Environment

1220 Avenida Acaso

Camarillo, California 93012

tel 805-388-3775

fax 805-388-3577

December 29,2009

Ms, Carol Bohnenkamp

US. Environmental Protection Agency

76 Hawthorn Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Subject: Cumulative PM2.5 Modeling Analysis Supplement to Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project

Re: PSD Permit Number SE 07-02

Dear Carol:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the PM2.5 cumulative modeling analysis to supplement the Victorville

2 Hybrid Power Project (W2) PSD application submitted on May 2,2007. Subsequent to submittal of the

PSD application, EPA determined that the City of Victorville needed to request that EPA issue a PSD permit

for PM2.5 emissions. On June 25,2007, a BACT Analysis for PM2.5 and a Class I and II Air Quality Impact

Analysis (AQIA) was submitted as a supplement to the PSD Application in order to fulfill that request. EPA

issued a draft PSD permit for the W2 Project in June, 2008. Subsequent to EPA's receipt of comments on

the PSD permit, the permitting was put on-hold pending resolution of some of the comments received.

On April 24, 2009, EPA issued a notification of the Agency's intent to reconsider certain aspects of three

rules under the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program, including rules related to the implementation

of PM2.5 NSR requirements. A series of correspondence between EPA and AECOM, on behalf of the City

of Victorville, related to the applicability of that Action to the W2 Project ensued. Although the AQIA

submitted for the W2 Project in June 2007 was considered by AECOM to be a "cumulative analysis" based

on information obtained from the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), EPA

requested in August, 2009 that additional cumulative modeling analysis be performed for PM2.5. Additional

guidance was provided by EPA, including preliminary agreement of the cumulative source inventory that

would be used in the analysis.

The details of the PM2.5 cumulative AQIA for the W2 Project are contained within this document, including

the following information:

• Facilities included in the modeling

• Sources included for each of the chosen facilities

• Modeling methodology and analysis

• Discussion of results

As shown in the modeling results, W2 impacts, when modeled cumulatively with nearby major sources and

with appropriate ambient background values added, show compliance with all applicable National and

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NMQS I CMQS) for PM2.5.

History and Choice of Facilities to be Included in Cumulative Analysis

In April, 2009, AECOM received emails from EPA region 9 indicating a change in EPA's stance towards the

PM10 Surrogate Policy as related to PM2.5 and suggested that additional analyses beyond what had

already been submitted for W2 would be required.
AECOM

Environment

Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp

December 29, 2009

Page 2

The AQIA previously performed for W2 had resulted in PM10/PM2.5 modeled impacts that were low (a

maximum of 6.1 ~g/m3 for 24-hour PM1 0) and occurred in an isolated area at the W2 fenceline. Because

PM10 concentrations over the 24-hour PM1 0 Significant Impact Level (SIL) of 5 ~g/m3 only occurred on or

near the fenceline, the Significant Impact Area (SIA) for this project, as defined in the EPA NSR Workshop

Manual (1990), is 50 kilometers (km).

An inventory of PM1 0 emission sources was requested from the MDAQMD on August 4th, 2009. Initially, 19

major sources were identified within the MDAQMD, where a major source for this purpose was defined as

greater than 80 tons per year (tpy) of actual PM or PM1 0 emissions based on reported data from 2005

through 2007. This major source inventory was further refined to 7 facilities that are located within 50 km of

W2. Of these 7 facilities, 4 of the sources were comprised of relatively low level materials handling, quarry

and/or aggregate processing facilities, that due to their distance from W2 and low level emissions release

heights, were not expected to have a sufficient concentration gradient to impact the PM2.5 air quality in the

vicinity of the W2 Project. Only three of the MDAQMD identified facilities within 50 km had large enough

emissions to potentially cause a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of W2. These three

facilities are: TXI Riverside Cement in Oro Grande, AGC Glass Company in Victorville, and the High Desert

Power Project (HDPP), also located in Victorville. Therefore, those three facilities were included in the

cumulative modeling analysis. The locations of these facilities relative to the W2 Project site are shown in

Figure 1.

Characterization of Modeled Non-W2 Sources

Once the three facilities to be included in the cumulative analysis were chosen, the next step was to

characterize the individual sources to be included in the modeling. This information was requested from

MDAQMD. The most readily available source information maintained by the MDAQMD is related to the

AB2588 air toxics program, where health risk assessments (HRAs) are conducted using the HARP model.

HARP transaction files were obtained for HDPP, AGC Glass, and TXI Riverside Cement. In the transaction

files for HDPP and AGC Glass, the source coordinates provided were not refined enough to accurately

locate the source. In order to resolve these inconsistencies and other issues with the source data for these

three facilities, the following decisions / adjustments were made:

High Desert Power Project

A total of 18 sources (including each of the 12 cooling tower cells modeled as a separate source) from

HDPP were included in the cumulative analysis. Because the UTM coordinates given for these sources

were not refined enough to show their actual locations, the UTM coordinates were adjusted using aerial

photography of the site. The combustion turbines and cooling tower, which are responsible for the vast

majority of the PM1 0/PM2.5 emissions at the facility, were clearly visible in the aerial shot. The ancillary

equipment were placed in the same relative positions to the turbines as their counterparts at W2. The

characteristics and emissions for the HDPP sources included in the cumulative modeling analysis are given

in Table A-1 of Attachment A.

AGe Glass

There were 27 sources at AGC Glass Company included in the cumulative modeling analysis. Again, the

coordinates given in the HARP transaction files were not precise enough to locate the sources for this

PM2.5 AQIA. Because of the distance between the W2 site and AGC (almost 12 miles) and the limited

amount of emissions from the AGC sources, it was decided to locate all of the sources at the approximate

center of the facility for the purposes of this analysis. Additionally, the emissions from all of these sources

were given in the HARP files as total PM. For this exercise it was conservatively assumed that all of the PM

emissions were PM2.5. Lastly, in some cases the short term emissions from a source was less than the
AECOM

Environment

Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp

December 29, 2009

Page 3

annual emission rate. In those cases, the short term emission rate was set to be equal to the annual

emission rate. The source characteristics and emissions assumed for AGC Glass Company are given in

Table A-2 of Attachment A.

TXI Riverside Cement

All sources of PM2.5 emissions that are included in the TXI Riverside Cement Title V permit were included

in the cumulative modeling analysis. These sources included a large number of baghouses, the fire water

pump and emergency generator for the facility, and a number of portable internal combustion engines that

were represented as a volume source over the area in which they are used. All of the sources coordinates

were given in UTM NAD83 in the HRA and had to be converted to NAD27 prior to their input in the

AERMOD model. A total of 78 sources were included from TXI Riverside Cement. The emissions for these

sources were all given in PM/PM1 0, and for the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that these

emissions were all PM2.5. This is an extremely conservative assumption as Table 11.19.2-4 in AP-42

shows that for grinding for pulverized emission sources controlled by baghouses, the emission factor for

PM2.5 is less than 40% of the PM1 0 emission factor and less than 30% of the total PM emission factor.

Even those numbers are likely conservative in this case since the particles emitted from secondary

limestone crushing should be larger than the particles from grinding for pulverized mineral production. The

source characteristics and emissions for TXI Riverside Cement are given in Table A-3 of Attachment A.

Modeling Methodology

Sources, Stack Parameters, and Emissions for VV2

In this modeling analysis, the stack parameters and emissions data for the W2 Project sources used were

the same as in the PSD application, with the emissions for the cooling tower increased based on the very

conservative assumption that 100% of the total dissolved solids is emitted as PM2.5. For all W2 sources, it

was also conservatively assumed that the PM2.5 emissions for W2 project sources were equivalent to their

respective PM10 emissions. AERMOD version 07026 was used in this analysis.

Meteorological Data

The meteorological data used in this analysis were the same as was used in the PSD application modeling.

Three years of surface observation data collected at the Park Street Monitor in Victorville (2002-2004) was

supplemented with data collected at the NWS station at General William J. Fox Field in Lancaster, CA for

cloud cover and missing data, along with concurrent upper air data from Mercury Desert Rock Airport in

Mercury, NV.

Ambient Background Data

Ambient background data for PM2.5 are available from 2 monitors co-located at 14306 Park Street in

Victorville, located less than 10 miles from the W2 site as shown in Figure 2. Background data from 2005-

2007 were used as the data available on the AIRS database website

(http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html) were not yet complete for 2008. For the 24-hour period, the

highest 3-year average of the 98th percentiles between the two monitors (19 ~lg/m3) was used. For the

annual period, the highest 3-year average annual mean (10.05 J.!g/m3

) between the two monitors was used.

The background data for the Park Street Monitors are shown in Table 1.
AECOM

Environment

Ms Carol Bohnenkamp

December 29, 2009

Page 4

Table 1: Ambient PM2.5 Background Concentrations at 14306 Park Street, Victorville

Monitor Period Measure PM2.5 Ambient Background h.Lg/m3

)

2005 2006 2007 Max. Ave.

1st-high 27 22 28 28 26

24-hour 2nd-high 19 19 19 19 19

1 98th % 19 19 19 19 19

Annual Mean 9.9 10.37 9.65 10.37 9.80

1st-high 27 19 27 27 24

24-hour 2nd-high 20 18 20 20 19

2 98th % 20 18 20 20 19

Annual Mean 10.11 10.32 9.72 10.32 10.05

Receptor Grid

As yet, EPA has not established Class II SIL's for PM2.5. For this analysis, the 24-hour PM1 0 modeling

results from the PSD application were examined to determine which receptors were significant for PM1 O.

The review showed that there were a total of 6 receptors that exceeded the PM1 0 24-hour Class II SIL of 5

)..lg/m3. Of those 6 receptors, 5 were on the W2 fenceline and 1 was 100 meters from the fenceline. Based

on this impact proximity, a receptor grid using the W2 fenceline receptors along with a grid of receptors

extending one kilometer from the fenceline in all directions at 100 meter intervals was used in this analysis.

The receptors along the W2 fenceline were spaced 50 meters apart. The receptor grid used in these model

runs is shown in Figure 2.

Results and Discussion

The results of the cumulative PM2.5 modeling are shown in Table 2 below. In the table, the maximum

modeled high_8th high averaged over the three years is summed with the average of the 98th percentile

ambient background values for the 24-hour period, and the maximum annual impacts averaged over three

years are added to the average annual mean ambient background averaged over three years. The results

are then compared to the 24-hour NMQS for PM2.5 (35 )..lg/m3

) and annual CMQS for PM2.5 (12 )..lg/m\

As shown in the table the cumulative impacts for both periods are below their respective standard and thus

compliance is demonstrated.

The maximum 24-hour value modeled for the 3 other sources, along with W2 sources and the maximum

24-hour background concentration, is 14 )..lg/m3

. It should be noted that the maximum contribution by W2

sources to the receptor with the maximum 24-hour cumulative concentrations impacts is 3.0 )..lg/m3

, or just

9% of the total cumulative impacts and background, and the maximum annual contribution by W2 sources

is 0.32 )..lg/m3 which is less than 3% of the total cumulative impacts and background. The majority of the

impacts at this location were a result of sources at TXI Riverside Cement. AGC Glass Company had a

maximum 24-hour contribution of only 0.02 )..lg/m3 at any receptor, and HDPP had a maximum contribution

of only 0.9 )..lg/m3 for the 24-hour period. It should again be noted that the modeled impacts for W2 and

especially TXI Riverside Cement are extremely conservative because it was assumed that all PM/PM1 0

emitted by all sources at the two facilities were 100% PM2.5. The results are also very conservative as

including the maximum background concentration, which would include contributions from these sources, as

well as the modeling of these sources would tend to overestimate their individual contribution. The

modeling and supporting files used in this analysis are included electronically in Attachment B.
AECOM

Environment

Table 2: W2 Cumulative PM2.5 Modeling Results

Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp

December 29, 2009

Page 5

Averaging

AERMOD Predicted Concentrations (l!g/m3)

NAAQSI Pollutant Cumulative Period Background Total Impact CAAQS

Modeled Impact

24-hour 14.0 19.0 33.00 35

PM2.5

Annual 1.65 10.1 11.70 12

In summary, the cumulative modeling analysis shows that the W2 Project would not cause an exceedence

of any applicable PM2.5 ambient air quality standard.

Sincerely yours,

Sara J. Head

Vice President

sara. head@aecom.com
AECOM

Environment

Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp

December 29, 2009

Page 6

Figure 1: Relative Location of W2, Included Sources, and MDAQMD Park Street Monitor

Legend *,._-

*----

*~­ *-, - ,A,_.-

o 1.25 2.5

Relative Location of

Sources Included in

PM2.5 Cumulative Analysis

and Park Street Monitor

Victorville, CA

5 7.5

IAECOM

10

Kilometers
AECOM

Environment

Figure 2: Receptor Grid Used in PM2.5 Cumulative Modeling Analysis

Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp

December 29, 2009

Page 7

Receptors Used in

Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project

PM2.5 Cumulative Analysis

• CA { Victorville, CA

~'--~ W+E IAECOM • \"L -- !- ---'s::..........L.. L- -!

- -- - Scale 0 0.25 0.5 1.5 2

Kilometer$
ATTACHMENT A:

Non-W2 Sources included in the PM2.5 Cumulative Modeling Analysis
Table A-1: High Desert Power Project Sources

AERMOD UTM UTM Base Stack Temp Exit Vel. Exit. PM2.5 PM2.5

Source Description Source Easting Northing Elev. Diam.

10 (NAD27) (NAD27) (m) Hgt.(m) (K) (m/s) (m) (Lb/hr) (tpy)

UNIT 1 Turbine 5585 466538 3828072 859.54 39.63 366.48 19.21 5.79 18.10 51.60

UNIT 2 Turbine 5586 466538 3828032 859.54 39.63 366.48 19.21 5.79 18.49 29.54

UNIT 3 Turbine 5587 466538 3827992 859.54 39.63 366.48 19.21 5.79 18.49 42.91

Emergency Generator 5588 466661 3827986 859.54 9.15 366.48 19.21 0.31 0.34 0.00

Fire Pump 5589 466546 3828098 859.54 9.15 366.48 19.21 0.31 0.10 0.00

Cooling Tower CellI 5590 466476 3828036 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 2 5591 466476 3828019 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 3 5592 466476 3828003 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 4 5593 466476 3827987 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 5 5594 466476 3827970 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 6 5595 466476 3827954 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 7 5596 466489 3828036 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cel18 5597 466489 3828019 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cel19 5598 466489 3828003 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 10 5599 466489 3827987 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 11 5600 466489 3827970 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Cooling Tower Cell 12 5601 466489 3827954 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17

Portable Water Pump 5602 466667 3828004 859.54 2.13 310.93 8.02 0.31 0.10 0.001
Table A-2: AGC Glass Company Sources

Source UTM UTM Base Stack Temp Exit Vel. Exit. PM2.5 PM2.S Source Description Easting Northing Elev. Diam.

10 (NAD27) (NAD27) (m) Hgt.{m) (K) (m/s) (m) (Lb/hr) (tpy)

Unloading 5hed 5603 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 1.05 0.91 4.51E-04 1.98E-03

Emergency IC Engine 5604 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 775.93 11.25 0.61 5.56E-03 2.44E-02

Electrostatic Precipitator 5605 473766 3815247 899.16 42.67 435.93 4.75 2.13 6.41E+00 2.81E+01

Unloading elevator 5606 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 0.29 0.91 4.51E-04 1.98E-03

Two 5and 5ilos 5607 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 2.73E-04 l.20E-03

Two 50da Ash 5ilos 5608 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 8.38E-05 3.67E-04

Dolomite 5ilo 5609 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 7.39E-05 3.24E-04

Limestone 5i1o 5610 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 1.77E-05 7.75E-05

5alt Cake 5i1o 5611 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 2.53E-06 1.11E-05

Weigh Batch Conveyor 5613 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.79 0.91 4.96E-04 2.17E-03

Weigh Batch Elevator 5614 473766 3815247 899.16 13.20 297.04 0.29 0.91 4.96E-04 2.17E-03

Bad Batch Hopper 5615 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.52 0.91 2.40E-09 1.05E-08

Cullet Bin 5616 473766 3815247 899.16 17.68 297.04 0.16 0.61 1.18E-04 5.18E-04

Cullet Elevator 5617 473766 3815247 899.16 17.68 297.04 0.33 0.85 1.18E-04 5.18E-04

Mixed Batch Elevator Feed 5618 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.46 0.91 6.01E-03 2.63E-02

Mixed Batch Elevator Top 5619 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 0.29 0.91 6.01E-04 2.63E-03

Furnace Bin 5620 473766 3815247 899.16 12.19 297.04 0.17 0.91 6.01E-04 2.63E-03

Charcoal Bin 5621 473766 3815247 899.16 6.10 297.04 0.43 0.91 2.07E-07 9.05E-07

Rouge Bin 5622 473766 3815247 899.16 6.10 297.04 0.43 0.91 1.46E-07 6.41E-07

Cullet Return 5ystem 5623 473766 3815247 899.16 17.68 297.04 25.59 0.85 4.32E-01 3.78E-03

Tempered 5afety Glass 5624 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 2.01 0.91 1.6OE-02 3.00E-04

E5P Dust Recycling 5ystem 5625 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 1.15 0.91 4.94E-07 2.16E-06

E5P Dust Recycling 5ystem 5626 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 1.15 0.91 4.94E-07 2.16E-06

OXY dry 5627 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.29 0.91 2.397E-08 1.05E-07
Source UTM UTM Base Stack Temp Exit Vel. Exit. PM2.5 PM2.5

Source Description 10 Easting Northing Elev. Hgt. (m) (K) (m/s)

Diam.

(Lb/hr) (tpy) (NAD27) (NAD27) (m) (m)

Double Row 5eamers 5628 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.29 0.91 1.302E-05 5.70E-05

1. All sources placed in central location and assumed base elevation of central location because of errors in the coordinates

2. In cases where short term emissions were less than annual or non-existant, annual emissions were used for short-term period as well.

Table A-3: TXI Riverside Cement Sources

UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp Exit Vel. Exit. Diam. PM2.5 PM2.5 Source Description / 10 Easting Northing Elev. (m) (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (Lb/hr) (tpy) (NAD27) (NAD27)

11OBF101 469612 3829832 879.35 3.05 305.37 22.96 0.605 2.03 2.49

121BF002 469438 3829850 850.39 15.85 305.37 0.001 0.819 3.20 3.53

121BF003 469438 3829836 850.39 15.85 305.37 0.001 0.819 3.20 3.22

121BF103 469457 3829867 850.39 6.10 305.37 49.86 0.282 0.96 1.17

131BF101 469507 3829774 870.20 10.36 294.26 24.12 0.402 0.98 1.20

131BF102 469368 3829764 846.73 0.00 294.26 0.001 0.391 0.33 0.40

132BF101 469557 3829682 879.35 2.74 294.26 19.35 0.305 0.45 0.54

231BF140 469155 3829097 815.34 10.97 294.26 17.95 0.388 0.68 1.49

231BF160 469318 3829252 835.15 7.62 294.26 18.12 0.386 0.68 1.49

231BF180 469285 3829278 835.15 3.35 294.26 18.12 0.386 0.68 1.10

311BF101 469275 3829657 836.68 33.53 294.26 30.39 0.445 1.51 1.82

311BF103 469252 3829559 829.06 30.48 294.26 24.31 0.445 1.21 1.45

311BFll0 469278 3829670 836.68 26.52 294.26 30.39 0.445 1.51 1.82

311BFlll 469282 3829650 836.68 28.65 294.26 25.96 0.388 0.98 1.18

321BFlOl 469252 3829547 829.06 31.39 360.93 32.85 0.676 3.07 3.70

321BFl02 469260 3829557 829.06 31.09 360.93 27.08 0.596 1.97 2.37

321BFl03 469272 3829521 829.06 27.13 363.15 15.74 0.239 0.18 0.22
UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp Exit Vel. Exit. Diam. PM2.5 PM2.5 Source Description / 10 Easting Northing

(NAD27) (NAD27) Elev. (m) (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (lb/hr) (tpy)

321BF104 469261 3829491 829.06 19.20 363.15 23.32 0.259 0.32 0.38

331BF101 469302 3829480 829.06 113.69 468.71 19.24 4.115 17.03 55.45

341BFl01 469288 3829486 829.06 71.63 402.59 23.36 0.386 0.64 1.04

341BF102 469292 3829471 829.06 71.93 402.59 19.64 0.391 0.55 0.90

341BF103 469286 3829472 829.06 72.24 402.59 31.99 0.671 2.64 4.31

341BF104 469272 3829481 829.06 10.67 402.59 29.08 0.321 0.55 0.90

351BF101 469263 3829495 829.06 16.76 373.15 8.22 0.331 0.18 0.29

351BF102 469254 3829485 829.06 36.27 373.15 26.26 0.338 0.59 0.97

351BF51O 469257 3829481 829.06 55.17 294.26 24.16 0.386 0.90 1.47

411BF201 469243 3829510 829.06 21.03 294.26 10.57 0.292 0.23 0.37

441BFl01 469220 3829365 822.96 16.15 422.04 21.01 0.338 0.42 0.68

441BF550 469207 3829348 822.96 60.96 382.04 8.05 3.810 10.23 33.30

461BF030 469290 3829457 829.06 47.24 348.15 24.90 0.439 1.02 1.66

461BF400 469271 3829455 829.06 44.81 361.48 4.85 1.917 0.70 2.26

461BF61O 469278 3829454 829.06 16.15 348.15 11.68 0.203 0.10 0.17

471BF201 469113 3829233 819.91 4.88 294.26 20.81 0.340 0.60 0.73

471BF202 469099 3829190 815.34 33.53 294.26 26.02 0.443 1.28 1.55

511BF051 469113 3829324 824.48 10.36 322.04 0.001 0.464 0.60 1.31

511BF054 468955 3829370 822.96 9.14 322.04 8.72 0.464 0.43 0.94

511BF061 468900 3829381 819.91 17.37 377.59 11.34 0.460 0.47 1.03

511BF101 469142 3829285 822.96 8.53 377.59 24.90 0.439 0.94 1.14

511BF102 469205 3829284 822.96 37.80 377.59 0.001 0.543 2.35 5.15

511BF103 469156 3829279 822.96 27.74 377.59 0.001 0.445 0.94 2.06

511BF104 469124 3829304 821.44 33.83 377.59 23.94 0.388 0.70 1.54

511BF105 469094 3829284 822.96 9.45 377.59 23.50 0.392 0.70 0.85

511BF106 469091 3829270 822.96 12.80 377.59 28.19 0.386 0.82 1.00

511BF107 469080 3829197 815.34 21.64 377.59 20.79 0.340 0.47 0.57
UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp Exit Vel. Exit. Diam. PM2.5 PM2.5 Source Description / 10 Easting Northing

(NAD27) (NAD27) Elev.(m) (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (Lb/hr) (tpy)

521BF101 469103 3829193 815.34 11.28 377.59 24.49 0.443 0.94 1.14

531BF102 469148 3829181 815.34 18.90 377.59 15.26 0.281 0.23 0.28

531BF103 469164 3829178 815.34 18.90 373.15 17.31 0.323 0.36 0.43

531BF104 469177 3829182 815.34 21.64 373.15 16.21 0.292 0.27 0.33

531BF200 469128 3829182 815.34 46.63 362.04 15.15 3.048 11.34 27.49

611BF002 468925 3829147 804.67 25.60 330.37 18.28 0.405 0.67 1.47

611BF015 468857 3829243 803.15 24.38 330.37 0.001 0.602 1.06 2.32

611BF016 468854 3829204 803.15 21.03 338.71 0.001 0.440 0.74 1.61

611BF017 468870 3829203 803.15 21.03 330.37 0.001 0.526 1.06 2.32

611BF040 468909 3829291 807.72 35.97 330.37 35.58 0.411 1.34 2.94

611BF050 468866 3829181 803.15 28.04 330.37 0.001 0.581 1.15 2.53

611BF06O 468862 3829208 803.15 28.35 330.37 0.001 0.581 1.15 2.53

611BF070 468854 3829236 803.15 30.18 330.37 0.001 0.581 1.15 2.53

611BF202 468910 3829284 807.72 8.53 330.37 0.001 0.290 0.22 0.49

611BF600 469050 3829296 822.96 34.75 330.37 29.00 0.852 4.70 10.29

611BF61O 469031 3829311 822.96 1.83 330.37 0.001 0.587 1.07 2.35

621BF003 468880 3829154 803.15 24.69 330.37 0.001 0.378 0.39 0.85

621BF007 468890 3829228 804.67 14.33 330.37 19.52 0.457 0.91 2.00

621BF008 468891 3829224 804.67 14.33 330.37 19.52 0.457 0.91 2.00

621BF009 468891 3829221 804.67 14.33 330.37 19.52 0.457 0.91 2.00

621BF010 468903 3829218 804.67 18.29 322.04 13.34 0.710 1.54 3.38

621BF145 468921 3829435 819.91 30.48 330.37 25.27 0.488 1.34 2.94

621BF170 468921 3829440 819.91 9.75 330.37 0.001 0.390 0.27 0.59

621BF171 468921 3829430 819.91 9.75 330.37 0.001 0.390 0.27 0.59

621BF208 468891 3829146 803.15 20.12 330.37 16.42 0.406 0.60 1.32

621BF245 468879 3829245 803.15 24.69 330.37 25.27 0.488 1.34 2.94

621BF270 468881 3829244 803.15 9.75 330.37 0.001 0.390 0.27 0.59
UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp Exit Vel. Exit. Diam. PM2.S PM2.S Source Description / 10 Easting Northing

(NAD27) (NAD27) Elev.(m) (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (lb/hr) (tpy)

621BF345 468873 3829244 803.15 24.69 330.37 25.27 0.488 1.34 2.94

621BF370 468873 3829243 803.15 9.75 330.37 0.001 0.390 0.27 0.59

621BF470 468913 3829430 819.91 9.75 330.37 0.001 0.390 0.27 0.59

621BF471 468913 3829441 819.91 9.75 330.37 0.001 0.390 0.27 0.59

Emergency Fire Pump 469396 3829270 841.25 4.88 755.37 32.99 0.128 4.67E-01 1.58E-02

Emergency Generator 469260 3829410 822.96 5.79 751.48 42.89 0.457 5.86E+00 3.23E-02

TXI Riverside Cement Volume Source

UTM UTM Base Rei. hgt. PM2.S PM2.S Source Description / 10 Easting Northing Sigma-Y Sigma-Z

(NAD27) (NAD27) Elev.(m) (m) (lb/hr) (tpy)

Portable ICE's 469543.00 3829425.25 859.54 0.762 1.16 1.16 6.70E-02 5.72E-03
ATTACHMENT B:

Electronic Archive of Modeling Files

Provided on CD