Environment 1220Avenida Acaso Camarillo, California 93012 tel 805-388-3775 fax 805-388-3577



### December29,2009

Ms, Carol Bohnenkamp US. Environmental Protection Agency 76 Hawthorn Street San Francisco, CA 94105 

### Subject: Cumulative PM2.5 Modeling Analysis Supplementto Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) PermitforVictorville 2 Hybrid Power Project
Re: PSD Permit NumberSE 07-02
DearCarol:
The purpose ofthis letter isto provide the PM2.5 cumulative modeling analysis to supplementthe Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project (W2) PSD application submitted on May2,2007. Subsequentto submittal ofthe PSD application, EPAdetermined thatthe CityofVictorville needed to request that EPA issue a PSD permit for PM2.5 emissions. On June 25,2007, a BACTAnalysis for PM2.5 and a Class I and II Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) was submitted as a supplementto the PSD Application in orderto fulfill that request. EPA issued adraft PSD permitforthe W2 Project in June, 2008. Subsequentto EPA's receipt ofcomments on the PSD permit, the permitting was put on-hold pending resolution ofsome ofthe comments received.
On April 24, 2009, EPA issued a notification ofthe Agency's intentto reconsidercertain aspects ofthree rules underthe New Source Review (NSR) permitting program, including rules related to the implementation of PM2.5 NSR requirements. A series ofcorrespondence between EPA and AECOM, on behalfofthe City ofVictorville, related to the applicability ofthatAction to the W2 Project ensued. Although the AQIA submitted forthe W2 Project in June 2007 was considered byAECOM to be a "cumulative analysis" based on information obtained from the Mojave DesertAirQuality Management District (MDAQMD), EPA requested in August, 2009 thatadditional cumulative modeling analysis be performed for PM2.5. Additional guidance was provided by EPA, including preliminary agreement ofthe cumulative source inventorythat would be used in the analysis.
The details ofthe PM2.5 cumulativeAQIAforthe W2 Project are contained within this document, including the following information:

• Facilities included in the modeling

• Sources included foreach ofthe chosen facilities

• Modeling methodology and analysis

• Discussion of results
As shown in the modeling results, W2 impacts, when modeled cumulativelywith nearby majorsources and with appropriate ambient background values added, show compliance with all applicable National and California AmbientAirQuality 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 forW2 

### would be required.AECOM Environment Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp December29, 2009 Page 2

The AQIA previously performed for W2 had resulted in PM10/PM2.5 modeled impactsthatwere low (a maximum of6.1**~g/m3** for 24-hour PM1 0) and occurred in an isolated area atthe W2 fenceline. Because PM10 concentrations overthe 24-hour PM1 0 Significant Impact Level (SIL) of5**~g/m3** only occurred on or nearthe fenceline, the Significant ImpactArea (SIA) forthis 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 majorsource forthis purpose was defined as greaterthan 80 tons peryear (tpy) ofactual PM or PM1 0 emissions based on reported data from 2005 through 2007. This majorsource inventorywas further refined to 7 facilities that are located within 50 km of W2. Ofthese 7 facilities, 4 ofthe sources were comprised of relatively low level materials handling, quarry and/oraggregate processing facilities, that due to their distance from W2 and low level emissions release heights, were not expected to have a sufficient concentration gradientto impactthe PM2.5 airquality in the vicinity ofthe W2 Project. Only three ofthe MDAQMD identified facilities within 50 km had large enough emissions to potentially cause a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity ofW2. 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 ofthese 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 bythe MDAQMD is related to the AB2588 airtoxics 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 orderto resolve these inconsistencies and other issues with the source data forthese three facilities, the following decisions/adjustments were made: High DesertPowerProject
A total of 18 sources (including each ofthe 12 cooling towercells modeled as a separate source) from HDPP were included in the cumulative analysis. Because the UTM coordinates given forthese sources were not refined enough to showtheiractual locations, the UTM coordinates were adjusted using aerial photography ofthe site. The combustion turbines and cooling tower, which are responsible forthe vast majority ofthe PM1 0/PM2.5 emissions atthe facility, were clearlyvisible in the aerial shot. The ancillary equipmentwere placed in the same relative positions to the turbines as their counterparts atW2. The characteristics and emissions forthe HDPP sources included in the cumulative modeling analysis are given in Table A-1 ofAttachmentA.
AGe Glass
There were 27 sources atAGC 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 forthis PM2.5 AQIA. Because ofthe distance between the W2 site and AGC (almost 12 miles) and the limited amount ofemissions from the AGC sources, itwas decided to locate all ofthe sources atthe approximate centerofthe facility forthe purposes ofthis analysis. Additionally, the emissions from all ofthese sources were given in the HARP files as total PM. Forthis exercise itwas conservatively assumed that all ofthe PM emissions were PM2.5. Lastly, in some cases the shortterm emissions from a source was less than theAECOM Environment Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp December29, 2009 Page 3

annual emission rate. In those cases, the shortterm emission rate was setto be equal to the annual emission rate. The source characteristics and emissions assumed forAGC Glass Company are given in Table A-2 ofAttachmentA.


### TXIRiverside Cement
All sources of PM2.5 emissions that are included in the TXI Riverside CementTitle V permitwere included in the cumulative modeling analysis. These sources included a large numberofbaghouses, the fire water pump and emergency generatorforthe facility, and a numberof portable internal combustion engines that were represented as a volume source overthe area in which they are used. All ofthe sources coordinates were given in UTM NAD83 in the HRA and had to be converted to NAD27 priorto their input in the AERMOD model. A total of 78 sourceswere included from TXI Riverside Cement. The emissions forthese sources were all given in PM/PM1 0, and forthe purposes ofthis analysis itwas assumed that these emissions were all PM2.5. This is an extremely conservative assumption asTable 11.19.2-4 in AP-42 shows thatforgrinding for pulverized emission sources controlled by baghouses, the emission factorfor PM2.5 is less than 40% ofthe PM1 0 emission factor and lessthan 30% ofthe total PM emission factor. Even those numbers are likely conservative in this case since the particles emitted from secondary limestone crushing should be largerthan the particles from grinding for pulverized mineral production. The source characteristics and emissions forTXI Riverside Cement are given in Table A-3 ofAttachmentA. 

### Modeling Methodology Sources, StackParameters, andEmissions for VV2
In this modeling analysis, the stack parameters and emissions data forthe W2 Project sources used were the same as in the PSD application, with the emissions forthe cooling tower increased based on the very conservative assumption that 100% ofthe total dissolved solids is emitted as PM2.5. For all W2 sources, it was also conservatively assumed thatthe PM2.5 emissions forW2 project sources were equivalentto their respective PM10 emissions. AERMOD version 07026 was used in this analysis. 

### MeteorologicalData
The meteorological data used in this analysiswere the same aswas used in the PSD application modeling. Three years ofsurface observation data collected atthe Park Street Monitor in Victorville (2002-2004) was supplemented with data collected atthe NWS station at General William J. Fox Field in Lancaster, CAfor cloud coverand missing data, along with concurrent upperairdata from Mercury Desert RockAirport in Mercury, NV.


### AmbientBackgroundData
Ambient background data for PM2.5 are available from 2 monitors co-located at 14306 Park Street in Victorville, located lessthan 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 notyet complete for 2008. For the 24-hour period, the highest 3-year average ofthe 98th percentiles between the two monitors (19**~lg/m3)** was used. For the annual period, the highest 3-yearaverage annual mean (10.05 J.!g/m3 )between the two monitors was used. The background data forthe Park Street Monitors are shown in Table 1.AECOM Environment Ms Carol Bohnenkamp December29, 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

ReceptorGrid


### As yet, EPA has not established Class II SIL's for PM2.5. Forthis analysis, the 24-hour PM1 0 modeling resultsfrom the PSD application were examined to determine which receptorswere significantfor PM1 O. 

### The review showed thatthere were atotal of6 receptors that exceeded the PM1 0 24-hourClass II SIL of5 )..lg/m3

. 

### Ofthose 6 receptors, 5were on the W2 fenceline and 1 was 100 metersfrom the fenceline. Based on this impact proximity, a receptorgrid using the W2 fenceline receptors along with a grid of receptors extending one kilometerfrom 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 ofthe cumulative PM2.5 modeling are shown in Table 2 below. In the table, the maximum modeled high_8th 

### high averaged overthe three years is summed with the average ofthe 98th 

### percentile ambient background values forthe 24-hourperiod, and the maximum annual impacts averaged overthree years are added to the average annual mean ambient background averaged overthree 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 belowtheir respective standard and thus compliance is demonstrated.
The maximum 24-hourvalue modeled forthe 3 other sources, along with W2 sources and the maximum 24-hour background concentration, is 14 )..lg/m3

. 

### Itshould be noted thatthe maximum contribution byW2 sources to the receptorwith the maximum 24-hourcumulative concentrations impacts is 3.0 )..lg/m3

, 

### orjust 9% ofthe total cumulative impacts and background, and the maximum annual contribution byW2 sources is 0.32 )..lg/m3

### which is lessthan 3% ofthe total cumulative impacts and background. The majority ofthe impacts atthis location were a result ofsources atTXI Riverside Cement. AGC Glass Company had a maximum 24-hourcontribution ofonly 0.02 )..lg/m3

### at any receptor, and HDPP had a maximum contribution ofonly 0.9 )..lg/m3

### forthe 24-hour period. Itshould again be noted thatthe modeled impacts forW2 and especiallyTXI Riverside Cement are extremely conservative because itwas assumed that all PM/PM1 0 emitted by all sources atthe 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 ofthese 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 December29, 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 Projectwould not cause an exceedence ofany applicable PM2.5 ambient airquality standard. Sincerely yours,

Sara J. Head Vice President sara.head@aecom.comAECOM Environment Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp December29, 2009 Page 6

Figure 1: Relative Location ofW2, 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

KilometersAECOM Environment

Figure 2: ReceptorGrid Used in PM2.5 Cumulative Modeling Analysis Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp December29, 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 2Kilometer$

### ATTACHMENT A: Non-W2 Sources included in the PM2.5 Cumulative Modeling AnalysisTable A-1: High Desert Power ProjectSources

AERMOD UTM UTM Base Stack Temp ExitVel. 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 1Turbine 5585 466538 3828072 859.54 39.63 366.48 19.21 5.79 18.10 51.60 UNIT2Turbine 5586 466538 3828032 859.54 39.63 366.48 19.21 5.79 18.49 29.54 UNIT3Turbine 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 CoolingTowerCellI 5590 466476 3828036 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 2 5591 466476 3828019 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 3 5592 466476 3828003 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell4 5593 466476 3827987 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 5 5594 466476 3827970 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 6 5595 466476 3827954 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell7 5596 466489 3828036 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCel18 5597 466489 3828019 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCel19 5598 466489 3828003 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 10 5599 466489 3827987 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 11 5600 466489 3827970 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 CoolingTowerCell 12 5601 466489 3827954 859.54 14.94 310.93 8.02 7.93 0.72 0.17 PortableWaterPump 5602 466667 3828004 859.54 2.13 310.93 8.02 0.31 0.10 0.001TableA-2: AGC Glass Company Sources

Source UTM UTM Base Stack Temp ExitVel. Exit. PM2.5 PM2.S SourceDescription Easting Northing Elev. Diam. 10 (NAD27) (NAD27) (m) Hgt.{m) (K) (m/s) (m) (Lb/hr) (tpy) Unloading5hed 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 Unloadingelevator 5606 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 0.29 0.91 4.51E-04 1.98E-03 Two 5and5ilos 5607 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 2.73E-04 l.20E-03 Two50daAsh5ilos 5608 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 8.38E-05 3.67E-04 Dolomite5ilo 5609 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 7.39E-05 3.24E-04 Limestone5i1o 5610 473766 3815247 899.16 12.04 297.04 0.29 0.91 1.77E-05 7.75E-05 5altCake5i1o 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 CulletBin 5616 473766 3815247 899.16 17.68 297.04 0.16 0.61 1.18E-04 5.18E-04 CulletElevator 5617 473766 3815247 899.16 17.68 297.04 0.33 0.85 1.18E-04 5.18E-04 Mixed Batch ElevatorFeed 5618 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.46 0.91 6.01E-03 2.63E-02 Mixed Batch ElevatorTop 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 CulletReturn 5ystem 5623 473766 3815247 899.16 17.68 297.04 25.59 0.85 4.32E-01 3.78E-03 Tempered 5afetyGlass 5624 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 2.01 0.91 1.6OE-02 3.00E-04 E5P Dust Recycling5ystem 5625 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 1.15 0.91 4.94E-07 2.16E-06 E5P Dust Recycling5ystem 5626 473766 3815247 899.16 15.24 297.04 1.15 0.91 4.94E-07 2.16E-06 OXYdry 5627 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.29 0.91 2.397E-08 1.05E-07Source UTM UTM Base Stack Temp ExitVel. 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 Row5eamers 5628 473766 3815247 899.16 3.05 297.04 0.29 0.91 1.302E-05 5.70E-05 1. All sources placedin central locationand assumed baseelevation ofcentral location because oferrors in the coordinates 2. In cases where shorttermemissions were lessthan annual ornon-existant, annualemissions were used for short-termperiod aswell.

Table A-3: TXI Riverside CementSources

UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp ExitVel. 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 0.22UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp ExitVel. 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 0.57UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp ExitVel. 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 0.59UTM UTM Base Stack Hgt. Temp ExitVel. 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 EmergencyGenerator 469260 3829410 822.96 5.79 751.48 42.89 0.457 5.86E+00 3.23E-02

TXI Riverside CementVolume 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