Quality Board, on a case-by-case basis
taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such installation through application of production
process and available methods, systems and techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such
pollutant. In no event shall application of BACT result in emission of pollutants
which will exceed the emissions allowed by section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act.”
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 2 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

As the rule states, XCL and ARC are obligated to base proposed BACT on the most effective
engineering techniques and control equipment to minimize emission of air contaminants from
its process to the extent achievable within the industry. Furthermore, based on this definition
and the DAQ’s Form 01b Guidance on BACT, this analysis for XCL’s Residue Booster Station
includes consideration of energy impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts, other
considerations, and cost calculation. XCL and ARC are extremently well versed in natural gas
compression facilities and have been involved in many other natural gas compressor stations
throughout Utah. The proposed BACT for XCL follows Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division)
Form 01b, UAC R307-401-5, EPA federal standards, and feasible technologies of the natural gas
industry nationwide.
2 BACT ANALYSIS

2.1 Energy Impacts
Energy impacts are the first criteria when conducting BACT analysis. Certain types of control
technologies have inherent energy penalties associated with their use and industry application.
New modern gas compression engines utilize clean technology that are NSPS site compliant
capable. The three proposed engines for the XCL’s Residue Booster Station are equipped with
ADEM 3 technology that enables the highest performance and safety while maintaining low
emissions. It provides integrated control of ignition, speed governing, protection, and controls,
including detonation-sensitive variable ignition timing. The enclosed flared has been tested and
approved in accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH to be included on the
EPA’s Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List.

The use of post-manufacturing add-on controls would require additional energy consumption for
the manufacturing and transport of the physical equipment, in addition to the transport of
manpower required for assembly and troubleshooting. It is difficult to estimate the amount of
energy needed, however the low-emissions levels of the engines and enclosed flare from the
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 3 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
manufacturer deem these add-ons as infeasible for BACT on the compressor station.

2.2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts include any unconventional or unusual impacts of using a control device,
such as the generation of solid or hazardous waste, water discharges, visibility impacts, or
emissions of unregulated pollutants. In the case of the natural gas compressor station, spent
catalyst reduction agent that could be considered hazardous would need to be disposed of, or
otherwise handled, every two to four years dependent on vendor and technology selected.

2.3 Economic Impacts
2.3.a Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant emissions from the internal combustion engines include NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and
VOCs. Annual operation of the engines will be 8,760 hours. The potential emissions from the
engines are provided in Table 1. The following analysis will illustrate that the use of the engines
as supplied by the manufacturer without any additional emissions control methods is
recommended due to meeting or being below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ, and any additional control technologies would create an
undue cost burden on the facility.

Table 1 – Internal Combustion Engine Emissions
Component Operating
Hours Size NOx
(tons/yr)
PM10/PM2.5
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
VOC
(tons/yr)
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73

Based on research and engineering experience, the control technologies for internal combustion
engines listed in Table 2 were considered for this BACT analysis.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 4 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Table 2 – Control Technologies for Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant Control Technology
CO/VOC Oxidation Catalyst
NOx
Exhaust Recirculation1
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)
Lean Combustion (LC)
Good Combustion Practices
PM10/PM2.5
Fabric Filters
Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Wet ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Good Combustion Practices
1. Exhaust gas recirculation is not part of the original manufacturer design.
Therefore, it is not feasible without substantial engineering overhaul of the units.

The engines are subject to the NOx, CO, and VOC standards outlined in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart JJJJ for non-emergency spark ignition natural gas engines greater than or equal to 500
hp manufactured after July 1, 2007. The engines, as manufactured, meet and exceed the
standards, therefore no additional control technology will be required or used with the engines.

Table 3 –Engine Emissions, As Manufactured, Compared to Standard
Pollutant JJJJ Standard
(g/hp-hr)
G3516 Engine
(g/hp-hr)
% of
Standard
CO 4.0 2.20 55.0
VOC 1.0 0.43 43.0
NOx 2.0 0.50 25.0
1. Standard from Table 1, 40 CFR Park 60, Subpart JJJJ

Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) was evaluated. NSCR is often referred to as a three-way
conversion catalyst system because the catalyst reactor simultaneously reduces NOx, CO, and
hydrocarbons and involves placing a catalyst in the exhaust stream of the engine. However, NSCR
technology works with only rich-burn engines. Because the proposed engines are lean-burn units,
use of a NSCR is not applicable.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 5 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used to reduce NOx emissions from lean-burn engines
through the use of a reducing agent, such as ammonia or urea. SCR systems inject the reduction
agent into the lean-burn exhaust stream. The agent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx,
converting it to molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). Control for a SCR system is
typically 80-95% reduction of NOx (EPA, AP-42 Section 3.2).

An Oxidation Catalyst is a post-combustion technology that has been shown to reduce CO
emissions in lean-burn engines. In a catalytic oxidation system, CO passes over a catalyst, usually
a noble metal, which oxidizes the CO to CO2 at efficiencies of approximately 90% for 4-cycle lean-
burn engines. When used in conjunction with a SCR system, the CO2, water, and NOx then enter
the SCR catalyst, where the NOx reacts with the ammonia.

The proposed engines, as provided by the manufacturer, are lean burning engines. Lean
combustion technology involves the increase of the air-to-fuel ratio to lower the peak
combustion temperature, thus reducing formation of NOx. Typically, engines operate at the air-
to-fuel ratio of about 20 to 35 pounds of air to pound of fuel. In a typical Lean Burn engine, this
ratio is increased to 45 to 50. With a conventional spark ignition, the air fuel ratio can only be
increased to a certain point before the onset of lean misfire. To avoid misfire problems and to
ensure complete combustion of very lean mixtures, the engine manufacturers have developed
torch ignition technology and the application of a controlled swirl. Some increase in fuel
consumption and CO and HC emissions results from the slower flame propagation for very lean
mixtures. At optimal setting new lean burn engines can achieve NOx levels of 2 g/hp-hr or below.
This corresponds to an 80 to 90 percent control over conventional spark plug design engines. By
comparison, the proposed engines for the XCL Residue Booster Station have NOx levels of 0.5
g/hp-hr.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 6 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
The total estimated capital investment associated with the installation, startup, and equipment
costs of a SCR is $960,267 per engine unit in 2023 dollars, in accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports
and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated
06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry costs collected and validated by the EPA
in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI). It was estimated that each catalyst has an operational life of 20,000 hours. Because all
three engines will operate 8,760 hr/yr, it is determined that significant maintenance activities
will be required every 27 months. Each SCR unit is anticipated to have a use life of 20 years before
requiring complete replacement. With an effectiveness in reducing NOx emissions by 85%, a SCR
would remove an estimated 5.66 tons/year per unit. This results in a cost effectiveness of $20,956
per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars. Additional background information pertaining to the SCR
capital and annual costs is provided in the subsequent pages of this BACT Analysis.

2.3.b Enclosed Flare
The enclosed flare manufactured by Cimarron (Model No. 48” HV ECD) is included on the EPA’s
Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List in
accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH. It was performance tested on August
12, 2014, by AIR Hygiene, Inc, and demonstrates performance requirements with a maximum
inlet flow rate of 4553 scfh. As such, XCL AssetCo, LLC is exempt from conducting performance
tests under 40 CFR 60.5413(a)(7), 60.5413a(a)(7), 63.772(e), and/or 63.1282(d), and from
submitting test results under 40 CFR 60.5413(e)(6), 60.5413a(e)(6), 63.775(d)(ii), and/or
63.1285(d)(1)(ii) and no additional control technology will be added to the enclosed flare.

2.4 Other Considerations
Form 01b for BACT determination guidance from the Division lists 11 “other considerations” for
BACT analyses. Per each consideration listed, XCL and ARC are providing response as follows.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 7 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1. “When exceeding otherwise appropriate costs by a moderate amount would result in a
substantial additional emissions reduction.”

Based on the manufacturer provided specification information for each engine and enclosed
flare, the emissions from each unit are below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ. There are no control technologies that would result
in a substantial additional emissions reduction, therefore the cost associated with any add-
on control technology would be considered substantial and well beyond a moderate amount.

2. “When a control technology would achieve controls of more than one pollutant (including
HAPs).”

The Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) is the only control technology available to
reduce both NOx and CO, however the technology only works with rich-burn engines. Because
the proposed engines are lean-burn units, use of a NSCR is not applicable.

3. “Where the proposed BACT level would cause a new violation of an applicable NAAQS or
PSD increment. A permit cannot be issued to a source that would cause a new violation of
either.”

The emission limits for the proposed new natural gas compressor station will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or PSD increment.

4. “When there are legal constraints outside of the Clean Air Act, such as a SIP or state rule,
requiring the application of a more stringent technology than one which otherwise would
have been determined to be BACT.”

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 8 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
There are no additional legal constraints that would require more stringent technology be
used at the natural gas compressor station.

5. “Any time a permit limit founded in BACT is being considered for revision, a reopening of
the original BACT determination must be made, even if the permit limit is exceeded by less
than the significant amount. Therefore, all controls upstream of the emission point,
including existing controls, must be re-evaluated for BACT.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed, and there is no original BACT
determination.

6. “The cost of all controls, including existing controls and any proposed control
improvements, should be expressed in terms of a single dollar year, preferably the current
year. Any proposed improvements should then be added to that cost, also in today’s
dollars.”

The cost of control was determined using the dollar year 2023, adjusted for inflation, in
accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR
Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated 06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry
costs collected and validated by the EPA in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on
the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).

7. “EPA cannot provide a specific cost figure for cost/ton of pollutant removed without
contradicting the PSD definition of BACT. They recognize that a case-by-case evaluation
is inherently judgmental and can be particularly difficult without a cost guideline.”

The impacts of energy and costs of control were determined using EPA emission factors,
control efficiencies, and published studies.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 9 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

8. “A top-down type of BACT analysis is recommended by EPA and required by Utah.”

A top-down type of BACT analysis was used, and ARC and XCL was over inclusive in
considering several control technologies, including NOx reduction technologies.

9. “DAQ will review BACT determination for plants not yet built, if those plants have already
applied for AOs and BACT determinations have already been made or proposed.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed.

10. “Utah must ensure that any technically feasible improvements to existing controls that
would fall within the realm of reasonableness be considered, unless the improvement
would yield insignificant additional control.”

All reasonable controls have been considered for this analysis.

11. “In all cases, a complete BACT analysis must be submitted and must consider
environmental and energy, as well as economic impacts, unless an existing BACT
determination/approval is applicable to your source and is acceptable to the DAQ.”

The proposed BACT for XCL follows Form 01b, UAC R307-101-2, EPA federal standards, and
capability of the natural compressor facility techniques nationwide.
Is the combustion unit a utility or industrial boiler?What type of fuel does the unit burn?
Is the SCR for a new boiler or retrofit of an existing boiler?
Complete all of the highlighted data fields:
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
What is the maximum heat input rate (QB)?10.92 MMBtu/hour Type of coal burned:
What is the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel?1,008 Btu/scf
What is the estimated actual annual fuel consumption? 94,935,457 scf/Year

Enter the net plant heat input rate (NPHR) 8.2 MMBtu/MW

Fraction in
Coal Blend %S HHV (Btu/lb)If the NPHR is not known, use the default NPHR value: Fuel TypeDefault NPHR 0 1.84 11,841
Coal 10 MMBtu/MW 0 0.41 8,826
Fuel Oil 11 MMBtu/MW 0 0.82 6,685
Natural Gas 8.2 MMBtu/MW
Plant Elevation 5400 Feet above sea level
Data Inputs
Enter the following data for your combustion unit:
BituminousSub-Bituminous
Enter the sulfur content (%S) = percent by weight

Coal Type

Not applicable to units buring fuel oil or natural gas
Note: The table below is pre-populated with default values for HHV and %S. Please enter the actual values for these parameters in the table below. If the actual value for any parameter is not known, you may use the
default values provided.

Lignite
Please click the calculate button to calculate weighted average values based on the data in the table above.
For coal-fired boilers, you may use either Method 1 or Method 2 to calculate the
catalyst replacement cost. The equations for both methods are shown on rows 85
and 86 on the Cost Estimate tab. Please select your preferred method:

Method 1
Method 2
Not applicable
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Enter the following design parameters for the proposed SCR:
Number of days the SCR operates (tSCR)365 days
Number of SCR reactor chambers (nscr)1
Number of days the boiler operates (tplant)365 days
Number of catalyst layers (Rlayer)3
Inlet NOx Emissions (NOxin) to SCR 0.139192 lb/MMBtu
Number of empty catalyst layers (Rempty)1
Outlet NOx Emissions (NOxout) from SCR (Assume 85% reduction)0.0209 lb/MMBtu
Ammonia Slip (Slip) provided by vendor 2 ppm
Stoichiometric Ratio Factor (SRF)0.525 UNK
*The SRF value of 0.525 is a default value. User should enter actual value, if known.
UNK

Estimated operating life of the catalyst (Hcatalyst)20,000 hours

Estimated SCR equipment life 20 Years*
Gas temperature at the SCR inlet (T) 973
* For industrial boilers, the typical equipment life is between 20 and 25 years.1780
Concentration of reagent as stored (Cstored)50 percent*
Density of reagent as stored (ρstored)71 lb/cubic feet*
Number of days reagent is stored (tstorage)14 days Densities of typical SCR reagents:
50% urea solution 71 lbs/ft3
29.4% aqueous NH3 56 lbs/ft3
Select the reagent used
Enter the cost data for the proposed SCR:
Desired dollar-year 2023
CEPCI for 2023 802.9 Enter the CEPCI value for 2023 541.7 2016 CEPCI CEPCI = Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
Annual Interest Rate (i)8.0 Percent
Reagent (Costreag)1.660 $/gallon for 50% urea*
Electricity (Costelect)0.0743 $/kWh
Catalyst cost (CC replace)420.00
Operator Labor Rate 60.00 $/hour (including benefits)*
Operator Hours/Day 4.00 hours/day*
Volume of the catalyst layers (Volcatalyst)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Flue gas flow rate (Qfluegas)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Cubic feet
acfm
oF
ft3/min-MMBtu/hourBase case fuel gas volumetric flow rate factor (Qfuel)
*The reagent concentration of 50% and density of 71 lbs/cft are default
values for urea reagent. User should enter actual values for reagent, if
different from the default values provided.

* $1.66/gallon is a default value for 50% urea. User should enter actual value, if known.

$/cubic foot (includes removal and disposal/regeneration of existing
catalyst and installation of new catalyst

* $60/hour is a default value for the operator labor rate. User should enter actual value, if known.
Note: The use of CEPCI in this spreadsheet is not an endorsement of the index, but is there merely to allow for availability of a well-known cost index to spreadsheet users.
Use of other well-known cost indexes (e.g., M&S) is acceptable.
* 4 hours/day is a default value for the operator labor. User should enter actual value, if known.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Maintenance and Administrative Charges Cost Factors:0.015
Maintenance Cost Factor (MCF) =0.005
Administrative Charges Factor (ACF) =0.03
Data Sources for Default Values Used in Calculations:
Data Element Default Value
Reagent Cost ($/gallon)$1.66/gallon 50% urea solution
Electricity Cost ($/kWh)0.0743
Percent sulfur content for Coal (% weight)
Higher Heating Value (HHV) (Btu/lb)1,033
Catalyst Cost ($/cubic foot)420
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)$60.00
Interest Rate (Percent) 8.0 Default bank prime rate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA’s Power Sector
Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model. Office of Air and Radiation.
May 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documentation-epas-power-
sector-modeling-platform-v6.
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
2016 natural gas data compiled by the Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) from data reported on EIA Form EIA-923, Power
Plant Operations Report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

A replacement cost based on related BACT analysis submitted for like-sized engines to
UDAQ for approval.
Sources for Default Value
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model, Updates to the Cost and
Performance for APC Technologies, SCR Cost Development Methodology, Chapter 5,
Attachment 5-3, January 2017. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-
3 scr cost development methodology pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly. Table 5.3. Published
January 2023. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a.

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Maximum Annual Heat Input Rate (QB) = HHV x Max. Fuel Rate =11 MMBtu/hour
Maximum Annual fuel consumption (mfuel) = (QB x 1.0E6 x 8760)/HHV =94,900,000 scf/Year
Actual Annual fuel consumption (Mactual) =94,935,457 scf/Year
Heat Rate Factor (HRF) = NPHR/10 = 0.82
Total System Capacity Factor (CFtotal) =(Mactual/Mfuel) x (tscr/tplant) =1.000 fraction
Total operating time for the SCR (top) =CFtotal x 8760 =8763 hours
NOx Removal Efficiency (EF) =(NOxin - NOxout)/NOxin =85.0 percent
NOx removed per hour =NOxin x EF x QB =1.29 lb/hour
Total NOx removed per year =(NOxin x EF x QB x top)/2000 =5.66 tons/year
NOx removal factor (NRF) = EF/80 =1.06
Volumetric flue gas flow rate (qflue gas) = Qfuel x QB x (460 + T)/(460 + 700)nscr =24,012 acfm
Space velocity (Vspace) =qflue gas/Volcatalyst =233.50 /hour
Residence Time 1/Vspace 0.00 hour
Coal Factor (CoalF) =
1 for oil and natural gas; 1 for bituminous; 1.05 for sub-
bituminous; 1.07 for lignite (weighted average is used for
coal blends)
1.00
SO2 Emission rate = (%S/100)x(64/32)*1x106)/HHV =
Elevation Factor (ELEVF) = 14.7 psia/P = 1.22
Atmospheric pressure at sea level (P) =2116 x [(59-(0.00356xh)+459.7)/518.6]5.256 x (1/144)* =12.1 psia
Retrofit Factor (RF)New Construction 0.80
Catalyst Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Future worth factor (FWF) =(interest rate)(1/((1+ interest rate)Y -1) , where Y = Hcatalyts/(tSCR x
24 hours) rounded to the nearest integer 0.4808 Fraction
Catalyst volume (Volcatalyst) =2.81 x QB x EF adj x Slipadj x NOxadj x Sadj x (Tadj/Nscr)102.84 Cubic feet
Cross sectional area of the catalyst (Acatalyst) = qflue gas /(16ft/sec x 60 sec/min)25 ft2
SCR Design Parameters
The following design parameters for the SCR were calculated based on the values entered on the Data Inputs tab. These values were used to prepare the costs shown on the Cost Estimate tab.
Not applicable; factor applies only to
coal-fired boilers

* Equation is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Atmosphere Model. Available at
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/atmos.html.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Height of each catalyst layer (Hlayer) = (Volcatalyst/(Rlayer x Acatalyst)) + 1 (rounded to next highest
integer)2 feet
SCR Reactor Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Cross sectional area of the reactor (ASCR) = 1.15 x Acatalyst 29 ft2
Reactor length and width dimensions for a square
reactor = (ASCR)0.5 5.4 feet
Reactor height =(Rlayer + Rempty) x (7ft + hlayer) + 9ft 46 feet
Reagent Data:
Type of reagent used Urea 60.06 g/mole
Density = 71 lb/ft
3
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Reagent consumption rate (mreagent) = (NOxin x QB x EF x SRF x MWR)/MWNOx =1
Reagent Usage Rate (msol) =mreagent/Csol =2
(msol x 7.4805)/Reagent Density 0
Estimated tank volume for reagent storage =(msol x 7.4805 x tstorage x 24)/Reagent Density =100
Capital Recovery Factor:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = i (1+ i)n/(1+ i)n - 1 =0.1019
Where n = Equipment Life and i= Interest Rate
Other parameters Equation Calculated Value Units
Electricity Usage:
Electricity Consumption (P) = A x 1,000 x 0.0056 x (CoalF x HRF)0.43 =5.62 kW
where A = (0.1 x QB) for industrial boilers.
Units
lb/hour
lb/hour
gal/hour
gallons (storage needed to store a 14 day reagent supply rounded to t
Molecular Weight of Reagent (MW) =
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers between 275 and 5,500 MMBTU/hour :
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers between 205 and 4,100 MMBTU/hour :
Total Capital Investment (TCI) = $960,267 in 2023 dollars
Direct Annual Costs (DAC) =$18,094 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Costs (IDAC) =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total annual costs (TAC) = DAC + IDAC $118,630 in 2023 dollars
Annual Maintenance Cost = 0.005 x TCI =$4,801 in 2023 dollars
Annual Reagent Cost = msol x Costreag x top =$2,714 in 2023 dollars
Annual Electricity Cost = P x Costelect x top = $3,656 in 2023 dollars
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost =$6,922 in 2023 dollars

nscr x Volcat x (CCreplace/Rlayer) x FWF
Direct Annual Cost = $18,094 in 2023 dollars
Administrative Charges (AC) = 0.03 x (Operator Cost + 0.4 x Annual Maintenance Cost) =$2,686 in 2023 dollars
Capital Recovery Costs (CR)=CRF x TCI =$97,851 in 2023 dollarsIndirect Annual Cost (IDAC) =AC + CR =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC) =$118,630NOx Removed =5.66 tons/year
Cost Effectiveness = $20,956 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
TCI = 86,380 x (200/BMW )0.35 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
per year in 2023 dollars
Annual Costs
IDAC = Administrative Charges + Capital Recovery Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost/ NOx Removed/year
Direct Annual Costs (DAC)
DAC = (Annual Maintenance Cost) + (Annual Reagent Cost) + (Annual Electricity Cost) + (Annual Catalyst Cost)
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC)
TAC = Direct Annual Costs + Indirect Annual Costs
Cost Estimate
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TCI for Oil and Natural Gas Boilers
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers >500 MW:
TCI = 62,680 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers >5,500 MMBtu/hour:
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers >4,100 MMBtu/hour:
TCI = 7,640 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 5,700 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 10,530 x (1,640/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers between 25MW and 500 MW:
TCI = 7,850 x (2,200/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION SHEETS

Enclosed Combustor - High Volume - 48" x 25' x 11.7 MMBTU/HR 48” HV ECD
Data Parameter
Size 56” Square Base x 303” OAL
Capacity (Third Party Verified) 109 MSCFD @ 10 oz/in using SG 1.52/2500 BTU/SCF
Heat Duty Rating 11.7 MMBTU/HR Max
Burner Size 90 F-90 Orifices, 28"L x 27" W
Stack Insulated
Stack Internal Operating Temperature 800-1200°F
Inlet Temp -20-1200°F
Pressure Rating Atmospheric
Electrical Classification Non-Hazardous
Wind Load 90 mph 3sec Wind Gust per ASCE 7-05
Estimated Weight (No Concrete Block): 4380 lbs

Connection Schedule QTY Size Type
Waste Gas Inlet 1 3" NPT
Flow Test/Automation (plugged as option) 2 2" NPT
Stack/Burner Sight Glass 1 2" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 2" NPT
Pilot Sight glass 1 3" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 3" NPT
Pilot Gas In 1 1/4" NPT
Ignitor Cable (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Thermocouple or Automation (plugged as option) 1 1" NPT
Automation Spare (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Cabinet Drain (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT

Paint
External Default Color: Noble Tan unless other color chosen as option

Notes
Pilot Consumption: Propane: 15 SCFH @ 4 psig, Natural Gas: 30 SCFH @ 8 - 10 psig (per ignitor)
OOOO (Quad O) Certified. >98% DRE when operating within flow rate guidelines and stated process sizing
parameters.
Meets all EPA and CDPHE Regulations. Certified USEPA 40 CFR 60, App. A, Source Emissions Test Methods.
Multi-directional solar mount ready.
Structure certified per ASCE 7-05 & IBC 2006 stds (pre-mounted concrete base required for compliance.
Standard saftey features: Air and fuel inlet flame arrestors plus thermal insulation.
High quality thermal lining on stack & upper base.
Destroys Oil/Condensate production tank vapors no visible flame or smoke and excellent opacity.
Reliable & Customizable ignition. Very low capital & operating cost, easy to operate and maintain.

Accessories - Included Description OEM OEM Model # QTY
Flame Cell Generic N/A 4
3" Flame Arrestor Generic Generic 1
Stainless Steel Burner Assembly Generic Generic 1
Pilot Regulator, 1/4" Fisher 67CR-206 1
Pilot Isolation Ball Valve 1/4 STL 2000# FP Chemoil 2027WC-02 1
8'x8'x8" Concrete Block No Anchors Generic SL 119524 1

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
FL
O
W

C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y

(
M
S
C
F
D
)
PRESSURE (oz/in2)
CALCULATED FLOW CAPACITY CURVE
48" HIGH VOLUME ECD (3-48HV-90-OOOO)
From EPA Test:
Max Rate = 109 MSCFD Min
Rate = 13.7 MSCFD

NOTES:UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES BREAK ALL SHARP EDGES ALL FEATURES ON A COMMON AXIS:DESIGN PRESSURE:16 OZ/SQ. IN., VACUUM RATING: 0.4 OZ/SQ. IN.2.APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION: API 12F 13TH ED.3.FLANGE BOLTS TO STRADDLE MAIN CENTERLINES OF TANK. 4.ESTIMATED SHIPPING WEIGHT: 10,500 LB EACH.5.COATING SPECIFICATION: 6.EXTERNAL: ONE COAT ALKYD ENAMEL OR TWO-1.COMPONENT URETHANE, COLOR: BLM COVERT GREENINTERNAL: NONE2.ROOF SLOPE = 1:12 PITCH7.
NOTES FOR JOB 777:
VERSION A, QTY 4
INSTALL HEAT COILS AS SHOWN
PLAIN MANWAY COVER, NO C14 NOZZLE
VERSION B, QTY 6
NO HEAT COILS OR STANDS
MANWAY COVER WITH C14 NOZZLE
REVISIONS
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
0 INITIAL RELEASE 1/28/2022 DR
1 CHANGE NOZZLE C1 TO 8" 150# RFSO 3/22/2022 DR
2 ADD RAISED THIEF HATCH, ADD C12 DOWNCOMER 8/19/2022 DR
3 REMOVE THIEF HATCH DEVICE 11/29/2022 DR
4 CHANGE C2 TO 10", ADD REPADS, ADD C14 IN MANWAY COVER, CHANGE C1 TO API FLANGE/BOLT PATTERN 2/16/2023 DR
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
DATEAPPROVAL
DRAWN
2799 E HIGHWAY 40
VERNAL, UT 84078
435-789-2698
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
INTERPRET DRAWING PER
ASME Y14.5-2009
DIGITAL PART DEFINITION PER
ASME Y14.41-2012
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]
B
DR
AM 03/14/22
03/16/22
1 41:96
AG.144 1
CHECKED
SCALE:
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
0°M1C14
SEAMS 1,3
90°
135°C5
180°C6
234°LIFTING LUGLIFTING STRAP 225°C4
270°
SEAMS 2,4
344°C7
1'-2"
1'-6"
1'-9 12 "
1'-6"
137.27°REPAD CENTERLINE222.73°REPAD CENTERLINE
54°LIFTING LUG
C1
C2
C3
C8
C10 C11C12 C13
TH1
C9
1"
C12 DOWNCOMERDETAIL
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
2 41:96
AG.144 2
SCALE:
5" 5"
13'-6"
1'-8"
1'-8"CLEARANCE UNDER COILS
2'-0"HEAT COIL PIPE CENTERLINE C7
C14
NAMEPLATE
10"
1'-0" 1'-0"
10"
3'-4"
2'-2"
0"
5'-0"
10'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
0"
1'-6"
17'-7"TOP HOLE
9'-9"
17'-10"
C12 C10 C6 C11 C13
C4 C5
WALKWAY BRACKETS
REPAD 1/4" x 6" x 16"2 PLACES1/2" DOWN FROM TOP EDGE
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
3 41:96
AG.144 3
SCALE:
AA
C12 DOWNCOMER
C10 C11
GLYCOL TRACE DETAIL
DRAWING NO. SHC.021
2" SCH40 PIPE
60 LINEAR FT, 6-PASS
AIR TEST TO 100 PSI
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
4 41:96
AG.144 4
SCALE:

XCL AssetCo, LLC
NOx MODELING RESULTS
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, Utah
Modeling Review Summary
Facility Name:XCL Booster Station
Facility ID #:
County:Duchesne
Nearby town:Bluebell
Model used:AERMOD 22112
Surface data used:Price 2010-2014
Upper air data used:Grand Junction/Walker Field 2010 - 2014
Air boundary in model:Yes
Modeling input data:XCL Booster Station
XCL Booster Station - Project (point)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Stack height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters meters degrees K meters/sec meters lb/hr
COMBST Combuster - Enclosed Flare 572707.87 4457446.01 1660.79 7.70 922.039 0.031 1.219 0.46
ENG1 Compressor Engine #1 572752.27 4457507.49 1660.33 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG2 Compressor Engine #2 572752.27 4457495.89 1660.26 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG3 Compressor Engine #3 572752.27 4457483.35 1660.17 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
XCL Booster Station - Project (volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project (line volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station (area - polygon)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Length of the X Side Length of the Y Side Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project NAAQS Modeling
Pollutant Averaging Period
NAAQS Level
μg/m3
Significant
Impact Level
μg/m3
Modeled
Impact
μg/m3
Total w/ Background *
μg/m3
NO2 1-hour 188 7.5 132.72 165.18
* Background data from the Utah Division of Air Quality - Roosevelt Site - monthly values.
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FORMALDEHYDE MODELING RESULTS
XCL Booster Station
Formaldehyde Modeling
ENG1, ENG2, and ENG3
Emission Rate 0.51 lb/hr
Emission Rate - All ENG 1.53 lb/hr 67.26 μg/m3
Air Flow Rate 196.8 DSCFM 0.07 mg/m3
Molecular Weight - Air 29 g/mol
MW - Formaldehyde 30.026 g/mol
ETF - Formaldehyde[1]0.154 m3lb/mg-hr 0.05 mg/m3
1666.16 PPMv
0.75 ppm
2046.16 mg/m3 0.92 mg/m3
Formaldehyde Rate 0.00075 m3lb/mg-hr
Modeling Required?Exceed?NO
[1]Emission Threshold Factor: Vertically-Unrestricted Emission Release Points, 50 meters or less distance to property, Table 2, R307-410-5(1)(c)(i)(C)
NO
mg/m3 = 0.0409 x ppm x 30.026
PPMv = lb/hr/(MW x DSCFM x (1.554 x 10^-7))
1-hr Model Results
8-hr Model Results
8-hr TWA
0.7 Factor
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 3
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Page 1 of 1
Form 3 Company____________________
Process Information Site________________________
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Process Information)RU1HZ3HUPLW21/<
1. Name of process: 2. End product of this process:
3. Process Description*:
Operating Data
4. Maximum operating schedule:
__________ hrs/day
__________days/week
__________weeks/year
5. Percent annual production by quarter:
Winter ________ Spring _______
Summer ________ Fall _______
6. Maximum Hourly production (indicate units.):
_____________
7. Maximum annual production (indicate units):
________________
8. Type of operation:
Continuous Batch Intermittent
9. If batch, indicate minutes per cycle ________
Minutes between cycles ________
10. Materials and quantities used in process.*
Material Maximum Annual Quantity (indicate units)
11.Process-Emitting Units with pollution control equipment*
Emitting Unit(s) Capacity(s) Manufacture Date(s)
*If additional space is required, please create a spreadsheet or Word processing document and attach to form.
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
Natural Gas Compressor
Engines (Three (3) Units)
Compressed Natural Gas
The Residue Booster Station, located in a remote location of Duchesne County, compresses
natural gas pumped from multiple well sites. The natural gas is routed to an inlet scrubber to
remove water and then it is sent to three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition internal
combustion engines for compression. Any liquid condensate from compression will be
routed to storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion.
24
7
52
25%
25%
25%
25%
0.6325 MMSCF 5,540.7 MMSCF
✔
N/A
N/A
Natural Gas 94.935 MMSCF/yr
ICE-01 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-02 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-03 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
FLR - Enclosed Vapor Combuster 11.7 MMBtu/hr 2024
TK-301 21,000-Gal 2024
TK-302 21,000-Gal 2024

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 5
EMISSIONS TOTALS
Page 1 of 1
Company___________________________
6LWH_____________________________
Form 
Emissions Information
Criteria/GHGs/ HAP’s
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Potential to Emit* Criteria Pollutants & GHGs
Criteria Pollutants Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emissions Increases
(tons/yr)
Proposed Emissions
(tons/yr)
PM10 Total
PM10 Fugitive
PM2.5
NOx
SO2
CO
VOC
VOC Fugitive
NH3
Greenhouse Gases CO2e CO2e CO2e
CO2CH4N2O
HFCs
PFCs
SF6
Total CO2e
*Potential to emit to include pollution control equipment as defined by R307-401-2.
Hazardous Air Pollutants**(**Defined in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act )
Hazardous Air
Pollutant***
Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(tons/yr)
Proposed
Emission (tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(lbs/hr)
Total HAP
*** Use additional sheets for pollutants if needed
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 21.97 21.97
0.00 0.07 0.07
0.00 89.63 89.63
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 19,957.00 19,957.00
0.00 159.01 159.01
0.00 0.11 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 20,116.12 20,116.12
1,3-Butadiene 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Acetaldehyde 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.24
Acrolein 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.15
Benzene 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.01
Biphenyl 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Formaldehyde 0.00 2.23 2.23 0.51
Methanol 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.07
n-Hexane 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.04
Toluene 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01
Xylene 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01
Other/Trace HAP 0.00 4.53 4.53 1.34
0.00 9.19 9.19 2.10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 4
FLARE SYSTEMS
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company___________________________
Site/Source__________________________
Form 4 Date_______________________________
Flare Systems
Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer:
_________________________
Model no.:
_________________________
(if available)
2. Design and operation shall be in accordance with 40CFR63.11. In addition
to the information listed in this form, provide the following: an assembly
drawing with dimensions, interior dimensions and features, flare’s
maximum capacity in BTU/hr.
3.Characteristics of Waste Gas Stream Input
Components Min. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68 oF, 14.7 psia)
Ave. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
Design Max.
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
4. Percent of time this
condition occurs
5. Flow rate: Minimum Expected Design Maximum Temp oF Pressure (psig)
Waste Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Fuel Added to Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Heat content of the gas to be flared ______________ BTU/ft3
6. Number of pilots 7. Type of fuel 8. Fuel Flow Rate (scfm @ 68oF & 14.7 psia) per pilot
Page 1 of 3
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Cimarron
48" HV ECD
Enclosed Flare 0.50 75.694 75.694
0% 100% 100%
0 MSCFD
30 SCFH
109 MSCFD
4553 SCFH
1200
1200
atm
8-10
2500
1 Natural Gas 0.50 SCFM
Page 2 of 3
Flare Systems
Form 4
(Continued)

Steam Injection
9. Steam pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
10. Total steam flow Rate (lb/hr)
11. Temperature (oF) 12. Velocity (ft/sec)
13. Number of jet streams 14. Diameter of steam jets (inches)
15. Design basis for steam injected (lb steam/lb hydrocarbon)
Water Injection
16. Water pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
17. Total Water Flow Rate (gpm)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
18. Number of water jets 19. Diameter of Water jets (inches)
20. Flare height (ft) 21. Flare tip inside diameter (ft)
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. Calculated emissions for this device
PM10 _________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr PM2.5 __________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
NOx __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr SOx ___________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
CO __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr VOC ___________Lbs/hr________Tons/yr
CO2 _________Tons/yr CH4 ___________Tons/yr
N2O _________Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)__________Tons/yr (speciate)
Submit calculations as an appendix. If other pollutants are emitted, include the emissions in the appendix.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
0.00862 0.15 0.00862 0.15
0.4542 1.99 0.00273 0.0119
0.3815 1.67 0.02498 0.11
5,995 0.0113
0.11
0.00858 0.0376
Page 3 of 3
Instructions - Form 4 Flare Systems
NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in filling out
this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
1. Specify the manufacturer and model number.
2. Supply an assembly drawing, dimensioned and to scale of the interior dimensions and features of the
equipment.
3. Supply the specifications of the fuel components in the waste gas stream.
4. Indicate what percent of the time the waste gas stream is at minimum, average, and maximum value.
5. Supply the specifications of the total waste gas stream and the fuel added to the gas stream.
6. Indicate the number of pilots in the flare.
7. Specify the type of fuel to be used.
8. Specify the fuel flow rate.
9. Indicate the minimum and design maximum steam pressure for steam injection.
10. Supply the steam flow rate.
11. Supply the temperature of the steam.
12. Specify the velocity of the steam.
13. Indicate the number of jet streams.
14. Give the diameter of the steam jets.
15. Give the design basis for the steam injection.
16. Specify the water pressure at minimum and design maximum using water injection.
17. Give the total water flow rate at minimum and design maximum.
18. Supply the number of water jets.
19. Give the diameter of the water jets.
20. Supply the flare height.
21. Supply the flare tip inside diameter.
22. Supply calculations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or Manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
U:aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\ Form04 Flare Systems.doc
Revised 12/20/10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-01)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
1

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-02)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
2

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-03)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
3

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #1

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-301
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #2

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-302
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
FACILITY-WIDE
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
Facility PTE
Emission Type
Process
Number Unit ID Description Site Rating
Operatong
Hours/Year
Particulate Matter <10μ
(PM10)
Particulate Matter <2.5μ
(PM2.5)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX)
Sulfur Oxides
(SOX)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs)
Point 001 ICE-01 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05
Point 002 ICE-02 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 003 ICE-03 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 004 FLR Enclosed Vapor Combustor 11.7 MMBtu/hr 8760 hr/year 0.15 0.15 1.99 0.012 1.67 0.11 0.038
Point 005 TK-301 500-BBL Tank 301 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065Point 006 TK-302 500-BBL Tank 302 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.19
Facility PTE (tpy)
PointFugitive
Facility PTE (tpy)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
ENCLOSED FLARE SYSTEM
EMITTING UNIT: FLR
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Total Emissions
Pollutant PTE Flare
(tpy)
PTE Pilot
(tons/yr)
PTE Combustor
(tpy)
PM 3.78E-02 0.0010 0.0388
PM10 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
PM2.5 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
SO2 1.19E-02 0.0001 0.0120
NOx 1.99 0.0131 2.0024
CO 1.67 0.0110 1.6820
VOC 0.11 0.0007 0.1101
Benzene 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Dichlorobenzene 2.39E-05 1.58E-07 2.40E-05
Formaldehyde 1.49E-03 9.86E-06 1.50E-03
Hexane 3.58E-02 2.37E-04 3.60E-02
Lead Compounds 9.95E-06 6.57E-08 1.00E-05
Naphthalene 1.21E-05 8.02E-08 1.22E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]1.75E-06 1.16E-08 1.77E-06
Toluene 6.76E-05 4.47E-07 6.81E-05
Arsenic Compounds 3.98E-06 2.63E-08 4.00E-06
Beryllium Compounds 2.39E-07 1.58E-09 2.40E-07
Cadmium Compounds 2.19E-05 1.45E-07 2.20E-05
Chromium Compounds 2.78E-05 1.84E-07 2.80E-05
Cobalt Compounds 1.67E-06 1.10E-08 1.68E-06
Manganese Compounds 7.56E-06 4.99E-08 7.61E-06
Mercury Compounds 5.17E-06 3.42E-08 5.21E-06
Nickel Compounds 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Selenium Compounds 4.77E-07 3.15E-09 4.81E-07
Total HAPs 3.76E-02 2.48E-04 3.78E-02
CO2 5,995 0.00 5995
CH4 1.13E-02 0.00 0.01
N2O 0.11 0.00 0.11
GHGs (mass basis) 5,995 0.00 5995
CO2e 6,029 0.00 6029
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Greenhouse Gases
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Flare Emissions
Designed Heat Input 11.7 MMBtu/hr (Max)
Max Natural Gas Usage 39.785 MMscf/yr
Enclosed vapor combustor
Pollutant Natural Gas Emission
Factor[1]Units PTE
(lbs/yr)
PTE
(tpy)
PM 1.90 75.59 3.78E-02
PM10 7.60 302.37 0.15
PM2.5 7.60 302.37 0.15
SO2 0.60 23.87 1.19E-02
NOx 100.00 3,979 1.99
CO 84.00 3,342 1.67
VOC 5.50 218.82 0.11
Benzene 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Dichlorobenzene 1.20E-03 4.77E-02 2.39E-05
Formaldehyde 7.50E-02 2.98 1.49E-03
Hexane 1.80 71.61 3.58E-02
Lead Compounds 5.00E-04 1.99E-02 9.95E-06
Naphthalene 6.10E-04 2.43E-02 1.21E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]8.82E-05 3.51E-03 1.75E-06
Toluene 3.40E-03 0.14 6.76E-05
Arsenic Compounds 2.00E-04 7.96E-03 3.98E-06
Beryllium Compounds 1.20E-05 4.77E-04 2.39E-07
Cadmium Compounds 1.10E-03 4.38E-02 2.19E-05
Chromium Compounds 1.40E-03 5.57E-02 2.78E-05
Cobalt Compounds 8.40E-05 3.34E-03 1.67E-06
Manganese Compounds 3.80E-04 1.51E-02 7.56E-06
Mercury Compounds 2.60E-04 1.03E-02 5.17E-06
Nickel Compounds 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Selenium Compounds 2.40E-05 9.55E-04 4.77E-07
75.13 3.76E-02
Greenhouse Gases Natural Gas Emission
Factor[2]Units PTE
(lbs/hr)
PTE
(tpy)
CO2 116.98 1,369 5,995
CH4 2.20E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
N2O 2.20E-03 2.58E-02 0.11
1,369 5,995
1,377 6,029
[1] AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, 1.4-3, and 1.4-4 (6/1998) for all emission factors except greenhouse gases.
[2] GHG Factors from 40 CFR 98 Tables A-1 (Oct. 30, 2009), C-1 and C-2 (Nov. 29, 2013). Emission factors converted from kg/MMBtu to lb/MMBtu.
40 CFR Part 98, Table A-1 to Subpart A of Part 98—Global Warming Potentials (GWP). CO2e = [1 x CO2] + [21 x CH4] + [310 x N2O].
[3] POM includes 2-Methylnaphthalene, 3-Methylchloranthrene, 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene,
Benz(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene,
Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Phenanathrene, and Pyrene.
CO2e
lb/106 SCF
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
lb/106 SCF
Total HAPs
lb/MMBtu
GHGs (mass basis)
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Pilot Emissions
Total Heat Input Capacity of Pilot 30.0 scf/hr
Pilot Natural Gas Usage 0.2628 MMscf/yr
Operating Time 8760 hr/yr
Pollutant Emission Factor1
(lb/MMscf)
Potential
Emission Rate
(lbs/yr)
Potential
Emission Rate
(tons/yr)
Particulate Matter (PM) 7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Particulate Matter (PM10)7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 26.2800 0.0131
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)0.6 0.1577 0.0001
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 84 22.0752 0.0110
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5.5 1.4454 0.0007
Individual HAPs
Benzene 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Dichlorobenzene 0.0012 3.15E-04 1.58E-07
Formaldehyde 0.075 1.97E-02 9.86E-06
Hexane 1.8 4.73E-01 2.37E-04
Lead Compounds 0.0005 1.31E-04 6.57E-08
Naphthalene 0.00061 1.60E-04 8.02E-08
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) 0.0000882 2.32E-05 1.16E-08
Toluene 0.0034 8.94E-04 4.47E-07
Arsenic Compounds (ASC) 0.0002 5.26E-05 2.63E-08
Beryllium Compounds (BEC) 0.000012 3.15E-06 1.58E-09
Cadmium Compounds (CDC) 0.0011 2.89E-04 1.45E-07
Chromium Compounds (CRC) 0.0014 3.68E-04 1.84E-07
Cobalt Compounds (COC) 0.000084 2.21E-05 1.10E-08
Manganese Compounds (MNC) 0.00038 9.99E-05 4.99E-08
Mercury Compounds (HGC) 0.00026 6.83E-05 3.42E-08
Nickel Compounds (NIC) 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Selenium Compounds (SEC) 0.000024 6.31E-06 3.15E-09
Total HAPs 1.89 0.4963 2.48E-04
1Emission Factors from AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3 (7/98)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #1
EMITTING UNIT: TK-301
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-301
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 301, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)3.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):3.0298 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):1.5988
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):1.5988 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.3122
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 13.28 3.03 16.31
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #2
EMITTING UNIT: TK-302
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-302
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 302, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)0.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):2.8485 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):0.9260
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):0.9260 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.1309
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 13.28 2.85 16.13
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FACILITY LAYOUT
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
OVERALL FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 1
CG
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
FACILITY OVERVIEW1
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
N
S
EW
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N/S: 0+00
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
N: 0+50
N: 1+50
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N: 0+50
N: 1+00
N: 1+50
N/S: 0+00
N: 2+00 N: 2+00
N: 2+50 N: 2+50
PROPOSED SUA
ENLARGED VIEW
SEE SHEET 2
74'-1034"
PIPE RACK
COMPRESSOR
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR
FURURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
100' RADIUS
SCRUBBER
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
N: 1+00
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
ENLARGED FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 2
CG
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
ENLARGED VIEW1
N S
E
W
S:

-
0
+
5
0
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
N:

0
+
5
0
N/
S
:

0
+
0
0
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
S:

-
1
+
0
0
71'-911
16"15'26'-49
16"15'
40'
10'
10'
15'
12'
135'
47'6'
100'
82'
3'
16'-6"
N:

1
+
0
0
N:

1
+
5
0
S:

-
1
+
5
0
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
6'
10'
20'
26'-4 9
16"15'15'-51
8"
20'
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR FUTURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
PIPE RACK
100' RADIUS
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
144.0000
2'
100'
6'-9"
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FLOW DIAGRAM
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

~
2
0
0

P
S
I
G
ESD.
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

7
5
0

P
S
I
G
PCV.
FE.
FE.PCV.
FE.
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
PSV.
CS300 CS150
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
PSV.
VENT
LP DRAIN
DISCHARGE
C-201 C-202 C-203
TK-301 TK-302
V-100
FL-400
V-100
SLUG CATCHER
6' O.D. X 20'-0"# PSIG @#°F
C-201
COMPRESSOR
C-202
COMPRESSOR
C-203
FUTURE COMPRESSOR
TK-301
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
TK-302
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
FL-400
COMBUSTOR
ESD.
PCV.
V-110
V-110
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
#' X #'-#"# PSIG @#°F
FE.
RESIDUE SUCTION
FUEL GAS
DRAWN BY: CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
LOS
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
NO. DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

12/28/22
NONE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
0RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD PFD SHEET 0.30
CG
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG 12/6/22

XCL AssetCo, LLC
BACT ANALYSIS

AIR REGULATIONS CONSULTING,LLC•5455 RED ROCK LN, STE 13, LINCOLN, NE 68516•402.817.7887•AIRREGCONSULTING.COM

May 5, 2023

Attn: Alan Humphreys
Permits, Division of Air Quality
P.O. Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

{Submitted via electronic copy submittal utahgove.co1.qualtrics.com and to: [e-mail]}

RE: BACT Analysis for New Residue Booster Station
Including Review of BACT for NOx Emissions
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, UT

Dear Mr. Alan Humphreys,

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is submitting a Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) analysis for a new Residue Booster Station for the Notice of Intent (NOI). This
BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division)
Form 01b for BACT determinations. Please find the enclosed BACT analysis for DAQ’s review.

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact me at 402.817.7887
or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Eric Sturm
ARC Principal, Senior Consultant

Enclosures

Cc: Teisha Black, XCL AssetCo, LLC

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 1 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is providing a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for a new Residue Booster Station for the Notice of
Intent (NOI). This BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division of
Air Quality (DAQ or Division) Form 01b for BACT determinations. XCL is planning to install a
Residue Booster Station, calculated to be a minor source, to compress natural gas pumped from
multiple well sites. The facility will be comprised of three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition
internal combustion engines for compression, two (2) liquid condensate storage tanks, and an
enclosed flare for combustion of storage tank vapors. The Residue Booster Station will be located
in a remote location of Duchesne County, approximately 7.7 miles West via US-191, 3000S, and
700 W from Roosevelt, Utah.

This report contains analysis of BACT for particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission for the Residue Booster
Station. For reference, UAC R307-101-2, defines BACT specifically to the following:

“BACT means an emission limitation and/or other controls to include design,
equipment, work practice, operation standard or combination thereof, based on a
maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act and/or the Utah Air Conservation Act emitted from or which results
from any emitting installation, which the Air Quality Board, on a case-by-case basis
taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such installation through application of production
process and available methods, systems and techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such
pollutant. In no event shall application of BACT result in emission of pollutants
which will exceed the emissions allowed by section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act.”
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 2 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

As the rule states, XCL and ARC are obligated to base proposed BACT on the most effective
engineering techniques and control equipment to minimize emission of air contaminants from
its process to the extent achievable within the industry. Furthermore, based on this definition
and the DAQ’s Form 01b Guidance on BACT, this analysis for XCL’s Residue Booster Station
includes consideration of energy impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts, other
considerations, and cost calculation. XCL and ARC are extremently well versed in natural gas
compression facilities and have been involved in many other natural gas compressor stations
throughout Utah. The proposed BACT for XCL follows Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division)
Form 01b, UAC R307-401-5, EPA federal standards, and feasible technologies of the natural gas
industry nationwide.
2 BACT ANALYSIS

2.1 Energy Impacts
Energy impacts are the first criteria when conducting BACT analysis. Certain types of control
technologies have inherent energy penalties associated with their use and industry application.
New modern gas compression engines utilize clean technology that are NSPS site compliant
capable. The three proposed engines for the XCL’s Residue Booster Station are equipped with
ADEM 3 technology that enables the highest performance and safety while maintaining low
emissions. It provides integrated control of ignition, speed governing, protection, and controls,
including detonation-sensitive variable ignition timing. The enclosed flared has been tested and
approved in accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH to be included on the
EPA’s Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List.

The use of post-manufacturing add-on controls would require additional energy consumption for
the manufacturing and transport of the physical equipment, in addition to the transport of
manpower required for assembly and troubleshooting. It is difficult to estimate the amount of
energy needed, however the low-emissions levels of the engines and enclosed flare from the
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 3 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
manufacturer deem these add-ons as infeasible for BACT on the compressor station.

2.2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts include any unconventional or unusual impacts of using a control device,
such as the generation of solid or hazardous waste, water discharges, visibility impacts, or
emissions of unregulated pollutants. In the case of the natural gas compressor station, spent
catalyst reduction agent that could be considered hazardous would need to be disposed of, or
otherwise handled, every two to four years dependent on vendor and technology selected.

2.3 Economic Impacts
2.3.a Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant emissions from the internal combustion engines include NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and
VOCs. Annual operation of the engines will be 8,760 hours. The potential emissions from the
engines are provided in Table 1. The following analysis will illustrate that the use of the engines
as supplied by the manufacturer without any additional emissions control methods is
recommended due to meeting or being below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ, and any additional control technologies would create an
undue cost burden on the facility.

Table 1 – Internal Combustion Engine Emissions
Component Operating
Hours Size NOx
(tons/yr)
PM10/PM2.5
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
VOC
(tons/yr)
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73

Based on research and engineering experience, the control technologies for internal combustion
engines listed in Table 2 were considered for this BACT analysis.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 4 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Table 2 – Control Technologies for Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant Control Technology
CO/VOC Oxidation Catalyst
NOx
Exhaust Recirculation1
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)
Lean Combustion (LC)
Good Combustion Practices
PM10/PM2.5
Fabric Filters
Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Wet ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Good Combustion Practices
1. Exhaust gas recirculation is not part of the original manufacturer design.
Therefore, it is not feasible without substantial engineering overhaul of the units.

The engines are subject to the NOx, CO, and VOC standards outlined in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart JJJJ for non-emergency spark ignition natural gas engines greater than or equal to 500
hp manufactured after July 1, 2007. The engines, as manufactured, meet and exceed the
standards, therefore no additional control technology will be required or used with the engines.

Table 3 –Engine Emissions, As Manufactured, Compared to Standard
Pollutant JJJJ Standard
(g/hp-hr)
G3516 Engine
(g/hp-hr)
% of
Standard
CO 4.0 2.20 55.0
VOC 1.0 0.43 43.0
NOx 2.0 0.50 25.0
1. Standard from Table 1, 40 CFR Park 60, Subpart JJJJ

Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) was evaluated. NSCR is often referred to as a three-way
conversion catalyst system because the catalyst reactor simultaneously reduces NOx, CO, and
hydrocarbons and involves placing a catalyst in the exhaust stream of the engine. However, NSCR
technology works with only rich-burn engines. Because the proposed engines are lean-burn units,
use of a NSCR is not applicable.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 5 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used to reduce NOx emissions from lean-burn engines
through the use of a reducing agent, such as ammonia or urea. SCR systems inject the reduction
agent into the lean-burn exhaust stream. The agent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx,
converting it to molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). Control for a SCR system is
typically 80-95% reduction of NOx (EPA, AP-42 Section 3.2).

An Oxidation Catalyst is a post-combustion technology that has been shown to reduce CO
emissions in lean-burn engines. In a catalytic oxidation system, CO passes over a catalyst, usually
a noble metal, which oxidizes the CO to CO2 at efficiencies of approximately 90% for 4-cycle lean-
burn engines. When used in conjunction with a SCR system, the CO2, water, and NOx then enter
the SCR catalyst, where the NOx reacts with the ammonia.

The proposed engines, as provided by the manufacturer, are lean burning engines. Lean
combustion technology involves the increase of the air-to-fuel ratio to lower the peak
combustion temperature, thus reducing formation of NOx. Typically, engines operate at the air-
to-fuel ratio of about 20 to 35 pounds of air to pound of fuel. In a typical Lean Burn engine, this
ratio is increased to 45 to 50. With a conventional spark ignition, the air fuel ratio can only be
increased to a certain point before the onset of lean misfire. To avoid misfire problems and to
ensure complete combustion of very lean mixtures, the engine manufacturers have developed
torch ignition technology and the application of a controlled swirl. Some increase in fuel
consumption and CO and HC emissions results from the slower flame propagation for very lean
mixtures. At optimal setting new lean burn engines can achieve NOx levels of 2 g/hp-hr or below.
This corresponds to an 80 to 90 percent control over conventional spark plug design engines. By
comparison, the proposed engines for the XCL Residue Booster Station have NOx levels of 0.5
g/hp-hr.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 6 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
The total estimated capital investment associated with the installation, startup, and equipment
costs of a SCR is $960,267 per engine unit in 2023 dollars, in accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports
and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated
06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry costs collected and validated by the EPA
in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI). It was estimated that each catalyst has an operational life of 20,000 hours. Because all
three engines will operate 8,760 hr/yr, it is determined that significant maintenance activities
will be required every 27 months. Each SCR unit is anticipated to have a use life of 20 years before
requiring complete replacement. With an effectiveness in reducing NOx emissions by 85%, a SCR
would remove an estimated 5.66 tons/year per unit. This results in a cost effectiveness of $20,956
per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars. Additional background information pertaining to the SCR
capital and annual costs is provided in the subsequent pages of this BACT Analysis.

2.3.b Enclosed Flare
The enclosed flare manufactured by Cimarron (Model No. 48” HV ECD) is included on the EPA’s
Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List in
accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH. It was performance tested on August
12, 2014, by AIR Hygiene, Inc, and demonstrates performance requirements with a maximum
inlet flow rate of 4553 scfh. As such, XCL AssetCo, LLC is exempt from conducting performance
tests under 40 CFR 60.5413(a)(7), 60.5413a(a)(7), 63.772(e), and/or 63.1282(d), and from
submitting test results under 40 CFR 60.5413(e)(6), 60.5413a(e)(6), 63.775(d)(ii), and/or
63.1285(d)(1)(ii) and no additional control technology will be added to the enclosed flare.

2.4 Other Considerations
Form 01b for BACT determination guidance from the Division lists 11 “other considerations” for
BACT analyses. Per each consideration listed, XCL and ARC are providing response as follows.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 7 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1. “When exceeding otherwise appropriate costs by a moderate amount would result in a
substantial additional emissions reduction.”

Based on the manufacturer provided specification information for each engine and enclosed
flare, the emissions from each unit are below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ. There are no control technologies that would result
in a substantial additional emissions reduction, therefore the cost associated with any add-
on control technology would be considered substantial and well beyond a moderate amount.

2. “When a control technology would achieve controls of more than one pollutant (including
HAPs).”

The Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) is the only control technology available to
reduce both NOx and CO, however the technology only works with rich-burn engines. Because
the proposed engines are lean-burn units, use of a NSCR is not applicable.

3. “Where the proposed BACT level would cause a new violation of an applicable NAAQS or
PSD increment. A permit cannot be issued to a source that would cause a new violation of
either.”

The emission limits for the proposed new natural gas compressor station will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or PSD increment.

4. “When there are legal constraints outside of the Clean Air Act, such as a SIP or state rule,
requiring the application of a more stringent technology than one which otherwise would
have been determined to be BACT.”

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 8 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
There are no additional legal constraints that would require more stringent technology be
used at the natural gas compressor station.

5. “Any time a permit limit founded in BACT is being considered for revision, a reopening of
the original BACT determination must be made, even if the permit limit is exceeded by less
than the significant amount. Therefore, all controls upstream of the emission point,
including existing controls, must be re-evaluated for BACT.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed, and there is no original BACT
determination.

6. “The cost of all controls, including existing controls and any proposed control
improvements, should be expressed in terms of a single dollar year, preferably the current
year. Any proposed improvements should then be added to that cost, also in today’s
dollars.”

The cost of control was determined using the dollar year 2023, adjusted for inflation, in
accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR
Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated 06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry
costs collected and validated by the EPA in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on
the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).

7. “EPA cannot provide a specific cost figure for cost/ton of pollutant removed without
contradicting the PSD definition of BACT. They recognize that a case-by-case evaluation
is inherently judgmental and can be particularly difficult without a cost guideline.”

The impacts of energy and costs of control were determined using EPA emission factors,
control efficiencies, and published studies.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 9 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

8. “A top-down type of BACT analysis is recommended by EPA and required by Utah.”

A top-down type of BACT analysis was used, and ARC and XCL was over inclusive in
considering several control technologies, including NOx reduction technologies.

9. “DAQ will review BACT determination for plants not yet built, if those plants have already
applied for AOs and BACT determinations have already been made or proposed.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed.

10. “Utah must ensure that any technically feasible improvements to existing controls that
would fall within the realm of reasonableness be considered, unless the improvement
would yield insignificant additional control.”

All reasonable controls have been considered for this analysis.

11. “In all cases, a complete BACT analysis must be submitted and must consider
environmental and energy, as well as economic impacts, unless an existing BACT
determination/approval is applicable to your source and is acceptable to the DAQ.”

The proposed BACT for XCL follows Form 01b, UAC R307-101-2, EPA federal standards, and
capability of the natural compressor facility techniques nationwide.
Is the combustion unit a utility or industrial boiler?What type of fuel does the unit burn?
Is the SCR for a new boiler or retrofit of an existing boiler?
Complete all of the highlighted data fields:
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
What is the maximum heat input rate (QB)?10.92 MMBtu/hour Type of coal burned:
What is the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel?1,008 Btu/scf
What is the estimated actual annual fuel consumption? 94,935,457 scf/Year

Enter the net plant heat input rate (NPHR) 8.2 MMBtu/MW

Fraction in
Coal Blend %S HHV (Btu/lb)If the NPHR is not known, use the default NPHR value: Fuel TypeDefault NPHR 0 1.84 11,841
Coal 10 MMBtu/MW 0 0.41 8,826
Fuel Oil 11 MMBtu/MW 0 0.82 6,685
Natural Gas 8.2 MMBtu/MW
Plant Elevation 5400 Feet above sea level
Data Inputs
Enter the following data for your combustion unit:
BituminousSub-Bituminous
Enter the sulfur content (%S) = percent by weight

Coal Type

Not applicable to units buring fuel oil or natural gas
Note: The table below is pre-populated with default values for HHV and %S. Please enter the actual values for these parameters in the table below. If the actual value for any parameter is not known, you may use the
default values provided.

Lignite
Please click the calculate button to calculate weighted average values based on the data in the table above.
For coal-fired boilers, you may use either Method 1 or Method 2 to calculate the
catalyst replacement cost. The equations for both methods are shown on rows 85
and 86 on the Cost Estimate tab. Please select your preferred method:

Method 1
Method 2
Not applicable
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Enter the following design parameters for the proposed SCR:
Number of days the SCR operates (tSCR)365 days
Number of SCR reactor chambers (nscr)1
Number of days the boiler operates (tplant)365 days
Number of catalyst layers (Rlayer)3
Inlet NOx Emissions (NOxin) to SCR 0.139192 lb/MMBtu
Number of empty catalyst layers (Rempty)1
Outlet NOx Emissions (NOxout) from SCR (Assume 85% reduction)0.0209 lb/MMBtu
Ammonia Slip (Slip) provided by vendor 2 ppm
Stoichiometric Ratio Factor (SRF)0.525 UNK
*The SRF value of 0.525 is a default value. User should enter actual value, if known.
UNK

Estimated operating life of the catalyst (Hcatalyst)20,000 hours

Estimated SCR equipment life 20 Years*
Gas temperature at the SCR inlet (T) 973
* For industrial boilers, the typical equipment life is between 20 and 25 years.1780
Concentration of reagent as stored (Cstored)50 percent*
Density of reagent as stored (ρstored)71 lb/cubic feet*
Number of days reagent is stored (tstorage)14 days Densities of typical SCR reagents:
50% urea solution 71 lbs/ft3
29.4% aqueous NH3 56 lbs/ft3
Select the reagent used
Enter the cost data for the proposed SCR:
Desired dollar-year 2023
CEPCI for 2023 802.9 Enter the CEPCI value for 2023 541.7 2016 CEPCI CEPCI = Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
Annual Interest Rate (i)8.0 Percent
Reagent (Costreag)1.660 $/gallon for 50% urea*
Electricity (Costelect)0.0743 $/kWh
Catalyst cost (CC replace)420.00
Operator Labor Rate 60.00 $/hour (including benefits)*
Operator Hours/Day 4.00 hours/day*
Volume of the catalyst layers (Volcatalyst)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Flue gas flow rate (Qfluegas)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Cubic feet
acfm
oF
ft3/min-MMBtu/hourBase case fuel gas volumetric flow rate factor (Qfuel)
*The reagent concentration of 50% and density of 71 lbs/cft are default
values for urea reagent. User should enter actual values for reagent, if
different from the default values provided.

* $1.66/gallon is a default value for 50% urea. User should enter actual value, if known.

$/cubic foot (includes removal and disposal/regeneration of existing
catalyst and installation of new catalyst

* $60/hour is a default value for the operator labor rate. User should enter actual value, if known.
Note: The use of CEPCI in this spreadsheet is not an endorsement of the index, but is there merely to allow for availability of a well-known cost index to spreadsheet users.
Use of other well-known cost indexes (e.g., M&S) is acceptable.
* 4 hours/day is a default value for the operator labor. User should enter actual value, if known.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Maintenance and Administrative Charges Cost Factors:0.015
Maintenance Cost Factor (MCF) =0.005
Administrative Charges Factor (ACF) =0.03
Data Sources for Default Values Used in Calculations:
Data Element Default Value
Reagent Cost ($/gallon)$1.66/gallon 50% urea solution
Electricity Cost ($/kWh)0.0743
Percent sulfur content for Coal (% weight)
Higher Heating Value (HHV) (Btu/lb)1,033
Catalyst Cost ($/cubic foot)420
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)$60.00
Interest Rate (Percent) 8.0 Default bank prime rate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA’s Power Sector
Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model. Office of Air and Radiation.
May 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documentation-epas-power-
sector-modeling-platform-v6.
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
2016 natural gas data compiled by the Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) from data reported on EIA Form EIA-923, Power
Plant Operations Report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

A replacement cost based on related BACT analysis submitted for like-sized engines to
UDAQ for approval.
Sources for Default Value
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model, Updates to the Cost and
Performance for APC Technologies, SCR Cost Development Methodology, Chapter 5,
Attachment 5-3, January 2017. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-
3 scr cost development methodology pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly. Table 5.3. Published
January 2023. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a.

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Maximum Annual Heat Input Rate (QB) = HHV x Max. Fuel Rate =11 MMBtu/hour
Maximum Annual fuel consumption (mfuel) = (QB x 1.0E6 x 8760)/HHV =94,900,000 scf/Year
Actual Annual fuel consumption (Mactual) =94,935,457 scf/Year
Heat Rate Factor (HRF) = NPHR/10 = 0.82
Total System Capacity Factor (CFtotal) =(Mactual/Mfuel) x (tscr/tplant) =1.000 fraction
Total operating time for the SCR (top) =CFtotal x 8760 =8763 hours
NOx Removal Efficiency (EF) =(NOxin - NOxout)/NOxin =85.0 percent
NOx removed per hour =NOxin x EF x QB =1.29 lb/hour
Total NOx removed per year =(NOxin x EF x QB x top)/2000 =5.66 tons/year
NOx removal factor (NRF) = EF/80 =1.06
Volumetric flue gas flow rate (qflue gas) = Qfuel x QB x (460 + T)/(460 + 700)nscr =24,012 acfm
Space velocity (Vspace) =qflue gas/Volcatalyst =233.50 /hour
Residence Time 1/Vspace 0.00 hour
Coal Factor (CoalF) =
1 for oil and natural gas; 1 for bituminous; 1.05 for sub-
bituminous; 1.07 for lignite (weighted average is used for
coal blends)
1.00
SO2 Emission rate = (%S/100)x(64/32)*1x106)/HHV =
Elevation Factor (ELEVF) = 14.7 psia/P = 1.22
Atmospheric pressure at sea level (P) =2116 x [(59-(0.00356xh)+459.7)/518.6]5.256 x (1/144)* =12.1 psia
Retrofit Factor (RF)New Construction 0.80
Catalyst Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Future worth factor (FWF) =(interest rate)(1/((1+ interest rate)Y -1) , where Y = Hcatalyts/(tSCR x
24 hours) rounded to the nearest integer 0.4808 Fraction
Catalyst volume (Volcatalyst) =2.81 x QB x EF adj x Slipadj x NOxadj x Sadj x (Tadj/Nscr)102.84 Cubic feet
Cross sectional area of the catalyst (Acatalyst) = qflue gas /(16ft/sec x 60 sec/min)25 ft2
SCR Design Parameters
The following design parameters for the SCR were calculated based on the values entered on the Data Inputs tab. These values were used to prepare the costs shown on the Cost Estimate tab.
Not applicable; factor applies only to
coal-fired boilers

* Equation is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Atmosphere Model. Available at
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/atmos.html.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Height of each catalyst layer (Hlayer) = (Volcatalyst/(Rlayer x Acatalyst)) + 1 (rounded to next highest
integer)2 feet
SCR Reactor Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Cross sectional area of the reactor (ASCR) = 1.15 x Acatalyst 29 ft2
Reactor length and width dimensions for a square
reactor = (ASCR)0.5 5.4 feet
Reactor height =(Rlayer + Rempty) x (7ft + hlayer) + 9ft 46 feet
Reagent Data:
Type of reagent used Urea 60.06 g/mole
Density = 71 lb/ft
3
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Reagent consumption rate (mreagent) = (NOxin x QB x EF x SRF x MWR)/MWNOx =1
Reagent Usage Rate (msol) =mreagent/Csol =2
(msol x 7.4805)/Reagent Density 0
Estimated tank volume for reagent storage =(msol x 7.4805 x tstorage x 24)/Reagent Density =100
Capital Recovery Factor:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = i (1+ i)n/(1+ i)n - 1 =0.1019
Where n = Equipment Life and i= Interest Rate
Other parameters Equation Calculated Value Units
Electricity Usage:
Electricity Consumption (P) = A x 1,000 x 0.0056 x (CoalF x HRF)0.43 =5.62 kW
where A = (0.1 x QB) for industrial boilers.
Units
lb/hour
lb/hour
gal/hour
gallons (storage needed to store a 14 day reagent supply rounded to t
Molecular Weight of Reagent (MW) =
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers between 275 and 5,500 MMBTU/hour :
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers between 205 and 4,100 MMBTU/hour :
Total Capital Investment (TCI) = $960,267 in 2023 dollars
Direct Annual Costs (DAC) =$18,094 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Costs (IDAC) =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total annual costs (TAC) = DAC + IDAC $118,630 in 2023 dollars
Annual Maintenance Cost = 0.005 x TCI =$4,801 in 2023 dollars
Annual Reagent Cost = msol x Costreag x top =$2,714 in 2023 dollars
Annual Electricity Cost = P x Costelect x top = $3,656 in 2023 dollars
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost =$6,922 in 2023 dollars

nscr x Volcat x (CCreplace/Rlayer) x FWF
Direct Annual Cost = $18,094 in 2023 dollars
Administrative Charges (AC) = 0.03 x (Operator Cost + 0.4 x Annual Maintenance Cost) =$2,686 in 2023 dollars
Capital Recovery Costs (CR)=CRF x TCI =$97,851 in 2023 dollarsIndirect Annual Cost (IDAC) =AC + CR =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC) =$118,630NOx Removed =5.66 tons/year
Cost Effectiveness = $20,956 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
TCI = 86,380 x (200/BMW )0.35 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
per year in 2023 dollars
Annual Costs
IDAC = Administrative Charges + Capital Recovery Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost/ NOx Removed/year
Direct Annual Costs (DAC)
DAC = (Annual Maintenance Cost) + (Annual Reagent Cost) + (Annual Electricity Cost) + (Annual Catalyst Cost)
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC)
TAC = Direct Annual Costs + Indirect Annual Costs
Cost Estimate
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TCI for Oil and Natural Gas Boilers
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers >500 MW:
TCI = 62,680 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers >5,500 MMBtu/hour:
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers >4,100 MMBtu/hour:
TCI = 7,640 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 5,700 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 10,530 x (1,640/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers between 25MW and 500 MW:
TCI = 7,850 x (2,200/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION SHEETS

Enclosed Combustor - High Volume - 48" x 25' x 11.7 MMBTU/HR 48” HV ECD
Data Parameter
Size 56” Square Base x 303” OAL
Capacity (Third Party Verified) 109 MSCFD @ 10 oz/in using SG 1.52/2500 BTU/SCF
Heat Duty Rating 11.7 MMBTU/HR Max
Burner Size 90 F-90 Orifices, 28"L x 27" W
Stack Insulated
Stack Internal Operating Temperature 800-1200°F
Inlet Temp -20-1200°F
Pressure Rating Atmospheric
Electrical Classification Non-Hazardous
Wind Load 90 mph 3sec Wind Gust per ASCE 7-05
Estimated Weight (No Concrete Block): 4380 lbs

Connection Schedule QTY Size Type
Waste Gas Inlet 1 3" NPT
Flow Test/Automation (plugged as option) 2 2" NPT
Stack/Burner Sight Glass 1 2" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 2" NPT
Pilot Sight glass 1 3" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 3" NPT
Pilot Gas In 1 1/4" NPT
Ignitor Cable (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Thermocouple or Automation (plugged as option) 1 1" NPT
Automation Spare (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Cabinet Drain (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT

Paint
External Default Color: Noble Tan unless other color chosen as option

Notes
Pilot Consumption: Propane: 15 SCFH @ 4 psig, Natural Gas: 30 SCFH @ 8 - 10 psig (per ignitor)
OOOO (Quad O) Certified. >98% DRE when operating within flow rate guidelines and stated process sizing
parameters.
Meets all EPA and CDPHE Regulations. Certified USEPA 40 CFR 60, App. A, Source Emissions Test Methods.
Multi-directional solar mount ready.
Structure certified per ASCE 7-05 & IBC 2006 stds (pre-mounted concrete base required for compliance.
Standard saftey features: Air and fuel inlet flame arrestors plus thermal insulation.
High quality thermal lining on stack & upper base.
Destroys Oil/Condensate production tank vapors no visible flame or smoke and excellent opacity.
Reliable & Customizable ignition. Very low capital & operating cost, easy to operate and maintain.

Accessories - Included Description OEM OEM Model # QTY
Flame Cell Generic N/A 4
3" Flame Arrestor Generic Generic 1
Stainless Steel Burner Assembly Generic Generic 1
Pilot Regulator, 1/4" Fisher 67CR-206 1
Pilot Isolation Ball Valve 1/4 STL 2000# FP Chemoil 2027WC-02 1
8'x8'x8" Concrete Block No Anchors Generic SL 119524 1

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
FL
O
W

C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y

(
M
S
C
F
D
)
PRESSURE (oz/in2)
CALCULATED FLOW CAPACITY CURVE
48" HIGH VOLUME ECD (3-48HV-90-OOOO)
From EPA Test:
Max Rate = 109 MSCFD Min
Rate = 13.7 MSCFD

NOTES:UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES BREAK ALL SHARP EDGES ALL FEATURES ON A COMMON AXIS:DESIGN PRESSURE:16 OZ/SQ. IN., VACUUM RATING: 0.4 OZ/SQ. IN.2.APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION: API 12F 13TH ED.3.FLANGE BOLTS TO STRADDLE MAIN CENTERLINES OF TANK. 4.ESTIMATED SHIPPING WEIGHT: 10,500 LB EACH.5.COATING SPECIFICATION: 6.EXTERNAL: ONE COAT ALKYD ENAMEL OR TWO-1.COMPONENT URETHANE, COLOR: BLM COVERT GREENINTERNAL: NONE2.ROOF SLOPE = 1:12 PITCH7.
NOTES FOR JOB 777:
VERSION A, QTY 4
INSTALL HEAT COILS AS SHOWN
PLAIN MANWAY COVER, NO C14 NOZZLE
VERSION B, QTY 6
NO HEAT COILS OR STANDS
MANWAY COVER WITH C14 NOZZLE
REVISIONS
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
0 INITIAL RELEASE 1/28/2022 DR
1 CHANGE NOZZLE C1 TO 8" 150# RFSO 3/22/2022 DR
2 ADD RAISED THIEF HATCH, ADD C12 DOWNCOMER 8/19/2022 DR
3 REMOVE THIEF HATCH DEVICE 11/29/2022 DR
4 CHANGE C2 TO 10", ADD REPADS, ADD C14 IN MANWAY COVER, CHANGE C1 TO API FLANGE/BOLT PATTERN 2/16/2023 DR
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
DATEAPPROVAL
DRAWN
2799 E HIGHWAY 40
VERNAL, UT 84078
435-789-2698
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
INTERPRET DRAWING PER
ASME Y14.5-2009
DIGITAL PART DEFINITION PER
ASME Y14.41-2012
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]
B
DR
AM 03/14/22
03/16/22
1 41:96
AG.144 1
CHECKED
SCALE:
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
0°M1C14
SEAMS 1,3
90°
135°C5
180°C6
234°LIFTING LUGLIFTING STRAP 225°C4
270°
SEAMS 2,4
344°C7
1'-2"
1'-6"
1'-9 12 "
1'-6"
137.27°REPAD CENTERLINE222.73°REPAD CENTERLINE
54°LIFTING LUG
C1
C2
C3
C8
C10 C11C12 C13
TH1
C9
1"
C12 DOWNCOMERDETAIL
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
2 41:96
AG.144 2
SCALE:
5" 5"
13'-6"
1'-8"
1'-8"CLEARANCE UNDER COILS
2'-0"HEAT COIL PIPE CENTERLINE C7
C14
NAMEPLATE
10"
1'-0" 1'-0"
10"
3'-4"
2'-2"
0"
5'-0"
10'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
0"
1'-6"
17'-7"TOP HOLE
9'-9"
17'-10"
C12 C10 C6 C11 C13
C4 C5
WALKWAY BRACKETS
REPAD 1/4" x 6" x 16"2 PLACES1/2" DOWN FROM TOP EDGE
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
3 41:96
AG.144 3
SCALE:
AA
C12 DOWNCOMER
C10 C11
GLYCOL TRACE DETAIL
DRAWING NO. SHC.021
2" SCH40 PIPE
60 LINEAR FT, 6-PASS
AIR TEST TO 100 PSI
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
4 41:96
AG.144 4
SCALE:

XCL AssetCo, LLC
NOx MODELING RESULTS
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, Utah
Modeling Review Summary
Facility Name:XCL Booster Station
Facility ID #:
County:Duchesne
Nearby town:Bluebell
Model used:AERMOD 22112
Surface data used:Price 2010-2014
Upper air data used:Grand Junction/Walker Field 2010 - 2014
Air boundary in model:Yes
Modeling input data:XCL Booster Station
XCL Booster Station - Project (point)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Stack height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters meters degrees K meters/sec meters lb/hr
COMBST Combuster - Enclosed Flare 572707.87 4457446.01 1660.79 7.70 922.039 0.031 1.219 0.46
ENG1 Compressor Engine #1 572752.27 4457507.49 1660.33 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG2 Compressor Engine #2 572752.27 4457495.89 1660.26 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG3 Compressor Engine #3 572752.27 4457483.35 1660.17 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
XCL Booster Station - Project (volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project (line volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station (area - polygon)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Length of the X Side Length of the Y Side Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project NAAQS Modeling
Pollutant Averaging Period
NAAQS Level
μg/m3
Significant
Impact Level
μg/m3
Modeled
Impact
μg/m3
Total w/ Background *
μg/m3
NO2 1-hour 188 7.5 132.72 165.18
* Background data from the Utah Division of Air Quality - Roosevelt Site - monthly values.
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FORMALDEHYDE MODELING RESULTS
XCL Booster Station
Formaldehyde Modeling
ENG1, ENG2, and ENG3
Emission Rate 0.51 lb/hr
Emission Rate - All ENG 1.53 lb/hr 67.26 μg/m3
Air Flow Rate 196.8 DSCFM 0.07 mg/m3
Molecular Weight - Air 29 g/mol
MW - Formaldehyde 30.026 g/mol
ETF - Formaldehyde[1]0.154 m3lb/mg-hr 0.05 mg/m3
1666.16 PPMv
0.75 ppm
2046.16 mg/m3 0.92 mg/m3
Formaldehyde Rate 0.00075 m3lb/mg-hr
Modeling Required?Exceed?NO
[1]Emission Threshold Factor: Vertically-Unrestricted Emission Release Points, 50 meters or less distance to property, Table 2, R307-410-5(1)(c)(i)(C)
NO
mg/m3 = 0.0409 x ppm x 30.026
PPMv = lb/hr/(MW x DSCFM x (1.554 x 10^-7))
1-hr Model Results
8-hr Model Results
8-hr TWA
0.7 Factor
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
XCL ASSETCO, LLC
NOTICE OF INTENT FOR
MINOR SOURCE
RESIDUE BOOSTER STATION
FACILITY LOCATED AT:
REMOTE LOCATION
UTM 12, 572743.87 E, 4457486.80 N
DUCHESNE COUNTY, UT
SUBMITTED TO:
PERMITS, DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
P.O. BOX 144820
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
SUBMITTAL DATE:
MAY 5, 2023

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 1
NOI APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Form 1 Date __________________
Notice of Intent (NOI) Application Checklist
Company __________________
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Source Identification Information [R307-401-5]
1. Company name, mailing address, physical address and telephone number †2. Company contact (Name, mailing address, and telephone number)†3. Name and contact of person submitting NOI application (if different than 2)†4. Source Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates †
5. Source Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code †
6. Area designation (attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment)†7. Federal/State requirement applicability (NAAQS, NSPS, MACT, SIP, etc.)†8. Source size determination (Major, Minor, PSD)†9. Current Approval Order(s) and/or Title V Permit numbers †
NOI Application Information:[R307-401]
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†
†N/A †
†N/A †
A. Air quality analysis (air model, met data, background data, source impact analysis) †N/A †
Detailed description of the project and source process
Discussion of fuels, raw materials, and products consumed/produced
Description of equipment used in the process and operating schedule
Description of changes to the process, production rates, etc.
Site plan of source with building dimensions, stack parameters, etc.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Analysis [R307-401-8]
$BACT analysis for all new and modified equipment
Emissions Related Information: [R307-401-2(b)]
$Emission calculations for each new/modified unit and site-wide(Include PM10, PM2.5,NOx, SO2, CO, VOCs, HAPs, and GHGs)
%References/assumptions, SDS, for each calculation and pollutant
&All speciated HAP emissions (list in lbs/hr)
Emissions Impact Analysis – Approved Modeling Protocol [R307-410]
$Composition and physical characteristics of effluent(emission rates, temperature, volume, pollutant types and concentrations)
Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas – Major NSR/Minor (offsetting only)[R307-403]
$NAAQS demonstration, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, Offset requirements
%Alternative site analysis, Major source ownership compliance certification
Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD) [R307-405, R307-406]
%Visibility impact analysis, Class I area impact
 6LJQDWXUHRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
†N/A †
Note: The Division of Air Quality will not accept documents containing confidential information or data.
Documents containing confidential information will be returned to the Source submitting the application.
N/A
N/A
May 5, 2023
XCL AssetCo, LLC
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 2
COMPANY INFORMATION

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 3
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Page 1 of 1
Form 3 Company____________________
Process Information Site________________________
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Process Information)RU1HZ3HUPLW21/<
1. Name of process: 2. End product of this process:
3. Process Description*:
Operating Data
4. Maximum operating schedule:
__________ hrs/day
__________days/week
__________weeks/year
5. Percent annual production by quarter:
Winter ________ Spring _______
Summer ________ Fall _______
6. Maximum Hourly production (indicate units.):
_____________
7. Maximum annual production (indicate units):
________________
8. Type of operation:
Continuous Batch Intermittent
9. If batch, indicate minutes per cycle ________
Minutes between cycles ________
10. Materials and quantities used in process.*
Material Maximum Annual Quantity (indicate units)
11.Process-Emitting Units with pollution control equipment*
Emitting Unit(s) Capacity(s) Manufacture Date(s)
*If additional space is required, please create a spreadsheet or Word processing document and attach to form.
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
Natural Gas Compressor
Engines (Three (3) Units)
Compressed Natural Gas
The Residue Booster Station, located in a remote location of Duchesne County, compresses
natural gas pumped from multiple well sites. The natural gas is routed to an inlet scrubber to
remove water and then it is sent to three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition internal
combustion engines for compression. Any liquid condensate from compression will be
routed to storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion.
24
7
52
25%
25%
25%
25%
0.6325 MMSCF 5,540.7 MMSCF
✔
N/A
N/A
Natural Gas 94.935 MMSCF/yr
ICE-01 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-02 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-03 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
FLR - Enclosed Vapor Combuster 11.7 MMBtu/hr 2024
TK-301 21,000-Gal 2024
TK-302 21,000-Gal 2024

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 5
EMISSIONS TOTALS
Page 1 of 1
Company___________________________
6LWH_____________________________
Form 
Emissions Information
Criteria/GHGs/ HAP’s
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Potential to Emit* Criteria Pollutants & GHGs
Criteria Pollutants Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emissions Increases
(tons/yr)
Proposed Emissions
(tons/yr)
PM10 Total
PM10 Fugitive
PM2.5
NOx
SO2
CO
VOC
VOC Fugitive
NH3
Greenhouse Gases CO2e CO2e CO2e
CO2CH4N2O
HFCs
PFCs
SF6
Total CO2e
*Potential to emit to include pollution control equipment as defined by R307-401-2.
Hazardous Air Pollutants**(**Defined in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act )
Hazardous Air
Pollutant***
Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(tons/yr)
Proposed
Emission (tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(lbs/hr)
Total HAP
*** Use additional sheets for pollutants if needed
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 21.97 21.97
0.00 0.07 0.07
0.00 89.63 89.63
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 19,957.00 19,957.00
0.00 159.01 159.01
0.00 0.11 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 20,116.12 20,116.12
1,3-Butadiene 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Acetaldehyde 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.24
Acrolein 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.15
Benzene 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.01
Biphenyl 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Formaldehyde 0.00 2.23 2.23 0.51
Methanol 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.07
n-Hexane 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.04
Toluene 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01
Xylene 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01
Other/Trace HAP 0.00 4.53 4.53 1.34
0.00 9.19 9.19 2.10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 4
FLARE SYSTEMS
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company___________________________
Site/Source__________________________
Form 4 Date_______________________________
Flare Systems
Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer:
_________________________
Model no.:
_________________________
(if available)
2. Design and operation shall be in accordance with 40CFR63.11. In addition
to the information listed in this form, provide the following: an assembly
drawing with dimensions, interior dimensions and features, flare’s
maximum capacity in BTU/hr.
3.Characteristics of Waste Gas Stream Input
Components Min. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68 oF, 14.7 psia)
Ave. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
Design Max.
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
4. Percent of time this
condition occurs
5. Flow rate: Minimum Expected Design Maximum Temp oF Pressure (psig)
Waste Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Fuel Added to Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Heat content of the gas to be flared ______________ BTU/ft3
6. Number of pilots 7. Type of fuel 8. Fuel Flow Rate (scfm @ 68oF & 14.7 psia) per pilot
Page 1 of 3
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Cimarron
48" HV ECD
Enclosed Flare 0.50 75.694 75.694
0% 100% 100%
0 MSCFD
30 SCFH
109 MSCFD
4553 SCFH
1200
1200
atm
8-10
2500
1 Natural Gas 0.50 SCFM
Page 2 of 3
Flare Systems
Form 4
(Continued)

Steam Injection
9. Steam pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
10. Total steam flow Rate (lb/hr)
11. Temperature (oF) 12. Velocity (ft/sec)
13. Number of jet streams 14. Diameter of steam jets (inches)
15. Design basis for steam injected (lb steam/lb hydrocarbon)
Water Injection
16. Water pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
17. Total Water Flow Rate (gpm)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
18. Number of water jets 19. Diameter of Water jets (inches)
20. Flare height (ft) 21. Flare tip inside diameter (ft)
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. Calculated emissions for this device
PM10 _________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr PM2.5 __________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
NOx __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr SOx ___________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
CO __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr VOC ___________Lbs/hr________Tons/yr
CO2 _________Tons/yr CH4 ___________Tons/yr
N2O _________Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)__________Tons/yr (speciate)
Submit calculations as an appendix. If other pollutants are emitted, include the emissions in the appendix.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
0.00862 0.15 0.00862 0.15
0.4542 1.99 0.00273 0.0119
0.3815 1.67 0.02498 0.11
5,995 0.0113
0.11
0.00858 0.0376
Page 3 of 3
Instructions - Form 4 Flare Systems
NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in filling out
this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
1. Specify the manufacturer and model number.
2. Supply an assembly drawing, dimensioned and to scale of the interior dimensions and features of the
equipment.
3. Supply the specifications of the fuel components in the waste gas stream.
4. Indicate what percent of the time the waste gas stream is at minimum, average, and maximum value.
5. Supply the specifications of the total waste gas stream and the fuel added to the gas stream.
6. Indicate the number of pilots in the flare.
7. Specify the type of fuel to be used.
8. Specify the fuel flow rate.
9. Indicate the minimum and design maximum steam pressure for steam injection.
10. Supply the steam flow rate.
11. Supply the temperature of the steam.
12. Specify the velocity of the steam.
13. Indicate the number of jet streams.
14. Give the diameter of the steam jets.
15. Give the design basis for the steam injection.
16. Specify the water pressure at minimum and design maximum using water injection.
17. Give the total water flow rate at minimum and design maximum.
18. Supply the number of water jets.
19. Give the diameter of the water jets.
20. Supply the flare height.
21. Supply the flare tip inside diameter.
22. Supply calculations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or Manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
U:aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\ Form04 Flare Systems.doc
Revised 12/20/10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-01)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
1

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-02)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
2

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-03)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
3

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #1

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-301
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #2

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-302
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
FACILITY-WIDE
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
Facility PTE
Emission Type
Process
Number Unit ID Description Site Rating
Operatong
Hours/Year
Particulate Matter <10μ
(PM10)
Particulate Matter <2.5μ
(PM2.5)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX)
Sulfur Oxides
(SOX)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs)
Point 001 ICE-01 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05
Point 002 ICE-02 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 003 ICE-03 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 004 FLR Enclosed Vapor Combustor 11.7 MMBtu/hr 8760 hr/year 0.15 0.15 1.99 0.012 1.67 0.11 0.038
Point 005 TK-301 500-BBL Tank 301 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065Point 006 TK-302 500-BBL Tank 302 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.19
Facility PTE (tpy)
PointFugitive
Facility PTE (tpy)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
ENCLOSED FLARE SYSTEM
EMITTING UNIT: FLR
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Total Emissions
Pollutant PTE Flare
(tpy)
PTE Pilot
(tons/yr)
PTE Combustor
(tpy)
PM 3.78E-02 0.0010 0.0388
PM10 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
PM2.5 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
SO2 1.19E-02 0.0001 0.0120
NOx 1.99 0.0131 2.0024
CO 1.67 0.0110 1.6820
VOC 0.11 0.0007 0.1101
Benzene 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Dichlorobenzene 2.39E-05 1.58E-07 2.40E-05
Formaldehyde 1.49E-03 9.86E-06 1.50E-03
Hexane 3.58E-02 2.37E-04 3.60E-02
Lead Compounds 9.95E-06 6.57E-08 1.00E-05
Naphthalene 1.21E-05 8.02E-08 1.22E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]1.75E-06 1.16E-08 1.77E-06
Toluene 6.76E-05 4.47E-07 6.81E-05
Arsenic Compounds 3.98E-06 2.63E-08 4.00E-06
Beryllium Compounds 2.39E-07 1.58E-09 2.40E-07
Cadmium Compounds 2.19E-05 1.45E-07 2.20E-05
Chromium Compounds 2.78E-05 1.84E-07 2.80E-05
Cobalt Compounds 1.67E-06 1.10E-08 1.68E-06
Manganese Compounds 7.56E-06 4.99E-08 7.61E-06
Mercury Compounds 5.17E-06 3.42E-08 5.21E-06
Nickel Compounds 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Selenium Compounds 4.77E-07 3.15E-09 4.81E-07
Total HAPs 3.76E-02 2.48E-04 3.78E-02
CO2 5,995 0.00 5995
CH4 1.13E-02 0.00 0.01
N2O 0.11 0.00 0.11
GHGs (mass basis) 5,995 0.00 5995
CO2e 6,029 0.00 6029
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Greenhouse Gases
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Flare Emissions
Designed Heat Input 11.7 MMBtu/hr (Max)
Max Natural Gas Usage 39.785 MMscf/yr
Enclosed vapor combustor
Pollutant Natural Gas Emission
Factor[1]Units PTE
(lbs/yr)
PTE
(tpy)
PM 1.90 75.59 3.78E-02
PM10 7.60 302.37 0.15
PM2.5 7.60 302.37 0.15
SO2 0.60 23.87 1.19E-02
NOx 100.00 3,979 1.99
CO 84.00 3,342 1.67
VOC 5.50 218.82 0.11
Benzene 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Dichlorobenzene 1.20E-03 4.77E-02 2.39E-05
Formaldehyde 7.50E-02 2.98 1.49E-03
Hexane 1.80 71.61 3.58E-02
Lead Compounds 5.00E-04 1.99E-02 9.95E-06
Naphthalene 6.10E-04 2.43E-02 1.21E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]8.82E-05 3.51E-03 1.75E-06
Toluene 3.40E-03 0.14 6.76E-05
Arsenic Compounds 2.00E-04 7.96E-03 3.98E-06
Beryllium Compounds 1.20E-05 4.77E-04 2.39E-07
Cadmium Compounds 1.10E-03 4.38E-02 2.19E-05
Chromium Compounds 1.40E-03 5.57E-02 2.78E-05
Cobalt Compounds 8.40E-05 3.34E-03 1.67E-06
Manganese Compounds 3.80E-04 1.51E-02 7.56E-06
Mercury Compounds 2.60E-04 1.03E-02 5.17E-06
Nickel Compounds 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Selenium Compounds 2.40E-05 9.55E-04 4.77E-07
75.13 3.76E-02
Greenhouse Gases Natural Gas Emission
Factor[2]Units PTE
(lbs/hr)
PTE
(tpy)
CO2 116.98 1,369 5,995
CH4 2.20E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
N2O 2.20E-03 2.58E-02 0.11
1,369 5,995
1,377 6,029
[1] AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, 1.4-3, and 1.4-4 (6/1998) for all emission factors except greenhouse gases.
[2] GHG Factors from 40 CFR 98 Tables A-1 (Oct. 30, 2009), C-1 and C-2 (Nov. 29, 2013). Emission factors converted from kg/MMBtu to lb/MMBtu.
40 CFR Part 98, Table A-1 to Subpart A of Part 98—Global Warming Potentials (GWP). CO2e = [1 x CO2] + [21 x CH4] + [310 x N2O].
[3] POM includes 2-Methylnaphthalene, 3-Methylchloranthrene, 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene,
Benz(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene,
Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Phenanathrene, and Pyrene.
CO2e
lb/106 SCF
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
lb/106 SCF
Total HAPs
lb/MMBtu
GHGs (mass basis)
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Pilot Emissions
Total Heat Input Capacity of Pilot 30.0 scf/hr
Pilot Natural Gas Usage 0.2628 MMscf/yr
Operating Time 8760 hr/yr
Pollutant Emission Factor1
(lb/MMscf)
Potential
Emission Rate
(lbs/yr)
Potential
Emission Rate
(tons/yr)
Particulate Matter (PM) 7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Particulate Matter (PM10)7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 26.2800 0.0131
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)0.6 0.1577 0.0001
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 84 22.0752 0.0110
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5.5 1.4454 0.0007
Individual HAPs
Benzene 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Dichlorobenzene 0.0012 3.15E-04 1.58E-07
Formaldehyde 0.075 1.97E-02 9.86E-06
Hexane 1.8 4.73E-01 2.37E-04
Lead Compounds 0.0005 1.31E-04 6.57E-08
Naphthalene 0.00061 1.60E-04 8.02E-08
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) 0.0000882 2.32E-05 1.16E-08
Toluene 0.0034 8.94E-04 4.47E-07
Arsenic Compounds (ASC) 0.0002 5.26E-05 2.63E-08
Beryllium Compounds (BEC) 0.000012 3.15E-06 1.58E-09
Cadmium Compounds (CDC) 0.0011 2.89E-04 1.45E-07
Chromium Compounds (CRC) 0.0014 3.68E-04 1.84E-07
Cobalt Compounds (COC) 0.000084 2.21E-05 1.10E-08
Manganese Compounds (MNC) 0.00038 9.99E-05 4.99E-08
Mercury Compounds (HGC) 0.00026 6.83E-05 3.42E-08
Nickel Compounds (NIC) 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Selenium Compounds (SEC) 0.000024 6.31E-06 3.15E-09
Total HAPs 1.89 0.4963 2.48E-04
1Emission Factors from AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3 (7/98)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #1
EMITTING UNIT: TK-301
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-301
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 301, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)3.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):3.0298 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):1.5988
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):1.5988 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.3122
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 13.28 3.03 16.31
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #2
EMITTING UNIT: TK-302
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-302
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 302, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)0.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):2.8485 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):0.9260
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):0.9260 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.1309
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 13.28 2.85 16.13
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FACILITY LAYOUT
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
OVERALL FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 1
CG
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
FACILITY OVERVIEW1
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
N
S
EW
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N/S: 0+00
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
N: 0+50
N: 1+50
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N: 0+50
N: 1+00
N: 1+50
N/S: 0+00
N: 2+00 N: 2+00
N: 2+50 N: 2+50
PROPOSED SUA
ENLARGED VIEW
SEE SHEET 2
74'-1034"
PIPE RACK
COMPRESSOR
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR
FURURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
100' RADIUS
SCRUBBER
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
N: 1+00
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
ENLARGED FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 2
CG
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
ENLARGED VIEW1
N S
E
W
S:

-
0
+
5
0
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
N:

0
+
5
0
N/
S
:

0
+
0
0
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
S:

-
1
+
0
0
71'-911
16"15'26'-49
16"15'
40'
10'
10'
15'
12'
135'
47'6'
100'
82'
3'
16'-6"
N:

1
+
0
0
N:

1
+
5
0
S:

-
1
+
5
0
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
6'
10'
20'
26'-4 9
16"15'15'-51
8"
20'
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR FUTURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
PIPE RACK
100' RADIUS
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
144.0000
2'
100'
6'-9"
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FLOW DIAGRAM
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

~
2
0
0

P
S
I
G
ESD.
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

7
5
0

P
S
I
G
PCV.
FE.
FE.PCV.
FE.
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
PSV.
CS300 CS150
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
PSV.
VENT
LP DRAIN
DISCHARGE
C-201 C-202 C-203
TK-301 TK-302
V-100
FL-400
V-100
SLUG CATCHER
6' O.D. X 20'-0"# PSIG @#°F
C-201
COMPRESSOR
C-202
COMPRESSOR
C-203
FUTURE COMPRESSOR
TK-301
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
TK-302
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
FL-400
COMBUSTOR
ESD.
PCV.
V-110
V-110
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
#' X #'-#"# PSIG @#°F
FE.
RESIDUE SUCTION
FUEL GAS
DRAWN BY: CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
LOS
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
NO. DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

12/28/22
NONE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
0RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD PFD SHEET 0.30
CG
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG 12/6/22

XCL AssetCo, LLC
BACT ANALYSIS
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 1 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is providing a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for a new Residue Booster Station for the Notice of
Intent (NOI). This BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division of
Air Quality (DAQ or Division) Form 01b for BACT determinations. XCL is planning to install a
Residue Booster Station, calculated to be a minor source, to compress natural gas pumped from
multiple well sites. The facility will be comprised of three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition
internal combustion engines for compression, two (2) liquid condensate storage tanks, and an
enclosed flare for combustion of storage tank vapors. The Residue Booster Station will be located
in a remote location of Duchesne County, approximately 7.7 miles West via US-191, 3000S, and
700 W from Roosevelt, Utah.

This report contains analysis of BACT for particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission for the Residue Booster
Station. For reference, UAC R307-101-2, defines BACT specifically to the following:

“BACT means an emission limitation and/or other controls to include design,
equipment, work practice, operation standard or combination thereof, based on a
maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act and/or the Utah Air Conservation Act emitted from or which results
from any emitting installation, which the Air Quality Board, on a case-by-case basis
taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such installation through application of production
process and available methods, systems and techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such
pollutant. In no event shall application of BACT result in emission of pollutants
which will exceed the emissions allowed by section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act.”
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 2 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

As the rule states, XCL and ARC are obligated to base proposed BACT on the most effective
engineering techniques and control equipment to minimize emission of air contaminants from
its process to the extent achievable within the industry. Furthermore, based on this definition
and the DAQ’s Form 01b Guidance on BACT, this analysis for XCL’s Residue Booster Station
includes consideration of energy impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts, other
considerations, and cost calculation. XCL and ARC are extremently well versed in natural gas
compression facilities and have been involved in many other natural gas compressor stations
throughout Utah. The proposed BACT for XCL follows Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division)
Form 01b, UAC R307-401-5, EPA federal standards, and feasible technologies of the natural gas
industry nationwide.
2 BACT ANALYSIS

2.1 Energy Impacts
Energy impacts are the first criteria when conducting BACT analysis. Certain types of control
technologies have inherent energy penalties associated with their use and industry application.
New modern gas compression engines utilize clean technology that are NSPS site compliant
capable. The three proposed engines for the XCL’s Residue Booster Station are equipped with
ADEM 3 technology that enables the highest performance and safety while maintaining low
emissions. It provides integrated control of ignition, speed governing, protection, and controls,
including detonation-sensitive variable ignition timing. The enclosed flared has been tested and
approved in accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH to be included on the
EPA’s Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List.

The use of post-manufacturing add-on controls would require additional energy consumption for
the manufacturing and transport of the physical equipment, in addition to the transport of
manpower required for assembly and troubleshooting. It is difficult to estimate the amount of
energy needed, however the low-emissions levels of the engines and enclosed flare from the
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 3 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
manufacturer deem these add-ons as infeasible for BACT on the compressor station.

2.2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts include any unconventional or unusual impacts of using a control device,
such as the generation of solid or hazardous waste, water discharges, visibility impacts, or
emissions of unregulated pollutants. In the case of the natural gas compressor station, spent
catalyst reduction agent that could be considered hazardous would need to be disposed of, or
otherwise handled, every two to four years dependent on vendor and technology selected.

2.3 Economic Impacts
2.3.a Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant emissions from the internal combustion engines include NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and
VOCs. Annual operation of the engines will be 8,760 hours. The potential emissions from the
engines are provided in Table 1. The following analysis will illustrate that the use of the engines
as supplied by the manufacturer without any additional emissions control methods is
recommended due to meeting or being below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ, and any additional control technologies would create an
undue cost burden on the facility.

Table 1 – Internal Combustion Engine Emissions
Component Operating
Hours Size NOx
(tons/yr)
PM10/PM2.5
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
VOC
(tons/yr)
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73

Based on research and engineering experience, the control technologies for internal combustion
engines listed in Table 2 were considered for this BACT analysis.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 4 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Table 2 – Control Technologies for Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant Control Technology
CO/VOC Oxidation Catalyst
NOx
Exhaust Recirculation1
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)
Lean Combustion (LC)
Good Combustion Practices
PM10/PM2.5
Fabric Filters
Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Wet ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Good Combustion Practices
1. Exhaust gas recirculation is not part of the original manufacturer design.
Therefore, it is not feasible without substantial engineering overhaul of the units.

The engines are subject to the NOx, CO, and VOC standards outlined in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart JJJJ for non-emergency spark ignition natural gas engines greater than or equal to 500
hp manufactured after July 1, 2007. The engines, as manufactured, meet and exceed the
standards, therefore no additional control technology will be required or used with the engines.

Table 3 –Engine Emissions, As Manufactured, Compared to Standard
Pollutant JJJJ Standard
(g/hp-hr)
G3516 Engine
(g/hp-hr)
% of
Standard
CO 4.0 2.20 55.0
VOC 1.0 0.43 43.0
NOx 2.0 0.50 25.0
1. Standard from Table 1, 40 CFR Park 60, Subpart JJJJ

Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) was evaluated. NSCR is often referred to as a three-way
conversion catalyst system because the catalyst reactor simultaneously reduces NOx, CO, and
hydrocarbons and involves placing a catalyst in the exhaust stream of the engine. However, NSCR
technology works with only rich-burn engines. Because the proposed engines are lean-burn units,
use of a NSCR is not applicable.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 5 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used to reduce NOx emissions from lean-burn engines
through the use of a reducing agent, such as ammonia or urea. SCR systems inject the reduction
agent into the lean-burn exhaust stream. The agent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx,
converting it to molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). Control for a SCR system is
typically 80-95% reduction of NOx (EPA, AP-42 Section 3.2).

An Oxidation Catalyst is a post-combustion technology that has been shown to reduce CO
emissions in lean-burn engines. In a catalytic oxidation system, CO passes over a catalyst, usually
a noble metal, which oxidizes the CO to CO2 at efficiencies of approximately 90% for 4-cycle lean-
burn engines. When used in conjunction with a SCR system, the CO2, water, and NOx then enter
the SCR catalyst, where the NOx reacts with the ammonia.

The proposed engines, as provided by the manufacturer, are lean burning engines. Lean
combustion technology involves the increase of the air-to-fuel ratio to lower the peak
combustion temperature, thus reducing formation of NOx. Typically, engines operate at the air-
to-fuel ratio of about 20 to 35 pounds of air to pound of fuel. In a typical Lean Burn engine, this
ratio is increased to 45 to 50. With a conventional spark ignition, the air fuel ratio can only be
increased to a certain point before the onset of lean misfire. To avoid misfire problems and to
ensure complete combustion of very lean mixtures, the engine manufacturers have developed
torch ignition technology and the application of a controlled swirl. Some increase in fuel
consumption and CO and HC emissions results from the slower flame propagation for very lean
mixtures. At optimal setting new lean burn engines can achieve NOx levels of 2 g/hp-hr or below.
This corresponds to an 80 to 90 percent control over conventional spark plug design engines. By
comparison, the proposed engines for the XCL Residue Booster Station have NOx levels of 0.5
g/hp-hr.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 6 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
The total estimated capital investment associated with the installation, startup, and equipment
costs of a SCR is $960,267 per engine unit in 2023 dollars, in accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports
and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated
06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry costs collected and validated by the EPA
in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI). It was estimated that each catalyst has an operational life of 20,000 hours. Because all
three engines will operate 8,760 hr/yr, it is determined that significant maintenance activities
will be required every 27 months. Each SCR unit is anticipated to have a use life of 20 years before
requiring complete replacement. With an effectiveness in reducing NOx emissions by 85%, a SCR
would remove an estimated 5.66 tons/year per unit. This results in a cost effectiveness of $20,956
per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars. Additional background information pertaining to the SCR
capital and annual costs is provided in the subsequent pages of this BACT Analysis.

2.3.b Enclosed Flare
The enclosed flare manufactured by Cimarron (Model No. 48” HV ECD) is included on the EPA’s
Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List in
accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH. It was performance tested on August
12, 2014, by AIR Hygiene, Inc, and demonstrates performance requirements with a maximum
inlet flow rate of 4553 scfh. As such, XCL AssetCo, LLC is exempt from conducting performance
tests under 40 CFR 60.5413(a)(7), 60.5413a(a)(7), 63.772(e), and/or 63.1282(d), and from
submitting test results under 40 CFR 60.5413(e)(6), 60.5413a(e)(6), 63.775(d)(ii), and/or
63.1285(d)(1)(ii) and no additional control technology will be added to the enclosed flare.

2.4 Other Considerations
Form 01b for BACT determination guidance from the Division lists 11 “other considerations” for
BACT analyses. Per each consideration listed, XCL and ARC are providing response as follows.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 7 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1. “When exceeding otherwise appropriate costs by a moderate amount would result in a
substantial additional emissions reduction.”

Based on the manufacturer provided specification information for each engine and enclosed
flare, the emissions from each unit are below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ. There are no control technologies that would result
in a substantial additional emissions reduction, therefore the cost associated with any add-
on control technology would be considered substantial and well beyond a moderate amount.

2. “When a control technology would achieve controls of more than one pollutant (including
HAPs).”

The Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) is the only control technology available to
reduce both NOx and CO, however the technology only works with rich-burn engines. Because
the proposed engines are lean-burn units, use of a NSCR is not applicable.

3. “Where the proposed BACT level would cause a new violation of an applicable NAAQS or
PSD increment. A permit cannot be issued to a source that would cause a new violation of
either.”

The emission limits for the proposed new natural gas compressor station will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or PSD increment.

4. “When there are legal constraints outside of the Clean Air Act, such as a SIP or state rule,
requiring the application of a more stringent technology than one which otherwise would
have been determined to be BACT.”

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 8 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
There are no additional legal constraints that would require more stringent technology be
used at the natural gas compressor station.

5. “Any time a permit limit founded in BACT is being considered for revision, a reopening of
the original BACT determination must be made, even if the permit limit is exceeded by less
than the significant amount. Therefore, all controls upstream of the emission point,
including existing controls, must be re-evaluated for BACT.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed, and there is no original BACT
determination.

6. “The cost of all controls, including existing controls and any proposed control
improvements, should be expressed in terms of a single dollar year, preferably the current
year. Any proposed improvements should then be added to that cost, also in today’s
dollars.”

The cost of control was determined using the dollar year 2023, adjusted for inflation, in
accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR
Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated 06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry
costs collected and validated by the EPA in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on
the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).

7. “EPA cannot provide a specific cost figure for cost/ton of pollutant removed without
contradicting the PSD definition of BACT. They recognize that a case-by-case evaluation
is inherently judgmental and can be particularly difficult without a cost guideline.”

The impacts of energy and costs of control were determined using EPA emission factors,
control efficiencies, and published studies.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 9 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

8. “A top-down type of BACT analysis is recommended by EPA and required by Utah.”

A top-down type of BACT analysis was used, and ARC and XCL was over inclusive in
considering several control technologies, including NOx reduction technologies.

9. “DAQ will review BACT determination for plants not yet built, if those plants have already
applied for AOs and BACT determinations have already been made or proposed.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed.

10. “Utah must ensure that any technically feasible improvements to existing controls that
would fall within the realm of reasonableness be considered, unless the improvement
would yield insignificant additional control.”

All reasonable controls have been considered for this analysis.

11. “In all cases, a complete BACT analysis must be submitted and must consider
environmental and energy, as well as economic impacts, unless an existing BACT
determination/approval is applicable to your source and is acceptable to the DAQ.”

The proposed BACT for XCL follows Form 01b, UAC R307-101-2, EPA federal standards, and
capability of the natural compressor facility techniques nationwide.
Is the combustion unit a utility or industrial boiler?What type of fuel does the unit burn?
Is the SCR for a new boiler or retrofit of an existing boiler?
Complete all of the highlighted data fields:
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
What is the maximum heat input rate (QB)?10.92 MMBtu/hour Type of coal burned:
What is the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel?1,008 Btu/scf
What is the estimated actual annual fuel consumption? 94,935,457 scf/Year

Enter the net plant heat input rate (NPHR) 8.2 MMBtu/MW

Fraction in
Coal Blend %S HHV (Btu/lb)If the NPHR is not known, use the default NPHR value: Fuel TypeDefault NPHR 0 1.84 11,841
Coal 10 MMBtu/MW 0 0.41 8,826
Fuel Oil 11 MMBtu/MW 0 0.82 6,685
Natural Gas 8.2 MMBtu/MW
Plant Elevation 5400 Feet above sea level
Data Inputs
Enter the following data for your combustion unit:
BituminousSub-Bituminous
Enter the sulfur content (%S) = percent by weight

Coal Type

Not applicable to units buring fuel oil or natural gas
Note: The table below is pre-populated with default values for HHV and %S. Please enter the actual values for these parameters in the table below. If the actual value for any parameter is not known, you may use the
default values provided.

Lignite
Please click the calculate button to calculate weighted average values based on the data in the table above.
For coal-fired boilers, you may use either Method 1 or Method 2 to calculate the
catalyst replacement cost. The equations for both methods are shown on rows 85
and 86 on the Cost Estimate tab. Please select your preferred method:

Method 1
Method 2
Not applicable
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Enter the following design parameters for the proposed SCR:
Number of days the SCR operates (tSCR)365 days
Number of SCR reactor chambers (nscr)1
Number of days the boiler operates (tplant)365 days
Number of catalyst layers (Rlayer)3
Inlet NOx Emissions (NOxin) to SCR 0.139192 lb/MMBtu
Number of empty catalyst layers (Rempty)1
Outlet NOx Emissions (NOxout) from SCR (Assume 85% reduction)0.0209 lb/MMBtu
Ammonia Slip (Slip) provided by vendor 2 ppm
Stoichiometric Ratio Factor (SRF)0.525 UNK
*The SRF value of 0.525 is a default value. User should enter actual value, if known.
UNK

Estimated operating life of the catalyst (Hcatalyst)20,000 hours

Estimated SCR equipment life 20 Years*
Gas temperature at the SCR inlet (T) 973
* For industrial boilers, the typical equipment life is between 20 and 25 years.1780
Concentration of reagent as stored (Cstored)50 percent*
Density of reagent as stored (ρstored)71 lb/cubic feet*
Number of days reagent is stored (tstorage)14 days Densities of typical SCR reagents:
50% urea solution 71 lbs/ft3
29.4% aqueous NH3 56 lbs/ft3
Select the reagent used
Enter the cost data for the proposed SCR:
Desired dollar-year 2023
CEPCI for 2023 802.9 Enter the CEPCI value for 2023 541.7 2016 CEPCI CEPCI = Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
Annual Interest Rate (i)8.0 Percent
Reagent (Costreag)1.660 $/gallon for 50% urea*
Electricity (Costelect)0.0743 $/kWh
Catalyst cost (CC replace)420.00
Operator Labor Rate 60.00 $/hour (including benefits)*
Operator Hours/Day 4.00 hours/day*
Volume of the catalyst layers (Volcatalyst)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Flue gas flow rate (Qfluegas)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Cubic feet
acfm
oF
ft3/min-MMBtu/hourBase case fuel gas volumetric flow rate factor (Qfuel)
*The reagent concentration of 50% and density of 71 lbs/cft are default
values for urea reagent. User should enter actual values for reagent, if
different from the default values provided.

* $1.66/gallon is a default value for 50% urea. User should enter actual value, if known.

$/cubic foot (includes removal and disposal/regeneration of existing
catalyst and installation of new catalyst

* $60/hour is a default value for the operator labor rate. User should enter actual value, if known.
Note: The use of CEPCI in this spreadsheet is not an endorsement of the index, but is there merely to allow for availability of a well-known cost index to spreadsheet users.
Use of other well-known cost indexes (e.g., M&S) is acceptable.
* 4 hours/day is a default value for the operator labor. User should enter actual value, if known.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Maintenance and Administrative Charges Cost Factors:0.015
Maintenance Cost Factor (MCF) =0.005
Administrative Charges Factor (ACF) =0.03
Data Sources for Default Values Used in Calculations:
Data Element Default Value
Reagent Cost ($/gallon)$1.66/gallon 50% urea solution
Electricity Cost ($/kWh)0.0743
Percent sulfur content for Coal (% weight)
Higher Heating Value (HHV) (Btu/lb)1,033
Catalyst Cost ($/cubic foot)420
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)$60.00
Interest Rate (Percent) 8.0 Default bank prime rate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA’s Power Sector
Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model. Office of Air and Radiation.
May 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documentation-epas-power-
sector-modeling-platform-v6.
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
2016 natural gas data compiled by the Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) from data reported on EIA Form EIA-923, Power
Plant Operations Report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

A replacement cost based on related BACT analysis submitted for like-sized engines to
UDAQ for approval.
Sources for Default Value
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model, Updates to the Cost and
Performance for APC Technologies, SCR Cost Development Methodology, Chapter 5,
Attachment 5-3, January 2017. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-
3 scr cost development methodology pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly. Table 5.3. Published
January 2023. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a.

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Maximum Annual Heat Input Rate (QB) = HHV x Max. Fuel Rate =11 MMBtu/hour
Maximum Annual fuel consumption (mfuel) = (QB x 1.0E6 x 8760)/HHV =94,900,000 scf/Year
Actual Annual fuel consumption (Mactual) =94,935,457 scf/Year
Heat Rate Factor (HRF) = NPHR/10 = 0.82
Total System Capacity Factor (CFtotal) =(Mactual/Mfuel) x (tscr/tplant) =1.000 fraction
Total operating time for the SCR (top) =CFtotal x 8760 =8763 hours
NOx Removal Efficiency (EF) =(NOxin - NOxout)/NOxin =85.0 percent
NOx removed per hour =NOxin x EF x QB =1.29 lb/hour
Total NOx removed per year =(NOxin x EF x QB x top)/2000 =5.66 tons/year
NOx removal factor (NRF) = EF/80 =1.06
Volumetric flue gas flow rate (qflue gas) = Qfuel x QB x (460 + T)/(460 + 700)nscr =24,012 acfm
Space velocity (Vspace) =qflue gas/Volcatalyst =233.50 /hour
Residence Time 1/Vspace 0.00 hour
Coal Factor (CoalF) =
1 for oil and natural gas; 1 for bituminous; 1.05 for sub-
bituminous; 1.07 for lignite (weighted average is used for
coal blends)
1.00
SO2 Emission rate = (%S/100)x(64/32)*1x106)/HHV =
Elevation Factor (ELEVF) = 14.7 psia/P = 1.22
Atmospheric pressure at sea level (P) =2116 x [(59-(0.00356xh)+459.7)/518.6]5.256 x (1/144)* =12.1 psia
Retrofit Factor (RF)New Construction 0.80
Catalyst Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Future worth factor (FWF) =(interest rate)(1/((1+ interest rate)Y -1) , where Y = Hcatalyts/(tSCR x
24 hours) rounded to the nearest integer 0.4808 Fraction
Catalyst volume (Volcatalyst) =2.81 x QB x EF adj x Slipadj x NOxadj x Sadj x (Tadj/Nscr)102.84 Cubic feet
Cross sectional area of the catalyst (Acatalyst) = qflue gas /(16ft/sec x 60 sec/min)25 ft2
SCR Design Parameters
The following design parameters for the SCR were calculated based on the values entered on the Data Inputs tab. These values were used to prepare the costs shown on the Cost Estimate tab.
Not applicable; factor applies only to
coal-fired boilers

* Equation is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Atmosphere Model. Available at
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/atmos.html.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Height of each catalyst layer (Hlayer) = (Volcatalyst/(Rlayer x Acatalyst)) + 1 (rounded to next highest
integer)2 feet
SCR Reactor Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Cross sectional area of the reactor (ASCR) = 1.15 x Acatalyst 29 ft2
Reactor length and width dimensions for a square
reactor = (ASCR)0.5 5.4 feet
Reactor height =(Rlayer + Rempty) x (7ft + hlayer) + 9ft 46 feet
Reagent Data:
Type of reagent used Urea 60.06 g/mole
Density = 71 lb/ft
3
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Reagent consumption rate (mreagent) = (NOxin x QB x EF x SRF x MWR)/MWNOx =1
Reagent Usage Rate (msol) =mreagent/Csol =2
(msol x 7.4805)/Reagent Density 0
Estimated tank volume for reagent storage =(msol x 7.4805 x tstorage x 24)/Reagent Density =100
Capital Recovery Factor:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = i (1+ i)n/(1+ i)n - 1 =0.1019
Where n = Equipment Life and i= Interest Rate
Other parameters Equation Calculated Value Units
Electricity Usage:
Electricity Consumption (P) = A x 1,000 x 0.0056 x (CoalF x HRF)0.43 =5.62 kW
where A = (0.1 x QB) for industrial boilers.
Units
lb/hour
lb/hour
gal/hour
gallons (storage needed to store a 14 day reagent supply rounded to t
Molecular Weight of Reagent (MW) =
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers between 275 and 5,500 MMBTU/hour :
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers between 205 and 4,100 MMBTU/hour :
Total Capital Investment (TCI) = $960,267 in 2023 dollars
Direct Annual Costs (DAC) =$18,094 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Costs (IDAC) =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total annual costs (TAC) = DAC + IDAC $118,630 in 2023 dollars
Annual Maintenance Cost = 0.005 x TCI =$4,801 in 2023 dollars
Annual Reagent Cost = msol x Costreag x top =$2,714 in 2023 dollars
Annual Electricity Cost = P x Costelect x top = $3,656 in 2023 dollars
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost =$6,922 in 2023 dollars

nscr x Volcat x (CCreplace/Rlayer) x FWF
Direct Annual Cost = $18,094 in 2023 dollars
Administrative Charges (AC) = 0.03 x (Operator Cost + 0.4 x Annual Maintenance Cost) =$2,686 in 2023 dollars
Capital Recovery Costs (CR)=CRF x TCI =$97,851 in 2023 dollarsIndirect Annual Cost (IDAC) =AC + CR =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC) =$118,630NOx Removed =5.66 tons/year
Cost Effectiveness = $20,956 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
TCI = 86,380 x (200/BMW )0.35 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
per year in 2023 dollars
Annual Costs
IDAC = Administrative Charges + Capital Recovery Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost/ NOx Removed/year
Direct Annual Costs (DAC)
DAC = (Annual Maintenance Cost) + (Annual Reagent Cost) + (Annual Electricity Cost) + (Annual Catalyst Cost)
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC)
TAC = Direct Annual Costs + Indirect Annual Costs
Cost Estimate
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TCI for Oil and Natural Gas Boilers
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers >500 MW:
TCI = 62,680 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers >5,500 MMBtu/hour:
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers >4,100 MMBtu/hour:
TCI = 7,640 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 5,700 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 10,530 x (1,640/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers between 25MW and 500 MW:
TCI = 7,850 x (2,200/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION SHEETS

Enclosed Combustor - High Volume - 48" x 25' x 11.7 MMBTU/HR 48” HV ECD
Data Parameter
Size 56” Square Base x 303” OAL
Capacity (Third Party Verified) 109 MSCFD @ 10 oz/in using SG 1.52/2500 BTU/SCF
Heat Duty Rating 11.7 MMBTU/HR Max
Burner Size 90 F-90 Orifices, 28"L x 27" W
Stack Insulated
Stack Internal Operating Temperature 800-1200°F
Inlet Temp -20-1200°F
Pressure Rating Atmospheric
Electrical Classification Non-Hazardous
Wind Load 90 mph 3sec Wind Gust per ASCE 7-05
Estimated Weight (No Concrete Block): 4380 lbs

Connection Schedule QTY Size Type
Waste Gas Inlet 1 3" NPT
Flow Test/Automation (plugged as option) 2 2" NPT
Stack/Burner Sight Glass 1 2" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 2" NPT
Pilot Sight glass 1 3" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 3" NPT
Pilot Gas In 1 1/4" NPT
Ignitor Cable (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Thermocouple or Automation (plugged as option) 1 1" NPT
Automation Spare (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Cabinet Drain (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT

Paint
External Default Color: Noble Tan unless other color chosen as option

Notes
Pilot Consumption: Propane: 15 SCFH @ 4 psig, Natural Gas: 30 SCFH @ 8 - 10 psig (per ignitor)
OOOO (Quad O) Certified. >98% DRE when operating within flow rate guidelines and stated process sizing
parameters.
Meets all EPA and CDPHE Regulations. Certified USEPA 40 CFR 60, App. A, Source Emissions Test Methods.
Multi-directional solar mount ready.
Structure certified per ASCE 7-05 & IBC 2006 stds (pre-mounted concrete base required for compliance.
Standard saftey features: Air and fuel inlet flame arrestors plus thermal insulation.
High quality thermal lining on stack & upper base.
Destroys Oil/Condensate production tank vapors no visible flame or smoke and excellent opacity.
Reliable & Customizable ignition. Very low capital & operating cost, easy to operate and maintain.

Accessories - Included Description OEM OEM Model # QTY
Flame Cell Generic N/A 4
3" Flame Arrestor Generic Generic 1
Stainless Steel Burner Assembly Generic Generic 1
Pilot Regulator, 1/4" Fisher 67CR-206 1
Pilot Isolation Ball Valve 1/4 STL 2000# FP Chemoil 2027WC-02 1
8'x8'x8" Concrete Block No Anchors Generic SL 119524 1

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
FL
O
W

C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y

(
M
S
C
F
D
)
PRESSURE (oz/in2)
CALCULATED FLOW CAPACITY CURVE
48" HIGH VOLUME ECD (3-48HV-90-OOOO)
From EPA Test:
Max Rate = 109 MSCFD Min
Rate = 13.7 MSCFD

NOTES:UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES BREAK ALL SHARP EDGES ALL FEATURES ON A COMMON AXIS:DESIGN PRESSURE:16 OZ/SQ. IN., VACUUM RATING: 0.4 OZ/SQ. IN.2.APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION: API 12F 13TH ED.3.FLANGE BOLTS TO STRADDLE MAIN CENTERLINES OF TANK. 4.ESTIMATED SHIPPING WEIGHT: 10,500 LB EACH.5.COATING SPECIFICATION: 6.EXTERNAL: ONE COAT ALKYD ENAMEL OR TWO-1.COMPONENT URETHANE, COLOR: BLM COVERT GREENINTERNAL: NONE2.ROOF SLOPE = 1:12 PITCH7.
NOTES FOR JOB 777:
VERSION A, QTY 4
INSTALL HEAT COILS AS SHOWN
PLAIN MANWAY COVER, NO C14 NOZZLE
VERSION B, QTY 6
NO HEAT COILS OR STANDS
MANWAY COVER WITH C14 NOZZLE
REVISIONS
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
0 INITIAL RELEASE 1/28/2022 DR
1 CHANGE NOZZLE C1 TO 8" 150# RFSO 3/22/2022 DR
2 ADD RAISED THIEF HATCH, ADD C12 DOWNCOMER 8/19/2022 DR
3 REMOVE THIEF HATCH DEVICE 11/29/2022 DR
4 CHANGE C2 TO 10", ADD REPADS, ADD C14 IN MANWAY COVER, CHANGE C1 TO API FLANGE/BOLT PATTERN 2/16/2023 DR
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
DATEAPPROVAL
DRAWN
2799 E HIGHWAY 40
VERNAL, UT 84078
435-789-2698
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
INTERPRET DRAWING PER
ASME Y14.5-2009
DIGITAL PART DEFINITION PER
ASME Y14.41-2012
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]
B
DR
AM 03/14/22
03/16/22
1 41:96
AG.144 1
CHECKED
SCALE:
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
0°M1C14
SEAMS 1,3
90°
135°C5
180°C6
234°LIFTING LUGLIFTING STRAP 225°C4
270°
SEAMS 2,4
344°C7
1'-2"
1'-6"
1'-9 12 "
1'-6"
137.27°REPAD CENTERLINE222.73°REPAD CENTERLINE
54°LIFTING LUG
C1
C2
C3
C8
C10 C11C12 C13
TH1
C9
1"
C12 DOWNCOMERDETAIL
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
2 41:96
AG.144 2
SCALE:
5" 5"
13'-6"
1'-8"
1'-8"CLEARANCE UNDER COILS
2'-0"HEAT COIL PIPE CENTERLINE C7
C14
NAMEPLATE
10"
1'-0" 1'-0"
10"
3'-4"
2'-2"
0"
5'-0"
10'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
0"
1'-6"
17'-7"TOP HOLE
9'-9"
17'-10"
C12 C10 C6 C11 C13
C4 C5
WALKWAY BRACKETS
REPAD 1/4" x 6" x 16"2 PLACES1/2" DOWN FROM TOP EDGE
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
3 41:96
AG.144 3
SCALE:
AA
C12 DOWNCOMER
C10 C11
GLYCOL TRACE DETAIL
DRAWING NO. SHC.021
2" SCH40 PIPE
60 LINEAR FT, 6-PASS
AIR TEST TO 100 PSI
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
4 41:96
AG.144 4
SCALE:

XCL AssetCo, LLC
NOx MODELING RESULTS
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, Utah
Modeling Review Summary
Facility Name:XCL Booster Station
Facility ID #:
County:Duchesne
Nearby town:Bluebell
Model used:AERMOD 22112
Surface data used:Price 2010-2014
Upper air data used:Grand Junction/Walker Field 2010 - 2014
Air boundary in model:Yes
Modeling input data:XCL Booster Station
XCL Booster Station - Project (point)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Stack height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters meters degrees K meters/sec meters lb/hr
COMBST Combuster - Enclosed Flare 572707.87 4457446.01 1660.79 7.70 922.039 0.031 1.219 0.46
ENG1 Compressor Engine #1 572752.27 4457507.49 1660.33 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG2 Compressor Engine #2 572752.27 4457495.89 1660.26 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG3 Compressor Engine #3 572752.27 4457483.35 1660.17 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
XCL Booster Station - Project (volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project (line volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station (area - polygon)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Length of the X Side Length of the Y Side Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project NAAQS Modeling
Pollutant Averaging Period
NAAQS Level
μg/m3
Significant
Impact Level
μg/m3
Modeled
Impact
μg/m3
Total w/ Background *
μg/m3
NO2 1-hour 188 7.5 132.72 165.18
* Background data from the Utah Division of Air Quality - Roosevelt Site - monthly values.
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FORMALDEHYDE MODELING RESULTS
XCL Booster Station
Formaldehyde Modeling
ENG1, ENG2, and ENG3
Emission Rate 0.51 lb/hr
Emission Rate - All ENG 1.53 lb/hr 67.26 μg/m3
Air Flow Rate 196.8 DSCFM 0.07 mg/m3
Molecular Weight - Air 29 g/mol
MW - Formaldehyde 30.026 g/mol
ETF - Formaldehyde[1]0.154 m3lb/mg-hr 0.05 mg/m3
1666.16 PPMv
0.75 ppm
2046.16 mg/m3 0.92 mg/m3
Formaldehyde Rate 0.00075 m3lb/mg-hr
Modeling Required?Exceed?NO
[1]Emission Threshold Factor: Vertically-Unrestricted Emission Release Points, 50 meters or less distance to property, Table 2, R307-410-5(1)(c)(i)(C)
NO
mg/m3 = 0.0409 x ppm x 30.026
PPMv = lb/hr/(MW x DSCFM x (1.554 x 10^-7))
1-hr Model Results
8-hr Model Results
8-hr TWA
0.7 Factor
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 3
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Page 1 of 1
Form 3 Company____________________
Process Information Site________________________
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Process Information)RU1HZ3HUPLW21/<
1. Name of process: 2. End product of this process:
3. Process Description*:
Operating Data
4. Maximum operating schedule:
__________ hrs/day
__________days/week
__________weeks/year
5. Percent annual production by quarter:
Winter ________ Spring _______
Summer ________ Fall _______
6. Maximum Hourly production (indicate units.):
_____________
7. Maximum annual production (indicate units):
________________
8. Type of operation:
Continuous Batch Intermittent
9. If batch, indicate minutes per cycle ________
Minutes between cycles ________
10. Materials and quantities used in process.*
Material Maximum Annual Quantity (indicate units)
11.Process-Emitting Units with pollution control equipment*
Emitting Unit(s) Capacity(s) Manufacture Date(s)
*If additional space is required, please create a spreadsheet or Word processing document and attach to form.
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
Natural Gas Compressor
Engines (Three (3) Units)
Compressed Natural Gas
The Residue Booster Station, located in a remote location of Duchesne County, compresses
natural gas pumped from multiple well sites. The natural gas is routed to an inlet scrubber to
remove water and then it is sent to three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition internal
combustion engines for compression. Any liquid condensate from compression will be
routed to storage tanks. Condensate storage tank vapors are routed to a flare for
combustion.
24
7
52
25%
25%
25%
25%
0.6325 MMSCF 5,540.7 MMSCF
✔
N/A
N/A
Natural Gas 94.935 MMSCF/yr
ICE-01 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-02 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
ICE-03 - Caterpillar G3516 1,380 HP 2024
FLR - Enclosed Vapor Combuster 11.7 MMBtu/hr 2024
TK-301 21,000-Gal 2024
TK-302 21,000-Gal 2024

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 5
EMISSIONS TOTALS
Page 1 of 1
Company___________________________
6LWH_____________________________
Form 
Emissions Information
Criteria/GHGs/ HAP’s
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section
Potential to Emit* Criteria Pollutants & GHGs
Criteria Pollutants Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emissions Increases
(tons/yr)
Proposed Emissions
(tons/yr)
PM10 Total
PM10 Fugitive
PM2.5
NOx
SO2
CO
VOC
VOC Fugitive
NH3
Greenhouse Gases CO2e CO2e CO2e
CO2CH4N2O
HFCs
PFCs
SF6
Total CO2e
*Potential to emit to include pollution control equipment as defined by R307-401-2.
Hazardous Air Pollutants**(**Defined in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act )
Hazardous Air
Pollutant***
Permitted Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(tons/yr)
Proposed
Emission (tons/yr)
Emission Increase
(lbs/hr)
Total HAP
*** Use additional sheets for pollutants if needed
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 1.41 1.41
0.00 21.97 21.97
0.00 0.07 0.07
0.00 89.63 89.63
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 17.32 17.32
0.00 19,957.00 19,957.00
0.00 159.01 159.01
0.00 0.11 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 20,116.12 20,116.12
1,3-Butadiene 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Acetaldehyde 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.24
Acrolein 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.15
Benzene 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.01
Biphenyl 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01
Formaldehyde 0.00 2.23 2.23 0.51
Methanol 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.07
n-Hexane 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.04
Toluene 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01
Xylene 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01
Other/Trace HAP 0.00 4.53 4.53 1.34
0.00 9.19 9.19 2.10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 4
FLARE SYSTEMS
Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company___________________________
Site/Source__________________________
Form 4 Date_______________________________
Flare Systems
Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer:
_________________________
Model no.:
_________________________
(if available)
2. Design and operation shall be in accordance with 40CFR63.11. In addition
to the information listed in this form, provide the following: an assembly
drawing with dimensions, interior dimensions and features, flare’s
maximum capacity in BTU/hr.
3.Characteristics of Waste Gas Stream Input
Components Min. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68 oF, 14.7 psia)
Ave. Value Expected
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
Design Max.
(scfm @ 68oF, 14.7 psia)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
4. Percent of time this
condition occurs
5. Flow rate: Minimum Expected Design Maximum Temp oF Pressure (psig)
Waste Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Fuel Added to Gas Stream _______________ _______________ _______ ____________
Heat content of the gas to be flared ______________ BTU/ft3
6. Number of pilots 7. Type of fuel 8. Fuel Flow Rate (scfm @ 68oF & 14.7 psia) per pilot
Page 1 of 3
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Cimarron
48" HV ECD
Enclosed Flare 0.50 75.694 75.694
0% 100% 100%
0 MSCFD
30 SCFH
109 MSCFD
4553 SCFH
1200
1200
atm
8-10
2500
1 Natural Gas 0.50 SCFM
Page 2 of 3
Flare Systems
Form 4
(Continued)

Steam Injection
9. Steam pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
10. Total steam flow Rate (lb/hr)
11. Temperature (oF) 12. Velocity (ft/sec)
13. Number of jet streams 14. Diameter of steam jets (inches)
15. Design basis for steam injected (lb steam/lb hydrocarbon)
Water Injection
16. Water pressure (psig)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
17. Total Water Flow Rate (gpm)
Minimum Expected __________________
Design Maximum __________________
18. Number of water jets 19. Diameter of Water jets (inches)
20. Flare height (ft) 21. Flare tip inside diameter (ft)
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. Calculated emissions for this device
PM10 _________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr PM2.5 __________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
NOx __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr SOx ___________Lbs/hr________ Tons/yr
CO __________Lbs/hr_________ Tons/yr VOC ___________Lbs/hr________Tons/yr
CO2 _________Tons/yr CH4 ___________Tons/yr
N2O _________Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)__________Tons/yr (speciate)
Submit calculations as an appendix. If other pollutants are emitted, include the emissions in the appendix.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
0.00862 0.15 0.00862 0.15
0.4542 1.99 0.00273 0.0119
0.3815 1.67 0.02498 0.11
5,995 0.0113
0.11
0.00858 0.0376
Page 3 of 3
Instructions - Form 4 Flare Systems
NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in filling out
this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
1. Specify the manufacturer and model number.
2. Supply an assembly drawing, dimensioned and to scale of the interior dimensions and features of the
equipment.
3. Supply the specifications of the fuel components in the waste gas stream.
4. Indicate what percent of the time the waste gas stream is at minimum, average, and maximum value.
5. Supply the specifications of the total waste gas stream and the fuel added to the gas stream.
6. Indicate the number of pilots in the flare.
7. Specify the type of fuel to be used.
8. Specify the fuel flow rate.
9. Indicate the minimum and design maximum steam pressure for steam injection.
10. Supply the steam flow rate.
11. Supply the temperature of the steam.
12. Specify the velocity of the steam.
13. Indicate the number of jet streams.
14. Give the diameter of the steam jets.
15. Give the design basis for the steam injection.
16. Specify the water pressure at minimum and design maximum using water injection.
17. Give the total water flow rate at minimum and design maximum.
18. Supply the number of water jets.
19. Give the diameter of the water jets.
20. Supply the flare height.
21. Supply the flare tip inside diameter.
22. Supply calculations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or Manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
U:aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\ Form04 Flare Systems.doc
Revised 12/20/10

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-01)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
1

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-02)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
2

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 11
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03

Utah Division of Air Quality
New Source Review Section Company_______________________
Site/Source_____________________
Form 11 Date___________________________
Internal Combustion Engines

Equipment Information
1. Manufacturer: __________________________

Model no.: __________________________

The date the engine was constructed or
reconstructed ________________________
2. Operating time of Emission Source:
average maximum
______ Hours/day ______ Hours/day
Days/week Days/week
______ Weeks/year ______ Weeks/year

3. Manufacturer's rated output at baseload, ISO hp or Kw
Proposed site operating range _____________________________ hp or Kw

Gas Firing
4. Are you operating site equipment on pipeline quality natural gas: Ƒ Yes Ƒ No

5. Are you on an interruptible gas supply:
Ƒ Yes Ƒ No
If "yes", specify alternate fuel:
_______________________________

6. Annual consumption of fuel:

_____________________________ MMSCF/Year

7. Maximum firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr

8. Average firing rate:
_____________________________ BTU/hr
Oil Firing
9. Type of oil:
Grade number Ƒ 1 Ƒ 2 Ƒ 4 Ƒ 5 Ƒ 6 Other specify ___________

10. Annual consumption: ______________ gallons

11. Heat content:______________ BTU/lb or
______________ BTU/gal

12. Sulfur content:___________% by weight

13. Ash content: ____________% by weight

14. Average firing rate: gal/hr

15. Maximum firing rate: gal/hr

16. Direction of firing: Ƒ horizontal Ƒ tangential Ƒ other: (specify)

Page 1 of 4
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Caterpillar (ICE-03)
G3516 24 24
77
2024 52 52
1,380 (per unit)
1,380 (per unit)
94.935 per unit
N/A
10,924,080 per unit 10,924,080 per unit
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Internal Combustion Engine
Form 11 (Continued)

Operation

17. Application:
Ƒ Electric generation
______ Base load ______ Peaking
Ƒ Emergency Generator
Ƒ Driving pump/compressor
Ƒ Exhaust heat recovery
Ƒ Other (specify) ________________________

18. Cycle
Ƒ Simple cycle
Ƒ Regenerative cycle
Ƒ Cogeneration
Ƒ Combined cycle
Emissions Data

19. Manufacturer’s Emissions in grams per hour (gr/hp-hr): _______ NOX _______ CO ______ VOC
_______ Formaldehyde

20. Attach manufacturer's information showing emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, CH2O, PM10, PM 2.5 , CO2, CH4 and N2O
for each proposed fuel at engine loads and site ambient temperatures representative of the range of proposed
operation. The information must be sufficient to determine maximum hourly and annual emission rates. Annual
emissions may be based on a conservatively low approximation of site annual average temperature. Provide emissions
in pounds per hour and except for PM10 and PM2.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at actual conditions and corrected
to dry, 15% oxygen conditions.

Method of Emission Control:

Ƒ Lean premix combustors Ƒ Oxidation catalyst Ƒ Water injection Ƒ Other (specify)____________

Ƒ Other low-NOx combustor Ƒ SCR catalyst Ƒ Steam injection

Additional Information
21. On separate sheets provide the following:

A. Details regarding principle of operation of emission controls. If add-on equipment is used, provide make and
model and manufacturer's information. Example details include: controller input variables and operational
algorithms for water or ammonia injection systems, combustion mode versus engine load for variable mode
combustors, etc.

B. Exhaust parameter information on attached form.

C. All calculations used for the annual emission estimates must be submitted with this form to be deemed
complete.

D. All formaldehyde emissions must be modeled as per Utah Administrative Code R307-410-5 using
SCREEN3.

E. If this form is filled out for a new source, forms 1 and 2 must be submitted also.

0.50 2.20 6.20
0.42
None
Page 3 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS – Form 11 Internal Combustion Engine

NOTE: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.

2. Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems or questions in
filling out this form. Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!

1. Indicate the manufacturer, the model number and the date the engine was constructed or reconstructed.
2. Complete the fuel burning equipment's average and maximum operating schedule in hours per day, days per
week, and weeks per year.
3. Specify the manufacturer's rated output and heat rate at baseload corresponding to International Standard
Organization (ISO) conditions in megawatts (MW) or horsepower (hp). Also indicated what the proposed site
operating range is in megawatts or horsepower.
4. Indicate the origin of the gas used in the engine.
5. Indicate if the gas supply can be interrupted and what the backup fuel is in case this happens.
6. Specify what the annual consumption of fuel is in million standard cubic feet (MMscf).
7. Supply the maximum firing rate in BTU/hr.
8. Supply the average firing rate in BTU/hr.
9. Indicate the grade of oil being used.
10. Supply the annual consumption calculated in gallons of oil.
11. Indicate the heat content of the oil in BTU/lb or BTU/gal.
12. Indicate the sulfur content of the oil in percent by weight.
13. Indicate the ash content of the oil.
14. Supply the average firing rate of oil.
15. Supply the maximum firing rate of oil.
16. Indicate what the firing direction is.
17. Indicate what the engine will be used for.
18. Indicate what type of cycle the engine will have.
19. Indicate the manufacturer’s emissions rate in grams/hp-hr
20. Provide manufacturer's emission information for the engine. Also indicate what method of emission control to
be used.
21. Provide details of the operation of emission controls and exhaust parameter information.

f:\aq\ENGINEER\GENERIC\Forms 2010\Form11 Internal Combustion Engines.doc Revised 12/20/10

Pa
g
e

4

o
f

4

IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
O
N

E
N
G
I
N
E

FO
R
M

1
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

Re
v
i
e
w

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a
l
l

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

AI
R

C
O
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

D
A
T
A

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S

ST
A
C
K

S
O
U
R
C
E
S

(
7
)

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
O
I
N
T

(1
)

CH
E
M
I
C
A
L

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N

OF

T
O
T
A
L

S
T
R
E
A
M

AI
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

EM
I
S
S
I
O
N

R
A
T
E

UT
M

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

O
F

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

P
T
.

(
6
)

EX
I
T

D
A
T
A

NU
M
B
E
R

N
A
M
E

CO
M
P
O
N
E
N
T

O
R

A
I
R

CO
N
T
A
M
I
N
A
N
T

N
A
M
E

(2
)

CO
N
C
.

(%
V
)

(
3
)

LB
/
H
R

(4
)

TO
N
S
/
Y
R

(5
)

ZO
N
E

EA
S
T

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

NO
R
T
H

(M
E
T
E
R
S
)

H
E
I
G
H
T

AB
O
VE

GR
O
U
N
D

(F
T
)

HE
I
G
H
T

AB
O
V
E

ST
R
U
C
T
.

(F
T
)

DI
A
.

(F
T
)

VE
L
O
.
(F
P
S
)

TE
M
P
.

(OF)

GR
O
U
N
D

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y

A
B
O
V
E

M
E
A
N

S
E
A

L
E
V
E
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
e
e
t
.

UT
A
H

A
I
R

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

B
O
A
R
D

S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S

A
R
E

6
8
O F

A
N
D

1
4
.
7

P
S
I
A
.

Ge
n
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
.

1.

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
a
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
;

p
o
i
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n
t

s
i
t
e

o
n

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

a
n
d

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.

L
i
m
i
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
u
m
b
e
r

t
o

8

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r

s
p
a
c
e
s
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

em
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

u
s
e

a
s

m
a
n
y
l
i
n
e
s

a
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

a
i
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

d
a
t
a
.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

h
e
a
t
e
r
,

v
e
n
t
,

b
o
i
l
e
r
,

t
a
n
k
,

r
e
a
c
t
o
r
,

s
e
p
a
ra
t
o
r
,

b
a
g
h
o
u
s
e
,

f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

2.

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e
:

a
i
r
,

H
2O,

n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,

o
x
y
g
e
n
,

C
O
2,
C
O
,

N
O
x,
S
O
x,
h
e
x
a
n
e
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

(
P
M
10

an
d

P
M
2.
5
),

e
t
c
.

A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

O
K
.

3.

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
l
l

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
.

S
h
o
w

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

4.

Po
u
n
d
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
.

(
#
/
h
r
)

i
s

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

5.

To
n
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

(
T
/
Y
)

i
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

w
hi
c
h

t
a
k
e
s

i
n
t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

6.

A
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
u
s
t

f
u
r
n
i
s
h

a

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

p
l
o
t

p
l
a
n

d
r
aw
n

t
o

s
c
a
l
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

a

p
l
a
n
t

be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

l
a
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
e
d

wi
t
h

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

s
h
o
w

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

U
T
M

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s

i
f

k
n
o
w
n
.

7.

S
u
p
p
l
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

i
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
:

(
a
)

S
t
a
c
k

e
x
i
t

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

r
o
u
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
c
k
.

S
h
o
w

l
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

w
id
t
h

f
o
r

a

r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r

s
t
a
c
k
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

i
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
i
t
h

a

n
o
t
e
.

(
b
)

S
t
a
c
k
'
s

h
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

w
i
th
i
n

t
h
r
e
e

"
s
t
a
c
k

h
e
i
g
h
t
s

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
"

o
f

s
t
a
c
k
.

IC
E
-
0
3

E
N
G
I
N
E

N
O
x

0
.
0
0
0
1
1

1
.
5
2

6
.
6
6

1
2

5
7
2
7
4
3
.
8
7

4
4
5
7
4
8
6
.
8
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
5
0

8
7
5
CO

0
.
0
0
0
4
8

6
.
6
9

2
9
.
3
2
PM
2
.
5

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
PM
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
4
2
VO
C

0
.
0
0
0
0
9

1
.
3
1

5
.
7
3
SO
2

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
HA
P
s

0
.
0
0
0
0
5

0
.
7
0

3
.
0
5
5,
4
5
9

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #1

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-301
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
UDAQ FORM 20
ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK #2

Page 1 of 2

New Source Review Section
Date: _____________________________

Utah Division of Air Quality
Company: _________________________
Site/Source:________________________
Form 20
rganic Liquid Storage Tank O

Equipment
1. Tank manufacturer: ___________________________ 2. Identification number: _____________________
3. Installation date: ______________________________ 4. Volume: __________________________ gallons
5. Inside tank diameter: ______________________ feet 6. Tank height: ________________________ feet
7. True vapor pressure of liquid: _______________ psia 8. Reid vapor pressure of liquid: ____________ psi
9. Outside color of tank: __________________________ 10. Maximum storage temperature: __________ F O
11. Average throughput: ____________ gallons per year 12. Turnovers/yearly ____ Monthly ____ Weekly ___
13. Average liquid height (feet): _____________________ Yes No Number ______ 14. Access hatch: ƑƑ
15. T
a. P

r
b. S
Type: ________________________________
16. D
ll Yes No Number_____
ll
ak
ype of Seals:
rimary seals:
Ƒ Mechanical shoe
Ƒ Resilient filled
Ƒ Liquid filled
Ƒ Vapor mounted
Ƒ Liquid mounted
Ƒ Flexible wipe
econdary seal:
eck Fittings:
ƑGauge float we Ƒ
Gauge hatch/
sample we Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof drains Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Rim vents Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Vacuum bre Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Roof leg Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Ladder well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Column well Ƒ Yes Ƒ No Number_____
Other:_________________________________
17. S
Deck Fitting Category: ________________________
18. T

______________________________________
hell Characteristics:
Condition: _________________________________
Breather Vent Settings: ________________________
Tank Construction: ___________________________
Roof Type: __________________________________
Deck Construction: ___________________________
ype of Construction:
Ƒ Vertical Fixed Roof
Ƒ Horizontal Fixed Roof
Ƒ Internal Floating Roof
Ƒ External Floating Roof
Ƒ Other (please specify)
19. Additional Controls:
Gas Blanket Venting Carbon Adsorption Thermal Oxidation Other:_______________ ƑƑƑ Ƒ Ƒ
20. Single Liquid Information
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________ Liquid Molecular Weight: ________________________
Liquid Name: __________________________________
CAS Number: __________________________________
Avg. Temperature: ______________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Residue Booster Station
May 5, 2023
Coyote Tanks, Inc. TK-302
2024 21,000
13.50 20.00
0.0053
BLM Covert Green 59.86
1,092,000 52 4.33 1
10.00 1
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
Good
0.03 psig Pressure Setting
Steel
Fixed Dome
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Page 2 of 2

Form 20 - Organic Liquid Storage Tank
(Continued)
21. Chemical Components Information
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Vapor Pressure: ________________________________ Vapor Pressure: ________________________________
Chemical Name: ________________________________
Percent of Total Liquid Weight: _____________________
Molecular Weight: _______________________________
Avg. Liquid Temperature: _________________________
Emissions Calculations (PTE)
22. C
Submit calculations as an appendix. Provide Material Safety Data Sheets for products being stored.
alculated emissions for this device:
VOC _________Lbs/hr_____ Tons/yr
HAPs_________Lbs/hr (speciate)______Tons/yr (speciate)

Instructions

Note: 1. Submit this form in conjunction with Form 1 and Form 2.
2. or questions in filling out this form.
Ask to speak with a New Source Review engineer. We will be glad to help!
on number that will appear on the tank.
s or barrels.
r in feet.
liquid (psi).
ach during storage (degrees Fahrenheit).
emptied and refilled per year, month or week.
ss hatches and the number.
17. Specify condition of the tank, also include the following:
d roof tanks
el construction sizes and seam length
olled, or detail
22. ations for all criteria pollutants and HAPs. Use AP-42 or manufacturers’ data to complete your
calculations.
ENERIC\Forms 2010\Form20 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks.doc
Revised 12/20/10
Call the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) at [phone] if you have problems

1. Indicate the tank manufacturer's name.
2. Supply the equipment identificati
3. Indicate the date of installation.
4. Indicate the capacity of the tank in gallon
5. Specify the inside tank diamete
6. Specify the tank height in feet.
7. Indicate the true vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).
8. Indicate the Reid vapor pressure of the
9. Indicate the outside color of the tank.
10. Supply the highest temperature the liquid will re
11. Indicate average annual throughput (gallons).
12. Specify how many times the tank will be
13. Specify the average liquid height (feet).
14. Indicate whether or not the tank has acce
15. Indicate what type of seals the tank has.
16. Indicate what types of deck fittings are installed.
Breather vent settings in (psig) for fixe
Tank construction, welded or riveted
Roof type; pontoon, double deck, or self-supporting roof
Deck construction; bolted or welded, sheet or pan
Deck fitting category; typical, contr
18. Indicate the type of tank construction.
19. Indicate other types of additional controls which will be used.
20. Provide information on liquid being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
21. Provide information on chemicals being stored, add additional sheets as necessary.
Supply calcul

f:\aq\ENGINEER\G
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 Water
50% 50%
188.0 18.0
Ambient Ambient
0.0053 0.0053
0.00184 .00806
0.0 0.0

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
FACILITY-WIDE
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Emission Calculations
Facility PTE
Emission Type
Process
Number Unit ID Description Site Rating
Operatong
Hours/Year
Particulate Matter <10μ
(PM10)
Particulate Matter <2.5μ
(PM2.5)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX)
Sulfur Oxides
(SOX)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs)
Point 001 ICE-01 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05
Point 002 ICE-02 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 003 ICE-03 Caterpillar G3516 Altamont Compressor Engine 1,380 HP 8760 hr/year 0.42 0.42 6.66 0.02 29.32 5.73 3.05Point 004 FLR Enclosed Vapor Combustor 11.7 MMBtu/hr 8760 hr/year 0.15 0.15 1.99 0.012 1.67 0.11 0.038
Point 005 TK-301 500-BBL Tank 301 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065Point 006 TK-302 500-BBL Tank 302 21,000-Gal 8760 hr/year 0.008065
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.41 1.41 21.97 0.07 89.63 17.32 9.19
Facility PTE (tpy)
PointFugitive
Facility PTE (tpy)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #1
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-01
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #2
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-02
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE #3
EMITTING UNIT: ICE-03
Equipment Details
Rating 1,380 hp = (1029.9 kw)
Operational Hours 8,760 hours/year
Engine Type
Criteria Pollutant
Emission
Standards
(g/hp-hr)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
NOX 0.5 1.52 6.66
CO 2.2 6.69 29.32
PM10 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
PM2.5 9.99E-03 0.10 0.42
VOC 0.4 1.31 5.73
SO2 5.88E-04 0.01 0.02
HAP 0.70 3.05 See Below
Green House Gas Pollutant
Global
Warming
Potential
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
CO2 (mass basis)1 1.10E+02 1,063 4,654
Methane (mass basis) 25 1.25E+00 12 53
CO2e 5,976
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emission
Rate
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Total
(tons/year) Reference
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.00E-05 3.86E-04 1.69E-03
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.18E-05 3.07E-04 1.35E-03
1,3-Butadiene 2.67E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
1,3-Dichloropropene 2.64E-05 2.55E-04 1.12E-03
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 2.50E-04 2.42E-03 1.06E-02
2-Methylnaphthalene 3.32E-05 3.21E-04 1.40E-03
Acenaphthene 1.25E-06 1.21E-05 5.29E-05
Acenaphthylene 5.53E-06 5.34E-05 2.34E-04
Acetaldehyde 8.36E-03 8.08E-02 3.54E-01
Acrolein 5.14E-03 4.97E-02 2.17E-01
Benzene 4.40E-04 4.25E-03 1.86E-02
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.66E-07 1.60E-06 7.02E-06
Benzo(e)pyrene 4.15E-07 4.01E-06 1.76E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.14E-07 4.00E-06 1.75E-05
Biphenyl 2.12E-04 2.05E-03 8.97E-03
Carbon Tetrachloride 3.67E-05 3.55E-04 1.55E-03
Chlorobenzene 3.04E-05 2.94E-04 1.29E-03
Chloroform 2.85E-05 2.75E-04 1.21E-03
Chrysene 6.93E-07 6.69E-06 2.93E-05
Ethylbenzene 3.97E-05 3.84E-04 1.68E-03
Ethylene Dibromide 4.43E-05 4.28E-04 1.87E-03
Fluoranthene 1.11E-06 1.07E-05 4.70E-05
Fluorene 5.67E-06 5.48E-05 2.40E-04
Formaldehyde 5.28E-02 5.10E-01 2.23E+00
Methanol 2.50E-03 2.42E-02 1.06E-01
Methylene Chloride 2.00E-05 1.93E-04 8.46E-04
n-Hexane 1.11E-03 1.07E-02 4.70E-02
Naphthalene 7.44E-05 7.19E-04 3.15E-03
PAH 2.69E-05 2.60E-04 1.14E-03
Phenanthrene 1.04E-05 1.00E-04 4.40E-04
Phenol 2.40E-05 2.32E-04 1.02E-03
Pyrene 1.36E-06 1.31E-05 5.75E-05
Styrene 2.36E-05 2.28E-04 9.99E-04
Tetrachloroethane 2.48E-06 2.40E-05 1.05E-04
Toluene 4.08E-04 3.94E-03 1.73E-02
Vinyl Chloride 1.49E-05 1.44E-04 6.30E-04
Xylene 1.84E-04 1.78E-03 7.79E-03
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Natural Gas-Fired Engines
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
(Some HAP do not
popluate based on
the type of engine
selected. AP-42 does
not list certain HAP
for certain types of
engines.)
Manufacturer Data,
AP-42 Table 3.2-1,
Table 3.2-2, &
Table 3.2-3
4-Stroke Lean-Burn
Emergency Engines should
equal 100 hours of
operation per year
Page 1 of 1
Version 1.1
February 21, 2019

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
ENCLOSED FLARE SYSTEM
EMITTING UNIT: FLR
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Total Emissions
Pollutant PTE Flare
(tpy)
PTE Pilot
(tons/yr)
PTE Combustor
(tpy)
PM 3.78E-02 0.0010 0.0388
PM10 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
PM2.5 0.15 0.0010 0.1522
SO2 1.19E-02 0.0001 0.0120
NOx 1.99 0.0131 2.0024
CO 1.67 0.0110 1.6820
VOC 0.11 0.0007 0.1101
Benzene 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Dichlorobenzene 2.39E-05 1.58E-07 2.40E-05
Formaldehyde 1.49E-03 9.86E-06 1.50E-03
Hexane 3.58E-02 2.37E-04 3.60E-02
Lead Compounds 9.95E-06 6.57E-08 1.00E-05
Naphthalene 1.21E-05 8.02E-08 1.22E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]1.75E-06 1.16E-08 1.77E-06
Toluene 6.76E-05 4.47E-07 6.81E-05
Arsenic Compounds 3.98E-06 2.63E-08 4.00E-06
Beryllium Compounds 2.39E-07 1.58E-09 2.40E-07
Cadmium Compounds 2.19E-05 1.45E-07 2.20E-05
Chromium Compounds 2.78E-05 1.84E-07 2.80E-05
Cobalt Compounds 1.67E-06 1.10E-08 1.68E-06
Manganese Compounds 7.56E-06 4.99E-08 7.61E-06
Mercury Compounds 5.17E-06 3.42E-08 5.21E-06
Nickel Compounds 4.18E-05 2.76E-07 4.21E-05
Selenium Compounds 4.77E-07 3.15E-09 4.81E-07
Total HAPs 3.76E-02 2.48E-04 3.78E-02
CO2 5,995 0.00 5995
CH4 1.13E-02 0.00 0.01
N2O 0.11 0.00 0.11
GHGs (mass basis) 5,995 0.00 5995
CO2e 6,029 0.00 6029
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Greenhouse Gases
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Flare Emissions
Designed Heat Input 11.7 MMBtu/hr (Max)
Max Natural Gas Usage 39.785 MMscf/yr
Enclosed vapor combustor
Pollutant Natural Gas Emission
Factor[1]Units PTE
(lbs/yr)
PTE
(tpy)
PM 1.90 75.59 3.78E-02
PM10 7.60 302.37 0.15
PM2.5 7.60 302.37 0.15
SO2 0.60 23.87 1.19E-02
NOx 100.00 3,979 1.99
CO 84.00 3,342 1.67
VOC 5.50 218.82 0.11
Benzene 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Dichlorobenzene 1.20E-03 4.77E-02 2.39E-05
Formaldehyde 7.50E-02 2.98 1.49E-03
Hexane 1.80 71.61 3.58E-02
Lead Compounds 5.00E-04 1.99E-02 9.95E-06
Naphthalene 6.10E-04 2.43E-02 1.21E-05
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)[3]8.82E-05 3.51E-03 1.75E-06
Toluene 3.40E-03 0.14 6.76E-05
Arsenic Compounds 2.00E-04 7.96E-03 3.98E-06
Beryllium Compounds 1.20E-05 4.77E-04 2.39E-07
Cadmium Compounds 1.10E-03 4.38E-02 2.19E-05
Chromium Compounds 1.40E-03 5.57E-02 2.78E-05
Cobalt Compounds 8.40E-05 3.34E-03 1.67E-06
Manganese Compounds 3.80E-04 1.51E-02 7.56E-06
Mercury Compounds 2.60E-04 1.03E-02 5.17E-06
Nickel Compounds 2.10E-03 8.35E-02 4.18E-05
Selenium Compounds 2.40E-05 9.55E-04 4.77E-07
75.13 3.76E-02
Greenhouse Gases Natural Gas Emission
Factor[2]Units PTE
(lbs/hr)
PTE
(tpy)
CO2 116.98 1,369 5,995
CH4 2.20E-04 2.58E-03 1.13E-02
N2O 2.20E-03 2.58E-02 0.11
1,369 5,995
1,377 6,029
[1] AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, 1.4-3, and 1.4-4 (6/1998) for all emission factors except greenhouse gases.
[2] GHG Factors from 40 CFR 98 Tables A-1 (Oct. 30, 2009), C-1 and C-2 (Nov. 29, 2013). Emission factors converted from kg/MMBtu to lb/MMBtu.
40 CFR Part 98, Table A-1 to Subpart A of Part 98—Global Warming Potentials (GWP). CO2e = [1 x CO2] + [21 x CH4] + [310 x N2O].
[3] POM includes 2-Methylnaphthalene, 3-Methylchloranthrene, 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene,
Benz(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene,
Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Phenanathrene, and Pyrene.
CO2e
lb/106 SCF
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
lb/106 SCF
Total HAPs
lb/MMBtu
GHGs (mass basis)
Prepared with Air Regulations
Consulting, LLC Assistance
Residue Booster Station
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Facility ID#:
Unit ID: FLR
Pilot Emissions
Total Heat Input Capacity of Pilot 30.0 scf/hr
Pilot Natural Gas Usage 0.2628 MMscf/yr
Operating Time 8760 hr/yr
Pollutant Emission Factor1
(lb/MMscf)
Potential
Emission Rate
(lbs/yr)
Potential
Emission Rate
(tons/yr)
Particulate Matter (PM) 7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Particulate Matter (PM10)7.6 1.9973 0.0010
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 26.2800 0.0131
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)0.6 0.1577 0.0001
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 84 22.0752 0.0110
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5.5 1.4454 0.0007
Individual HAPs
Benzene 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Dichlorobenzene 0.0012 3.15E-04 1.58E-07
Formaldehyde 0.075 1.97E-02 9.86E-06
Hexane 1.8 4.73E-01 2.37E-04
Lead Compounds 0.0005 1.31E-04 6.57E-08
Naphthalene 0.00061 1.60E-04 8.02E-08
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) 0.0000882 2.32E-05 1.16E-08
Toluene 0.0034 8.94E-04 4.47E-07
Arsenic Compounds (ASC) 0.0002 5.26E-05 2.63E-08
Beryllium Compounds (BEC) 0.000012 3.15E-06 1.58E-09
Cadmium Compounds (CDC) 0.0011 2.89E-04 1.45E-07
Chromium Compounds (CRC) 0.0014 3.68E-04 1.84E-07
Cobalt Compounds (COC) 0.000084 2.21E-05 1.10E-08
Manganese Compounds (MNC) 0.00038 9.99E-05 4.99E-08
Mercury Compounds (HGC) 0.00026 6.83E-05 3.42E-08
Nickel Compounds (NIC) 0.0021 5.52E-04 2.76E-07
Selenium Compounds (SEC) 0.000024 6.31E-06 3.15E-09
Total HAPs 1.89 0.4963 2.48E-04
1Emission Factors from AP-42 Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3 (7/98)

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #1
EMITTING UNIT: TK-301
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-301
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 301, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)3.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):3.0298 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,604.4094 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):1.5988
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):1.5988 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9969 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):11.2088
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.3122
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-301 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate fuel oil no. 2 13.28 3.03 16.31
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
POTENTIAL-TO-EMIT CALCULATIONS
STORAGE TANK #2
EMITTING UNIT: TK-302
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
IdentificationUser Identification:TK-302
City:Bluebell
State:UtahCompany:XCL AssetCo, LLCType of Tank:Vertical Fixed Roof TankDescription:500 BBL Tank, Tank 302, Oily Water
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):19.61Diameter (ft):13.50Liquid Height (ft) :19.61
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):10.00
Volume (gallons):21,000.00
Turnovers:52.00Net Throughput(gal/yr):1,092,000.00Is Tank Heated (y/n):N
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:White/WhiteShell Condition GoodRoof Color/Shade:White/WhiteRoof Condition:Good
Roof Characteristics
Type:DomeHeight (ft)0.00Radius (ft) (Dome Roof)13.50
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):-0.03Pressure Settings (psig)0.03
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Salt Lake City, Utah (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 12.64 psia)
Page 1 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Daily Liquid Surf.Temperature (deg F)
Liquid
BulkTemp Vapor Pressure (psia)VaporMol.LiquidMass VaporMass Mol.Basis for Vapor Pressure
Mixture/Component Month Avg.Min.Max.(deg F)Avg.Min.Max.Weight.Fract.Fract.Weight Calculations
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 All 53.92 47.99 59.86 51.98 0.0053 0.0042 0.0065 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP50 = .0045 VP60 = .0065
Page 2 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Detail Calculations (AP-42)
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Bluebell, Utah
Annual Emission Calcaulations
Standing Losses (lb):2.8485 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971
Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft):1,508.1064 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360 Tank Shell Height (ft):19.6100 Average Liquid Height (ft):10.0000 Roof Outage (ft):0.9260
Roof Outage (Dome Roof)
Roof Outage (ft):0.9260 Dome Radius (ft):13.5000 Shell Radius (ft):6.7500
Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft):0.0001 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R):513.5939 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F):51.9625 Ideal Gas Constant R (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)):10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R):511.6525 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell):0.1700 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Roof):0.1700 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day):1,452.1184
Vapor Space Expansion Factor Vapor Space Expansion Factor:0.0416 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R):23.7301 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia):0.0023 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia):0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0042
Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0065 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):513.5939 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):507.6614 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R):519.5264 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R):23.3583
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor Vented Vapor Saturation Factor:0.9971 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid:
Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Vapor Space Outage (ft):10.5360
Working Losses (lb):13.2824 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole):130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia):0.0053 Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.):1,092,000.0000 Annual Turnovers:52.0000
Turnover Factor:0.7436 Maximum Liquid Volume (gal):21,000.0000 Maximum Liquid Height (ft):19.6100 Tank Diameter (ft):13.5000 Working Loss Product Factor:1.0000
Total Losses (lb):16.1309
Page 3 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 4 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Detail Format
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Emissions Report for: Annual
TK-302 - Vertical Fixed Roof TankBluebell, Utah
Losses(lbs)
Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total Emissions
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 13.28 2.85 16.13
Page 5 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Page 6 of 6TANKS 4.0 Report
4/21/2023file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FACILITY LAYOUT
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
OVERALL FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 1
CG
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
FACILITY OVERVIEW1
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
N
S
EW
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N/S: 0+00
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
N: 0+50
N: 1+50
E/
W
:

0
+
0
0
S: -0+50
S: -1+00
S: -1+50
S: -2+00
S: -2+50
E:

0
+
5
0
E:

1
+
0
0
E:

1
+
5
0
E:

2
+
0
0
E:

2
+
5
0
W:

-
0
+
5
0
W:

-
1
+
0
0
W:

-
1
+
5
0
W:

-
2
+
0
0
W:

-
2
+
5
0
N: 0+50
N: 1+00
N: 1+50
N/S: 0+00
N: 2+00 N: 2+00
N: 2+50 N: 2+50
PROPOSED SUA
ENLARGED VIEW
SEE SHEET 2
74'-1034"
PIPE RACK
COMPRESSOR
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR
FURURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
100' RADIUS
SCRUBBER
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
N: 1+00
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23
DRAWN BY:CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
BY DATEAPPR.DATEDATECHK.NO.DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

11/28/22
NONE
FACILITY LAYOUT
ENLARGED FACILITY VIEW

2RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD SHEET 2
CG
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
ENLARGED VIEW1
N S
E
W
S:

-
0
+
5
0
PREVAILING WINDSFROM THE WEST
N:

0
+
5
0
N/
S
:

0
+
0
0
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
S:

-
1
+
0
0
71'-911
16"15'26'-49
16"15'
40'
10'
10'
15'
12'
135'
47'6'
100'
82'
3'
16'-6"
N:

1
+
0
0
N:

1
+
5
0
S:

-
1
+
5
0
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
E/W: 0+00
E: 0+50
W: -0+50
W: -1+00
6'
10'
20'
26'-4 9
16"15'15'-51
8"
20'
SLUG CATCHER
COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR FUTURE
COMPRESSOR
500 BBL TANKS
PIPE RACK
100' RADIUS
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
144.0000
2'
100'
6'-9"
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
12/6/22
1 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/14/23
COMBUSTOR
~40.26433027, -110.14491784
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
2 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG
3/22/23

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FLOW DIAGRAM
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

~
2
0
0

P
S
I
G
ESD.
4"
R
E
S
I
D
U
E

G
A
S

7
5
0

P
S
I
G
PCV.
FE.
FE.PCV.
FE.
10
"

W
E
T

G
A
S

6
0

P
S
I
PSV.
CS300 CS150
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
3
0
0

C
S
1
5
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
CS
1
5
0

C
S
3
0
0
SUCTION
DISCHARGE
PSV.
VENT
LP DRAIN
DISCHARGE
C-201 C-202 C-203
TK-301 TK-302
V-100
FL-400
V-100
SLUG CATCHER
6' O.D. X 20'-0"# PSIG @#°F
C-201
COMPRESSOR
C-202
COMPRESSOR
C-203
FUTURE COMPRESSOR
TK-301
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
TK-302
TANK 500 BBL
13'-6" X 20'-0"X OZ @X°F
FL-400
COMBUSTOR
ESD.
PCV.
V-110
V-110
FUEL GAS SCRUBBER
#' X #'-#"# PSIG @#°F
FE.
RESIDUE SUCTION
FUEL GAS
DRAWN BY: CREATION DATE:
APPR. DATE:APPROVED:
DWG. No.:
SCALE:
SHEET No.
OF
TH
I
S

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

A
N
D

T
H
E

D
E
S
I
G
N

I
T

C
O
V
E
R
S

A
R
E

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

A
N
D

R
E
M
A
I
N

T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
F

O
U
T
L
A
W

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

I
N
C
.

A
N
D

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

D
I
S
C
LOS
E
D

T
O

O
T
H
E
R
S

O
R

R
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
D

I
N

A
N
Y

M
A
N
N
E
R

O
R

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

A
N
Y

P
U
R
P
O
S
E

W
H
A
T
S
O
E
V
E
R

E
X
C
E
P
T

B
Y

W
R
I
T
T
E
N

P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

B
Y

T
H
E

O
W
N
E
R
.
NO. DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
P.O. BOX 1800
ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066
[phone]

12/28/22
NONE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
0RESIDUE BOOSTER PAD PFD SHEET 0.30
CG
0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE FOR REVIEW CG 12/6/22

XCL AssetCo, LLC
BACT ANALYSIS

AIR REGULATIONS CONSULTING,LLC•5455 RED ROCK LN, STE 13, LINCOLN, NE 68516•402.817.7887•AIRREGCONSULTING.COM

May 5, 2023

Attn: Alan Humphreys
Permits, Division of Air Quality
P.O. Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

{Submitted via electronic copy submittal utahgove.co1.qualtrics.com and to: [e-mail]}

RE: BACT Analysis for New Residue Booster Station
Including Review of BACT for NOx Emissions
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, UT

Dear Mr. Alan Humphreys,

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is submitting a Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) analysis for a new Residue Booster Station for the Notice of Intent (NOI). This
BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division)
Form 01b for BACT determinations. Please find the enclosed BACT analysis for DAQ’s review.

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact me at 402.817.7887
or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Eric Sturm
ARC Principal, Senior Consultant

Enclosures

Cc: Teisha Black, XCL AssetCo, LLC

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 1 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On behalf of XCL AssetCo, LLC (XCL), Air Regulations Consulting, LLC (ARC) is providing a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for a new Residue Booster Station for the Notice of
Intent (NOI). This BACT review was performed pursuant to UAC R307-401-5 and the Division of
Air Quality (DAQ or Division) Form 01b for BACT determinations. XCL is planning to install a
Residue Booster Station, calculated to be a minor source, to compress natural gas pumped from
multiple well sites. The facility will be comprised of three (3) natural gas stationary spark ignition
internal combustion engines for compression, two (2) liquid condensate storage tanks, and an
enclosed flare for combustion of storage tank vapors. The Residue Booster Station will be located
in a remote location of Duchesne County, approximately 7.7 miles West via US-191, 3000S, and
700 W from Roosevelt, Utah.

This report contains analysis of BACT for particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission for the Residue Booster
Station. For reference, UAC R307-101-2, defines BACT specifically to the following:

“BACT means an emission limitation and/or other controls to include design,
equipment, work practice, operation standard or combination thereof, based on a
maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act and/or the Utah Air Conservation Act emitted from or which results
from any emitting installation, which the Air Quality Board, on a case-by-case basis
taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such installation through application of production
process and available methods, systems and techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such
pollutant. In no event shall application of BACT result in emission of pollutants
which will exceed the emissions allowed by section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act.”
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 2 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

As the rule states, XCL and ARC are obligated to base proposed BACT on the most effective
engineering techniques and control equipment to minimize emission of air contaminants from
its process to the extent achievable within the industry. Furthermore, based on this definition
and the DAQ’s Form 01b Guidance on BACT, this analysis for XCL’s Residue Booster Station
includes consideration of energy impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts, other
considerations, and cost calculation. XCL and ARC are extremently well versed in natural gas
compression facilities and have been involved in many other natural gas compressor stations
throughout Utah. The proposed BACT for XCL follows Division of Air Quality (DAQ or Division)
Form 01b, UAC R307-401-5, EPA federal standards, and feasible technologies of the natural gas
industry nationwide.
2 BACT ANALYSIS

2.1 Energy Impacts
Energy impacts are the first criteria when conducting BACT analysis. Certain types of control
technologies have inherent energy penalties associated with their use and industry application.
New modern gas compression engines utilize clean technology that are NSPS site compliant
capable. The three proposed engines for the XCL’s Residue Booster Station are equipped with
ADEM 3 technology that enables the highest performance and safety while maintaining low
emissions. It provides integrated control of ignition, speed governing, protection, and controls,
including detonation-sensitive variable ignition timing. The enclosed flared has been tested and
approved in accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH to be included on the
EPA’s Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List.

The use of post-manufacturing add-on controls would require additional energy consumption for
the manufacturing and transport of the physical equipment, in addition to the transport of
manpower required for assembly and troubleshooting. It is difficult to estimate the amount of
energy needed, however the low-emissions levels of the engines and enclosed flare from the
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 3 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
manufacturer deem these add-ons as infeasible for BACT on the compressor station.

2.2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts include any unconventional or unusual impacts of using a control device,
such as the generation of solid or hazardous waste, water discharges, visibility impacts, or
emissions of unregulated pollutants. In the case of the natural gas compressor station, spent
catalyst reduction agent that could be considered hazardous would need to be disposed of, or
otherwise handled, every two to four years dependent on vendor and technology selected.

2.3 Economic Impacts
2.3.a Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant emissions from the internal combustion engines include NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and
VOCs. Annual operation of the engines will be 8,760 hours. The potential emissions from the
engines are provided in Table 1. The following analysis will illustrate that the use of the engines
as supplied by the manufacturer without any additional emissions control methods is
recommended due to meeting or being below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ, and any additional control technologies would create an
undue cost burden on the facility.

Table 1 – Internal Combustion Engine Emissions
Component Operating
Hours Size NOx
(tons/yr)
PM10/PM2.5
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
VOC
(tons/yr)
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73
CAT G3516 8,760 1,380 hp 6.66 2.04 29.32 5.73

Based on research and engineering experience, the control technologies for internal combustion
engines listed in Table 2 were considered for this BACT analysis.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 4 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Table 2 – Control Technologies for Internal Combustion Engines
Pollutant Control Technology
CO/VOC Oxidation Catalyst
NOx
Exhaust Recirculation1
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)
Lean Combustion (LC)
Good Combustion Practices
PM10/PM2.5
Fabric Filters
Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Wet ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Good Combustion Practices
1. Exhaust gas recirculation is not part of the original manufacturer design.
Therefore, it is not feasible without substantial engineering overhaul of the units.

The engines are subject to the NOx, CO, and VOC standards outlined in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart JJJJ for non-emergency spark ignition natural gas engines greater than or equal to 500
hp manufactured after July 1, 2007. The engines, as manufactured, meet and exceed the
standards, therefore no additional control technology will be required or used with the engines.

Table 3 –Engine Emissions, As Manufactured, Compared to Standard
Pollutant JJJJ Standard
(g/hp-hr)
G3516 Engine
(g/hp-hr)
% of
Standard
CO 4.0 2.20 55.0
VOC 1.0 0.43 43.0
NOx 2.0 0.50 25.0
1. Standard from Table 1, 40 CFR Park 60, Subpart JJJJ

Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) was evaluated. NSCR is often referred to as a three-way
conversion catalyst system because the catalyst reactor simultaneously reduces NOx, CO, and
hydrocarbons and involves placing a catalyst in the exhaust stream of the engine. However, NSCR
technology works with only rich-burn engines. Because the proposed engines are lean-burn units,
use of a NSCR is not applicable.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 5 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used to reduce NOx emissions from lean-burn engines
through the use of a reducing agent, such as ammonia or urea. SCR systems inject the reduction
agent into the lean-burn exhaust stream. The agent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx,
converting it to molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). Control for a SCR system is
typically 80-95% reduction of NOx (EPA, AP-42 Section 3.2).

An Oxidation Catalyst is a post-combustion technology that has been shown to reduce CO
emissions in lean-burn engines. In a catalytic oxidation system, CO passes over a catalyst, usually
a noble metal, which oxidizes the CO to CO2 at efficiencies of approximately 90% for 4-cycle lean-
burn engines. When used in conjunction with a SCR system, the CO2, water, and NOx then enter
the SCR catalyst, where the NOx reacts with the ammonia.

The proposed engines, as provided by the manufacturer, are lean burning engines. Lean
combustion technology involves the increase of the air-to-fuel ratio to lower the peak
combustion temperature, thus reducing formation of NOx. Typically, engines operate at the air-
to-fuel ratio of about 20 to 35 pounds of air to pound of fuel. In a typical Lean Burn engine, this
ratio is increased to 45 to 50. With a conventional spark ignition, the air fuel ratio can only be
increased to a certain point before the onset of lean misfire. To avoid misfire problems and to
ensure complete combustion of very lean mixtures, the engine manufacturers have developed
torch ignition technology and the application of a controlled swirl. Some increase in fuel
consumption and CO and HC emissions results from the slower flame propagation for very lean
mixtures. At optimal setting new lean burn engines can achieve NOx levels of 2 g/hp-hr or below.
This corresponds to an 80 to 90 percent control over conventional spark plug design engines. By
comparison, the proposed engines for the XCL Residue Booster Station have NOx levels of 0.5
g/hp-hr.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 6 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
The total estimated capital investment associated with the installation, startup, and equipment
costs of a SCR is $960,267 per engine unit in 2023 dollars, in accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports
and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated
06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry costs collected and validated by the EPA
in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI). It was estimated that each catalyst has an operational life of 20,000 hours. Because all
three engines will operate 8,760 hr/yr, it is determined that significant maintenance activities
will be required every 27 months. Each SCR unit is anticipated to have a use life of 20 years before
requiring complete replacement. With an effectiveness in reducing NOx emissions by 85%, a SCR
would remove an estimated 5.66 tons/year per unit. This results in a cost effectiveness of $20,956
per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars. Additional background information pertaining to the SCR
capital and annual costs is provided in the subsequent pages of this BACT Analysis.

2.3.b Enclosed Flare
The enclosed flare manufactured by Cimarron (Model No. 48” HV ECD) is included on the EPA’s
Performance Testing for Combustion Control Devices Manufacturers’ Performance Test List in
accordance with NSPS OOOO/OOOOa and MACT HH/HHH. It was performance tested on August
12, 2014, by AIR Hygiene, Inc, and demonstrates performance requirements with a maximum
inlet flow rate of 4553 scfh. As such, XCL AssetCo, LLC is exempt from conducting performance
tests under 40 CFR 60.5413(a)(7), 60.5413a(a)(7), 63.772(e), and/or 63.1282(d), and from
submitting test results under 40 CFR 60.5413(e)(6), 60.5413a(e)(6), 63.775(d)(ii), and/or
63.1285(d)(1)(ii) and no additional control technology will be added to the enclosed flare.

2.4 Other Considerations
Form 01b for BACT determination guidance from the Division lists 11 “other considerations” for
BACT analyses. Per each consideration listed, XCL and ARC are providing response as follows.

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 7 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
1. “When exceeding otherwise appropriate costs by a moderate amount would result in a
substantial additional emissions reduction.”

Based on the manufacturer provided specification information for each engine and enclosed
flare, the emissions from each unit are below the standards for appropriate emissions as
outlined in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ. There are no control technologies that would result
in a substantial additional emissions reduction, therefore the cost associated with any add-
on control technology would be considered substantial and well beyond a moderate amount.

2. “When a control technology would achieve controls of more than one pollutant (including
HAPs).”

The Non-selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) is the only control technology available to
reduce both NOx and CO, however the technology only works with rich-burn engines. Because
the proposed engines are lean-burn units, use of a NSCR is not applicable.

3. “Where the proposed BACT level would cause a new violation of an applicable NAAQS or
PSD increment. A permit cannot be issued to a source that would cause a new violation of
either.”

The emission limits for the proposed new natural gas compressor station will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or PSD increment.

4. “When there are legal constraints outside of the Clean Air Act, such as a SIP or state rule,
requiring the application of a more stringent technology than one which otherwise would
have been determined to be BACT.”

XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 8 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
There are no additional legal constraints that would require more stringent technology be
used at the natural gas compressor station.

5. “Any time a permit limit founded in BACT is being considered for revision, a reopening of
the original BACT determination must be made, even if the permit limit is exceeded by less
than the significant amount. Therefore, all controls upstream of the emission point,
including existing controls, must be re-evaluated for BACT.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed, and there is no original BACT
determination.

6. “The cost of all controls, including existing controls and any proposed control
improvements, should be expressed in terms of a single dollar year, preferably the current
year. Any proposed improvements should then be added to that cost, also in today’s
dollars.”

The cost of control was determined using the dollar year 2023, adjusted for inflation, in
accordance with EPA’s Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations, Section 4, SCR
Cost Calculation Spreadsheet (updated 06/12/2019). This total is calculated based on industry
costs collected and validated by the EPA in 2016 and then adjusted to 2023 dollars based on
the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).

7. “EPA cannot provide a specific cost figure for cost/ton of pollutant removed without
contradicting the PSD definition of BACT. They recognize that a case-by-case evaluation
is inherently judgmental and can be particularly difficult without a cost guideline.”

The impacts of energy and costs of control were determined using EPA emission factors,
control efficiencies, and published studies.
XCL Residue Booster Station BACT Analysis
May 2023
Page 9 of 9

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

8. “A top-down type of BACT analysis is recommended by EPA and required by Utah.”

A top-down type of BACT analysis was used, and ARC and XCL was over inclusive in
considering several control technologies, including NOx reduction technologies.

9. “DAQ will review BACT determination for plants not yet built, if those plants have already
applied for AOs and BACT determinations have already been made or proposed.”

The new XCL Residue Booster Station is not yet constructed.

10. “Utah must ensure that any technically feasible improvements to existing controls that
would fall within the realm of reasonableness be considered, unless the improvement
would yield insignificant additional control.”

All reasonable controls have been considered for this analysis.

11. “In all cases, a complete BACT analysis must be submitted and must consider
environmental and energy, as well as economic impacts, unless an existing BACT
determination/approval is applicable to your source and is acceptable to the DAQ.”

The proposed BACT for XCL follows Form 01b, UAC R307-101-2, EPA federal standards, and
capability of the natural compressor facility techniques nationwide.
Is the combustion unit a utility or industrial boiler?What type of fuel does the unit burn?
Is the SCR for a new boiler or retrofit of an existing boiler?
Complete all of the highlighted data fields:
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
What is the maximum heat input rate (QB)?10.92 MMBtu/hour Type of coal burned:
What is the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel?1,008 Btu/scf
What is the estimated actual annual fuel consumption? 94,935,457 scf/Year

Enter the net plant heat input rate (NPHR) 8.2 MMBtu/MW

Fraction in
Coal Blend %S HHV (Btu/lb)If the NPHR is not known, use the default NPHR value: Fuel TypeDefault NPHR 0 1.84 11,841
Coal 10 MMBtu/MW 0 0.41 8,826
Fuel Oil 11 MMBtu/MW 0 0.82 6,685
Natural Gas 8.2 MMBtu/MW
Plant Elevation 5400 Feet above sea level
Data Inputs
Enter the following data for your combustion unit:
BituminousSub-Bituminous
Enter the sulfur content (%S) = percent by weight

Coal Type

Not applicable to units buring fuel oil or natural gas
Note: The table below is pre-populated with default values for HHV and %S. Please enter the actual values for these parameters in the table below. If the actual value for any parameter is not known, you may use the
default values provided.

Lignite
Please click the calculate button to calculate weighted average values based on the data in the table above.
For coal-fired boilers, you may use either Method 1 or Method 2 to calculate the
catalyst replacement cost. The equations for both methods are shown on rows 85
and 86 on the Cost Estimate tab. Please select your preferred method:

Method 1
Method 2
Not applicable
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Enter the following design parameters for the proposed SCR:
Number of days the SCR operates (tSCR)365 days
Number of SCR reactor chambers (nscr)1
Number of days the boiler operates (tplant)365 days
Number of catalyst layers (Rlayer)3
Inlet NOx Emissions (NOxin) to SCR 0.139192 lb/MMBtu
Number of empty catalyst layers (Rempty)1
Outlet NOx Emissions (NOxout) from SCR (Assume 85% reduction)0.0209 lb/MMBtu
Ammonia Slip (Slip) provided by vendor 2 ppm
Stoichiometric Ratio Factor (SRF)0.525 UNK
*The SRF value of 0.525 is a default value. User should enter actual value, if known.
UNK

Estimated operating life of the catalyst (Hcatalyst)20,000 hours

Estimated SCR equipment life 20 Years*
Gas temperature at the SCR inlet (T) 973
* For industrial boilers, the typical equipment life is between 20 and 25 years.1780
Concentration of reagent as stored (Cstored)50 percent*
Density of reagent as stored (ρstored)71 lb/cubic feet*
Number of days reagent is stored (tstorage)14 days Densities of typical SCR reagents:
50% urea solution 71 lbs/ft3
29.4% aqueous NH3 56 lbs/ft3
Select the reagent used
Enter the cost data for the proposed SCR:
Desired dollar-year 2023
CEPCI for 2023 802.9 Enter the CEPCI value for 2023 541.7 2016 CEPCI CEPCI = Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
Annual Interest Rate (i)8.0 Percent
Reagent (Costreag)1.660 $/gallon for 50% urea*
Electricity (Costelect)0.0743 $/kWh
Catalyst cost (CC replace)420.00
Operator Labor Rate 60.00 $/hour (including benefits)*
Operator Hours/Day 4.00 hours/day*
Volume of the catalyst layers (Volcatalyst)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Flue gas flow rate (Qfluegas)
(Enter "UNK" if value is not known)
Cubic feet
acfm
oF
ft3/min-MMBtu/hourBase case fuel gas volumetric flow rate factor (Qfuel)
*The reagent concentration of 50% and density of 71 lbs/cft are default
values for urea reagent. User should enter actual values for reagent, if
different from the default values provided.

* $1.66/gallon is a default value for 50% urea. User should enter actual value, if known.

$/cubic foot (includes removal and disposal/regeneration of existing
catalyst and installation of new catalyst

* $60/hour is a default value for the operator labor rate. User should enter actual value, if known.
Note: The use of CEPCI in this spreadsheet is not an endorsement of the index, but is there merely to allow for availability of a well-known cost index to spreadsheet users.
Use of other well-known cost indexes (e.g., M&S) is acceptable.
* 4 hours/day is a default value for the operator labor. User should enter actual value, if known.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Maintenance and Administrative Charges Cost Factors:0.015
Maintenance Cost Factor (MCF) =0.005
Administrative Charges Factor (ACF) =0.03
Data Sources for Default Values Used in Calculations:
Data Element Default Value
Reagent Cost ($/gallon)$1.66/gallon 50% urea solution
Electricity Cost ($/kWh)0.0743
Percent sulfur content for Coal (% weight)
Higher Heating Value (HHV) (Btu/lb)1,033
Catalyst Cost ($/cubic foot)420
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)$60.00
Interest Rate (Percent) 8.0 Default bank prime rate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA’s Power Sector
Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model. Office of Air and Radiation.
May 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documentation-epas-power-
sector-modeling-platform-v6.
Not applicable to units burning fuel oil or natural gas
2016 natural gas data compiled by the Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) from data reported on EIA Form EIA-923, Power
Plant Operations Report. Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

A replacement cost based on related BACT analysis submitted for like-sized engines to
UDAQ for approval.
Sources for Default Value
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform v6 Using the Integrated Planning Model, Updates to the Cost and
Performance for APC Technologies, SCR Cost Development Methodology, Chapter 5,
Attachment 5-3, January 2017. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-
3 scr cost development methodology pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly. Table 5.3. Published
January 2023. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a.

Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Maximum Annual Heat Input Rate (QB) = HHV x Max. Fuel Rate =11 MMBtu/hour
Maximum Annual fuel consumption (mfuel) = (QB x 1.0E6 x 8760)/HHV =94,900,000 scf/Year
Actual Annual fuel consumption (Mactual) =94,935,457 scf/Year
Heat Rate Factor (HRF) = NPHR/10 = 0.82
Total System Capacity Factor (CFtotal) =(Mactual/Mfuel) x (tscr/tplant) =1.000 fraction
Total operating time for the SCR (top) =CFtotal x 8760 =8763 hours
NOx Removal Efficiency (EF) =(NOxin - NOxout)/NOxin =85.0 percent
NOx removed per hour =NOxin x EF x QB =1.29 lb/hour
Total NOx removed per year =(NOxin x EF x QB x top)/2000 =5.66 tons/year
NOx removal factor (NRF) = EF/80 =1.06
Volumetric flue gas flow rate (qflue gas) = Qfuel x QB x (460 + T)/(460 + 700)nscr =24,012 acfm
Space velocity (Vspace) =qflue gas/Volcatalyst =233.50 /hour
Residence Time 1/Vspace 0.00 hour
Coal Factor (CoalF) =
1 for oil and natural gas; 1 for bituminous; 1.05 for sub-
bituminous; 1.07 for lignite (weighted average is used for
coal blends)
1.00
SO2 Emission rate = (%S/100)x(64/32)*1x106)/HHV =
Elevation Factor (ELEVF) = 14.7 psia/P = 1.22
Atmospheric pressure at sea level (P) =2116 x [(59-(0.00356xh)+459.7)/518.6]5.256 x (1/144)* =12.1 psia
Retrofit Factor (RF)New Construction 0.80
Catalyst Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Future worth factor (FWF) =(interest rate)(1/((1+ interest rate)Y -1) , where Y = Hcatalyts/(tSCR x
24 hours) rounded to the nearest integer 0.4808 Fraction
Catalyst volume (Volcatalyst) =2.81 x QB x EF adj x Slipadj x NOxadj x Sadj x (Tadj/Nscr)102.84 Cubic feet
Cross sectional area of the catalyst (Acatalyst) = qflue gas /(16ft/sec x 60 sec/min)25 ft2
SCR Design Parameters
The following design parameters for the SCR were calculated based on the values entered on the Data Inputs tab. These values were used to prepare the costs shown on the Cost Estimate tab.
Not applicable; factor applies only to
coal-fired boilers

* Equation is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Atmosphere Model. Available at
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/atmos.html.
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
Height of each catalyst layer (Hlayer) = (Volcatalyst/(Rlayer x Acatalyst)) + 1 (rounded to next highest
integer)2 feet
SCR Reactor Data:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value Units
Cross sectional area of the reactor (ASCR) = 1.15 x Acatalyst 29 ft2
Reactor length and width dimensions for a square
reactor = (ASCR)0.5 5.4 feet
Reactor height =(Rlayer + Rempty) x (7ft + hlayer) + 9ft 46 feet
Reagent Data:
Type of reagent used Urea 60.06 g/mole
Density = 71 lb/ft
3
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Reagent consumption rate (mreagent) = (NOxin x QB x EF x SRF x MWR)/MWNOx =1
Reagent Usage Rate (msol) =mreagent/Csol =2
(msol x 7.4805)/Reagent Density 0
Estimated tank volume for reagent storage =(msol x 7.4805 x tstorage x 24)/Reagent Density =100
Capital Recovery Factor:
Parameter Equation Calculated Value
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = i (1+ i)n/(1+ i)n - 1 =0.1019
Where n = Equipment Life and i= Interest Rate
Other parameters Equation Calculated Value Units
Electricity Usage:
Electricity Consumption (P) = A x 1,000 x 0.0056 x (CoalF x HRF)0.43 =5.62 kW
where A = (0.1 x QB) for industrial boilers.
Units
lb/hour
lb/hour
gal/hour
gallons (storage needed to store a 14 day reagent supply rounded to t
Molecular Weight of Reagent (MW) =
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers between 275 and 5,500 MMBTU/hour :
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers between 205 and 4,100 MMBTU/hour :
Total Capital Investment (TCI) = $960,267 in 2023 dollars
Direct Annual Costs (DAC) =$18,094 in 2023 dollars
Indirect Annual Costs (IDAC) =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total annual costs (TAC) = DAC + IDAC $118,630 in 2023 dollars
Annual Maintenance Cost = 0.005 x TCI =$4,801 in 2023 dollars
Annual Reagent Cost = msol x Costreag x top =$2,714 in 2023 dollars
Annual Electricity Cost = P x Costelect x top = $3,656 in 2023 dollars
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost =$6,922 in 2023 dollars

nscr x Volcat x (CCreplace/Rlayer) x FWF
Direct Annual Cost = $18,094 in 2023 dollars
Administrative Charges (AC) = 0.03 x (Operator Cost + 0.4 x Annual Maintenance Cost) =$2,686 in 2023 dollars
Capital Recovery Costs (CR)=CRF x TCI =$97,851 in 2023 dollarsIndirect Annual Cost (IDAC) =AC + CR =$100,537 in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC) =$118,630NOx Removed =5.66 tons/year
Cost Effectiveness = $20,956 per ton of NOx removed in 2023 dollars
Total Annual Cost (TAC)
TCI = 86,380 x (200/BMW )0.35 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
per year in 2023 dollars
Annual Costs
IDAC = Administrative Charges + Capital Recovery Costs
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness = Total Annual Cost/ NOx Removed/year
Direct Annual Costs (DAC)
DAC = (Annual Maintenance Cost) + (Annual Reagent Cost) + (Annual Electricity Cost) + (Annual Catalyst Cost)
Indirect Annual Cost (IDAC)
TAC = Direct Annual Costs + Indirect Annual Costs
Cost Estimate
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
TCI for Oil and Natural Gas Boilers
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers >500 MW:
TCI = 62,680 x BMW x ELEVF x RF
For Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers >5,500 MMBtu/hour:
For Natural Gas-Fired Industrial Boilers >4,100 MMBtu/hour:
TCI = 7,640 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 5,700 x QB x ELEVF x RF
TCI = 10,530 x (1,640/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
For Oil and Natural Gas-Fired Utility Boilers between 25MW and 500 MW:
TCI = 7,850 x (2,200/QB )0.35 x QB x ELEVF x RF
Prepared for XCL by Air
Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION SHEETS

Enclosed Combustor - High Volume - 48" x 25' x 11.7 MMBTU/HR 48” HV ECD
Data Parameter
Size 56” Square Base x 303” OAL
Capacity (Third Party Verified) 109 MSCFD @ 10 oz/in using SG 1.52/2500 BTU/SCF
Heat Duty Rating 11.7 MMBTU/HR Max
Burner Size 90 F-90 Orifices, 28"L x 27" W
Stack Insulated
Stack Internal Operating Temperature 800-1200°F
Inlet Temp -20-1200°F
Pressure Rating Atmospheric
Electrical Classification Non-Hazardous
Wind Load 90 mph 3sec Wind Gust per ASCE 7-05
Estimated Weight (No Concrete Block): 4380 lbs

Connection Schedule QTY Size Type
Waste Gas Inlet 1 3" NPT
Flow Test/Automation (plugged as option) 2 2" NPT
Stack/Burner Sight Glass 1 2" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 2" NPT
Pilot Sight glass 1 3" NPT
Aux Sight Glass Location (plugged as option) 1 3" NPT
Pilot Gas In 1 1/4" NPT
Ignitor Cable (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Thermocouple or Automation (plugged as option) 1 1" NPT
Automation Spare (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT
Cabinet Drain (plugged as option) 1 1/2" NPT

Paint
External Default Color: Noble Tan unless other color chosen as option

Notes
Pilot Consumption: Propane: 15 SCFH @ 4 psig, Natural Gas: 30 SCFH @ 8 - 10 psig (per ignitor)
OOOO (Quad O) Certified. >98% DRE when operating within flow rate guidelines and stated process sizing
parameters.
Meets all EPA and CDPHE Regulations. Certified USEPA 40 CFR 60, App. A, Source Emissions Test Methods.
Multi-directional solar mount ready.
Structure certified per ASCE 7-05 & IBC 2006 stds (pre-mounted concrete base required for compliance.
Standard saftey features: Air and fuel inlet flame arrestors plus thermal insulation.
High quality thermal lining on stack & upper base.
Destroys Oil/Condensate production tank vapors no visible flame or smoke and excellent opacity.
Reliable & Customizable ignition. Very low capital & operating cost, easy to operate and maintain.

Accessories - Included Description OEM OEM Model # QTY
Flame Cell Generic N/A 4
3" Flame Arrestor Generic Generic 1
Stainless Steel Burner Assembly Generic Generic 1
Pilot Regulator, 1/4" Fisher 67CR-206 1
Pilot Isolation Ball Valve 1/4 STL 2000# FP Chemoil 2027WC-02 1
8'x8'x8" Concrete Block No Anchors Generic SL 119524 1

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
FL
O
W

C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y

(
M
S
C
F
D
)
PRESSURE (oz/in2)
CALCULATED FLOW CAPACITY CURVE
48" HIGH VOLUME ECD (3-48HV-90-OOOO)
From EPA Test:
Max Rate = 109 MSCFD Min
Rate = 13.7 MSCFD

NOTES:UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES BREAK ALL SHARP EDGES ALL FEATURES ON A COMMON AXIS:DESIGN PRESSURE:16 OZ/SQ. IN., VACUUM RATING: 0.4 OZ/SQ. IN.2.APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION: API 12F 13TH ED.3.FLANGE BOLTS TO STRADDLE MAIN CENTERLINES OF TANK. 4.ESTIMATED SHIPPING WEIGHT: 10,500 LB EACH.5.COATING SPECIFICATION: 6.EXTERNAL: ONE COAT ALKYD ENAMEL OR TWO-1.COMPONENT URETHANE, COLOR: BLM COVERT GREENINTERNAL: NONE2.ROOF SLOPE = 1:12 PITCH7.
NOTES FOR JOB 777:
VERSION A, QTY 4
INSTALL HEAT COILS AS SHOWN
PLAIN MANWAY COVER, NO C14 NOZZLE
VERSION B, QTY 6
NO HEAT COILS OR STANDS
MANWAY COVER WITH C14 NOZZLE
REVISIONS
REV.DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
0 INITIAL RELEASE 1/28/2022 DR
1 CHANGE NOZZLE C1 TO 8" 150# RFSO 3/22/2022 DR
2 ADD RAISED THIEF HATCH, ADD C12 DOWNCOMER 8/19/2022 DR
3 REMOVE THIEF HATCH DEVICE 11/29/2022 DR
4 CHANGE C2 TO 10", ADD REPADS, ADD C14 IN MANWAY COVER, CHANGE C1 TO API FLANGE/BOLT PATTERN 2/16/2023 DR
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
DATEAPPROVAL
DRAWN
2799 E HIGHWAY 40
VERNAL, UT 84078
435-789-2698
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
INTERPRET DRAWING PER
ASME Y14.5-2009
DIGITAL PART DEFINITION PER
ASME Y14.41-2012
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]
B
DR
AM 03/14/22
03/16/22
1 41:96
AG.144 1
CHECKED
SCALE:
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
0°M1C14
SEAMS 1,3
90°
135°C5
180°C6
234°LIFTING LUGLIFTING STRAP 225°C4
270°
SEAMS 2,4
344°C7
1'-2"
1'-6"
1'-9 12 "
1'-6"
137.27°REPAD CENTERLINE222.73°REPAD CENTERLINE
54°LIFTING LUG
C1
C2
C3
C8
C10 C11C12 C13
TH1
C9
1"
C12 DOWNCOMERDETAIL
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
2 41:96
AG.144 2
SCALE:
5" 5"
13'-6"
1'-8"
1'-8"CLEARANCE UNDER COILS
2'-0"HEAT COIL PIPE CENTERLINE C7
C14
NAMEPLATE
10"
1'-0" 1'-0"
10"
3'-4"
2'-2"
0"
5'-0"
10'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
0"
1'-6"
17'-7"TOP HOLE
9'-9"
17'-10"
C12 C10 C6 C11 C13
C4 C5
WALKWAY BRACKETS
REPAD 1/4" x 6" x 16"2 PLACES1/2" DOWN FROM TOP EDGE
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
3 41:96
AG.144 3
SCALE:
AA
C12 DOWNCOMER
C10 C11
GLYCOL TRACE DETAIL
DRAWING NO. SHC.021
2" SCH40 PIPE
60 LINEAR FT, 6-PASS
AIR TEST TO 100 PSI
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COYOTE TANKS INC. IT IS RELEASED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. THE CONTENTS THEROF SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED, COPIED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COYOTE TANKS INC.
DRAWING NO.
SIZE
TITLE
SHEET
DWG:
PROJECT
SHEET:
REVISION
OF
AG.144
XCL 500 bbl
4
[varies]B
4 41:96
AG.144 4
SCALE:

XCL AssetCo, LLC
NOx MODELING RESULTS
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Duchesne County, Utah
Modeling Review Summary
Facility Name:XCL Booster Station
Facility ID #:
County:Duchesne
Nearby town:Bluebell
Model used:AERMOD 22112
Surface data used:Price 2010-2014
Upper air data used:Grand Junction/Walker Field 2010 - 2014
Air boundary in model:Yes
Modeling input data:XCL Booster Station
XCL Booster Station - Project (point)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Stack height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters meters degrees K meters/sec meters lb/hr
COMBST Combuster - Enclosed Flare 572707.87 4457446.01 1660.79 7.70 922.039 0.031 1.219 0.46
ENG1 Compressor Engine #1 572752.27 4457507.49 1660.33 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG2 Compressor Engine #2 572752.27 4457495.89 1660.26 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
ENG3 Compressor Engine #3 572752.27 4457483.35 1660.17 3.26 741.483 45.011 0.305 1.52
XCL Booster Station - Project (volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project (line volume)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Init. Lat.Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station (area - polygon)
Emission point Emission point UTM X UTM Y Elevation Length of the X Side Length of the Y Side Init. Vert.Release NOx
Model ID description meters meters meters Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Dimension (m)Height (m)lb/hr
XCL Booster Station - Project NAAQS Modeling
Pollutant Averaging Period
NAAQS Level
μg/m3
Significant
Impact Level
μg/m3
Modeled
Impact
μg/m3
Total w/ Background *
μg/m3
NO2 1-hour 188 7.5 132.72 165.18
* Background data from the Utah Division of Air Quality - Roosevelt Site - monthly values.
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC

XCL AssetCo, LLC
FORMALDEHYDE MODELING RESULTS
XCL Booster Station
Formaldehyde Modeling
ENG1, ENG2, and ENG3
Emission Rate 0.51 lb/hr
Emission Rate - All ENG 1.53 lb/hr 67.26 μg/m3
Air Flow Rate 196.8 DSCFM 0.07 mg/m3
Molecular Weight - Air 29 g/mol
MW - Formaldehyde 30.026 g/mol
ETF - Formaldehyde[1]0.154 m3lb/mg-hr 0.05 mg/m3
1666.16 PPMv
0.75 ppm
2046.16 mg/m3 0.92 mg/m3
Formaldehyde Rate 0.00075 m3lb/mg-hr
Modeling Required?Exceed?NO
[1]Emission Threshold Factor: Vertically-Unrestricted Emission Release Points, 50 meters or less distance to property, Table 2, R307-410-5(1)(c)(i)(C)
NO
mg/m3 = 0.0409 x ppm x 30.026
PPMv = lb/hr/(MW x DSCFM x (1.554 x 10^-7))
1-hr Model Results
8-hr Model Results
8-hr TWA
0.7 Factor
Prepared with assistance from Air Regulations Consulting, LLC
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…1/12
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
16 messages
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:07 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Good afternoon, Tim,

On-line we show you are the assigned DAQ Engineer for AssetCo’s Residue Booster Station. The full NOI for the project
is attached along with order confirmation and payment receipt from June 7. We wanted to check in and see how the NOI
review and AO processing are going, and if there is anything we can do to help, i.e., a phone call or meeting to help digest
the information.

If you recall, I believe we worked together on NOIs for Ramsey Hill and Geofortis. It is nice to be working with you again.
Please let us know if there are any questions or requests from us.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:09:14 -0500
Subject: Order confirmation
Your order 5698870 for the amount of $2,700.00 has been successfully processed.
Order Details
Order Number: 5698870
Order Date: Jun 7, 2023
Product Name Quantity Price Each
Approval Order Notice of Intent 1 $2,700.00
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…2/12
Notes:
Your uploaded file(s):
Thank you for your purchase.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:09:14 -0500
Subject: Online Payment Receipt
Credit Card Payment Receipt
Your payment was successfully processed.
Item Quantity Item
Amount Total
Approval Order Notice of Intent
Pre-Payment of Notice of Intent Approval Order ($2200) and Filing Fee ($500). Please
provide C...
1 $2,700.00 $2,700.00
Total Amount:$2,700.00
Payment Processing Details
Order Number:5698870
Date of Transaction:Jun 7, 2023
Amount Paid:$2,700.00
Cardholder's Name:Eric Sturm
Credit Card Number:***************0918
Credit Card Type:Visa
Amount Charged:$2,700.00
3 attachments
XCL AssetCo Res Booster Air NOI_05052023vSigned.pdf
14396K
Order confirmation.eml
3K
Online Payment Receipt.eml
5K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 4:23 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Hi Eric.
XCL Assets project has passed the preliminary review and I am working on their project right now. I will have it ready for
the peer as early as next week. The next step in our process has the peer reviewer inspecting my engineering review. Do
you have any questions for me at this time?
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…3/12
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:31 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Tim.

No questions from ARC or AssetCo at this time, but we would like to request periodic status updates. Did the project go
to peer review this week as potentially indicated last week?

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 12:11 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hi Eric.
Our review of the NOI is now completed, except for the following informational item: what is the emitted ppmvd, for NOx,
CO, and VOC, corrected to 15% excess oxygen, for each of the 1,340 hp engines? Once we have this information, XCL
AssetCo engineering review will go to the peer. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…4/12
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:19 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

We appreciate the update on the NOI. We certainly have the engine exhaust ppms requested below, and they will be
provided.

I recently spoke with the owners, and they mentioned the site may be shifted in location. If so, ARC would update the NOI
for the adjusted location and resubmit ASAP. They indicated no other changes to the project, i.e., equipment, process
flow, capacity, design, etc. will all stay the same.

We will update you soon with supplemental NOI and engine ppms. I will probably be giving you a call as well to best
explain.

Sincerely.
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:14 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

As mentioned two weeks ago, the location of the plant shifted. With the shift, AssetCo would like the name to be Patry
Gas Booster Station in lieu of Residue Booster Station. If there are any concerns with that, let’s discuss. The shift also
triggered a rerun of emissions modeling, and an updated report is included in the attachment. Otherwise, everything for
the plant and previous NOI remains the same for flow, layout, units, emissions, etc. Please see attached.

Notably, the engine exhaust ppms you requested are included in the attachment.

If there are any questions or further information we can provide, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…5/12
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 9:20 PM
To: 'Tim Dejulis' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Hi Tim,

We appreciate the update on the NOI. We certainly have the engine exhaust ppms requested below, and they will be
provided.

I recently spoke with the owners, and they mentioned the site may be shifted in location. If so, ARC would update the NOI
for the adjusted location and resubmit ASAP. They indicated no other changes to the project, i.e., equipment, process
flow, capacity, design, etc. will all stay the same.

We will update you soon with supplemental NOI and engine ppms. I will probably be giving you a call as well to best
explain.

Sincerely.

Eric Sturm
[Quoted text hidden]
ARC XCL Residue Booster NOI Update_20230811_signed.pdf
5098K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Eric,
Thank you for the update. This redraft puts XCL Assets back at the starting point though; we need to see if this NOI has
everything required. But, I'm sure this process will go quickly.
The modelers will need the BPIP files and the stack design parameters (height, flow rate, exit temperature, etc.) to be
submitted electronically to us, so that they can perform their work reviewing XCL Assets model. Let me know if you
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…6/12
have any questions about this.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 4:10 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Good afternoon, Dave and Jason,

Attached are the modeling files as well as a PDF with the stack parameters for Patry Gas Booster Station.

Please let us know if there is anything else you need.

Thank you,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Environmental Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 4:09 PM
To: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

FYI, need to send new files to DAQ for XCL.
Eric Sturm, ARC
m. 402.310.4211

10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…7/12
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>

Eric,

Thank you for the update. This redraft puts XCL Assets back at the starting point though; we need to see if this NOI has
everything required. But, I'm sure this process will go quickly.

The modelers will need the BPIP files and the stack design parameters (height, flow rate, exit temperature, etc.) to be
submitted electronically to us, so that they can perform their work reviewing XCL Assets model. Let me know if you
have any questions about this.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

[Quoted text hidden]
Patry Gas Booster Modeling Files.zip
574K
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 2:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…8/12

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:09 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney
Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Yes, we got them. We'll review this and get back to you if anything else, with regards to the modeling, is needed.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:52 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Tim. Can you share the NOI, and does it contain a report for the modeling?
Jason Krebs | Environmental Scientist | Utah Division of Air Quality
Phone: [phone]
195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
[Quoted text hidden]
Dave Prey <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:02 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Tim, is this project 161540001 - I will log the modeling files in and put it in line
[Quoted text hidden]
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…9/12
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:05 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>
Yes, that is correct.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:48 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim,

How is the review process going for AssetCo? If there are any questions or updates, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…10/12
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>; Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:06 AM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim,

It has been quite a while since we heard from DEQ on this application. Are we nearing source review of a draft AO?

Bes.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…11/12
From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:48 PM
To: 'Tim DeJulis' <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; 'Sydney Stauffer - ARC' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim,

How is the review process going for AssetCo? If there are any questions or updates, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…12/12
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>; Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:36 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Eric,
I was on PTO for several weeks, but am back this week. I have sent XCL Resources to my peer for their review today.
Thank you for following up with me.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…1/12
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
16 messages
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:07 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Good afternoon, Tim,

On-line we show you are the assigned DAQ Engineer for AssetCo’s Residue Booster Station. The full NOI for the project
is attached along with order confirmation and payment receipt from June 7. We wanted to check in and see how the NOI
review and AO processing are going, and if there is anything we can do to help, i.e., a phone call or meeting to help digest
the information.

If you recall, I believe we worked together on NOIs for Ramsey Hill and Geofortis. It is nice to be working with you again.
Please let us know if there are any questions or requests from us.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:09:14 -0500
Subject: Order confirmation
Your order 5698870 for the amount of $2,700.00 has been successfully processed.
Order Details
Order Number: 5698870
Order Date: Jun 7, 2023
Product Name Quantity Price Each
Approval Order Notice of Intent 1 $2,700.00
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…2/12
Notes:
Your uploaded file(s):
Thank you for your purchase.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:09:14 -0500
Subject: Online Payment Receipt
Credit Card Payment Receipt
Your payment was successfully processed.
Item Quantity Item
Amount Total
Approval Order Notice of Intent
Pre-Payment of Notice of Intent Approval Order ($2200) and Filing Fee ($500). Please
provide C...
1 $2,700.00 $2,700.00
Total Amount:$2,700.00
Payment Processing Details
Order Number:5698870
Date of Transaction:Jun 7, 2023
Amount Paid:$2,700.00
Cardholder's Name:Eric Sturm
Credit Card Number:***************0918
Credit Card Type:Visa
Amount Charged:$2,700.00
3 attachments
XCL AssetCo Res Booster Air NOI_05052023vSigned.pdf
14396K
Order confirmation.eml
3K
Online Payment Receipt.eml
5K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 4:23 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Hi Eric.
XCL Assets project has passed the preliminary review and I am working on their project right now. I will have it ready for
the peer as early as next week. The next step in our process has the peer reviewer inspecting my engineering review. Do
you have any questions for me at this time?
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…3/12
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:31 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Tim.

No questions from ARC or AssetCo at this time, but we would like to request periodic status updates. Did the project go
to peer review this week as potentially indicated last week?

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 12:11 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hi Eric.
Our review of the NOI is now completed, except for the following informational item: what is the emitted ppmvd, for NOx,
CO, and VOC, corrected to 15% excess oxygen, for each of the 1,340 hp engines? Once we have this information, XCL
AssetCo engineering review will go to the peer. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…4/12
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:19 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

We appreciate the update on the NOI. We certainly have the engine exhaust ppms requested below, and they will be
provided.

I recently spoke with the owners, and they mentioned the site may be shifted in location. If so, ARC would update the NOI
for the adjusted location and resubmit ASAP. They indicated no other changes to the project, i.e., equipment, process
flow, capacity, design, etc. will all stay the same.

We will update you soon with supplemental NOI and engine ppms. I will probably be giving you a call as well to best
explain.

Sincerely.
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:14 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>
Hi Tim,

As mentioned two weeks ago, the location of the plant shifted. With the shift, AssetCo would like the name to be Patry
Gas Booster Station in lieu of Residue Booster Station. If there are any concerns with that, let’s discuss. The shift also
triggered a rerun of emissions modeling, and an updated report is included in the attachment. Otherwise, everything for
the plant and previous NOI remains the same for flow, layout, units, emissions, etc. Please see attached.

Notably, the engine exhaust ppms you requested are included in the attachment.

If there are any questions or further information we can provide, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…5/12
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 9:20 PM
To: 'Tim Dejulis' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Hi Tim,

We appreciate the update on the NOI. We certainly have the engine exhaust ppms requested below, and they will be
provided.

I recently spoke with the owners, and they mentioned the site may be shifted in location. If so, ARC would update the NOI
for the adjusted location and resubmit ASAP. They indicated no other changes to the project, i.e., equipment, process
flow, capacity, design, etc. will all stay the same.

We will update you soon with supplemental NOI and engine ppms. I will probably be giving you a call as well to best
explain.

Sincerely.

Eric Sturm
[Quoted text hidden]
ARC XCL Residue Booster NOI Update_20230811_signed.pdf
5098K
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Eric,
Thank you for the update. This redraft puts XCL Assets back at the starting point though; we need to see if this NOI has
everything required. But, I'm sure this process will go quickly.
The modelers will need the BPIP files and the stack design parameters (height, flow rate, exit temperature, etc.) to be
submitted electronically to us, so that they can perform their work reviewing XCL Assets model. Let me know if you
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…6/12
have any questions about this.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 4:10 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Good afternoon, Dave and Jason,

Attached are the modeling files as well as a PDF with the stack parameters for Patry Gas Booster Station.

Please let us know if there is anything else you need.

Thank you,

Sydney Stauffer
ARC | Environmental Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.416.8416
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 4:09 PM
To: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

FYI, need to send new files to DAQ for XCL.
Eric Sturm, ARC
m. 402.310.4211

10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…7/12
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>

Eric,

Thank you for the update. This redraft puts XCL Assets back at the starting point though; we need to see if this NOI has
everything required. But, I'm sure this process will go quickly.

The modelers will need the BPIP files and the stack design parameters (height, flow rate, exit temperature, etc.) to be
submitted electronically to us, so that they can perform their work reviewing XCL Assets model. Let me know if you
have any questions about this.

Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov

[Quoted text hidden]
Patry Gas Booster Modeling Files.zip
574K
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 2:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…8/12

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:09 PM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>, Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney
Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Yes, we got them. We'll review this and get back to you if anything else, with regards to the modeling, is needed.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:52 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Tim. Can you share the NOI, and does it contain a report for the modeling?
Jason Krebs | Environmental Scientist | Utah Division of Air Quality
Phone: [phone]
195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
[Quoted text hidden]
Dave Prey <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:02 PM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Tim, is this project 161540001 - I will log the modeling files in and put it in line
[Quoted text hidden]
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:1770061398624993…9/12
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:05 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>
Yes, that is correct.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:48 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim,

How is the review process going for AssetCo? If there are any questions or updates, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…10/12
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>; Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:06 AM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>, Dave Prey <[e-mail]>, Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Tim,

It has been quite a while since we heard from DEQ on this application. Are we nearing source review of a draft AO?

Bes.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…11/12
From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:48 PM
To: 'Tim DeJulis' <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; 'Sydney Stauffer - ARC' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim,

How is the review process going for AssetCo? If there are any questions or updates, please let us know.

Best.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Tim DeJulis <[e-mail]>; 'Dave Prey' <[e-mail]>; 'Jason Krebs' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Teisha Black' <[e-mail]>; Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI

Tim, Dave, Jason,

Last Friday, Sydney Stauffer emailed the modeling BPIP files and stack parameters for the new location of the AssetCo
Station. The files were zipped, which can cause email issues at times. If the DAQ could confirm receipt and whether
anything further is needed, that would be great.

Best, thanks.

Eric Sturm
ARC | Principal, Sr. Consultant
W: https://airregconsulting.com
10/25/23, 5:07 PM State of Utah Mail - XCL AssetCo Booster Station NOI
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1770061398624993363&simpl=msg-f:177006139862499…12/12
P: 402.817.7887
M: 402.310.4211
.VCF | LinkedIn

From: Sydney Stauffer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Dave Prey <[e-mail]>; Jason Krebs <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:36 AM
To: Eric Sturm <[e-mail]>
Cc: Teisha Black <[e-mail]>, Sydney Stauffer - ARC <[e-mail]>
Eric,
I was on PTO for several weeks, but am back this week. I have sent XCL Resources to my peer for their review today.
Thank you for following up with me.
Timothy DeJulis, PE
Environmental Engineer | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
10/25/23, 5:06 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: NOI Submittal
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1768149097394076885&simpl=msg-f:1768149097394076885 1/2
Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Fwd: NOI Submittal
1 message
Alan Humpherys <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:32 AM
To: Tim Dejulis <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jon Black <[e-mail]>
Tim,
Can you please process the attached project?
Site ID: 16154
Peer: Christine
Thanks,
Alan
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 4:07 PM
Subject: NOI Submittal
To: <[e-mail]>
Recipient Data:
Time Finished: 2023-06-07 16:06:38 MDT
IP: 72.46.56.208
ResponseID: R_1CIKmJylEwhDsy6
Link to View Results: Click Here
URL to View Results: https://utahgov.iad1.qualtrics.com/apps/single-response-reports/reports/
SNPrV3hCJRVg8ulVvIIhLS9rHOjshkAInB8vXc1K3Y08TnjEV1RaUENvsZOq8YDIALDuuzC8kyLlFbziOmSmgQ2gN94GO-
3d2K53w52CZM3tMuEdp3DdjCmiYpZlmPkNBREcC%2EDhOehGB4IhJ5Op2uVSKgvNv07LdK
0QctFCLwkJX5UHdeZtEHewfXJm25RRGzEDvxM788At%2EqcYFNjFyjydR7j3Ye4Q8Kpa3BVyT
i4euLcfvS7KcXQaIq7BXZHo2NqF-xLs--AU7QnyUReNRce8njUD8j6Y1D98FUQUmPNlMpXAFDETufYsQvOty4W2
Response Summary:
Company Name:
XCL AssetCo, LLC
Site Name:
AResidue Booster Station
Contact Name:
Eric Sturm
Contact Email Address:
[e-mail]
Please Attach a copy of your complete application here
https://utahgov.co1.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsControlPanel/File.php?F=F_3ENet6X1UPUBZ7K
Please sign acknowledging you are the responsible party to provide DAQ with this NOI.
https://utahgov.co1.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsControlPanel/File.php?F=F_2QWogT5SgtXXUzS
10/25/23, 5:06 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: NOI Submittal
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=67721adfe9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1768149097394076885&simpl=msg-f:1768149097394076885 2/2
--
Alan Humpherys
Manager | Minor NSR Section
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
airquality.utah.gov
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA
requirements.
XCL_AssetCo_Res_Booster_Air_NOI_05052023vSigned.pdf
14396K