TritlityA Cl>nsultants 

RECEIVED 

November 13,2007 I~O~ .•~'4!~ Mr. Phillip Fielder AIR OUALITY 

Engineering Supervisor - Air Quality Division 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

707 N. Robinson 

Oklahoma City, OK 73101 

RE: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Analysis Revised CALPUFF Results 

Lafarge Tulsa Plant 

Dear Mr. Fielder: 

On September 20, 2007, the Oklahoma DEQ sent a letter to Lafarge Building Materials ,(Lafarge) 

indicating certain inconsistencies between the Kiln No.2 PMIO emission data used in the Tulsa 

Plant's BART Modeling Analysis and the plant's Emission Inventory (EI). The original BART 

Modeling Analysis, submitted on November 30, 2006, listed a PMIO emission rate from Kiln No. 

2 of 17.14Iblhr. Upon review, Trinity determined that the PM IO emission rate for Kiln No.2 

indicated in the plant's EI (21.94 lblhr) is representative ofthe maximum hourly PMIO emission 

rate, and that this value should have been used in the BART Modeling Analysis. 

As a result, Trinity has updated the CALPUFF model runs to include the revised PMIO emission 

rate. As described below, all other aspects of the CALPUFF model, including PM IO speciation 

profile, stack parameters, and CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST input parameters remain 

unchanged from the original modeling report submitted on November 29,2006. As summarized 

at the end ofthis letter, the Lafarge Tulsa Plant's visibility impact (based on the 98th percentile 

change in deciview [ddv]) on its four neighboring Class I areas increase marginally, but remains 

below BART exemption levels. 

SOURCE EMISSIONS 

A summary ofmaxirnum 24-hr emission rates for each of the BART-eligible units at the Tulsa 

Plant is summarized below. Note that with the exception ofthe PMIO emission rate for EP 15 

(Kiln No.2), the values presented in this table do not differ from those included in the original 

modeling report. 

120 East Sheridan, Suite 205, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104 V,SA A Offices nationwide 

(405) 228-3292 A Fax (405) 228-3293 A www.trinityconsultants.com 
Mr. Phillip Fielder Page 2 of 6 

November l3, 2007 

TABLE 1. MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSION RATES 

Unit ID NOx PMlO S02 

IbS/hr Ibs/hr Ibs/hr 

EP04 0.089 3.857 0.001 

EP05 -­ 0.429 -­

EP13 -­ 0.557 -­ EPI5 576.00 21.94 960.00 

EP24 -­ 3.402 -­

EP26 -­ 0.429 -­

EP25 -­ 0.429 -­

EP17 -­ 4.607 -­ EP27 -­ 0.375 -­ EP28 -­ 0.321 -­

As in the original submittal, speciated PMwemissions from the kiln are based upon FLM 

guidance for dry-bottom cement kilns operating with fabric filters. l A speciation profile is 

presented below. 

TABLE 2. CEMENT KILN PM10 SPECIATION PROFILE 

Particulate Matter Wt. Fraction 

Species 

PM Coarse 6.70% 

PM Fine (Fine Soil) 7.70% 

Elemental Carbon 0.00% 

Sulfates (inorganic 

condensable PM) 75.30% 

Secondary Organic Aerosols 

(organic condensable PM) 10.30% 

Total 100% 

A summary of PMJO emissions from Kiln No.2 is presented below. 

TABLE 3. KILN SPECIATED PM10 EMISSIONS 

Unit ID PM (coarse) 

Ibs/hr 

PM (fine) 

Ibslhr 

S04 

Ibslhr 

SOA 

Ibs/hr 

EC 

Ibs/hr 

EP04 1.470 1.690 16.52 2.260 -­

1 http://www2.nature.nps.gov/airlPermitsJect/ectCementKiln.cfin 
Mr. Phillip Fielder Page 3 of 6 

November 13,2007 

MODEL RESULTS 


A summary of the top 25 visibility-impairing days at each of the relevant Class I areas over the 

modeled 2001-03 period is summarized in Tables 4 through 7 below. Shaded values indicate 

visibility impacts that exceed the 0.5 L\dv threshold for contribution to visibility impairment. As 

seen in these tables, the 98th percentile values indicate that the Tulsa Plant's contribution to 

visibility impairment is still below the 0.5 ddv threshold at each of the neighboring Class I areas. 

These results indicate that the Tulsa Plant therefore qualifies for exemption from BART. 

TABLE 4. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM CANEY CREEK 2001-03 

Rank Modeled 

Visibility 

Impact (L\dv) 

Background Extinction by Species (%) Year Day 

so OC EC PMC PMF 

31.87 67.52 _~m'_'''·'_'''_ 

4 _____ 64.58 m __ 35.11 g:.!??.........................Q.:.1.4......-,-.-..:=.::..::~:::.---::··:..·····-1 

___60.28 '_'M 39.27

6 64 35.75 

7 ··_-_··_·_-_·····_················_·1---....::::::...:..::...--1 33.66 =-=--_-=:..::.::..._ 65.95 ...9_.2 _ 

1 _.... ___ g.__ .__....9.:9_3 _ ........._.2:_15 ._+...;==_:::...'----_.::-.:::....._1 

...____~8__._._.__...__..I._...•._...::.:::::.::..:....__I__??_·1_4 ___ Z;!;_24___....__0.3_7............g___..Q.:.O_6_._0_.1~_.+_;::.:::."-:........._::::.:::..:_.. 1 

9 49.06 50.52 0.21 0 0.05 0.16 2002 298 -----·-·-··--··-·"..-!-----'---~'"······---I·--·..-------··-··--..­....­ ............".----..­....­.......--.---.-....-.­ _ ...­ ..-._.......-­

45.78 53.73 0.28 0 0.02 0.19 2003 5 I-------..----..---..­ ..--!------"c...;..::;..;;;.........·..·---!·--",,----·-"-....··-.---------..- ..---.-".-.....-..-----~-...-.-- -.......-.-....--......­ ...-. 

I_______11 ··..__.. ___...._·__+·__.._--'c...;..::;..;c,_·__~!·__60.99 ....__·________ 38.59 0.22 .---------- 0 ...__0.04 .____._0.17 ....._._ 2.0.01 286 --.. ..-~-~,-""~""--.., 

_____1_2....__..__._____+_.___.---=-:..;..;...;'---____!_.•.~1_.1_1____._6~2._48____0._2?._..__0_.__JL9j_~ 0.15 ,,__...____

20.02 

... ...._fi

34.0..

l3 23.12 76.52 .0.2 ---···-·-~-·---..··+-·-·---=-:..:.:...:=-----·t..-·,,----- ......·--------..:.:=----=-----.-::::.:..:;....C--.-.:::..:...:.;=--t ....::.::.::":..-··....-.::.......-I a .0.04 0.12 

43.51 .0.31 a .0..04 .0.28 

26.01 .0.21 a 0 . .05 .0.23 

67.94 .0.36 a 0.06 0.3 

59.05 0.18 a 0.01 .0.17 

72.49 0.4 a 0.08 0.31 

40.12 0.15 0 0.01 0.09 

69.44 0.32 0 0.1 0.31 

51.89 0.34 0 0.04 0.29 

46.85 0.2 a 0.04 

.03 0.41 a 

24 .0.122 34.17 64.96 0.47 a 

25 0.102 65.05 34.63 0.16 a 
Mr. Phillip Fielder - Page 4 of 6 

November 13, 2007 

TABLE 5. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM HERCULES-GLADES 2001-03 


Peak 2 

Rank 

3 

7 

Modeled 

Visibility 

Impact (Adv) 

0.39 

0.239 

0.234 

0.194 

Background Extinction by Species (%) Year Day 

OC EC PMC PMF 

67.01 0.4 0 0.05 0.29 2001 362 "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''-,--~''''''~" ''''''''''"......................................................................................................,..,...,....~.. ................,,"'_.....,..., 

67.74 0.32 0 0.03 0.27 2003 351 .............................................«<<<<............"',., """""'" """""--_....",.........,,'''''',••••••••• 

14.04 0.18 0 0.02 0.16 2003 256 . ''',.""..,.".",..".,............... """"'--,.._......,...,""""""............., 

65.36 0.31 0 0.05 0.28 2002 12 "",....................................." '"'''''''''".,,'''''''''''"'..""""".............,..."'."""~--"'..""". 

33.36 0.13 0 0.01 0.13 2002 30 """""""""""''''''''"....................... ....«<-­

52.93 0.22 0 0.04 0.21 2001 6 

0.154 .m... ..........:!~._57_..................:5:.:::3.:.::.9..8"...mmm.._........:0::::.2::.:3:.......-____ 

I.._._.....m......m.. __.__8 ...................._..........__'._m..m........0.15 m....m...................................................... 42.31 ______57.27 ..................._......__0.2....... 

9 QcJ4? ...........................mmm~·;..::.35::....-_"-'35=·~.?............_ ......9..:.:!L........__Q........ 

10 0.141 0 ..._''''''''''''''_'''''''''''''____.._,_..'".. m ..... """".........................._._.._ .....__"""""""... 

11 0.131 0 """""""'-,--""'-,---,---,-"" 

73.47 26.21 0.16 

29.21 69.91 0.47 

54.84 44.69 0.26 0 0.02 0.19 2001 314 
 ••••••••••••••••••__• _____...............................m ......................""............".,.~..''''''''''__'''''''''''_ 


4.:..::.0=.2:......7__5::..;:9c:..::.3:..:.9 0.13 2001 22
 ............._ ..9..:.?.. ___Q_..... . 0.01 ...........................__......."""",...._"".... 


2003 82 


2001 32
 .............__..-......_-_.........­

2003 296
 "......__.......__...._....­

2002 332 
 """"",..._ ..._""."._­

2001 147 


..:::...51.:..:...1;,::.8__4:.;:8=.2. 0.28 0 0.06 0.28 

12 0.127 

13 0.121 

14 0.12 

17 0.101 

..............................".........................." 


0.04 0.26 

0.06 0.37 

0.02 0.22 

83.95 15.38 0.33 o 0.06 0.28 

1_................._..__ 1'-C8.._.....................__..._l__--"0c:..;.1:..;;.0...:...1__+_..::.;53:.:....·4:I.........__4_6.Q1.........._..::..0.=25:::....-_-=-_--=-=_........::.:==--I 0 0.02 0.23

19 0.087 ._----_."......,.,_.....- -_.._--_.._.-

.._ .._.__._.m20 ..............._.___.... --..-

0.082 ......-...............--.......... f.. - ..=:.~:..7-.---=:::-=---~:..:.:=.::.---=---

21 __..Q,Q?_._...... _.m.......... m __........ _......::...:c.:..:...::__ 

98th Percentile 0.066 94.18 0.08 0.27 

25 

0.062 0.04 0.18 

0.061 

0.03 0.16 

..-.--~ 

2003 229 

2001 11 

2001 335 
Mr. Phillip Fielder - Page 5 of 6 


November 13, 2007 


TABLE 6. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM UPPER BUFFALO 2001-03 


Rank Modeled Background Extinction by Species (%) Year Day 
• 

Mr. Phillip Fielder - Page 6 of 6 


November 13, 2007 


TABLE 7. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM WICHITA MOUNTAINS 2001-03 


Rank Modeled Background Extinction by Species (%) Year Day 

OC EC PMC PMF 

!>.~I:l.~~~:I.l.!..~verage 0.19 0.03 0.15 2001 309
 ° 

2 
 0.255 34.03 65.3 0.27 2002 306
 """"""""""""........................................""""""...."""."""-..........-1---............;;;..;.;;;;..;....:..........--.-..--.........-.._-- 0.,;;;..;33'------'0'-................Q:.!??. 


3 


0.24 ° 0.03 0.18 

° 0.05 0.15 

0.228 

0.223 

46.36 

0.39 

0_.2J . g.. 0.05'-------'°::,:..1;..;;;8:.......1........::::;::;::...:__.........__7.:_...1 

0.45 ·______•___0 ......_·_·_·_0.14 ..·_.._--=-.:..=._1_....::.::..::..:....·..·..........::..:..:...._"""1 

0.04 

o 0.02 .........._---- 0.28 

0.251 43.18 56.04 0,;..::..3;-;.....9__0;-;.......__o_.o_7._g:12__20_°3.........._43_.....
 ._..._ •• _ ......_ ............ _ ................................... 
--.-........;;;c~'---_---1_.:..::.;.c'""'--_.;;..;;;.;:..::...;... 

4 
 0.251 56.49 43.05 


5 
 0.242 21.19 


6 


7 


8 


___...........?....................................t--............--:::.:...:..c=----i-.....:=:..;;;.;;;..--'3::...;1,.:.c.1..:;:.8_--=.;. 


10 
 43.56 55.68 

.JL____._. f•._....................._.....:c..:...:.c•.7.............................__i__ 4_4J.. ."""........_..§.~i~__ 

12 0.16 79.03 19.95 - .....-.-....------r--~::..:..; 

13 
 58.97 40.66 .......---......···......•............·...... f-·_··..- ....·---=c:..=:.......--i 


14 
 f ..................................::.:.•:..::.:::.........-........... i...........~?:.~.?.......- 56.64 


15 0.139 91.74 7.87 0.18 0 0.04 0.17 2002 149 
 •••••••__•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••, • .,•••",.........'M"_,_m..",,,,, 
 ,,,,,,,,,,.._ ......._........... ..........HH____...........................""""""""".""..",,,,,..,,.._ ..........._ .............~_~"""""_ 

16 
 26.36 72.84 0.4 0 0.08 0.33 2001 25
 ··-······-··..····f·..·..:-..-....·•••..·-;;.:..·:..c....:........._........·..·i.........- ....--..-.----.--.............-.----................ ... 
 - ........--....-.-­

_--'1...:..7____f____-=-:..:..=-"-__..__.i__8_5.. ___14_.0_5___0_.2_7...._ .......!!........_0_.0_6 ................9.:.22 ___.?_00_3.."""__27_9._ 


18 0.128 61.33 38.28 0.19 0 0.05 0.15 2002 156
 ._-- ~'h'M"".""~..__ ................................................,"""'"''---.~,,-.. "......................... 
 .........__.....__.......


19 0.122 50.31 49.06 0.32 0 0.06 0.25 2002 357 
 _ ......",,""......m_............................_ ..,.....,-"-.,.... ,~ .. ,,,.~,,....... ................ 


20 0.122 94.29 4.69 0.5 0 0.09 0.43 ---..-~~, 

21 0.121 80.34 19.18 0.24 0 0.04 0.21 


98th Percentile 0.121 51.26 48.25 0.25 0 0.02 0.21 
 2001 78 


23 0.112 2.77 0.42 0 0,07 0.38 2003 223 


24 0.107 91.33 7.72 0.47 0 0.09 0.39 2001 225 


25 0.103 62.66 36.7 0.31 0 0.07 0.26 2003 305 


A copy of model input and output files (matching the same set of data provided in the original 

submittal) is included in the attached DVD. If you have any questions or require any additional 

information, please feel free to contact either Eugene Chen or myself at (405) 228-3292. 

Sincerely, 

TRINITY CONSULTANTS 

Vern Choquette 

Principal Consultant