The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit 4 - Exhibit 4 - Syska Hennessy Response to Fluor ReportExhibit No. 4 Syska Hennessy response to Fluor report dated March 20, 2008 Al•% THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK r. 11 1 SYSM HENNESSY GROUP Gregg Zoll — SR. Project Manager FD & C Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian To: Newport Beach, CA . Michael Trzepacz, PE Syska Hennessy Group From: Los Angeles, CA Hoag Hospital Cogeneration Facility FLUOR Plume Mitigation Review prepared for the City of Newport Beach dated March 19, 2008 Re: Memorandum Date: March 20, 2008 Proj. No. HOG06011 Syska has briefly reviewed the referenced Fluor Report. This memorandum will set forth Syska's initial response. The response will follow the format and paragraphs referenced to the Fluor report as follows; Section 1.0 Introduction 1. Newport Engineering is not Hoag's consultant (typical for all references throughout report). Section 1.1 Purpose of Study 2. Fluor was provided with detailed estimate of probable construction cost prepared by McCarthy Construction for Option 3. McCathy's estimate of probable construction cost is $9.3 million, plus /minus 20 %. Syska also prepared an independent estimate and probable cost; said estimate of probable construction cost is $7.9 — 8.9 million. Both McCarthy's and Syska's estimates of probable construction cost are based upon traditional sources such as Means Cost Estimating Guide, actual experience, and when possible actual equipment quotations. Due to the volatile nature of labor, material and equipment pricing and unforeseeable factors affecting the construction industry, McCarthy and Syska do not expressly or implicitly warrant or express the accuracy of the estimated cost to be the actual cost of construction, but do feel such cost estimates are appropriate for evaluations as a R.O.M. (Rough Order of Magnitude).. Estimates are based on pre - design concept narratives, sketches, etc. This is the acceptable practice in the Construction industry. The pre- design cost estimates were discussed with Fluor. Section 1.2 Scope of Evaluation Report Fluor's review comments are based on Syska's report dated 2/15/08. Fluor incorrectly references the report as final. The 2/15/08 Syska report is a progress report. The latest revision of the Syska summary is dated 3/5/08. This report was electronically distributed to all parties. The 3/5/08 report is attached for reference. C:' wme and Sei8n8sgmmpoelplaml 6exbgsWeworary Inlerml Filma0L 1221}lwr Report Renew CanmeMa 032008 (2) WAM Syska Hennessy Group. Inc. Tel: 310.312.0200 11560 West Olympic Boulevard. Suite 686 Fax: 31 0.473.7468 U Los Angeles. CA 90064 -1524 v .syska.com �'F Page 2 March 20, 2008 SYSKA HENiNESSY Re: FLUOR Plume Mitigation Review dated March 19, 2008 GROUP Syska Review and Comments Section 1.3 Proiect History and Background 1. No comments at this time. Section 1.4 OSHPD 1. The existing cooling tower was constructed under the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC). If the cooling tower is modified structurally (i.e. dampers added, etc.), it is highly likely that the tower will need to comply with 2007 CBC. If the cooling tower is replaced, it will need to comply with 2007 CBC. Compliance with 2007 CBC will require a complete tower rebuild and/or external structural bracing. 2. Current Syska experience at Hoag (for the last 24 months) with actual OSHPD review and plan check timelines is 90/60/40 — 90 days for the initial plan check review, 60 days for back check 1 review, 40 days for back check 2 review, etc. (there is an exception for projects less than $50,000 in construction value where reviews can be expedited to under 90 days). Note that the OSHPD review timeline does not include provisions for plan distribution, A/E review, and A/E response (drawing revisions). The OSHPD timeline does not include provisions for City of Newport plan check and Coastal Commission plan check timelines. Section 2.0 Cooling Tower Plume Abatement Option Review and Evaluation 1. Fluor's Option 3A was reviewed by Syska (Option 2B) - Option 2B narrative (dated 2/27/08) and concept sketches are attached for reference. Section 2.1 Option 1 Fluor's statement of operating time needs to be clarified. Cooling tower plume conditions exist less than 10% of total operating hours per year. Recommend Fluor's narrative be. revised as follows a. 33% x 10% = 3.3% of the operating time the option will not be effective — 0% of plume mitigated b. 28% x 10% = 2.8% of the time the option does not make an appreciative difference — 5% of plume mitigated c. 22% x 10% = 2.2% of the time the option makes a noticeable difference — 10% of plume mitigated d. 28% x 10% = 2.8% of the time the option makes a appreciable difference — 15% of plume mitigated Section 2.2 Option 2 1. Under current tower loading conditions, implementation of Option 2 is estimated to reduce the density of the plume by an incremental 5% over Option 1 as ambient conditions allow. CTOWMe entlS Wn Ulmm(ONILL l 9 Wffeme gInW FWOLKt22 Wr RWn Review Come 032009(2)(2)Ax fe� Page 3 March 20, 2008 SYSKA HENNESSY Re: FLUOR Plume Mitigation Review dated March 19, 2008 DROOP Syska Review and Comments Section 2.3 Option 3 Option 3 cost estimate has been provided by McCarthy and is based on budget quotes from Marley, option narrative descriptions and concept sketches. Option 3 cost estimate is not based on an actual schematic design, because the support system is unique and needs to be engineered. McCarthy has further reviewed its cost estimate subsequent to Fluor feedback and feels $8.9M is a R.O.M, to within plus/minus 20 %. A more detailed design would be required to allow McCarthy to further define the cost estimate. See Section 1. 1, Comment 1 for basis of cost estimate. Section 2.4 Alternate Option 3A 1. Reference attached Syska Option 2B dated 2/27/08 for further information. 2. Installation of motorized dampers in the cooling tower fan section per Fluor's recommendation would likely require permitting under CBC 2007. Marley and KPFF have indicated that in order for the cooling tower to comply with the 2007 CBC, a substantial rebuild would be required and/or external structural buttressing likely required. Cost to rebuild the existing cooling tower and/or provide external buttressing would approach the cost of new replacement cooling towers. 3. Syska concurs with Fluor's estimate of probable construction cost, not including the incremental added cost to rebuild towers and/or externally brace towers to comply with 2007CBC. 4. Syska concurs with Fluor's estimate that a 50% reduction in plume density is achievable through measure implementation. Section 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 Cogeneration Engine Exhaust Heat Plume Mitigation Ootions An in -depth engineering analysis on heat plume mitigation option effectiveness and estimates of probable construction cost has not been conducted. Rather, Syska's summary effort to date has been based on identifying viable mitigation solutions for further analysis. Modeling would be required to gauge option effectiveness. Issues to consider will be height and location of the equipment and the impact on residence as it relates to visual and noise impacts. Possible structural impacts and related issues have yet to identify. Section 4.0 Cogeneration Steam Vents. 1. Syska concurs with Fluor's conclusions. The foregoing is a brief response based on Syksa preliminary review. C --D mares and SeMNsjwmpbePLaral SWNMTemp Mq lMmel FNW1 12 lwr Rgnd Review Comments 032008 (2) (2).dw Ys J t -, s GC :Y)SU It ir �J 4 IEF'gi f10,PF nf�, I- lechno I ogy -F '_ofntrl.- -,;. b- S Irjmxt:.S�zy n Ar Cooled Heat Exchanger SISystem Optio M A I • Reduce the condenser water return temperature to operating towers by rejecting condenser water heat to the, atmosphere via a air cooled heat exchanger system. • Used in conjunction with modified operational sequences outlined under Option 1. Scope of Work: — New air cooled heat exchanger system and fan(s) — located on grade — Side steam condenser water pumping piping system — Instrumentation and controls — Building penetrations — Structural pad arid' foundation — Screening walls/enclosure for heat exchanger — Normal power system, feeders r�b.27.2008 I 0 2M2 SySk. He.n..y Gr.p, Inc. X, C . NQ G+ 'Er.primr + ...... - - -------- SY.SKA 111-1-NNESSY --------------- - Ow%tion 2B — it Cooled '"'eat Exchanger Ssysstem F NEW WEATHER STATION Ila I At 'T- Cl NEW CT-14 Ila I 4 202S,I,. Hennessy GmupInc. NEW AIR COOLED HEAT EXCHANGER SYSTEM Cl NEW CT-14 EXIST. CT-13 EXIST. CT-12 EXIST. CT-1 . . .... . .... . . ...... 4 202S,I,. Hennessy GmupInc. NEW AIR COOLED HEAT EXCHANGER SYSTEM Cl :c asiatir _a -r r_�ine:rr nr, + lc r:h;ttraln -jv + C.onstri, .tiro' S' 'S KA I I by ton 2r.$ _ it Cooled,Heat Exchampmer iffstem • Pros — Incremental 40 -50% reduction in cooling, tower water plume density, height and length when used is combination with Option 1. Cons — $2 5 million estimated construction cost - OS'HPD plan check and permitting required — Air cooled 'heat exchanger system Iocated'outside of cooling tower enclosure new screened yard required — New electrical service required' — Condenser water service curtailment - interruption of Hospital Operation during construction ® Tower shutdown required to facilitate construction. — Energy inefficient — increases Hospital's. " carbon footprint ". — Increases the sound power level (noise) at property line. — Any modifications to existing tower (Le. dampers) will likely require compliance with 2007 CBC. Inference: Tower will need to be 0 structurally rebuilt and %or externally-6raced 2002sy=k,He„ E ,gym „P,,, e 1 0. 4 Fr,-. jincivr no 4- Technology + "'onst"i ,rtif)" 11yStIA I III'-I\NRS.SY ma,r%yj, Overview • Team Experience ® Why is the Cooling Tower, needed? ® Cooling Tower Plume Formation i Cooling Tower Plume Mitigation Measure Summary • Cooling Tower Plume Mitigation Measures- - Modify Operational Sequences — Cooling Tower Basin Pump System — New Cooling Tower with Plume Mitigation System • Appendix A: CGgen, Engine -Heat Plume Reduction Options • Appendix B: Cogen Plant Steam Venting Mitigation Measures 20D2 Spk. Yea Gmu, 1.c 4 Er-, line-r no Techriology + Con s-trk.-tio- KA I I ENNESSY Henness ska Z,Wtir Y �y Group a 80 years of experience in design of Healthcare Facilities on a national level. a #1 Buildings Systems Engineer for 'Healthcare (ENR). 0 $4.0 billion dollars in Healthcare construction value over the past 10 years. Leading the way towards the Hospital of the Future. — Sustainable, high performance design — Acuity adaptability spaces — Infection control • Thousands of cooling 'towers designed and installed on a national level — over 750,000 tons (Hoag's Cooling Tower is less then 6,000-tons). • Hundreds of plume mitigation studies. • One non-Hospital installation — Logan, International Airport M.'M 8, 2008 2002 SVska HunneSSy GIVL19, 10C. 4.:: staJtir "g + Er_tirn u na a- Tichnology -r :rirt5tn , in . GkOUa McCarthl, Construction • 143 years of experience in 'building Healthcare Facilities on a national level. ® Over $4.0 billion dollars in Healthcare construction, value over the past 5 years_ • No cooling tower plume mitigation systems constructed. .. • Over 75 years of experience in designing and building Mech nical /HVAC Systems for Healthcare Facilities. • Thousands of cooling towers designed and installed_. • No cooling tower plume mitigation systems designed or constructed. 1 March 5. 2C•C9 '� .b 200251'ska Nennassy Gmu.,.Inc. I March 5. 2C•C9 '� .b 200251'ska Nennassy Gmu.,.Inc. I 1 �'a w x t "NCO +;.' _ - .A h :� C...-isultirg + Er!-. jirw,r na, -P Technology + Constrt..,.tir), SvSr.N Wh,tj, is the Coolin--a Tower Needed? Y W • The Cogeneration Plant provides the Hospital with the following utilities: — Electricity for power and lighting: Approx. 76% of Hospital's needs — Chilled Water for building cooling: Approx. 50% of Hospital's needs — Hot water for building heating: Approx. 25% of Hospital's needs Cogeneration Plant provided utilitieSr are: — Clean, environmentally friendly energy — More efficient than utility companies — Quality of power is cleaner and more consistent — Reduces operating costs — Reduces air pollutants • The Cooling Tower is required for Cogeneration Plant operation. klwh 5, 2008 1 4 i - 2,002 Sy�k. Grw., ln�. µv p e �r ... tl � J 1 i i � fi 4 Fri Y ' =iFiz � _ - � k A• t A v P x� armation 1 n A tY '�'..k vM - 1 Y' .N �➢ _ r � i ;i t{ ✓'� fit, w �."W... T..> _ i � .. `'a`£. I t i + Erqifwvr ng, + lechnok-)qy + ueeun • Prevalent during periods of cold and humid, ambient air. • Cooling tower exhaust air warm and close to saturated conditions. • Moisture condenses when warm exhaust air mixes with cold saturated air (i.e.. Moisture cannot be absorbed quick enough). • Visual water vapor is formed. • Quantity of condensing water vapor a function ofi — Ambient conditions — Tower loading / heat rejection load — Water temperatures — Fan speed • Water vapor formation is, standard & routine expectation of Cooling Tower operation. • Due to location of hospital in coastal environment, any reduction is less effective than other inland locations. i) 2002 Syska Hennessy �LIP. Ins, rV C. z-,niu I fir Lj -4, Er q i rwrr no A- -Fechno I ogy 4 "OF I StR.-. 1-1 i.)- S YS KA f I E_\ - N �ISY ElOUO --------- - _ --------- Formation of the plume maybe reduced when-tower exhaust air can be kept below saturation curve. .... ...... .... ......... --------- D 2CD2 Sysk.a Hennesvy Gmup, Jnc j C nkdfirj + Er4ne.,r no + Icchnology + --------- --- ------ --- --- - .. .. .. .... Cooling Tower Plurne Mitigation Measure Options • Option 1: Modify Cooling Tower Operational Sequences • Option 2: Cooling Tower Basin Pump System Option 3: New Cooling Towers with Plume - Mitigation System 1111111 11PI11 liql1plipil 1 111 Me. 0-103 Retrofit Cooling Towers with Plume Mitigation System — OSHPD seismic requirements for FRIP tower Will require material testing, complete tower rebuild and external bracing system to accommodate plume mitigation system. - - Cost of retrofit approximately egual o:r gr eater than cost of replacement tower. — Retrofit construction time line weater than replacement timeline. Mwti 5. 2005 D2002 Syska Hlenm y Gmup, Im 12 + + Msl" t Cooling Tower Plume Mitigation Measure Summary Table Notes: 1 Includes design, QSHPD plan'check (permitting), Coastal Commission review and construction. 2. Syska's opinion of probable construction cost is based upon traditional sources, actual experience, orran actual equipment quote. Due to the volatile nature of labor, material and equipment.. pricing and unforeseeable factors affecting the construction industry, Syska does not expressly or implicillywarrant or represent theaccuracy of,the,estimated cost to be the actual cost of construction. 3. Approx, annual increase in electrical consumption cost due to measure implementation — approx. equivalent to power use of.40r residential homeslyear. 4. Approx. annual increase in electrical consumption cost clue to measure implementation — approx. equivalent: to power use of 80 residential homeslyear. 5: Approx. annual increase in natural gas and electrical consumption and cost due measure implementation — approx. equivalent to power use of 900 residential homeslyear. 6, . Assumes concurrent implementation of Measure/Option 1 with Measure/Option 2 6ft,c 5.2009 0 2002 Syska Her.nessy Gmup. Inc 14 euclon� ' rna al gO m ' l Al [ N®R 'n ! - W g Height'and t' 1051 o a !Rfi� i I Modify Cooling 10-15% Immediate $0 None Incremental $12,000 • Electroal,energy input required to modify Tower Operation Increase (note 3) operation • Increase Hospital "carbon footprint" Emissions increased by approx.: > 67,500 Iblyear Carbon Dioxide 2 Cooling Tower 15-20% 2009 $0.5 million None Incremental $24,0001yr • Interruption of utility services to Hospital. Basin Pump (note 6) Increase (note ,A) - ..Electrical energy input required to modify System operation and for pumping system • Increase Hospital "carbon: footprint" 'Emissions Increased byapproxa >- 135,000 lb/year Carbon Dioxide 3 New Tower with 70% Winter $7.9-8.9 Tower Incremental $04,300/yr • Interruption of utility services to Hospital. Plume Mitigation 200912010 million height Increase (note 5) • Increased boiler emissions from Plant System increased • Electrical and natural gas energy input by 10 ft. required to modify for plume mitigation Increase Hospital "carbon footprinV' Emissions Increased by approx.: > 150,000 lb/yr Carbon Dioxide > SOD Iblyear Nitrous Oxide Table Notes: 1 Includes design, QSHPD plan'check (permitting), Coastal Commission review and construction. 2. Syska's opinion of probable construction cost is based upon traditional sources, actual experience, orran actual equipment quote. Due to the volatile nature of labor, material and equipment.. pricing and unforeseeable factors affecting the construction industry, Syska does not expressly or implicillywarrant or represent theaccuracy of,the,estimated cost to be the actual cost of construction. 3. Approx, annual increase in electrical consumption cost due to measure implementation — approx. equivalent to power use of.40r residential homeslyear. 4. Approx. annual increase in electrical consumption cost clue to measure implementation — approx. equivalent: to power use of 80 residential homeslyear. 5: Approx. annual increase in natural gas and electrical consumption and cost due measure implementation — approx. equivalent to power use of 900 residential homeslyear. 6, . Assumes concurrent implementation of Measure/Option 1 with Measure/Option 2 6ft,c 5.2009 0 2002 Syska Her.nessy Gmup. Inc 14 f i::;;:..Itirg + Fr__ainc:,r no _r, Te.chriology� + C:nnst i -inr - - - - -. - - --- exnuu Option - Modify* Cooling Tower Operational Sequences • Reduce Condenser Water Return Temperature — Reset condenser water supply temperature to chillers downward from 85 0'F to 75 -68 °'F in advance of ambient conditions conducive to plume formation. — Condenser water return temperature to towers will drop. — Stage LC chillers as follows to meet connected load': • Electric Chiller act as lead machine ® HTHW absorber act as-lag-1 machine_ (68°F low limit) -Steam absorber act as lag -2 machine (75 °F low limit) — Incrementally reducing condenser water supply temp will drive tower fan speed up,. M,,Mh 6. 200S I_ -- 1 6 [:nr)- ;k - Itir D + Er 4inr. ^r n,, + Tech noIogy + I"orist i i :t6- - -- - - -- S [ N9 SSY 1 � • Operate More Cooling Tower Cells Than Required! — Cell No. 4 (CT14) scheduled to come on line summer 07 — Spread heat rejection load among all towers — Distribute water to more tower cells than load requires — Each cell will reject incrementally less-moisture — increase fan speed M.nch 6.1099 - - - - -' - - "ti 2G02:Sysks Y,ennary Group; Inc: - J {{ C. I ti _jinn-r rin + Technology -1. Corista.-tio- -------- ------------------------ UN U Option I ® ModiTy perational Sequences Pros — Incremental 10-15% reduction in cooling tower water plume density, height and length. — Immediate implementation. Cons — Change in Cogen plant operation — Energy inefficient — increases Hospital's 'carbon footprint • $12,000 per year approx. annual increase in electrical consumption and cost due additional fan and pump operation during plume conditions. 5. 200- 02'02 Sy.k. He ... ssy Gruup, -i Erzjirw.�r nal i- Tvchnolr.�gy 4 SYS KA [ I FX`,:F'SSY - - - -------- — %Jption Modify Operational-Sequences Photograph incremental reduction in tower plume due to changes in operational sequences. — Three photo angles — Location 1: On grade parking lot — Location 2: Hillside property line, northwest corner tower enclosure — Location 3: Hillside property line, northeast corner Cogen Plant Location 2 4�N) mx6. 2003 rA lut £;i t!iE' SY •— 'GYbISC �— 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) W,ru 6..2e0a 0 -c Fingi'ntt ^r ria + -fc chru?Ir _jy + 4 CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: January 9, 2008 • 'TIME: 7:30 — 8:15 AM • 'WEATHER CONDITIONS': — Temperature: 52.4 deg: F — Rel. Humidity 86 %P RH — Wind Speed: Calm — :Wind Direction:' N/A • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: ,I — Test Duration: 45 minutes — Cond: Water Return Temp: 84 deg. F — Cond'. Water Supply Temp; 76.5 deg. F — Cond': Water Flow: 8,386 GPM - Heat Rejection: 31,450 MBH — Percent Capacity: 61% 0 2Q02$yske'He..msv',G up. Inc 20 SYSKA II M' RxQUR _ — 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) 'march 5, zoos C rizji:nnr ?r nia a- Tc.chriolcxjy .E !:r7nstri ?it }- I 4 CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: January 10, 2008 • TIME`t 7:15 - -7:45, AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 49.8 deg. F Rel. Humidity: 83% RH Wind Speed: 2 mph — Wind, Direction: SW AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: i i — Test Duration 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 86'deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 79.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 7,823 GPM — Heat. Rejection: 25,400 MBH — Percent Capacity: 49% ! 21 +92002 oYska l'.en�ssYGruP. Irc: I - ',' - - -' '� -° " C,,ni�ultirg -i Erqine,ar nf2 + + Cowm.,-tb, ceaao I -------- - - - 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) 4 CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: January 15, 2008 • TIME: 7-00 — 7:30 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: Temperature: 51.4 deg. F �Rel. Humidity: 51-0/6 RH Wind Speed: .3 mph Wind Direction:. SW • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test,Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 82 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 75 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 7,257 GPM — Heat Rejection: 25,400 MBH — Percent Capacity: 49% 0 2002 Syska Hammy Group. Inc 22 aunerr 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) C.;a`t .rlfirg -i En_aine: r nra + Technic-logy + C;nnStn :tP�' i 4 CELL, OPERATION (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE`.. • TIME: TREND DATA January 1,6, 2008 715 — 7 :45 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 49.3 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 91% RH Wind Speed` 3 mph Wind Direction NE AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — 'Test Duration; 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 81 deg. F -- Cond.,Water'SupplyTemp: 74 deg. F — Cond. Water.Flow: 6,358 GPM — Heat Rejection: 22,300 MBH — Percent Capacity: 45 % &l.,.h 5. 2009 i 23. 02002 Syska Hennessy'Gim., Inc. s Y SYSIS A ILENNESSY G66t14 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) s p I C`c.,r:.altir d -i ErairnO:•r FIG 4- l +,11 ,10gy + 4 CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx.5 -deg. F Cond. Water Reset), January 17, 2008 7 :00 -`7930 AM WEATHER CONDITIONS:' -Temperature: 55.7 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 11 %o'RH — Wind Speed: 14 mph -- Wind Direction: ENE AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — 'Cond. Water Return Temp: 83.5 deg, F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 75 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 5,325 GPM — Heat Rejection: 22,600 MBH — Percent Capacity: 45% 5'Sk t { EIMNENSY GBOti6 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) Mmc89.2G0 P v .r Frgirw.,,r na .i- Technology + -.onstrr t43- — - - 4 CELL OPERATION (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond, Water Reset) • DATE: • TIME: i i TREND DATA January 22, 2008 8:00 - 8:30 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: -- Temperature: 57.1'deg. F - Rel. Humidity -: 71 %'R!H - Wind Speeds 6 mph - Wind Direction: SE • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: - Test Duration: 30 minutes - Cond. Water Return Temp: 82.5 deg. F - Cond. Water Supply Temp: 75 deg. F - Cond. Water, Flow: 5,295 GPM - Heat Rejection 19,900 MBH - Percent Capacity: 40% 25 fl 2002 SYekz H.,,, sy Gm Inc. G 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) I.Inr.h 6, 2003 .. . ....... ...... 4-CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: January 23, 2008 • TIME: - 7:00 — 7:30 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 48.8 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 79% RH — Wind Speed: 7 mph — Wind Direction: ESE • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: Test Duration: 30 minutes Cond. 'Water Return Temp: 81.5 deg. F Cond: 'Water Supply.Temp: 75 deg. F C6hd. Water Flow: 5,544 GPM Heat Rejection: 18,000 MBH Percent' Capacity: 36% 26 2002 5ysMa Plen � nessy Gu, In:. C. ..rv;u It irlg + Engine, r rig 4� Techno I ogy strk.-: 6- asoar '3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) 4 CELL OPERATION (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water, Reset) • DATE: - TIME: TREND DATA January 24, 2008 7:15 —7:45 AM WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 48.2 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 81% RH — Wind Speed: 11 mph — Wind Direction: SSE . AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 81 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 75 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 7,214GPM — Heat Rejection: 21,600 MBH P,r rcent Capacity'. 43% 0 M2 Inc 27 U SY—SKA flre,\NES`Y .00Wp 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) March 5. 2W5 C.,-,-vadfirg -�Emqinv:,r na -i- 7cc.hriology + ^ori.sta.., .............. ...... . .. ...... ....... - -------- . ........ . . ........ 4 CELL-OPERATION (Approx. SAeg. F bond. Water Reset) • DATE: • TIME: TREND DATA January 29, 2008 7:30 — S:00 AM WEATHER CONDITIONS: Temperature: 56.8 dog. F Rel. Humidity: 62% RH Wind Speed: 7 mph Wind Direction" SSW AVERAGE TOWER LOAD, — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 84 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 78 deg. F — Cond-Water Flow: 8,768 GPM — Heat Rejection: 26,300 MBH — Percent Capacity: 50% 10 2 02 Sy.k. Herrero Group, tm 28 Cc .flfir-j ErrigirwEr na. i- lcchnolo�qy -i- 4�')'N'KA f ------------- ------- --- . ..... 3 CELL OPERATION 4 CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (No Cond. Water Reset) (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: January 30, 2008 • TIME: 7:30 — 8:00 AM WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 49.7 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 76% RH — Wind,Speed: 2 mph — Wind Direction: NE AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 83 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 78 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 8,600 GPM — Heat Rejection: 21,500 MBH — Percent Capacity: 43% S r,s,m I II N,\rSsY 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) Nl=h 6.200 ip 1 Ci%1i;ultir- j -i c rig ine -r my 4 CELL OPERATION (Approx.'S deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: • TIME: TREND DATA January 31, 2008 7:15 —8:00 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 48.4 deg. F Rel. Humidity: 66% RH Wind Speed: 2 mph Wind Direction: NNW • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 45 minutes - Cond. -Water Return Temp: 84.5 deg. F - Cond: Water Supply Temp:: 78:5 deg.. F Cond. Water Flow: 9,425 GPM Heat Rejection: 28,275 MBH Percent-Capacity: 55 % 8200, Syska Hennessy Gmup, I-, 30 rN 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) Mnmb 5. 2008 C ., i ul ir- a Err_yne r na i- lnchnoingy -ti ;:orisr r .`iz} T - - -• - -- -- 4 CELL OPERATION (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: • TIME': TREND DATA February 5, 2008 7:1'5 -7:45 AM i • WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 49.6 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 44 % RH — Wind Speed: 5 mph — Wind Direction: NNE • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 85 deg. F — Cond: Water Supply Temp: 79 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 8,783 GPM — Heat Rejection: 26,350 MBH — Percent Capacity: 50 % b 2002 Sysk. F'e nessy G=P. In. 7 31. 1 ' )- *,a*N l it6N\ia4sY Guduu 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) S� HarA &.2009 :T s N C,c , v;ultir j + Ergifw r no + Tr chriolo, gy + sons} i.. ic,.., 4 CELL OPERATION (Approx. 5 -deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • "'DATE: • TIME: TREND DATA February 6, 2008 7:00 — 7 :45 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: Temperatures 47.5 deg. f Rel.'Humidity: 70% RH Wind Speed: 1 mph -- Wind Direction: S AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 45 minutes i 84.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temps 79 deg. F — Cond. Water Flowa 8,803 GPM — 'Heat Rejection: 24,200 MBH — Percent Capacity: 47 % TREND DATA February 6, 2008 7:00 — 7 :45 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: Temperatures 47.5 deg. f Rel.'Humidity: 70% RH Wind Speed: 1 mph -- Wind Direction: S AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 45 minutes — 'Cond. Water Return Temp: 84.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temps 79 deg. F — Cond. Water Flowa 8,803 GPM — 'Heat Rejection: 24,200 MBH — Percent Capacity: 47 % ^52002 SYska Hennessy Cr`uF, liic - - ------ i ,32 UN ail ",sm i i {;ti sa,541` eco�a 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) Mn,d, 6.2008 �r \ju V .tItir g -+ Eruainevr no +- (rrhsnoIogy! +, I , i I I 4CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. 'F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE: February 7, 2008 • TIME: 7:00 — 7:30 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 45.7 deg. F — R61. Humidity: 79 % RH — Wind Speed; 7'mph - Wind Direction: WSW • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 83.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 77.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 8,812 GPM — Heat Rejection: 26,500 MBH — Percent; Capacity: 51% 5 2,±02 :Spk. H.mr^ SSV G..P. I.. 33 I ra S5'stux tll", Nrssy cua o- 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond, Water Reset) C`r; =' a. ltir- -H kr Vinci r nr r.T t:hricalo; jy + fa;7nstrt , =is,. —41 i t 4'CELL OPERATION T_ REND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond., Water Reset) • DATE February 12, 2008 • TIME-: 7:30: — 8:00 AM WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 55.2 deg. F — Rel. Humidity:, 84% RH — Wind Speed's I mph - Wind Direction: N i E • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. :Water Return Temp: 86 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 77.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 8,004 GPM — Heat, Rejection: 34,000 MBH — Percent Capacity: 66 %e 22= Syske Hennessy Gruuo, I:c" - — 34 cvona 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) 4 CELL OPERATION TREND DATA (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) • DATE! February 14, 2008 • TIME: 7:1.5' -7:45 AM • WEATHER CONDITIONS: Temperature; 52.7 deg. F Rel. Humidity: 56%, RH Wind Speed: 9 mph Wind Direction: r NE • AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 86.5 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 78 deg. 'F — Cond. Water Flow: 8,211 GPM — Heat Rejection: 34,900 MBH — Percent Capacity: 68% 6. 2DO- ..... . .. ... . ... 02092 S,k. Henncsy G.U, Inc V\ 4COUV 3 CELL OPERATION (No Cond. Water Reset) IAerd, 5. 2003 T t.:: j;ultiug i Erv_lin .,r n -r- T chriol<,gy + C:o'trst,r :`ir: 4 CELL OPERATION (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) DATE TIME : - TREND DATA February 20, 2008 715 — 7:45:AM * WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 54.5 deg. F —_ Rel. Humidity: 94 % RH — Wind Speed: 13 mph — Wind Direction: ENE AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: (i t i — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond'. Water Return Temp: 85 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 77.5 deg. F Cond.''Water'Flow: 8,981 GPM — Heat Rejection: 33,700 MBH - Percent :Capacity: 65 % b 2002 Sysk* Hennessy Group, Inc. ! - ! 36 - - -- ------- ---- 3 CELL OPERATION 4CELL.OPERATION TREND: DATA (No Cond. Water Reset) (Approx. 5 deg. F Cond. Water Reset) klmh S. 2009 1 • DATE: February 21, 2008 • TIME: 7:30 - -8' :00 AM WEATHER CONDITIONS: — Temperature: 54.8 deg. F — Rel. Humidity: 72% RH — Wind Speed: 7 mph _ Wind Direction: E AVERAGE TOWER LOAD: — Test Duration: 30 minutes — Cond. Water Return Temp: 84 deg. F — Cond. Water Supply Temp: 77 deg. F — Cond. Water Flow: 9,021 GPM — Heat Rejection: 31,600 MBH — Percent Capacity: 61% -D 2W2 SyAa Hennessy Grvo, Inc. 37 7 i C :;n. :uIfir c Er irx ar nil -k Tcch.no iIogy + :;onstrc ciD' �.... sys' A I ILNINi s4Y Option 2® ooli�n, T goer a i� u • Blend cold water from tower basin to warm condenser water return header, and spread the load among more cells, to reduce condenser water return temperature to operating towers • Used in conjunction -with modified operational sequences outlined under Option 1. • Scope of Work: — New basin pump, variable frequency drive and bypass piping system — Instrumentation and controls — Weather station — Power distribution system — Instrumentation and controls C C 200 sxme Y.ennessy c�wm�. 39 Ml tiYSKA I IEKiN :: ,Y. G9bu9 ti 2 i i { r: i ;t.ltirq a Er.gin[ ^.rar nra + Technology + d.r:rn n ; � icy•' .- - - -_ .. i 1 � Iin Tower in se NEW BASIN PUMP AND NEW WEATHER STATION BYPASS SYSTEM Q-C — C, Q I NEW CT 14 EXIST. CT -13 EXIST. CT -12 EXIST. CT -11 F N IAarch n. 2009. ft1.200'e bysY.o He..mossy Gnup, Irt� - - -- ._ 40 4<r: ; -st ltir + Er jirit : r nra d- ft r:F'Fncalrcay r: C:cpnstn :i.>' — - :SYSKA 1 i8 ?NINESSY cenm ti n® C ling Tower Basin u st • Pros — Incremental 15 -20% reduction in cooling tower water plume density, height and length when used is combination with Option 1. • Cons — Approximate $500,000 construction cost — OSHPD plan check and permitting required:- - Condenser water service curtailment - interruption of- Hospital Operation during construction • Tower shutdown required to facilitate construction, — Energy inefficient — increases Hospital's "carbon footprint" $24,000 per year approx. annual increase in electrical consumption and cost due to tower fan and pump operation during plume conditions. M�rcrtB.200s +L V\ 02002 Spske Hennev, Group. luo. 41 \owe � /W %\ ? o ( Cc n-,VaJfiFg Erginpi,r na + Tnchnology + Constrk -,t4), SYS KA caaua ---------- — ----- .................. M M-9 0 Option 3 - New Tower with Plume Mitigation r% Svstern .0 Replace existing cooling tower with new cooling tower equipped With plume mitigation system. Retrofit of existing cooling tower with plume mitigation system not cost effective due to: — OSHPD seismic requirements — High labor Cost Component — Lengthy downtime Option scope of work follows: 0 2002 Syska Hemessy GrQUD, IFIC, 43 R + Er. V j I st rk �: k -_jinm r no 4- Tich-nolk-9-y + Cor I S]M.D Cmzmw FIFES (TIP.) FLOUT ROO == r7l,.,, mo� t4AC,wP,P,ll ", 11 =",* RK COOLIKG LONER .0j"llno ki.mh S. 2GOZ —6, SIS n 5M, WWARP BiSIN i AR FLOW AIR OWN <=�� ca' SUPP'ORT NEW 4-CELL STAINLESS STEEL COOLING TOWER W/ PLUME MITIGATION SYSTEM NEW SCREENING WALL EXTENTION —APPROX. 10' NOTE: REF. SCOPE OF WORK NARRITIVE FOR ADDITIONAL WORK NOT SHOWN REWORK EXISTING BASIN SAND FILTRATION TO ACCOMIDATE TOWER 44 rx kiYSKA I Ig _ NFSS: ca... :. ,n z t , I t i r, j f fr;_jiric ^r na lr:a nc,lr;_ay + Option 3 - New Tower with Plurn- e Mitt ation Spustern (Plan View) 1Il�fti0ilimMTOWER L=6F1 c �8, ! STEEL COOLING T• I FAa5 1 t ®¢ r W/ PLUME MITIGATION EXISTING COOLING SYSTEM —PHASED • • CONSTRUCTION ---I I MODIFY GOND. WATER RETURN BRANCH LINES LOCATIONS) NEW STEAM AND CONDENSATE PIPE RACK NOTE: REF. SCOPE OF � =.° NEW SINGLE STORY BOILER PLANT ANNEX (SINGLE. STORY): 250 BHP STEAM BOILER, CONDENSATE WORK NARRITIVE FOR _ RECEIVER, FEEDWATER SYSTEM DA, ADDITIONAL WORK. NOT AND ANCILLARY - SYSTEMS SHOWN Mirth S. 2108 r _vwl\ 1 _I -- - - > -- - - -i -- - -- - U'<CO <hi}•ska M,ennessp Gruo, ino. 45 MW Y;; Kk I I I \ Nj F.S S 1, GROOO C.,,n�ljlfimy -j- Er.line.,r rig +'h rk:nol gyr + I n n Option 3 - New Tower with Plume Mitigadiom System 0 Demolition scope of work: — Demolition phased with new work to minimize Hospital service interruptions. — Demo. existing four cell FRP cooling tower — Demo. existing fan variable frequency drive starters Demo. electrical power feeders Existing concrete basin to remain Existing condenser water pumping and piping system, to remain Existing sand filtration and chemical treatmentsystern to remain -_ - - i - - - - j I �2028yshaHennnsyGro,,Inc -1 -1 ! 46 C..-i I t i rg r E rz 9 i n o r n a i- Tc 0, n o o -or, R IF S)UA I IFNATMY Quo.* -------------- — Provide new FRP, stainless steel, wood or concrete tower • Four (4) cell tower rated at 85-96-72, 3125 GPM/celf • Two (2) cells equipped with steam or hot water plume abatement coils and bypass air dampers. • Phased erection to minimize service interruptions - - Provide four (4) new tower fan variable frequency drives � i — Provide new 250 BHP heat source for plume mitigation 'system. Options include: • New dedicated boiler (steam or hot water) and ancillary equipment • Replace existing 600 BHP boiler with 850 BHP boiler. Upsize associated ancillary equipment • New Cogen engine generator set exhaust gas heat exchangers and/or new 4thCogen engine generator set. Mz,,b 6. 2005 47 102001 S,ska 1 rnessY G.up. Int. J- C.Lri kdtir�j i I r_aine,,r nra r- T r_Enology + d Ytldp Uption 3 -New Tower with Plume, iti ation avustem ® Mechanical scope of work — Provide new steam or hot water piping, makeup piping, vents, drains, fittings, valves, insulation, etc., for plume mitigation system — Provide combustion makeup air system for heat source — Provide natural gas supply system for heat source — Provide sound attenuation system(s) for heat source- - Provide breeching and! stack if required — Expand existing control to include: ® New control power wiring Additional I/O control points and end devices- (automatic valves, etc.) • Revise existing GUl control interface • Provide new weather station Sequences of operation 48 6'2002 Syska Hennessj Cimm, In-. ^ rM SYSKA I IFNII�FSSY -i- Erginer?r ny i- lechnology 4 10% i Uption 3 - New Tower with Plume. Mitigation System • Electrical scope of work — Provide new power distribution systems for: -Cooling tower fans • Cooling tower fan variable frequency drives. - • New dedicated or replacement boiler (steam or hot water) and ancillary equipment or new 4th Cogen engine generator set. • New lighting and receptacle systems, etc. 0 2002 Sy,k. H ..... sy G,zw, Inc. 49 M SYSKY� I 11".XiNESSY Option 3 - New Tower with Plume Mitigation • Architectural scope of work: — Provide expansion of existing cogen plant to house new heat source equipment. • New out - building • Utilize space allocated for future engine generator sets — Provide line-of-sight and acoustical screen for cooling tower enclosure. 50 V2002 SVsk. Nennessl G,,,,,. Inc i C p. F.ultirg + Engirw r. na i- I'mi` °mlr gy + C onstrr in' SYSKA ! INNNESSY i �navp I Option ' ® New Tower with Plume Mlifigation Structural — Provide equipment anchorage: • New tower, • New variable frequency drives • Heat source equipment (new boiler, replacement boiler, new engine generator, etc.) — Provide new concrete housekeeping pad's • New variable frequency drives and heat source equipment — Provide new pipe racking system — Provide new screen wall structure on top of cooling tower enclosure — Provide new structural systems for Cogen plant expansion (to house new boiler systems). nr,�ti��,zaoe _ 02G02 >YSlca Henmssy Group, lnc. - 51 _ J 1 _ r r g + Er ,aim .,r na. -P -fechnology (.oristrk-' caouo ��i's KA. I I PINNI's'; Y Optioln 3® New Tower Eriumped with Plume Mitigation System 9 • Pros — Incremental 70% reduction (approximate) in cooling tower water plume density, height and length. Mmh S. 2009. 0 2002 syska pi..-'my G"I" Mc. 52 r a Er.aifWPF r10 1- Ic 0,rio 09Y + Co ns rt .. > j ti n 3® New Tower Equipped with Plume Mitigation System O Cons — Major interruption /disruptions to Hospital Operation to facilitate construction. — $7.9 — 8.9 million construction cost. — OSHPD plan check and permitting required'. — Lengthy phased construction schedule _ approximately 9 months. — Tower height increases by approximately 10 feet. — Incremental increase of sound power levels (noise) at property lines. — Increase in Cogen Plant boiler emission. — Energy inefficient — increases Hospital's "carbon footprint" $84,300 per year approx. annual increase in natural gas and electrical consumption due to plume mitigation system operation during plume events h9.rcf,5. ]OG3 0 20e $yska POr.r.essV `(iruo, I.C. B.` :4 1 53 MW C. I I ir + Ergirw.r no 4- lechno I c -)q Y 4 -`owstrn m, ----- - I M's*x I WiN'XFsS)- Option 1 ® Mechanical, Di I luffro n stern • Premise: — Dilute the hot exhaust gas with coo,I outdoor air to -lower -stack discharge air temperature. Cooler exhaust will cause less visual distortion to viewers. a Scope: — Provide mechanical dilution system consisting, of dilution fans, outdoor air intake, ducting, controls, and exhaust stack rework, architectural, enclosure, structural support, etc. Cons: — Exhaust gas condensation issue. — Increase in noise at property line. — Added energy consumption and cost associated with fans. — Rework of exterior exhaust'stacks.and system screen, modification of Cogen building exterior fagade-will require Coastal Commission -review and approval — 18 month period. — Construction cost. March s, zoos ,5 2002 S,ska G,.up, lnc. 55 ; -------------- 4 tF:.Jm('PF fIQ 4- lcchnohg� + SYSKA 1, IEN N E S 1, Y Option '26 - Relocate SAack Discharge Premise: — Redirect exhaust to minimize line-of-sight visual distortion from adjacent Condos. Scope: — Relocate stack discharge to horizontal position, exhausting from the west exposure of the Cogen building. Cons: — Rework of exterior exhaust stacks and system screens — Modification of Gogen building exterior facade. Coastal Commission approval required— 18 month timeline,,-. — Construction cost — Heat resistivity of Cogen building fagade — Staining of Cogen building facade. 0 2GD2 Sysk. Hmn�y Group, Inc M A-- Premise: — Redirect exhaust to minimize line-of-sight visual distortion from adjacent Condos. Scope: — Relocate stack discharge to horizontal position, exhausting from the west exposure of the Cogen building. Cons: — Rework of exterior exhaust stacks and system screens — Modification of Gogen building exterior facade. Coastal Commission approval required— 18 month timeline,,-. — Construction cost — Heat resistivity of Cogen building fagade — Staining of Cogen building facade. 0 2GD2 Sysk. Hmn�y Group, Inc M R S: z: t =Itir. -r Fr_aine—r nrs :r Technology a- - SYSIO, I INNN .S4 ' 4NOU✓ Uption 3 ® Exhaust Economizers ® 'Premise: Provide economizer systems downstream of the existing silencers to transfer exhaust gas heat to HVAC heating Hot..Water system or Cooling Tower ® Scope: — Provide exhaust gas heat exchangers, heat recovery pumping system, cooling tower /HVAC Heating Hot Water heat exchangers, controls, etc., — Provide new Cogen building exterior soffits /facade to enclose heat exchangers. Cons: Concurrent thermal load needed for heat sink — may not exist — Increase in engine backpressure derates engine performance Construction cost — Modification of Cogen building exterior facade.. Coastal Commission approval required 18 month timeline. March 6. 2009, T J 'D 2002 Syska He nmy 2apup, Inc. 57 - prlldd �Ipj' n a :'� s. ✓ +y a+ Ley ° �* 4 � T .g� {k.#`"a}'� a J 4�' t` Rix +s�1* 'A"'r ��+�' �.�, r ✓` x �.� 4011+ a` ' EV @ a A >•<"4 x �. a �>s�Au`":�gg ��` � � A F s �' AI ndix 8Cogen Plant Steam Venting c"t M..}.tron Measures r 3>]S2 1, �trga w s r5` F g ",R 4, c E€ i gn, 3 Y 4 y rx n -I- lrr,inep, na, + *Tcchnoh�jy + I The Plant has automatic and manual steam pressu re safety-and,-atmospheric vents for the following equ,ipment: — Steam Boiler — Waste Heat Recovery Units — Condensate Receiver Tanks Automatic Steam Pressure Safety Vents,.-;, — Automatic high �pressure sa-fety��reT�lease!�val-vesliasToq ed'b ode — Steam would orilly be vented from these in 8in abnorrrtaf!�corvdition where, the steam header pressure became excessivei in the syste m-i,.i — Hoag has replaced the pressure relief valves on these vents due to the; old valves leaki • and ventingi steam ito the atmosphere. Z 2002 Syska Heimessy Omup. ^'_ — - L 1 11 I ir i I — G -I- Ent, I rici + lechriology Cogen Plant Sl)team Vents ® Manual Steam Vent: — Manual steam vent from the boiler header used to relieve pressure in the steam system. I — During testing, this vent is used to relieve the steam, — In normal operation, vent will be closed. — On a yearly basis, this vent will be used during -the annual AWD source testing. I I I I * Options to mitigate steam plume from Vents: — Option 1 — Relocate Steam Vents I — Option 2 — Vent Condensers 60 0 2002 Syslya Hennessy Gronp, Inc E Cn-v;uiltwy + Fri. jirw,�r nu -k Te4mology ('.onstrt,-t4), S)sr Option 1 ® Relocate Steam Vents • Scope of work: Relocate automatic and manual rooftop steam vents from Cogen Plant roof to either: • Building southern exposure • Cooling tower enclosure yard • Pros: — Intermittent steam venting hidden from direct line-of-sight. • Cons: — Construction cost. — OSHPD plan check and permitting required. • Timeline for Implementation: 2009 • Estimate of Probable Construction Cost: $200,000— $300,000 Minch S. 2069 t 7,002 Sys%a Hennessy G—.nc, Inc. i i 61 - ----- - ---- --- C ar) L;u I fir j + Enq i n f, f,r no, a - Tcch ri o I ogy + Co ri st, ( -,t b- ------------- - Option 2 —Vent Condensers • Scope of work: — Provide vent condensers on automatic and manual steam vents. • Pros: — Removal of steam plume. • Cons: — Construction cost. — OSHPD plan check and permitting required. — Space may be an issue within plant for condensers. — Intermittent use will: • Add load to the chilled/'Conden,8er water system • Incrementally increase cooling tower plume during cool/Wet ambient conditions — Energy inefficient — increases Hospital's "carbon footprint" • Timeline for Implementation: 2009, • Estimate of Probable Construction Cost: $350,,000 - $500,000 kl.,O 6. 2�w 62 -------- - - -b 2002 Sys?.a H8nnersy Gmp, Inc.