19020 33 rd Avenue W, Suite 310, Lynnwood, WA 98036-4748 Tel: +1 425.412.1800 Fax: +1 425.412.1840 www.environcorp.com 

### May 30, 2012 Project No. 29-23586A

Mr. Gerardo Rios U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105
Subject: Updated Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis Sierra Pacific Industries Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project Anderson, California

Dear Mr. Rios:
This letter provides updated information regarding the air quality dispersion modeling analysis originally developed in support of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application submitted by Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) to construct and operate a new biomass-fired cogeneration unit at the existing Anderson facility. It is necessary to update the modeling as a result of some aspects of the final project design differing from the description provided in the submitted permit application. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9 requested, in an e-mail received by SPI on March 20, 2012, that SPI provide updated modeling results that could be used to assess the potential for startup and shutdown emission rates proposed by SPI for the cogeneration unit to comply with the short-term average National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ).
Modeling Analysis Update
Differences between the final project design, and that described in the originally submitted permit application, include:

 The height, diameter, exhaust velocity, and exhaust temperature of the cogeneration unit stack;

 The number of cells, height, diameter, exhaust velocity, and emission rate of the cooling tower;

 The addition of an emergency boiler feedwater pump powered by a natural gas-fired engine; and

 The locations of the new structures and emissions points within the facility and relative to one another.
A new modeling site plan is provided in the attached Figure 1, and the attached Table 1 provides updated emission point release parameters used for the updated simulations. Other than these changes, the updated modeling analysis followed the methodology outlined in the permit application. The criteria pollutant emission rates included in the modeling simulations are summarized in the attached Table 2. Design concentrations calculated by the model

### Mr. Gerardo Rios SPI-Anderson Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project May 30, 2012 Page 2
associated with normal operation are summarized in the attached Table 3, where the results are compared to the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and the Monitoring De Minimis Concentrations. Concentration isopleths for NO 2 

### , CO, and PM 2.5 

### are presented in Figure 2 through Figure 7, with the location of the design concentration indicated on each. The 1-hour average NO 2 

### (Figure 2) and 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### (Figure 6) concentrations are 5-year averages, and the 1-hour average NO 2 

### concentrations (Figure 2) are based on the assumption that 80 percent of the NO is converted to NO 2 

### , while the annual average NO 2 

### concentrations (Figure 3) are based on the assumption that 75 percent of the NO is converted to NO 2


### . As shown in Table 3, the 1-hour and annual average NO 2 

### , and 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### design concentrations were predicted to be greater than the applicable SILs. 1 

### As a result, additional modeling was required to assess compliance with the applicable NAAQS and PSD increments. Details of that additional modeling effort are provided later in this letter.
The attached Table 4 provides the maximum concentrations predicted by the model simulations, and combines them with background concentrations for comparison to the applicable California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). As shown in Table 4, none of the total concentrations were predicted to exceed the CAAQS.
Startup and Shutdown Emission Rates
In the March 20 e-mail and subsequent conference call, Region 9 requested that modeling results be provided for NO 2 

### , CO, and PM 2.5 

### that reflected worst-case conditions during startup. As described in the June 8, 2011 letter submitted by ENVIRON on behalf of SPI, the startup process takes approximately 12 hours. However, the startup and shutdown emission rates proposed in the June 8 letter were based on scaling previous modeling results, and, based on discussions with the boiler manufacturer, have been revised. During the startup process, CO and VOC emission rates are expected to exceed those experienced under normal operating conditions, while NO 2 

### , PM 2.5 

### , and SO 2 

### emission rates are not.
Startup modeling scenarios that incorporated the revisions described above were developed to assess compliance with short-term ambient standards during startup and shutdown. The startup and shutdown emission rates used in the modeling simulations are summarized in the attached Table 5. Only short-term ambient standards were addressed because the normal operation compliance assessment for annual average standards reflects the worst case scenario. SPI performs scheduled shutdowns of the cogeneration unit only once or twice a year, and each additional (unscheduled) shutdown-and-startup cycle actually decreases the annual emission rates of all criteria pollutants, as demonstrated by the attached Figures 2a and 2b.
Figure 2a and Figure 2b show total annual emission rates for criteria pollutants plotted against the number of startup and shutdown cycle per year. The startup portion of each cycle was assumed to consist of approximately 6 hours of firing on natural gas, then approximately 6 hours firing on biomass fuel. The shutdown portion of the cycle was assumed to consist of

1 The model receptor grid was extended from a 10-kilometer square to a 20-kilometer square when calculating 1-hour average NO X concentrations to encompass all receptors predicted to exceed the SIL.

### Mr. Gerardo Rios SPI-Anderson Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project May 30, 2012 Page 3
a 1-hour shutdown period when the criteria pollutant emission rates would be equivalent to those during startup, followed by 23 hours of no emissions (11 hours for the boiler to cool down, and 12 hours to make the repairs, etc. that necessitated the shutdown). Thus, each startup and shutdown cycle would reduce the maximum annual number of operating hours by 36 hours. Figure 2a shows annual emissions of all pollutants and the number of operating hours per year versus the number of starts per year, while Figure 2b shows annual emissions of all pollutants except NO X 

### and CO to more clearly show the trends for pollutants with lower annual emissions. These figures demonstrate that each additional start would reduce annual emissions, and therefore, development of one or more annual scenarios that incorporate startups and shutdowns to assess compliance with annual standards is not warranted.
Startup and Shutdown Modeling
To assess compliance with short-term ambient standards during startup and shutdown, the revised modeling described above was modified to reflect an increased CO emission rate, a flow rate equal to approximately 60 percent of that associated with full load (which results in a stack exhaust velocity of 36.7 ft/s or 11.2 m/s), and a reduced exhaust temperature (250 °F or 394 K). Design concentrations calculated by the model associated with startup and shutdown are summarized in the attached Table 6, where the results are compared to the SILs and the Monitoring De Minimis Concentrations. Concentration isopleths for NO 2 

### , CO, and PM 2.5 

### are presented in Figure 9 through Figure 12, with the location of the design concentration indicated on each. The 1-hour average NO 2 

### (Figure 9) and 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### (Figure 12) concentrations are 5-year averages, and the 1-hour average NO 2 

### concentrations (Figure 9) are based on the assumption that 80 percent of the NO is converted to NO 2


### . As shown in Table 6, the 1-hour average NO 2 

### and 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### design concentrations were predicted to be greater than the applicable SILs. As a result, additional modeling was required to assess compliance with the applicable NAAQS and PSD increments. Details of that additional modeling effort are provided below. Table 7 is a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations; these concentrations, after combining with representative background concentrations indicate compliance with all applicable CAAQS.
Cumulative Modeling Analysis
As noted above, the 1-hour and annual average NO 2 

### and 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### design concentrations predicted by the normal operation modeling simulations were in greater that the applicable SILs. As a result, additional analysis is required to assess the potential for compliance with the applicable NAAQS and PSD increments.
For comparison to the NAAQS, competing emission units are included in the modeling analysis and a representative background concentration is added. To this end, Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (TCAPCD) were contacted and asked to provide a competing source inventory. The inventories were restricted to permitted sources of NO 2 

### and PM 2.5 

### that were within

### Mr. Gerardo Rios SPI-Anderson Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project May 30, 2012 Page 4
50 kilometers (km) plus the distance from SPI’s Anderson facility to the most distant receptor predicted to exceed the applicable SIL. The most distant receptor predicted to exceed an NO 2 

### SIL 2 

### was approximately 5.4 km from the facility, so the competing source NO 2 

### emission inventory included industrial sources located 55.4 km or less from the facility. The most distant receptor predicted to exceed the 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### SIL was approximately 1.0 km from the facility, so the competing source NO 2 

### emission inventory included industrial sources located 51.0 km or less from the facility. The competing source emission inventories are provided in Table 8 (NO X 

### ) and Table 9 (PM 2.5 

### ).
Screening analyses were developed using the same modeling methodology applied to the project to determine which, if any, of the competing sources were predicted to have a significant impact (i.e., an impact greater than the applicable SIL) at one or more of the receptors the project was predicted to have a significant impact. The results of these screening analyses are provided in Table 10 through Table 14. Sources predicted to have a significant impact were included in the cumulative modeling analyses with the facility. No effort was made to eliminate receptors located on site at the competing source, resulting in a conservative analysis.
An existing dust collection system associated with rail car loading at SPI’s Anderson facility, consisting of a cyclone and a baghouse, was included in the cumulative PM 2.5 

### modeling. The fan drawing air through the system has a maximum flow rate of 66,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), which was combined with manufacturer-provided grain loading of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) to calculate a maximum short-term emission rate of 2.82 pounds per hour (lb/hr), and, assuming continuous operation (8,760 hours per year), a maximum annual emission rate of 12.3 tons per year (tpy). 3 

### Emission release parameters used to represent the dust collection system in the modeling simulations were as follows: release height above grade – 37 ft (11.3 m), effective release diameter – 6.02 ft (1.83 m), exhaust velocity – 38.7 ft/s (11.8 m/s), and exhaust temperature – 68 °F (293 K). The POINTHOR option available in the current version of AERMOD was used to reflect the horizontal orientation of the exhaust exit from the control system.
Results of the cumulative modeling analyses based on normal operation are summarized in Table 15. When design concentrations are combined with representative background concentrations, the predicted total concentrations indicate compliance with all applicable NAAQS. Analyses of short-term concentrations were not restricted to the time periods during which the proposed project was predicted to exceed the SILs, adding further conservatism to the results. No concentration isopleth figures were developed for the cumulative analyses. To facilitate post-processing of model results, is restricted to only receptors at which the proposed project was predicted to exceed the SIL.

2 When more than one averaging period SIL is exceeded for a given pollutant, the maximum distance to a receptor that exceeds any of the SILs determines the competing source inventory area for all averaging period SILs associated with that pollutant. 3 The flow was corrected from an assumed ambient temperature of 70 °F to standard conditions, but no correction was made for moisture in the air.

### Mr. Gerardo Rios SPI-Anderson Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project May 30, 2012 Page 5
The cumulative modeling process described above was repeated for the cogeneration unit startup scenario. Results of the cumulative modeling analyses based on modeled startupconditions are presented in Table 16. As for the project-only modeling analyses, only shortterm averaging periods associated with relevant ambient standards were considered. When design concentrations reflecting startup conditions are combined with representative background concentrations, the predicted total concentrations indicate compliance with all applicable NAAQS.
Pollutants predicted to exceed the SILs must assess compliance with the PSD increments as well as the NAAQS. In theory, compliance with PSD increments would be determined using competing source inventories that included only increment-consuming sources. In practice, however, because developing such an inventory requires considerable time and effort, the inventory developed for the NAAQS compliance analysis is used for a PSD increment screening analysis. 4 

### This screening analysis is essentially a comparison of the cumulative modeling analysis results developed for the NAAQS compliance analysis and the PSD increments, without the addition of background concentrations.
In this case, evaluations of compliance with the annual average NO 2 

### and 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### PSD increments are required. USEPA has not promulgated a PSD increment for 1-hour average NO 2 

### . The PSD increment for annual average NO 2 

### is 25 μg/m 3 

### ; as shown in Table 8, the maximum NO 2 

### concentration predicted by the cumulative modeling simulation is 1.75 μg/m 3 

### , which indicated compliance with the PSD increment. Because this project is the first in the area to exceed the SIL established for 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### , it represents theonly increment-consuming emission units in the area. As a result, the results of the projectonly analysis can be used to assess compliance with the PSD increment, which, for 24-hour average, is 9 μg/m 3 

### . As shown in Table 4, the maximum predicted 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### concentration associated with normal operation is 2.23 μg/m 3 

### , and the maximum predicted concentration associated with startup and shutdown is 3.36 μg/m 3 

### ; both indicate compliance with the PSD increment.

Class I Area PM 2.5 

### Analysis
The March 2010 permit application as well as the July 1, 2010 letter sent in response to an incompleteness determination and information request, explains that scaling the Class I area modeling developed for the PSD permit application submitted in May 2007 for SPI’s previous proposed biomass-fired cogeneration project indicated that none of the Class I area SILs were likely to be exceeded. At the time, EPA had not promulgated SILs for PM 2.5 

### , and the PM 10 

### surrogacy policy was still in effect. Now that the PM 2.5 

### SILs have been adopted, EPA has asked SPI to assess the need for a PSD increment compliance demonstration by comparing PM 2.5 

### concentrations attributable to the proposed project to the applicable SILs.
Although PM 2.5 

### was not included in the May 2007 PSD permit application analysis, PM 2.5 

### concentrations were developed using the original CALPUFF results, and the post-processing

4 The emission inventory used to evaluate compliance with the NAAQS contains all permitted sources, those that consume increment, as well as those that do not. Because it includes non-increment consuming emissions, use of this inventory to evaluate compliance with a PSD increment is considered a conservative approach.

### Mr. Gerardo Rios SPI-Anderson Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project May 30, 2012 Page 6
programs POSTUTILS and CALPOST. Reflecting current guidance from EPA, 5 

### the coarse PM, sulfate, and nitrate fractions were removed from the post-processing originally used to develop PM 10 

### concentrations to obtain PM 2.5 

### concentrations. As described in the March 2010 permit application, the results were scaled by a factor of 1.25 to reflect the 25 percent greater heat input capacity of the currently proposed cogeneration unit, as compared to the unit proposed in the May 2007 permit application. The maximum three-year by-receptor average concentrations in the most-impacted Class I area (the Yolla Bolly – Middle Eel Wilderness Area) were 0.0118 μg/m 3 

### on a 24-hour average basis, and 0.000602 μg/m 3 

### on an annual average basis. Both are less than the applicable PM 2.5 

### Class I SILs (0.07 μg/m 3 

### on a 24-hour average basis, and 0.06 μg/m 3 

### on an annual average basis), which indicates that the proposed project will not significantly impact nearby Class I areas.

Conclusions
The new biomass-fired cogeneration unit proposed by SPI for installation and operation at their existing facility in Anderson, California was re-evaluated for compliance with ambient standards and PSD increments following finalization of the project design. At EPA’s request, compliance during startup and shutdown and PM 2.5 

### impacts in nearby Class I areas were also evaluated. The results of the analyses indicated that, under normal operation, as well as during startup and shutdown periods, the proposed biomass-fired cogeneration unit does not have the potential to cause or contribute to violations of ambient standards or PSD increments.
We believe that the information provided in this letter addresses the information requested by Region 9, and should be considered to amend the submitted PSD permit application. Please let me know if Region 9 requires any additional information to finalize the draft permit. If you or your staff has any additional questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425.412.1804.
Sincerely yours, ENVIRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Eric Albright Senior Manager

Enclosures
cc: Omer Shalev, USEPA Region 9 Cleveland Holladay, USEPA Region 9 Ross Bell, Shasta County Air Pollution Control District Shane Young, Sierra Pacific Industries Dave Brown, Sierra Pacific Industries

5 The e-mail message from Stanley Krivo of EPA Region 4 to Bart Brashers of ENVIRON confirming this approach to obtaining PM 2.5 concentrations from CALPUFF for regulatory application is attached.

### Table 1 **Point Source Release Parameters**

**Source Height**  **(ft) Diameter**  **(ft) Exit Velocity**  **(ft/s) Temperature**  **(°F)** Proposed Cogeneration Unit 1 85 8.5 61.1 350 Cooling Tower (Each of 3 Cells) 41.6 32.8 23.9 73 Emergency Backup Feedwater Pump Engine 6.58 0.333 209 1,151 1 For the startup scenario, the exit velocity was reduced to 36.7 ft/s and the exhaust temperature was reduced to 250 °F.



### Table 2 **Modeled Normal Operation Emission Rates**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Units**  **Proposed Cogeneration**  **Unit 1**  **Cooling Tower**  **(All 3 Cells Combined)**  **Emergency Backup**  **Feedwater Pump Engine**  **2**

NO X Hourly Avg. lb/hr 70.2 -- 0.782 Annual tpy 242 -- 0.0391

CO Hourly Avg. lb/hr 108 -- 6.11 8-Hour Avg. lb/hr 108 -- 0.764

PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 Daily Avg. lb/hr 8.93 0.272 0.000899 Annual tpy 37.3 1.19 0.00108

SO 2 Hourly Avg. lb/hr 2.34 -- 0.00127 3-Hour Avg. lb/hr 2.34 -- 0.000423

Daily Avg. lb/hr 2.23 -- 0.0000529

Annual tpy 9.32 -- 0.0000635 1 Based on the following maximum firing rates: 467.9 MMBtu/hr hourly average, 446.7 MMBtu/hr daily average, and 425.4 MMBtu/hr annual average. 2 Based on maintenance and testing operation no more than 1 hour per day and 100 hours per year.

### Table 3 **Normal Operation Project-Only Modeling Results**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Design**  **Concentration 1**  **SIL 1,2**  **Over SIL?**  **Monitoring De**  **Minimis 1,3**  **Over De Minimis?** 

NO 2 4 1-Hour 26.3 7.5 Yes -- --
Annual 1.35 1 Yes 14 No

CO 1-Hour 122 2,000 No -- --
8-Hour 36.0 500 No 575 No
PM 10 24-Hour 2.23 5 No 10 No

PM 2.5 5 24-Hour 1.84 1.2 Yes -- --
Annual 0.272 0.3 No -- --

SO 2 1-Hour 1.15 7.8 No -- --
3-Hour 0.952 25 No --

-- 24-Hour 0.527 5 No 13 No
Annual 0.0689 1 No --

-- 1 Concentrations are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) 2 SIL = Significant Impact Level. Taken from USEPA’s New Source Review Workshop Manual (October, 1990), Table C-4, except the 24-hour and annual average PM 2.5 SILs, which are from 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2), and the 1-hour average NO 2 interim SIL as described in the memorandum “Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program,” issued by Stephen Page, Director of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 3 Monitoring de Minimis concentrations from 40 CFR 52.21(i)(8)(i). 4 Based on guidance in the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memorandum issued on March 1, 2011 by Tyler Fox, Leader of the Air Quality Modeling Group at EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the one-hour average NO 2 concentrations were assumed to be 80 percent of the NO X concentrations calculated by the model. Annual average NO 2 concentrations were assumed to be 75 percent of the NO X concentrations calculated by the model, based on guidance in Section 6.2.3 of the USEPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (codified as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51). Also, based on guidance in the March 1, 2011 memorandum issued by Tyler Fox, the 1-hour average NO 2 design concentration is the maximum 1-hour average concentration averaged across the five modeled years at each receptor. 5 Based on guidance in the “Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM 2.5 NAAQS” memorandum issued on March 23, 2010 by Stephen Page, Director of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the 24-hour average design concentration for comparison to the SILs is the maximum 24-hour average concentration averaged at each receptor across the five modeled years.

### Table 4 **Normal Operation CAAQS Compliance Assessment**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Maximum**  **Predicted 1**  **Background 2**  **Total 3**  **CAAQS Over**  **CAAQS?**

NO 2 4 1-Hour 27.8 77.1 105 339 No
Annual 1.35 33.1 34.5 57 No

CO 1-Hour 122 2,976 3,098 23,000 No 8-Hour 36.0 2,404 2,440 10,000 No

PM 10 24-Hour 2.23 42.0 44.2 50 No
Annual 0.344 16.1 16.4 20 No
PM 2.5 5 Annual 0.344 5.30 5.64 12 No

SO 2 1-Hour 1.15 13.1 14.3 655 No
24-Hour 0.527 2.62 3.15 105 No 1 Concentrations are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) 2 Background concentrations are the maximum monitored concentrations (with exceptional event data removed, where applicable) from the following stations and years: NO 2 & CO: Chico – Manzanita Ave; maximum concentrations 2011 PM 10 : Anderson – North Street; 2011 PM 2.5 : Redding – Health Department Roof; 2011 SO 2 : Sacramento – Avalon Drive; 2011 Monitoring data are from EPA’s AirData website (http://www.epa.gov/aqspubl1/annual_summary.html) 3 Total = Maximum Predicted + Background 4 NO 2 was assumed to be 100 percent of the emitted NO X
. 5 All PM 10 was assumed to be PM 2.5

### Table 5 **Modeled Startup and Shutdown Emission Rates**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Units**  **Proposed Cogeneration**  **Unit 1**  **Cooling Tower**  **(All 3 Cells Combined)**  **Emergency Backup**  **Feedwater Pump Engine**  **2**

NO X Hourly Avg. lb/hr 70.2 -- --

CO Hourly Avg. lb/hr 108 -- -- 8-Hour Avg. lb/hr 108 -- --
PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 Daily Avg. lb/hr 8.93 0.272 --

SO 2 Hourly Avg. lb/hr 2.34 -- -- 3-Hour Avg. lb/hr 2.34 -- --

Daily Avg. lb/hr 2.23 -- -- 1 Mass emission rates are not expected to exceed those associated with normal operation, except CO. A worst-case emission rate of four times the mass emission rate expected during normal operations was assumed for startup and shutdown. 2. The emergency backup feedwater pump engine would not be operated for maintenance or testing when the cogeneration unit was being started or shutdown.

### Table 6 **Startup and Shutdown Project-Only Modeling Results**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Design**  **Concentration 1**  **SIL 1,2**  **Over SIL?**  **Monitoring De**  **Minimis 1,3**  **Over De Minimis?** 

NO 2 4 1-Hour 38.6 7.5 Yes -- --

CO 1-Hour 307 2,000 No -- --
8-Hour 212 500 No 575 No
PM 10 24-Hour 3.36 5 No 10 No
PM 2.5 5 24-Hour 3.11 1.2 Yes -- --

SO 2 1-Hour 1.67 7.8 No -- --
3-Hour 1.55 25 No --

-- 24-Hour 0.837 5 No 13 No 1 Concentrations are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) 2 SIL = Significant Impact Level. Taken from USEPA’s New Source Review Workshop Manual (October, 1990), Table C-4, except the 24-hour and annual average PM 2.5 SILs, which are from 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2), and the 1-hour average NO 2 interim SIL as described in the memorandum “Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program,” issued by Stephen Page, Director of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 3 Monitoring de Minimis concentrations from 40 CFR 52.21(i)(8)(i). 4 Based on guidance in the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memorandum issued on March 1, 2011 by Tyler Fox, Leader of the Air Quality Modeling Group at EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the one-hour average NO 2 concentrations were assumed to be 80 percent of the NO X concentrations calculated by the model. Annual average NO 2 concentrations were assumed to be 75 percent of the NO X concentrations calculated by the model, based on guidance in Section 6.2.3 of the USEPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (codified as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51). Also, based on guidance in the March 1, 2011 memorandum issued by Tyler Fox, the 1-hour average NO 2 design concentration is the maximum 1-hour average concentration averaged across the five modeled years at each receptor. 5 Based on guidance in the “Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM 2.5 NAAQS” memorandum issued on March 23, 2010 by Stephen Page, Director of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the 24-hour average design concentration for comparison to the SILs is the maximum 24-hour average concentration averaged at each receptor across the five modeled years.

### Table 7 **Startup and Shutdown CAAQS Compliance Assessment**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Maximum**  **Predicted 1**  **Background 2**  **Total 3**  **CAAQS Over**  **CAAQS?**

NO 2 4 1-Hour 40.0 77.1 117 339 No

CO 1-Hour 307 2,976 3,283 23,000 No 8-Hour 212 2,404 2,616 10,000 No
PM 10 24-Hour 3.36 42.0 45.4 50 No

SO 2 1-Hour 1.67 13.1 14.8 655 No
24-Hour 0.837 2.62 3.46 105 No 1 Concentrations are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) 2 Background concentrations are the maximum monitored concentrations (with exceptional event data removed, where applicable) from the following stations and years: NO 2 & CO: Chico – Manzanita Ave; maximum concentrations 2011 PM 10 : Anderson – North Street; 2011 PM 2.5 : Redding – Health Department Roof; 2011 SO 2 : Sacramento – Avalon Drive; 2011 Monitoring data are from EPA’s AirData website (http://www.epa.gov/aqspubl1/annual_summary.html) 3 Total = Maximum Predicted + Background 4 NO 2 was assumed to be 80 percent of the emitted NO X based on guidance in the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memorandum issued on March 1, 2011 by Tyler Fox, Leader of the Air Quality Modeling Group at EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 5 All PM 10 was assumed to be PM 2.5

### Table 8 **NO X**  

### Competing Industrial Source Emission Inventory

**Point Source Unit UTMx**  **(m) UTMy**  **(m) NO**  **X Emission**  **Rate (lb/hr)**  **Stack Height** 

**(ft) Stack**  **Temp.**

**(°F) Exit**  **Velocity**

**(ft/s) Stack**  **Diameter (in)** 

Kiara Co Gen Project (under constr.) 1 556901 4480286 19.20 77 374 35.4 84

Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 1 561184 4475287 50.67 170 260 58.4 90
2 561184 4475287 50.67 170 260 58.4 90
3 561184 4475287 50.67 170 260 58.4 90
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 1 561987 4476151 92.00 70 350 72.8 108x118

City of Redding Power Plant 1 548845 4484294 10.00 45 400 89.4 102
2 548845 4484294 12.10 45 400 89.4 102
3 548845 4484294 12.10 45 400 89.4 102
4a 548841 4484222 8.90 110 331 142.4 90
4b 548841 4484222 8.90 110 331 142.4 90
5 548731 4484141 4.20 100 575 108.9 112
6 548731 4484141 4.20 100 575 108.9 112 Ag Products Asphalt 1 549536 4484029 8.00 40 140 19.0 120 North State Asphalt 1 548075 4483242 9.17 50 140 19.0 120 JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 1 554477 4484456 25.00 80 120 18.3 120
Aramark Industries 1 552296 4492776 0.70 60 200 127.3 12

Knauf Insulation 1 551587 4501005 16.50 199 100 18.0 264
Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 1 552344 4502712 10.00 60 475 41.8 42
2 552344 4502712 6.54 60 300 39.0 42 Lehigh Cement 1 557225 4509534 247.50 175 285 79.0 83.5 JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 1 558579 4509638 11.00 50 140 29.7 96 Pactiv Corporation 1 567278 4444393 0.30 52 1000 43.6 48 North Valley Crematory 1 564652 4447377 0.10 15 1300 13.3 24

Lassen Forest Products 1 569475 4442292 1.20 8 1300 34.0 6
2 569475 4442292 1.90 8 1300 42.4 6
3 569475 4442292 1.60 8 1300 34.0 6
4 569475 4442292 1.20 8 1300 34.0 6 PG & E Gerber Compressor Station 1 567119 4434882 7.30 58 943 21.0 108
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 1 557822 4469048 0.70 8 1300 50.9 6
Chuck Wolf Sand And Gravel 1 555714 4460172 1.70 8 1300 50.9 6**Point Source Unit UTMx**  **(m) UTMy**  **(m) NO**  **X Emission**  **Rate (lb/hr)**  **Stack Height** 

**(ft) Stack**  **Temp.**

**(°F) Exit**  **Velocity**

**(ft/s) Stack**  **Diameter (in)** 

Ben’s Truck & Equipment Inc. 1 570761 4451508 1.10 8 1300 97.6 12
Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 1 568731 4441574 0.20 5 120 1.2 48
2 568731 4441574 0.20 5 120 1.2 48 Louisiana Pacific Corp. 1 568663 4442113 0.00 4 300 1.3 96

Siemens Water Technologies 1 568012 4442557 2.80 78 185 42.5 24
2 568012 4442557 0.20 20 185 8.0 24

North State Asphalt Inc. 1 560013 4469320 2.60 25 150 29.5 72
2 560013 4469320 6.00 15 120 30.0 12
3 560013 4469320 5.80 15 60 30.0 8 Tehama Asphalt Crushing 1 563975 4450548 7.40 8 1300 63.7 12

Tehama Asphalt Processing 1 564068 4450561 6.70 25 60 17.7 72
2 564068 4450561 6.70 25 120 29.5 72
3 564068 4450561 8.20 25 1300 23.3 4 California Power Holdings, LLC 1 567167 4444519 9.80 40 1300 53.1 24 Tehama County Landfill 1 560206 4449619 0.40 28 1600 8.9 60

SPI Powder Coatings 1 568311 4442156 0.60 30 150 42.4 12
2 568311 4442156 0.00 30 150 42.4 12
3 568311 4442156 0.10 30 150 39.8 24
4 568311 4442156 0.20 30 150 53.1 48
5 568311 4442156 0.20 30 150 53.1 24
6 568311 4442156 0.20 15 150 21.2 12

### Table 9 **PM 2.5**  

### Competing Industrial Source Emission Inventory

**Point Source Unit UTMx**  **(m) UTMy**  **(m) PM**  **2.5 Emission**  **Rate (lb/hr)**  **Stack Height** 

**(ft) Stack**  **Temp.**

**(°F) Exit**  **Velocity**

**(ft/s) Stack**  **Diameter (in)**  Kiara Co Gen Project (under constr.) 1 556994 4480302 9.60 77 373 35.4 84

Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 1 561276 4475303 20.00 170 260 58.4 90
2 561276 4475303 20.00 170 260 58.4 90
3 561276 4475303 20.00 170 260 58.4 90
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 1 562079 4476168 2.80 70 350 72.8 108x118

City of Redding Power Plant 1 548937 4484311 5.66 45 400 89.4 102
2 548937 4484311 5.66 45 400 89.4 102
3 548937 4484311 5.66 45 400 89.4 102
4a 548934 4484239 0.21 110 331 142.4 90
4b 548934 4484239 0.21 110 331 142.4 90
5 548824 4484158 2.70 100 575 108.9 112
6 548824 4484158 2.80 100 575 108.9 112 Ag Products Asphalt 1 549628 4484046 16.60 40 140 19.0 120 North State Asphalt 1 548168 4483259 2.59 50 140 19.0 120 JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 1 554569 4484472 71.20 80 120 18.3 120
Aramark Industries 1 552388 4492794 0.21 60 200 127.3 12

Knauf Insulation 1 551679 4501022 29.07 199 100 18.0 264
Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 1 552436 4502729 1.17 60 475 41.8 42
2 552436 4502729 0.47 60 300 39.0 42 Lehigh Cement 1 557317 4509551 17.90 175 285 79.0 84 JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 1 558671 4509656 9.60 50 140 29.7 96 Pactiv Corporation 1 567167 4444519 0.01 52 1000 43.6 48 North Valley Crematory 1 564652 4447377 0.03 15 1300 13.33333 24
Lassen Forest Products 5 569475 4442292 0.34 15 60 0.5 120 PG&E Gerber Compressor Station 1 567119 4434882 0.16 58 949 20.96667 108
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 2 557822 4469048 0.15 15 60 0.5 120

Ben’s Truck & Equipment Inc. 2 570761 4451508 2.03 15 60 0.5 120 Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 3 568731 4441574 0.54 5 60 24.93333 36 Louisiana Pacific Corp. 2 568663 4442113 2.13 65 70 65.98333 48

Crain Walnut Shelling 1 575235 4439261 0.03 18 60 18.56667 24 Long & Long Orchards, Inc. 1 574473 4442490 0.30 30 60 18.56667 24**Point Source Unit UTMx**  **(m) UTMy**  **(m) PM**  **2.5 Emission**  **Rate (lb/hr)**  **Stack Height** 

**(ft) Stack**  **Temp.**

**(°F) Exit**  **Velocity**

**(ft/s) Stack**  **Diameter (in)**  Siemens Water Technologies 1 567994 4442656 0.60 25 70 40.08333 36 California Power Holdings, LLC 1 567167 4444519 2.73 40 1300 53.05 24 Tehama County Landfill 1 560206 4449619 0.12 28 1600 8.916667 60

SPI Powder Coatings 7 568311 4442156 0.03 15 65 23.58333 36

**Volume Source Unit UTMx**  **(m) UTMy**  **(m) PM**  **2.5 Emission**  **Rate (lb/hr)**  **Release Height** 

**(ft) Initial**  **Horizontal Dimension**  **(ft) Initial**  **Vertical Dimension**  **(ft)** Bio Industries, Inc. 1 559651 4448205 0.164 5.0 22.9 4.7 Foothill Ready Mix 1 568110 4441709 1.084 15.0 22.9 14.0
Chuck Wolf Sand & Gravel 2 555714 4460172 0.002 4.0 22.9 3.7 Tehama Asphalt Crushing 2 563975 4450548 0.150 15.0 22.9 14.0

### Table 10 **Maximum Predicted 1-Hour Average NO 2**  

### Competing Source Concentrations **(Normal Operation Scenario)**

**Source Maximum NO**  **2 Concentration**  **1 (μg/m**  **3 )**  **Include in Cumulative Analysis?**  Kiara Co Gen Project (under const.) 24.2 Yes
Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 32.8 Yes
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 13.7 Yes City of Redding Power Plant 8.15 Yes Ag Products Asphalt 3.08 No North State Asphalt 3.07 No JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 14.9 Yes
Aramark Industries 0.323 No

Knauf Insulation 1.51 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 2.43 No Lehigh Cement 7.57 Yes JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 1.41 No Pactiv Corporation 0.0662 No North Valley Crematory 0.0525 No
Lassen Forest Products 2.76 No PG & E Gerber Compressor Sta. 1.27 No
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 2.14 No
Chuck Wolf Sand And Gravel 2.33 No Bens Truck & Equipment Inc 0.578 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 0.209 No Louisiana Pacific Corp. 0.0159 No Siemens Water Technologies 0.874 No North State Asphalt Inc. 51.9 Yes Tehama Asphalt Crushing 4.73 No Tehama Asphalt Processing 14.6 Yes California Power Holdings Llc 2.93 No Tehama County Landfill 0.119 No

SPI Powder Coatings 0.518 No

1 80 percent of NO X was assumed to be converted to NO 2
.

### Table 11 **Maximum Predicted Annual Average NO 2**  

### Competing Source Concentrations **(Normal Operation Scenario)**

**Source Maximum NO**  **2 Concentration**  **1 (μg/m**  **3 )**  **Include in Cumulative Analysis?**  Kiara Co Gen Project (under const.) 0.283 No
Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 0.0664 No
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 0.0200 No City of Redding Power Plant 0.0217 No Ag Products Asphalt 0.0121 No North State Asphalt 0.00743 No JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 0.0887 No
Aramark Industries 0.00232 No

Knauf Insulation 0.0106 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 0.0186 No Lehigh Cement 0.0968 No JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 0.00651 No Pactiv Corporation 0.000180 No North Valley Crematory 0.000120 No
Lassen Forest Products 0.00408 No PG & E Gerber Compressor Sta. 0.00302 No
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 0.00575 No
Chuck Wolf Sand And Gravel 0.00517 No Bens Truck & Equipment Inc 0.00125 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 0.000240 No Louisiana Pacific Corp. 0.0000225 No Siemens Water Technologies 0.00200 No North State Asphalt Inc. 0.101 No Tehama Asphalt Crushing 0.0105 No Tehama Asphalt Processing 0.0308 No California Power Holdings Llc 0.00680 No Tehama County Landfill 0.000353 No

SPI Powder Coatings 0.000810 No

1 75 percent of NO X was assumed to be converted to NO 2
.

### Table 12 **Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM 2.5**  

### Competing Source Concentrations **(Normal Operation Scenario)**

**Source Maximum PM**  **2.5 Concentration**  **(μg/m 3**  **) Include in Cumulative**  **Analysis?** Kiara Co Gen Project (under const.) 2.08 Yes
Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 0.685 No
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 0.0209 No City of Redding Power Plant 0.181 No Ag Products Asphalt 0.650 No North State Asphalt 0.0545 No JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 3.12 Yes
Aramark Industries 0.00974 No

Knauf Insulation 0.157 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 0.0406 No Lehigh Cement 0.0617 No JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 0.102 No Pactiv Corporation 0.000250 No North Valley Crematory 0.00144 No
Lassen Forest Products 0.0341 No PG & E Gerber Compressor Sta 0.00166 No
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 0.0541 No
Chuck Wolf Sand And Gravel 0.000490 No Bens Truck & Equipment Inc 0.272 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 0.0294 No Louisiana Pacific Corp. 0.0687 No Siemens Water Technologies 0 No North State Asphalt Inc. 0 No Tehama Asphalt Crushing 0.0107 No Tehama Asphalt Processing 0 No California Power Holdings Llc 0.0845 No Tehama County Landfill 0.00339 No

SPI Powder Coatings 0.00142 No

### Table 13 **Maximum Predicted 1-Hour Average NO 2**  

### Competing Source Concentrations **(Startup & Shutdown Scenario)**

**Source Maximum NO**  **2 Concentration**  **1 (μg/m**  **3 )**  **Include in Cumulative Analysis?**  Kiara Co Gen Project (under const.) 32.9 Yes
Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 35.8 Yes
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 31.9 Yes City of Redding Power Plant 9.18 Yes Ag Products Asphalt 7.53 Yes North State Asphalt 5.14 No JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 34.8 Yes
Aramark Industries 0.462 No

Knauf Insulation 1.71 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 2.57 No Lehigh Cement 7.89 Yes JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 1.46 No Pactiv Corporation 0.0737 No North Valley Crematory 0.0629 No
Lassen Forest Products 3.08 No PG & E Gerber Compressor Sta 1.48 No
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 2.49 No
Chuck Wolf Sand And Gravel 3.29 No Bens Truck & Equipment Inc 0.600 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 0.209 No Louisiana Pacific Corp. 0.0169 No Siemens Water Technologies 0.909 No North State Asphalt Inc. 68.0 Yes Tehama Asphalt Crushing 5.17 No Tehama Asphalt Processing 14.6 Yes California Power Holdings Llc 3.07 No Tehama County Landfill 0.177 No

SPI Powder Coatings 0.551 No

1 80 percent of NO X was assumed to be converted to NO 2
.

### Table 14 **Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM 2.5**  

### Competing Source Concentrations **(Startup & Shutdown Scenario)**

**Source Maximum PM**  **2.5 Concentration**  **(μg/m 3**  **) Include in Cumulative**  **Analysis?** Kiara Co Gen Project (under const.) 3.55 Yes
Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen 0.719 No
Wheelabrator Lassen Gas Turbine 0.0224 No City of Redding Power Plant 0.184 No Ag Products Asphalt 0.651 No North State Asphalt 0.0915 No JF Shea Smith Road Asphalt 3.57 Yes
Aramark Industries 0.0112 No

Knauf Insulation 0.160 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta Lake 0.0421 No Lehigh Cement 0.0629 No JF Shea Fawndale Asphalt 0.105 No Pactiv Corporation 0.00026 No North Valley Crematory 0.00147 No
Lassen Forest Products 0.0342 No PG & E Gerber Compressor Sta 0.00186 No
Cottonwood Creek Sand & Gravel 0.0636 No
Chuck Wolf Sand And Gravel 0.000490 No Bens Truck & Equipment Inc 0.272 No Sierra Pacific Industries, Red Bluff 0.0314 No Louisiana Pacific Corp. 0.0687 No Siemens Water Technologies 0 No North State Asphalt Inc. 0 No Tehama Asphalt Crushing 0.0113 No Tehama Asphalt Processing 0 No California Power Holdings Llc 0.0851 No Tehama County Landfill 0.00358 No

SPI Powder Coatings 0.00152 No

### Table 15 **Normal Operation NAAQS Compliance Cumulative Modeling Results**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Design**  **Concentration 1**  **Background Concentration**  **1,2 Total**  **Concentration 1,3**  **NAAQS 1,4**  **Over NAAQS?** 

NO 2 5 1-Hour 46.9 62.7 110 188 No
Annual 1.75 33.1 34.8 100 No
PM 2.5 6 24-Hour 14.6 15.3 29.9 35 No 1 Concentrations are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) 2 Background concentrations are based on monitored concentrations (with exceptional event data removed, where applicable) from the following stations and years: NO 2 : Chico – Manzanita Ave; 3-year average of the 98 th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations, 2009-2011 PM 2.5 : Redding – Health Department Roof; 3-year average of the 98 th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations ,2009-2011 3 Total Concentration = Design Concentration + Background Concentration 4 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 5 Based on guidance in the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memorandum issued on March 1, 2011 by Tyler Fox, Leader of the Air Quality Modeling Group at EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the one-hour average NO 2 concentrations were assumed to be 80 percent of the NO X concentrations calculated by the model. Also, based on guidance in the March 1, 2011 memorandum issued by Tyler Fox, the 1-hour average NO 2 design concentration is the maximum 1-hour average concentration averaged across the five modeled years at each receptor. 6 Based on guidance in the “Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM 2.5 NAAQS” memorandum issued on March 23, 2010 by Stephen Page, Director of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the 24-hour average design concentration for comparison to the SILs is the maximum 24-hour average concentration averaged at each receptor across the five modeled years.

### Table 16 **Startup and Shutdown NAAQS Compliance Cumulative Modeling Results**

**Pollutant Averaging**  **Period Design**  **Concentration 1**  **Background Concentration**  **1,2 Total**  **Concentration 1,3**  **NAAQS 1,4**  **Over NAAQS?** 

NO 2 5 1-Hour 94.0 62.7 157 188 No

PM 2.5 6 24-Hour 13.5 15.3 28.8 35 No 1 Concentrations are in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) 2 Background concentrations are based on monitored concentrations (with exceptional event data removed, where applicable) from the following stations and years: NO 2 : Chico – Manzanita Ave; 3-year average of the 98 th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations, 2009-2011 PM 2.5 : Redding – Health Department Roof; 3-year average of the 98 th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations ,2009-2011 3 Total Concentration = Design Concentration + Background Concentration 4 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 5 Based on guidance in the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memorandum issued on March 1, 2011 by Tyler Fox, Leader of the Air Quality Modeling Group at EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the one-hour average NO 2 concentrations were assumed to be 80 percent of the NO X concentrations calculated by the model. Also, based on guidance in the March 1, 2011 memorandum issued by Tyler Fox, the 1-hour average NO 2 design concentration is the maximum 1-hour average concentration averaged across the five modeled years at each receptor. 6 Based on guidance in the “Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM 2.5 NAAQS” memorandum issued on March 23, 2010 by Stephen Page, Director of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the 24-hour average design concentration for comparison to the SILs is the maximum 24-hour average concentration averaged at each receptor across the five modeled years.

### Figure 1. Updated Site Plan

### Figure 2. Normal Operation Project-Only 1-hr Average NO **2** 

### Concentrations **Averaged By-Receptor Over Five Years**UTM Northing (meters)

### Figure 3. Normal Operation Project-Only Annual Average NO **2** 

### Concentrations 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 4. Normal Operation Project-Only 1-hr Average CO Concentrations 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 5. Normal Operation Project-Only 8-hr Average CO Concentrations 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 6. Normal Operation Project-Only 24-hr Average PM **2.5** 

### Concentrations **Averaged By-Receptor Over Five Years** 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 7. Normal Operation Project-Only Annual Average PM **2.5** 

### Concentrations 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 8a. Annual Emission Rates and Hours of Operation Versus Number of **Starts Per Year** 0 876 1,752 2,628 3,504 4,380 5,256 6,132 7,008 7,884 8,760

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 50 100 150 200 250**Hours of Operation Per Year Po** **llutant Tons Per Year**

**Starts Per Year**

NOx CO SO2 PM-10 VOC Sulfuric Acid Lead Op. Hrs

### Figure 8b. Annual Emission Rates and Hours of Operation Versus Number of **Starts Per Year (with NO X**  

### and CO removed and scales adjusted to more clearly **show lower emitting pollutants)** 0 876 1,752 2,628 3,504 4,380 5,256 6,132 7,008 7,884 8,760

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

0 50 100 150 200 250**H ours of Operation Per Year** **Pollutant Tons Per Year**

**Starts Per Year**

SO2 PM-10 VOC Sulfuric Acid Lead Op. Hrs

### Figure 9. Startup & Shutdown Project-Only 1-hr Average NO **2** 

### Concentrations **Averaged By-Receptor Over Five Years**UTM Northing (meters)

### Figure 10. Startup & Shutdown Project-Only 1-hr Average CO Concentrations 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 11. Startup & Shutdown Project-Only 8-hr Average CO Concentrations 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### Figure 12. Startup & Shutdown Project-Only 24-hr Average PM **2.5** 

### Concentrations **Averaged By-Receptor Over Five Years** 553000 554000 555000 556000 557000 558000 559000 560000 561000 562000 UTM Easting (meters) 4476000 4477000 4478000 4479000 4480000 4481000 4482000 4483000 4484000 4485000UTMNorthing(meters)

### E-Mail From Stanley Krivo of USEPA Region 4 Discussing Inclusion of Precursors **When Predicting PM 2.5**  

### Concentrations in Class I Areas Using CALPUFF

-----Original Message----- **From:** Stanley Krivo [Krivo.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov] **Received:** Wednesday, 11 Apr 2012, 7:34am **To:** Bart Brashers [bbrashers@environcorp.com] **Subject:** Re: Refs or other backup for excluding secondary PM2.5 in a Class I analysis

Bart,

The Stephen Page 23 March 2010 clarification memo provides current guidance on modeling compliance with PM2.5 NAAQS. [ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/Official%20Signed%20Modeling%20Proc%20for%20Demo%20Co mpli%20w%20PM2.5.pdf ] Although the memo is written for NAAQS compliance, it should also be applicable for PSD increments.

I can not find any explicit reference concerning the limitations of CALPUFF to direct emissions accept Appendix A of Appendix W limits CALPUFF regulatory application to the default options. Another reference could be the requirement to consult with Regional EPA office on acceptable model/modeling procedures. As indicated in our discussion, OAQPS indicated the CALPUFF chemistry was not included in the regulatory evaluation of the model so is currently not a regulatory application of CALPUFF.

I hope that helps. ...sjk

Stanley J. Krivo US Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning Branch Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 404/562-9123 (Phone) 404/562-9019(Fax)