Pico Rivera City Council
January 24, 2023

2. The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold;

3. The IS/MND fails to identify a potentially significant impact;

4. SWAPE’s updated model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact;

5. The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standard under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and

6. The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standard under SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

First, the IS/MND’s analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. (Id., p. 18.) An EIR should be prepared and emissions remodeled and compared to the applicable thresholds.

Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. (Id., pp. 18-19.) When compared to the correct quantitative threshold, SWAPE found the Project’s GHG emissions are demonstrably significant. (Id.)
Third, the IS/MND’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact. (Ex. 1, p. 19.) Specifically, SWAPE found that the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the IS/MND’s asserted net annual GHG emissions (IS/MND, p. 72, Table 13), and service population (i.e. the number of residents and employees supported by the Project, 823 people) (id.), exceed the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously addressed by the IS/MND. (Ex. 1, p. 19.) Consequently, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion is incorrect and should not be relied upon. Thus, an EIR must be prepared and should include an updated GHG analysis and incorporate mitigation measures intended to reduce GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels.

Fourth, the IS/MND’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. (Ex. 1, pp. 19-20.) Specifically, SWAPE found that the Project’s total net annual GHG emissions, when amortizing the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, were approximately 3,264 MT CO2e/year, exceeding the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (Id., p. 20.) Consequently, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion is incorrect and should not be relied upon. (Id.) Thus, SWAPE concluded that an EIR must be prepared and should include an updated GHG analysis and incorporate mitigation measures intended to reduce GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. (Id.)
Fifth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB’s Scoping Plan. (Ex. 1, pp. 20-21.) Based on SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. (Id.) Instead, an EIR should be prepared that includes a quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing the appropriate standards, as well as mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. (Id., p. 21.)
Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard; Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 SAFER Supplemental Comment on IS/MND
November 21, 2022

Sixth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS. (Ex. 1, pp. 21-22.) Based on SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. (Id.) Instead, an EIR should be prepared that includes a quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing the appropriate standards, as well as mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. (Id., p. 22.)
Lastly, since the IS/MND’s analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further in an effort to reduce emissions, SWAPE identified several feasible mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project. (See, e.g., Ex. 1, pp 22-28.) In conclusion, an EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated air quality and health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below significance thresholds. (Id., p. 28.)
II. THE IS/MND’s ANALYSIS OF ENERGY IMPACTS IS CONCLUSORY AND FAILS TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT’S ENERGY IMPACTS ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Contrary to the IS/MND, the construction and operation of the Project could potentially cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. (See, e.g., IS/MND, pp. 62-

66.)
Regarding the Project’s impacts related to electricity demand, the IS/MND concludes that the impacts will be less than significant because:

While the proposed project would result in a higher electricity demand than existing conditions, it would be consistent with the requirements of the [2019] Building Energy Efficiency Standards [i.e. Title 24]. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to comply with CALGreen. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands and would not result in a significant impact related to electricity. (IS/MND, p. 64 (emphasis added).)
Turning to the Project’s natural gas energy impacts, IS/MND concludes that the impacts will be less than significant, stating:

While the proposed project would result in a higher natural gas demand than existing conditions, it would be consistent with the requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including requirements for natural gas consumption, which would ensure that the proposed project would not result in wasteful or unnecessary natural gas demands. Therefore, operation of the Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard; Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 SAFER Supplemental Comment on IS/MND
November 21, 2022

proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage.
(Id., pp. 64-65 (emphasis added).)
Lastly, concerning whether or not the Project would “[c]onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency,” the IS/MND concludes:

The Statewide [renewable portfolios standard or] RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as [Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy or] PRIME, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the proposed project.

Compliance of PRIME in meeting the RPS goals would ensure the State meets its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. The proposed project also would comply with the latest 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and no impact would occur.
(Id., p. 66 (emphasis added).)
The standard under CEQA is whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake “an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” violates CEQA. (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213; see also, League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (“League to Save Lake Tahoe”) (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168.)
Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.) Noting compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (Title 24)) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-65.) Similarly, the court in City of Woodland held unlawful an energy analysis that relied on compliance with Title 24, that failed to assess transportation energy impacts, and that failed to address renewable energy impacts. (25 Cal.App.4th at pp. 209-13.) As such, the IS/MND’s reliance on Title 24’s 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CalGreen Building Code compliance does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the Project’s energy impacts.

The IS/MND summarily concludes that the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. There is no discussion of the Project’s cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements. There is no adequate discussion of energy Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard; Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 SAFER Supplemental Comment on IS/MND
November 21, 2022

consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the Project, including, inter alia, the energy necessary for heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, and perimeter lighting. The Project’s energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, and maintenance were also not identified.

In addition, the effect of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity has not been addressed. This is of particular concern given that California’s electric grid has recently been significantly impacted by an unprecedented high energy demand as a result of a prolonged, record-breaking heat wave that affected the entire State of California for multiple days. For example, at the start of September 2022, California experienced extreme heat, with temperatures across the state 10 to 20 degrees hotter than normal, driving up energy demand and straining power generation equipment as people ran their air conditioning. On September 6, 2022, as a result of electricity supplies running low in the face of record heat and demand, the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) issued an Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) 3, the highest energy alert, authorizing the grid operator to order rotating power outages to lower demand and stabilize the system if necessary.2 As grid conditions worsened, energy supplies were determined to be insufficient to cover demand and reserves, and an EEA 3 was declared, meaning controlled power outages were imminent or in process according to each utility’s emergency plan. The EEA 3 was in response to an evening peak electricity demand that was forecasted at more than 52,000 megawatts, which Cal-ISO stated was “a new historic all-time high for the grid, as the state endured the hottest day in this prolonged, record-breaking heat wave.”3 Here, the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze energy conservation. As such, the IS/MND’s conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy impacts under CEQA.

In addition, under League to Save Lake Tahoe, the agency has to implement all feasible energy mitigation measures unless it has substantial evidence to show that the proposed measures are infeasible. (Save Lake Tahoe, 75 Cal.App.5th at 166-168; see also, id., pp. 159- 163.) An example of a feasible mitigation measure, which has recently been adopted as a new ordinance in San Francisco, is the requirement that 100% of parking spaces have electric vehicle charging stations. According to the IS/MND, of the 464 parking spaces included in the Project, only “47 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) ready spaces would be provided.” (See, e.g., IS/MND, pp. 17, 83.) Since requiring all parking spaces to have EVCS is likely feasible, the IS/MND must implement it as an energy efficient mitigation measure, or at minimum, provide substantial evidence that implementing the mitigation measure is unfeasible. As such, the IS/MND’s conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy impacts under CEQA.

2 Cal-ISO. News Release. Rotating power outages are now possible to protect grid Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) 3 declared; next step is to begin outages.” September 6, 2022. Available at:
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/rotating-power-outages-are-now-possible-to-protect-grid.pdf. 3 Cal-ISO. News Release. Rotating power outages are now possible to protect grid Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) 3 declared; next step is to begin outages.” September 6, 2022. Available at:
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/rotating-power-outages-are-now-possible-to-protect-grid.pdf.

Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard; Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 SAFER Supplemental Comment on IS/MND
November 21, 2022

In conclusion, because the IS/MND failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, an EIR should be prepared to address the Project’s potential significant energy impacts, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project is in violation of CEQA. Thus, an EIR must be prepared for the proposed Project and should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. SAFER reserves the right to supplement these comments in advance of and during public hearings concerning the Project. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).) Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT 1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
August 17, 2022
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on The Mercury Project
Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the July 2022 Initial Study (“IS”) for The Mercury Project (“Project”) located in the City of Pico Rivera (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use building consisting of 258,720- square-feet (“SF”) of residential space with 255 dwelling units, 5,370-SF of retail space, and 190,000-SF of parking on the 2.85-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 52). 1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on sitespecific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and 1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
2 “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (“AQ & GHG Analysis”) as Appendix A to the IS, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Architectural Coating Emission Factor Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Construction Run” and “Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Mitigated Construction Run” models include a manual reduction to one of the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 79, 111, 143, 176, 208, 240).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the nonresidential exterior architectural coating emission factor is reduced from the default value of 100- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is:
“based on info from applicant, residential includes area for pool, nonresidential includes area for int/ext parking structure, parking only includes parking” (Appendix A, pp. 79, 111, 143, 176, 208, 240).

Furthermore, the IS includes Mitigation Measure (“MM”) AQ-1 which states:
“The construction contractor(s) shall only use interior paints with a VOC (volatile organic compound) content of 0 grams per liter (g/L) to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a VOC content of 0 g/L. Prior to construction, the construction contractor(s) shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City’s Building Division clearly show the requirement for use on interior paint with a VOC content of 0 g/L for the specified buildings, herein” (p. 53).

However, this change remains unsupported, as MM AQ-1 only substantiates the revised interior architectural coating emission factors. As such, we cannot verify the reduction to the exterior architectural coating emission factor.
2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
3 This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.3 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the exterior architectural coating emission factor, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Substantiate Amount of Material Import or Export According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“Grading involves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation.” 4
As demonstrated above, grading involves the use of material import (fill) and export (cut). According to the IS:
“The project would involve asphalt demolition and debris haul, site preparation, rough and fine grading and grading soil haul, utilities trenching, paving, building construction, and architectural coating” (emphasis added) (p. 52).

As demonstrated above, construction of the proposed Project requires grading. However, the IS fails to discuss the amount of material import or export required for Project construction whatsoever. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Construction Run” and “Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Mitigated Construction Run” models include a total of 27,400-cubic-yards (“cy”) of material export (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 80, 112, 144, 177, 209, 241).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5
However, the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table fails to provide a justification for these values. Furthermore, the AQ & GHG Analysis provides the following soil haul assumptions (see excerpt below) (pp. 42):
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 35, 40. 4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32. 5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
4 However, this justification is insufficient, as the AQ & GHG Analysis fails to provide a source for the soil haul assumptions. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”6
Here, as the IS fails to discuss the amount of material import or export required for Project construction, and the AQ & GHG Analysis fails to provide substantial evidence justifying the soil haul assumptions, we cannot verify the values. As such, the models may underestimate the amount of material import and export required during Project construction.

This potential underestimation presents an issue, as the inclusion of material import and export within the model is necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, which includes truck loading and unloading, as well as additional hauling truck trips.7 As the IS fails to substantiate the amount of material import or export, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to verify the amount of required material import and export and revise the model, if necessary.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Number of Gas Fireplaces
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run” model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 273, 288, 298).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would include only three gas fireplaces. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 34.
5 be justified. 8According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this assumption is:
“assumes 3 barbecue grills operating for 3 hours each on weekends” (Appendix A, pp. 273, 288, 298).

Furthermore, the AQ & GHG Analysis provides the following fireplace assumptions (see excerpt below) (pp. 49):

However, this justification is insufficient, as the AQ & GHG Analysis fails to provide a source for the assumption that Project design would not feature gas fireplaces in the residential units. As previously mentioned, this is incorrect. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”9
Here, as the IS fails to discuss the number of gas fireplaces, and the AQ & GHG Analysis fails to provide substantial evidence justifying the assumption that only three gas fireplaces would be included in the Project design, we cannot verify the changes.

This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project’s area-source operational emissions.10 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the gas fireplace values, the model may underestimate the Project’s area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run” model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 273, 274, 288, 289, 298, 299). 8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14. 10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 40, 41.
6 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“see fleet mix adjustment for apartments in assumptions file” (Appendix A, pp. 273, 288, 298).

Furthermore, the AQ & GHG Analysis provides the following operational vehicle fleet mix assumptions (see excerpt below) (pp. 50):

However, these changes remain unsupported, as the AQ & GHG Analysis fails to provide a source for the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages. As previously mentioned, this is incorrect. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”12
11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14.
7 Here, as the IS fails to discuss the Project’s anticipated operational fleet mix, and the AQ & GHG Analysis fails to provide substantial evidence justifying the revised percentages, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.13 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Underestimated Solid Waste Generation Rates
According to the IS:
“Regarding project operation, based on a solid waste generation of approximately 10 pounds per dwelling unit per day for multifamily and 0.006 pounds per square foot per day for commercial retail (CalRecycle n.d.), the mixed-use building would generate approximately 2,250 pounds per day from residential and 35 pounds per day from retail for a total of 2,285 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 1.14 tons per day” (p. 120).

As such, the model should have included 416.1-tons per year (“tpy”) of solid waste for the Project’s proposed land uses.14 However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run” model includes only 229.87-tpy15 of solid waste (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 285).
13 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 37. 14 Calculated: 1.14 tons/day * 365 days = 416.1 tons/year. 15 Calculated: 117.3 + 32.73 + 76.95 + 2.89 = 229.87-typ. 8 As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the total amount of solid waste is underestimated by 186.23- tpy.16 Thus, the model is underestimated and inconsistent with the information provided in the IS.

This underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project’s operational GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.17 Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates, the model underestimates the Project’s operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Rates Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run” model includes reductions to the default indoor and outdoor water use rates (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 275, 290, 300).
16 Calculated: 416.1-typ proposed – 229.87-typ modeled = 186.23-tpy underestimated. 17 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 46.
9 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.18 However, the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table fails to provide a justification for these changes. Furthermore, regarding the Project’s expected water use, the IS states:
“Based on the CalEEMod model conducted as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (see Appendix A), the proposed project, including indoor and outdoor water use, is anticipated to be approximately 81,076 gallons per day (29,592,834 gallons per year or approximately 91 acre-feet per year), which is within the District’s groundwater pumping capacity” (p. 117).

However, the changes remain unsupported, as the above-mentioned values provided for the Project’s expected water use are based on the CalEEMod output files themselves. This is incorrect, as the Project documents should substantiate the changes included in the CalEEMod model, not vice versa.19 As the IS fails to provide an adequate source for the revised water use rates, cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses indoor water use rates to estimate the amount of wastewater, which has direct emissions of GHGs.20 By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default indoor and outdoor water use rates, the model underestimates the Project’s water-related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Wastewater Treatment System Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run” model includes a manual change to the default wastewater treatment system percentage (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 275, 290, 300).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project’s wastewater would be treated 100% aerobically. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to 18 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 19 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14. 20 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 44, 45.
10 model defaults be justified. 21 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is:
“Assumes 100% aerobic treatment” (Appendix A, pp. 273, 288, 298).

Furthermore, regarding wastewater, the IS states:
“The collected wastewater flows south towards the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant of LACSD in the city of Cerritos”
However, review of the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation’ Wastewater Treatment Process demonstrates that some anaerobic treatment is used during the solids processing stage. 22, 23 As such, the inclusion of
100% aerobic treatment in the model is incorrect.

This presents an issue, as each type of wastewater treatment system is associated with different GHG emission factors, which are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s total GHG emissions.24 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated change to the wastewater treatment system percentage, the model may underestimate the Project’s GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the IS states:
“Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) adopted guidance for preparation of health risk assessments, which included the development of a cancer risk factor and non-cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM over a 30-year time frame (OEHHA 2015). Currently, South Coast AQMD does not require the evaluation of long-term excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term construction project. The proposed project’s construction period is anticipated to be completed in approximately 23 months, which would limit the exposure of adjacent sensitive receptors to construction emissions. Project construction would comply with required health and safety standards and construction best practices. Furthermore, construction activities would not generate onsite exhaust emissions that would exceed the screening-level construction LSTs, as shown in Table 8, above. Thus, 21 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 22“Wastewater Treatment Process.” Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, available at:
https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/wastewater-treatment-process 23 “Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant.” Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, available at:
https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/los-coyotes-water-reclamation-plant 24 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 45.
11 construction emissions would not pose a health risk to onsite and offsite receptors, and projectrelated construction health impacts would be less than significant” (p. 56, 57).

As demonstrated above, the IS concludes a less-than-significant health risk impact during Project construction because the short-term construction schedule and compliance with best practices would generate only limited amounts of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). Furthermore, the Project’s onsite exhaust emissions would be below screening-level localized significance thresholds (“LSTs”). However, the IS fails to mention or evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation whatsoever. As such, the IS’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.

First, the IS’s claim that the Project’s construction-related health risk impact would be less-thansignificant because “construction activities would not generate onsite exhaust emissions that would exceed the screening-level construction LSTs” is insufficient (p. 57). The use of an LST analysis to determine the health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s construction-related TAC emissions is incorrect. While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the SCAQMD, LST analyses are only applicable to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants.25 Because the LST method can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, this method cannot be used to determine whether emissions from TACs, specifically DPM, a known human carcinogen, would result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, health impacts from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap in the IS’s analysis.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”26 This poses a problem, as construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 23 months (p. 52). Furthermore, operation of the Project is expected to generate 1,594 net new daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 16). However, the IS fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.
25 “Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.” SCAQMD, Revised July 2008, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf. 26 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 12 Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.27 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”28 Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 23-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).29 While the IS fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30- year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.30 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.31 As discussed above, the model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance 27 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 28 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 29 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4. 30 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 31 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 13 as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).32, 33 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.34 The IS’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 361 pounds of DPM over the 699-day construction period.35 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 361.4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
699 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00271 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 699-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.08 years. The IS’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 87 net pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 86.6 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00125 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 2.85-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 152- by 76-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban 32 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 33 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 34 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 35 See Attachment B for health risk calculations. 14 meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The population of Pico Rivera was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.36 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The U.S. EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.37 According to the IS the nearest sensitive receptor are single-family residences directly adjacent to the Project site (p. 85). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 75 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 7.093 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.7093 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 3.256 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.3256 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.38 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including highpoint estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
36 “Pico Rivera.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0656924. 37 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 38 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplementalguidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2. 15 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)39
Age
Sensitivity
Factor40
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home41
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)42
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
39 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 40 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 41 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 42 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 16 where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 699-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.67 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.33 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.70930 9.65E-06
Construction 1.67 0.70930 1.94E-04
Operation 0.33 0.32560 1.79E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 2.12E-04
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.32560 1.18E-04
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.32560 1.31E-05
Lifetime 30 3.52E-04
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 9.65, 212, 118, and 13.1 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 352 in one million.

The child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
17 “EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 2,958 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (see excerpt below) (p. 72, Table 13).

Furthermore, the IS’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 72, 73). However, the IS’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for six reasons.
18 (1) The IS’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The IS’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) The IS fails to identify a potentially significant impact; (4) SWAPE’s updated model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact; (5) The IS fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and (6) The IS fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,958 MT CO2e/year (p. 72, Table 13). However, the IS’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ & GHG Analysis as Appendix A to the IS, we found that several of the values inputted into the models are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS. As a result, the models underestimate the Project’s emissions, and the IS’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the IS estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,958 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 72, Table 13). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 43 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.” 44
As it is currently August 2022, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS’s less-thansignificant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide 43 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 44 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 19 equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.
45 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS, to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year. When applying this threshold, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.

As previously stated, the IS estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,958 MT CO2e/year (p. 72, Table 13). According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, a service population (“SP”) is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”46 According to the IS, the Project would support 812 residents and 11 employees. As such, we estimate an SP of 823 people.
47 When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS, by a SP of 823 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 3.6 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).48
IS Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 2,958
Service Population 823
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 3.6
SCAQMD Threshold 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the IS’s net annual GHG emissions estimates and SP, exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS.

As a result, the IS’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. 4) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s operational emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS. In our updated model, we 45 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 46 “CEQA & Climate Change.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), January 2008, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf, p. 71-72. 47 Calculated: 812 residents + 11 employees = 823 total SP. 48 Calculated: (2,985 MT CO2e/year) / (823 SP) = (3.60 MT CO2e/SP/year). 20 omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the architectural coating emission factor, number of gas fireplaces, operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, indoor and outdoor water use rates, and wastewater treatment system percentages, as well as included the correct solid waste generation rates.

SWAPE’s updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact, when applying the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. The updated CalEEMod output files disclose the Project’s mitigated emissions, which include approximately 3,235 MT CO2e/year of annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,264 MT CO2e/year (see table below).

SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years)49 29
Area 57
Energy 892
Mobile 1,960
Waste 209
Water 118
Annual Operational 3,235
Total Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,264
SCAQMD Bright-Line Threshold 3,000
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s estimated annual GHG emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the IS. As a result, the IS’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels. 5) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed, the IS concludes that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (p. 72). However, this is incorrect, as the IS fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB.
49 Amortized construction GHG emissions based on estimates from the IS. 21 i. Passenger & Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.50 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a “baseline scenario” that includes “current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.”51 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2023 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita
Los Angeles County State
Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 9,838,771 216,979,221.64 22.05 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2023 10,581,976 221,156,313.83 20.90 41,659,526 924,184,228.61 22.18 2030 10,868,614 215,539,586.12 19.83 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the IS fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the IS’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 6) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS As previously discussed, the IS concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (p. 7). However, the IS fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific performancebased goals underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled (“VMT”) per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals
SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035. This goal is reflected in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS 50 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” CARB, November 2017, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, p. 25, 98, 101-103. 51 “Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,” California Air Resources Board (CARB), January 2019, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-planidentified-vmt-reductions-and-relationship-state-climate; see also:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/sp_mss_vmt_calculations_jan19_0.xlsx. 22 Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below). 52 As the IS fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s per capita emissions, the IS’s claim that the proposed Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-thansignificant GHG impacts. ii. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target
Under the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.53 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from

22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.54 Here, however, the IS fails to consider any of the abovementioned performance-based VMT targets. As the IS fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the IS’s claim that the proposed Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project 52 “Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618, p. 3.8-74. 53 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 54 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 23 Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 55
SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
i) On Caltrans projects, Caltrans Standard Specifications 10-Dust Control, 17-Watering, and 18-Dust Palliative shall be incorporated into project specifications.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. 55 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 24 p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavyduty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). v) As applicable for airport projects, the following measures should be considered… w) As applicable for port projects, the following measures should be considered:
- Develop specific timelines for transitioning to zero emission cargo handling equipment (CHE) - Develop interim performance standards with a minimum amount of CHE replacement each year to ensure adequate progress.
- Use short side electric power for ships, which may include tugboats and other ocean-going vessels or develop incentives to gradually ramp up the usage of shore power. - Install the appropriate infrastructure to provide shore power to operate the ships. Electrical hookups should be appropriately sized.
- Maximize participation in the Port of Los Angeles’ Vessel Speed Reduction Program or the Port of Long Beach’s Green Flag Initiation Program in order to reduce the speed of vessel transiting within 40 nautical miles of Point Fermin.
- Encourage the participation in the Green Ship Incentives. - Offer incentives to encourage the use of on-dock rail. x) As applicable for rail projects, the following measures should be considered… y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. 25 - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
26 i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.

Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
27 xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
28 q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated health risk and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
29 Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS's model.

Land Use - Consistent with the IS's model.

Construction Phase - Consistent with the IS's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 190.00 1000sqft 0.34 190,000.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 21.00 1000sqft 0.48 21,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2.87 1000sqft 0.00 2,865.00 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 17.50 1000sqft 0.00 17,500.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 255.00 Dwelling Unit 0.99 260,220.00 729 Regional Shopping Center 2.87 1000sqft 0.00 2,865.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
683.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Attachment A
Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Number of Gas Fireplaces" Area Coating - Consistent with the IS's model.

Water And Wastewater - See SWAPE comments on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Rates" and "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Wastewater System Treatment Percentages"
Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Fleet Mix - Consistent with the IS's model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS's model.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 2865 97865
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 8595 293595 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 15360 11400
tblAreaCoating Area_Residential_Exterior 175649 187461
tblAreaCoating Area_Residential_Interior 526946 562383
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.50 38.25
tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.75 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,870.00 2,865.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 255,000.00 260,220.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,870.00 2,865.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.36 0.34
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.07 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.71 0.99
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.07 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 117.30 279.19
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 20.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 35.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 10.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 10.08
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 10.08
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 43.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 37.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 54.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.57
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 122.40 110.47
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.10 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.12 39.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.57
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 142.64 110.47
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 13.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 21.10 39.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.57
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 112.18 110.47
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 28.82 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 39.27
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 12.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 12.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.0173 0.1666 0.1444 2.5000e0041.4200e0038.3900e0039.8100e0033.8000e0047.8400e0038.2200e0030.0000 22.2569 22.2569 5.4000e0033.0000e00522.4015 Maximum 0.0173 0.1666 0.1444 2.5000e0041.4200e0038.3900e0039.8100e0033.8000e0047.8400e0038.2200e0030.0000 22.2569 22.2569 5.4000e0033.0000e00522.4015 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.0173 0.1666 0.1444 2.5000e0041.4200e0038.3900e0039.8100e0033.8000e0047.8400e0038.2200e0030.0000 22.2569 22.2569 5.4000e0033.0000e00522.4015 Maximum 0.0173 0.1666 0.1444 2.5000e0041.4200e0038.3900e0039.8100e0033.8000e0047.8400e0038.2200e0030.0000 22.2569 22.2569 5.4000e0033.0000e00522.4015 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 8-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.1708 0.1708
Highest 0.1708 0.1708

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.2426 0.0753 2.6530 4.3000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 56.3523 56.3523 5.1500e0039.5000e00456.7653 Energy 0.0216 0.1861 0.0927 1.1800e0030.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 888.5564 888.5564 0.0367 7.8600e003891.8152 Mobile 0.8917 1.0643 9.5543 0.0207 2.1340 0.0152 2.1492 0.5693 0.0141 0.5834 0.0000 1,931.792 4 1,931.792
4 0.1299 0.0830 1,959.786
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 84.4645 0.0000 84.4645 4.9917 0.0000 209.2573 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9431 114.6070 120.5501 0.6159 0.0151 140.4436 Total 2.1559 1.3257 12.3000 0.0223 2.1340 0.0483 2.1823 0.5693 0.0472 0.6165 90.4077 2,991.308 0 3,081.715
7 5.7794 0.1069 3,258.067
4 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.2426 0.0753 2.6530 4.3000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 56.3523 56.3523 5.1500e0039.5000e00456.7653 Energy 0.0216 0.1861 0.0927 1.1800e0030.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 888.5564 888.5564 0.0367 7.8600e003891.8152 Mobile 0.8917 1.0643 9.5543 0.0207 2.1340 0.0152 2.1492 0.5693 0.0141 0.5834 0.0000 1,931.792 4 1,931.792
4 0.1299 0.0830 1,959.786
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 84.4645 0.0000 84.4645 4.9917 0.0000 209.2573 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7545 97.0969 101.8514 0.4930 0.0121 117.7821 Total 2.1559 1.3257 12.3000 0.0223 2.1340 0.0483 2.1823 0.5693 0.0472 0.6165 89.2190 2,973.798 0 3,063.017
0 5.6564 0.1040 3,235.406
0 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2022 8/26/2022 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.59 0.61 2.13 2.79 0.70 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 1.85
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e0048.3800e0038.3800e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e0030.0000 21.2120 Total 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e0048.3800e0038.3800e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e0030.0000 21.2120 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e0043.7000e0044.8300e0031.0000e0051.4200e0031.0000e0051.4300e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1792 1.1792 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1896 Total 4.5000e0043.7000e0044.8300e0031.0000e0051.4200e0031.0000e0051.4300e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1792 1.1792 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1896 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e0048.3800e0038.3800e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e0030.0000 21.2119 Total 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e0048.3800e0038.3800e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e0030.0000 21.2119 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e0043.7000e0044.8300e0031.0000e0051.4200e0031.0000e0051.4300e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1792 1.1792 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1896 Total 4.5000e0043.7000e0044.8300e0031.0000e0051.4200e0031.0000e0051.4300e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1792 1.1792 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1896 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.8917 1.0643 9.5543 0.0207 2.1340 0.0152 2.1492 0.5693 0.0141 0.5834 0.0000 1,931.792 4 1,931.792
4 0.1299 0.0830 1,959.786
1 Unmitigated 0.8917 1.0643 9.5543 0.0207 2.1340 0.0152 2.1492 0.5693 0.0141 0.5834 0.0000 1,931.792 4 1,931.792
4 0.1299 0.0830 1,959.786
1 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,165.35 1,165.35 1165.35 4,275,809 4,275,809 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 317.05 317.05 317.05 1,016,956 1,016,956 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0.00 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 112.70 112.70 112.70 387,748 387,748 Total 1,595.10 1,595.10 1,595.10 5,680,513 5,680,513
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.08 10.08 10.08 40.20 19.20 40.60 100 0 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 100 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 52 39 9 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Recreational Swimming Pool 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Regional Shopping Center 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 675.2855 675.2855 0.0326 3.9500e003677.2769 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 675.2855 675.2855 0.0326 3.9500e003677.2769 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0216 0.1861 0.0927 1.1800e0030.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 213.2709 213.2709 4.0900e0033.9100e003214.5383 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0216 0.1861 0.0927 1.1800e0030.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 213.2709 213.2709 4.0900e0033.9100e003214.5383 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.33198e
+006

0.0180 0.1535 0.0653 9.8000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 177.8072 177.8072 3.4100e0033.2600e003178.8638 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
659895 3.5600e0030.0324 0.0272 1.9000e0042.4600e0032.4600e0032.4600e0032.4600e0030.0000 35.2145 35.2145 6.7000e0046.5000e00435.4238 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
4669.95 3.0000e0052.3000e0041.9000e0040.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.2492 0.2492 0.0000 0.0000 0.2507 Total 0.0216 0.1861 0.0927 1.1700e0030.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 213.2709 213.2709 4.0800e0033.9100e003214.5383 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.33198e
+006

0.0180 0.1535 0.0653 9.8000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0124 0.0124 0.0000 177.8072 177.8072 3.4100e0033.2600e003178.8638 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
659895 3.5600e0030.0324 0.0272 1.9000e0042.4600e0032.4600e0032.4600e0032.4600e0030.0000 35.2145 35.2145 6.7000e0046.5000e00435.4238 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
4669.95 3.0000e0052.3000e0041.9000e0040.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.2492 0.2492 0.0000 0.0000 0.2507 Total 0.0216 0.1861 0.0927 1.1700e0030.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 213.2709 213.2709 4.0800e0033.9100e003214.5383 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
981584 304.5347 0.0147 1.7800e003305.4327
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

1.0336e
+006
320.6725 0.0155 1.8800e003321.6181
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
123969 38.4610 1.8600e0032.2000e00438.5744
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Regional
Shopping Center
37445.6 11.6174 5.6000e0047.0000e00511.6517
Total 675.2855 0.0326 3.9500e003677.2769
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
981584 304.5347 0.0147 1.7800e003305.4327
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

1.0336e
+006
320.6725 0.0155 1.8800e003321.6181
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
123969 38.4610 1.8600e0032.2000e00438.5744
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Regional
Shopping Center
37445.6 11.6174 5.6000e0047.0000e00511.6517
Total 675.2855 0.0326 3.9500e003677.2769
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.2426 0.0753 2.6530 4.3000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 56.3523 56.3523 5.1500e0039.5000e00456.7653 Unmitigated 1.2426 0.0753 2.6530 4.3000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 56.3523 56.3523 5.1500e0039.5000e00456.7653

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1803 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.9776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.2600e0030.0449 0.0191 2.9000e0043.6300e0033.6300e0033.6300e0033.6300e0030.0000 52.0497 52.0497 1.0000e0039.5000e00452.3590 Landscaping 0.0796 0.0304 2.6339 1.4000e0040.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0000 4.3025 4.3025 4.1500e0030.0000 4.4063 Total 1.2426 0.0753 2.6530 4.3000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 56.3523 56.3523 5.1500e0039.5000e00456.7653 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1803 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.9776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.2600e0030.0449 0.0191 2.9000e0043.6300e0033.6300e0033.6300e0033.6300e0030.0000 52.0497 52.0497 1.0000e0039.5000e00452.3590 Landscaping 0.0796 0.0304 2.6339 1.4000e0040.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0146 0.0000 4.3025 4.3025 4.1500e0030.0000 4.4063 Total 1.2426 0.0753 2.6530 4.3000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 56.3523 56.3523 5.1500e0039.5000e00456.7653 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 101.8514 0.4930 0.0121 117.7821
Unmitigated 120.5501 0.6159 0.0151 140.4436
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

16.6143 /

10.4742
108.4914 0.5464 0.0134 126.1396
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

0.871142 /

0.0556048

3.9872 0.0286 6.9000e0044.9076
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool

1.03501 /

0.634358

6.6961 0.0340 8.3000e0047.7953
Regional
Shopping Center

0.212588 /

0.130296

1.3754 6.9900e0031.7000e0041.6011
Total 120.5501 0.6160 0.0151 140.4436
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

13.2914 /

9.83529

91.8115 0.4373 0.0107 105.9448
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

0.696913 /

0.0522129

3.2164 0.0229 5.5000e0043.9528
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool

0.828004 /

0.595662

5.6608 0.0272 6.7000e0046.5411
Regional
Shopping Center

0.170071 /

0.122348

1.1627 5.6000e0031.4000e0041.3435
Total 101.8514 0.4930 0.0121 117.7821
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 84.4645 4.9917 0.0000 209.2573
Unmitigated 84.4645 4.9917 0.0000 209.2573
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
279.19 56.6731 3.3493 0.0000 140.4051
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

34.15 6.9321 0.4097 0.0000 17.1741
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool

99.75 20.2484 1.1966 0.0000 50.1644
Regional
Shopping Center

3.01 0.6110 0.0361 0.0000 1.5137
Total 84.4645 4.9917 0.0000 209.2573
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
279.19 56.6731 3.3493 0.0000 140.4051
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

34.15 6.9321 0.4097 0.0000 17.1741
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool

99.75 20.2484 1.1966 0.0000 50.1644
Regional
Shopping Center

3.01 0.6110 0.0361 0.0000 1.5137
Total 84.4645 4.9917 0.0000 209.2573
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 8/17/2022 10:45 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS's model.

Land Use - Consistent with the IS's model.

Construction Phase - Consistent with the IS's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 190.00 1000sqft 0.34 190,000.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 21.00 1000sqft 0.48 21,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2.87 1000sqft 0.00 2,865.00 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 17.50 1000sqft 0.00 17,500.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 255.00 Dwelling Unit 0.99 260,220.00 729 Regional Shopping Center 2.87 1000sqft 0.00 2,865.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
683.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Number of Gas Fireplaces" Area Coating - Consistent with the IS's model.

Water And Wastewater - See SWAPE comments on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Rates" and "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Wastewater System Treatment Percentages"
Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Fleet Mix - Consistent with the IS's model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS's model.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 2865 97865
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 8595 293595 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 15360 11400
tblAreaCoating Area_Residential_Exterior 175649 187461
tblAreaCoating Area_Residential_Interior 526946 562383
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.50 38.25
tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.75 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,870.00 2,865.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 255,000.00 260,220.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,870.00 2,865.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.36 0.34
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.07 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.71 0.99
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.07 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 117.30 279.19
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 20.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 35.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 10.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 10.08
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 10.08
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 43.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 37.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 54.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.57
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 122.40 110.47
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.10 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.12 39.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.57
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 142.64 110.47
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 13.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 21.10 39.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.57
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 112.18 110.47
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 28.82 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 39.27
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 12.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 12.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 1.7339 16.6546 14.4729 0.0255 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,458.633 4 2,458.633
4 0.5958 3.2500e0032,474.496
5 Maximum 1.7339 16.6546 14.4729 0.0255 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,458.633 4 2,458.633
4 0.5958 3.2500e0032,474.496
5 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 1.7339 16.6546 14.4729 0.0255 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,458.633 4 2,458.633
4 0.5958 3.2500e0032,474.496
5 Maximum 1.7339 16.6546 14.4729 0.0255 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,458.633 4 2,458.633
4 0.5958 3.2500e0032,474.496
5 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Energy 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 Mobile 5.0659 5.3318 53.3654 0.1174 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 12,093.04 95 12,093.04
95 0.7697 0.4782 12,254.78
08 Total 12.5855 10.1899 76.4744 0.1479 11.9584 0.5724 12.5308 3.1852 0.5664 3.7516 0.0000 18,009.16 10 18,009.16
10 0.9190 0.5859 18,206.73
79 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Energy 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 Mobile 5.0659 5.3318 53.3654 0.1174 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 12,093.04 95 12,093.04
95 0.7697 0.4782 12,254.78
08 Total 12.5855 10.1899 76.4744 0.1479 11.9584 0.5724 12.5308 3.1852 0.5664 3.7516 0.0000 18,009.16 10 18,009.16
10 0.9190 0.5859 18,206.73
79 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2022 8/26/2022 5 20
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 1.85
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0450 0.0329 0.5124 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 135.2165 135.2165 3.6600e0033.2500e003136.2774 Total 0.0450 0.0329 0.5124 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 135.2165 135.2165 3.6600e0033.2500e003136.2774 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0450 0.0329 0.5124 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 135.2165 135.2165 3.6600e0033.2500e003136.2774 Total 0.0450 0.0329 0.5124 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 135.2165 135.2165 3.6600e0033.2500e003136.2774 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 5.0659 5.3318 53.3654 0.1174 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 12,093.04 95 12,093.04
95 0.7697 0.4782 12,254.78
08 Unmitigated 5.0659 5.3318 53.3654 0.1174 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 12,093.04 95 12,093.04
95 0.7697 0.4782 12,254.78
08 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,165.35 1,165.35 1165.35 4,275,809 4,275,809 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 317.05 317.05 317.05 1,016,956 1,016,956 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0.00 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 112.70 112.70 112.70 387,748 387,748 Total 1,595.10 1,595.10 1,595.10 5,680,513 5,680,513
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.08 10.08 10.08 40.20 19.20 40.60 100 0 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 100 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 52 39 9 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Recreational Swimming Pool 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Regional Shopping Center 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
9128.71 0.0985 0.8413 0.3580 5.3700e0030.0680 0.0680 0.0680 0.0680 1,073.966 3 1,073.966
3 0.0206 0.0197 1,080.348
4 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1807.93 0.0195 0.1773 0.1489 1.0600e0030.0135 0.0135 0.0135 0.0135 212.6980 212.6980 4.0800e0033.9000e003213.9619 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center

12.7944 1.4000e0041.2500e0031.0500e0031.0000e0051.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.5052 1.5052 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.5142 Total 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
5 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise

9.12871 0.0985 0.8413 0.3580 5.3700e0030.0680 0.0680 0.0680 0.0680 1,073.966 3 1,073.966
3 0.0206 0.0197 1,080.348
4 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.80793 0.0195 0.1773 0.1489 1.0600e0030.0135 0.0135 0.0135 0.0135 212.6980 212.6980 4.0800e0033.9000e003213.9619 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center

0.0127944 1.4000e0041.2500e0031.0500e0031.0000e0051.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.5052 1.5052 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.5142 Total 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
5 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Unmitigated 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.9877 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

5.3565 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.4208 3.5955 1.5300 0.0230 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.0000 4,590.000 0 4,590.000
0 0.0880 0.0842 4,617.276
1 Landscaping 0.6366 0.2428 21.0710 1.1100e0030.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 37.9420 37.9420 0.0366 38.8566 Total 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.9877 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

5.3565 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.4208 3.5955 1.5300 0.0230 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.0000 4,590.000 0 4,590.000
0 0.0880 0.0842 4,617.276
1 Landscaping 0.6366 0.2428 21.0710 1.1100e0030.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 37.9420 37.9420 0.0366 38.8566 Total 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:51 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS's model.

Land Use - Consistent with the IS's model.

Construction Phase - Consistent with the IS's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 190.00 1000sqft 0.34 190,000.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 21.00 1000sqft 0.48 21,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2.87 1000sqft 0.00 2,865.00 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 17.50 1000sqft 0.00 17,500.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 255.00 Dwelling Unit 0.99 260,220.00 729 Regional Shopping Center 2.87 1000sqft 0.00 2,865.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
683.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Number of Gas Fireplaces" Area Coating - Consistent with the IS's model.

Water And Wastewater - See SWAPE comments on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Rates" and "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Wastewater System Treatment Percentages"
Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Fleet Mix - Consistent with the IS's model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS's model.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 2865 97865
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 8595 293595 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 15360 11400
tblAreaCoating Area_Residential_Exterior 175649 187461
tblAreaCoating Area_Residential_Interior 526946 562383
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.50 38.25
tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.75 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,870.00 2,865.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 255,000.00 260,220.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,870.00 2,865.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.36 0.34
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.07 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.71 0.99
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.07 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 117.30 279.19
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 20.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 35.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 10.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 10.08
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 10.08
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 43.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 37.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 54.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.57
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 122.40 110.47
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.10 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.12 39.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.57
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 142.64 110.47
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 13.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 21.10 39.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.57
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 112.18 110.47
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 28.82 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 39.27
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 12.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 12.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 1.7371 16.6580 14.4309 0.0254 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,451.484 2 2,451.484
2 0.5958 3.4800e0032,467.414
8 Maximum 1.7371 16.6580 14.4309 0.0254 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,451.484 2 2,451.484
2 0.5958 3.4800e0032,467.414
8 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 1.7371 16.6580 14.4309 0.0254 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,451.484 2 2,451.484
2 0.5958 3.4800e0032,467.414
8 Maximum 1.7371 16.6580 14.4309 0.0254 0.1453 0.8388 0.9841 0.0385 0.7837 0.8223 0.0000 2,451.484 2 2,451.484
2 0.5958 3.4800e0032,467.414
8 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Energy 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 Mobile 4.9805 5.7619 51.9745 0.1124 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 11,575.44 87 11,575.44
87 0.7904 0.4996 11,744.09
77 Total 12.5001 10.6200 75.0835 0.1429 11.9584 0.5725 12.5309 3.1852 0.5665 3.7517 0.0000 17,491.56 01 17,491.56
01 0.9396 0.6074 17,696.05
48 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Energy 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 Mobile 4.9805 5.7619 51.9745 0.1124 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 11,575.44 87 11,575.44
87 0.7904 0.4996 11,744.09
77 Total 12.5001 10.6200 75.0835 0.1429 11.9584 0.5725 12.5309 3.1852 0.5665 3.7517 0.0000 17,491.56 01 17,491.56
01 0.9396 0.6074 17,696.05
48 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2022 8/26/2022 5 20
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 1.85
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0482 0.0363 0.4704 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 128.0673 128.0673 3.7000e0033.4800e003129.1958 Total 0.0482 0.0363 0.4704 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 128.0673 128.0673 3.7000e0033.4800e003129.1958 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416
8 0.5921 2,338.219
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0482 0.0363 0.4704 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 128.0673 128.0673 3.7000e0033.4800e003129.1958 Total 0.0482 0.0363 0.4704 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 128.0673 128.0673 3.7000e0033.4800e003129.1958 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.9805 5.7619 51.9745 0.1124 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 11,575.44 87 11,575.44
87 0.7904 0.4996 11,744.09
77 Unmitigated 4.9805 5.7619 51.9745 0.1124 11.9584 0.0836 12.0420 3.1852 0.0776 3.2628 11,575.44 87 11,575.44
87 0.7904 0.4996 11,744.09
77 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,165.35 1,165.35 1165.35 4,275,809 4,275,809 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 317.05 317.05 317.05 1,016,956 1,016,956 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0.00 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 112.70 112.70 112.70 387,748 387,748 Total 1,595.10 1,595.10 1,595.10 5,680,513 5,680,513
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.08 10.08 10.08 40.20 19.20 40.60 100 0 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 100 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 52 39 9 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Recreational Swimming Pool 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374 Regional Shopping Center 0.544785 0.062844 0.187478 0.127235 0.023089 0.006083 0.010475 0.008012 0.000925 0.000611 0.024394 0.000698 0.003374

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
9128.71 0.0985 0.8413 0.3580 5.3700e0030.0680 0.0680 0.0680 0.0680 1,073.966 3 1,073.966
3 0.0206 0.0197 1,080.348
4 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1807.93 0.0195 0.1773 0.1489 1.0600e0030.0135 0.0135 0.0135 0.0135 212.6980 212.6980 4.0800e0033.9000e003213.9619 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center

12.7944 1.4000e0041.2500e0031.0500e0031.0000e0051.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.5052 1.5052 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.5142 Total 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
5 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise

9.12871 0.0985 0.8413 0.3580 5.3700e0030.0680 0.0680 0.0680 0.0680 1,073.966 3 1,073.966
3 0.0206 0.0197 1,080.348
4 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.80793 0.0195 0.1773 0.1489 1.0600e0030.0135 0.0135 0.0135 0.0135 212.6980 212.6980 4.0800e0033.9000e003213.9619 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational
Swimming Pool
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center

0.0127944 1.4000e0041.2500e0031.0500e0031.0000e0051.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0041.5052 1.5052 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.5142 Total 0.1181 1.0198 0.5079 6.4400e0030.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 1,288.169 5 1,288.169
5 0.0247 0.0236 1,295.824
5 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Unmitigated 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.9877 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

5.3565 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.4208 3.5955 1.5300 0.0230 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.0000 4,590.000 0 4,590.000
0 0.0880 0.0842 4,617.276
1 Landscaping 0.6366 0.2428 21.0710 1.1100e0030.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 37.9420 37.9420 0.0366 38.8566 Total 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.9877 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

5.3565 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.4208 3.5955 1.5300 0.0230 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.2907 0.0000 4,590.000 0 4,590.000
0 0.0880 0.0842 4,617.276
1 Landscaping 0.6366 0.2428 21.0710 1.1100e0030.1166 0.1166 0.1166 0.1166 37.9420 37.9420 0.0366 38.8566 Total 7.4015 3.8383 22.6010 0.0241 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.4073 0.0000 4,627.942 0 4,627.942
0 0.1246 0.0842 4,656.132
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 16 Date: 8/17/2022 10:53 AM Washington and Rosemead Mixed Use Project Operations Run - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.1084 Total DPM (lbs) 361.3808219 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0433 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.593972603 Total DPM (g) 163922.3408 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.237260274 Construction Duration (days) 365 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.002714234 Total DPM (lbs) 86.6 Total DPM (lbs) 216.8 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001245616 Total DPM (g) 98340.48 Total Acreage 2.85 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 1/1/2022 Max Horizontal (meters) 151.88 Total Acreage 2.85 End Date 1/1/2023 Min Horizontal (meters) 75.94 Max Horizontal (meters) 151.88 Construction Days 365 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 75.94 Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.079 Population 60,764 Setting Urban Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.432876712 Start Date 1/1/2022 Population 60,764 Construction Duration (days) 334 End Date 12/1/2023
Total DPM (lbs) 144.5808219 Total Construction Days 699 Total DPM (g) 65581.86082 Total Years of Construction 1.92 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Operation 28.08
End Date 12/1/2023
Construction Days 334
2023
Construction Operation
2022 Total Emission Rate
Attachment B
Start date and time  08/15/22 10:36:22
AERSCREEN 21112
The Mercury ‐ Construction
The Mercury ‐ Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ METRIC              ENGLISH
** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate:    0.271E‐02 g/s 0.215E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length:  151.88 meters 498.29 feet
Area Source Width:    75.94 meters 249.15 feet
Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 60764
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment C
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation:   0.0 meters 0.0  feet
Probe distance:   5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature:  250.0 / 310.0 K   ‐9.7 /  98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height:   10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type:    Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted

DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture

Season             Albedo     Bo       zo

Winter              0.35     1.50     1.000

Spring              0.14     1.00     1.000

Summer              0.16     2.00     1.000

Autumn              0.18     2.00     1.000

Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl

Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe

FLOWSECTOR   started 08/15/22 10:38:22

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Spring

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  30 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector  1
*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Autumn

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

FLOWSECTOR   ended 08/15/22 10:38:31

REFINE       started 08/15/22 10:38:31

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***
REFINE ended 08/15/22 10:38:32
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time  08/15/22 10:38:34
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT

0.53161E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60200E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65775E+01 50.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70928E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.71229E+01 77.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50629E+01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36003E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28335E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23097E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19323E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16505E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14334E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12614E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11220E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10078E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91146E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83066E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76188E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70169E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64935E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60364E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56341E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52728E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49509E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46625E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44013E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41643E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39491E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37525E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35707E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34038E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32503E+00 750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31086E+00 775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29772E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28554E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27421E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26365E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25379E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24451E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23580E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22763E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21992E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21262E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20573E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19923E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19308E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18726E+00 1125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18173E+00 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17649E+00 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17150E+00 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16675E+00 1225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16222E+00 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15791E+00 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15379E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14986E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14610E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14250E+00 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13905E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13678E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13355E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13046E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12749E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12463E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12188E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11924E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11669E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11423E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11187E+00 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10959E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10738E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10526E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10320E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10121E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99294E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.97435E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.95635E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.93892E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.92204E-01 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90567E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.88980E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.87440E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.85946E-01 2000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84496E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83088E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81720E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.80390E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.79098E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77840E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76618E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.75428E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.74270E-01 2224.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73142E-01 2250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72043E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70973E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.69930E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68913E-01 2350.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67922E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66955E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66012E-01 2425.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65091E-01 2449.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64192E-01 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63315E-01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62458E-01 2525.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61621E-01 2550.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60804E-01 2575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60005E-01 2600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59224E-01 2625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58460E-01 2650.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57714E-01 2675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56983E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56269E-01 2725.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55570E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54886E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54216E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53560E-01 2825.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52918E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52289E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51673E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51070E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50478E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49899E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49330E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48773E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48227E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47691E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47166E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46650E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46144E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45647E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45160E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44682E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44212E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43751E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43298E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42853E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42416E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41987E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41565E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41150E-01 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40743E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40342E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39949E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39561E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39181E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38806E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38438E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38076E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37719E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37369E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37024E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36684E-01 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36350E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36021E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35697E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35378E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35064E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34755E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34451E-01 3900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34151E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33856E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33565E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33278E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32996E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32717E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32443E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32173E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31906E-01 4125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31644E-01 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31385E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31129E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30878E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30630E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30385E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30143E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29905E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29670E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29439E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29210E-01 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28985E-01 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28762E-01 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28543E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28326E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28112E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27901E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27693E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27487E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27284E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27084E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:40 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26886E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26690E-01 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26497E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26307E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26119E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25933E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25749E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25568E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25389E-01 4875.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25212E-01 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25037E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24864E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24693E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24525E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

Start date and time  08/15/22 13:16:56

AERSCREEN 21112

The Mercury ‐ Operations

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

METRIC              ENGLISH

** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Emission Rate:    0.125E‐02 g/s         0.989E‐02 lb/hr

Area Height:           3.00 meters           9.84 feet

Area Source Length:  151.88 meters         498.29 feet

Area Source Width:    75.94 meters         249.15 feet

Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters           4.92 feet

Model Mode:           URBAN

Population:           60764

Dist to Ambient Air:           1.0 meters             3. feet

** BUILDING DATA **

No Building Downwash Parameters

** TERRAIN DATA **

No Terrain Elevations

Source Base Elevation:   0.0 meters        0.0  feet

Probe distance:   5000. meters       16404. feet

No flagpole receptors

No discrete receptors used

** FUMIGATION DATA **

No fumigation requested

** METEOROLOGY DATA **

Min/Max Temperature:  250.0 / 310.0 K   ‐9.7 /  98.3 Deg F

Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s

Anemometer Height:   10.000 meters

Dominant Surface Profile: Urban

Dominant Climate Type:    Average Moisture

Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted

DEBUG OPTION ON

AERSCREEN output file:

2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations.out

*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin

No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run

**************************************************

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET

Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture

Season             Albedo     Bo       zo

Winter              0.35     1.50     1.000

Spring              0.14     1.00     1.000

Summer              0.16     2.00     1.000

Autumn              0.18     2.00     1.000

Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl

Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe

FLOWSECTOR   started 08/15/22 13:17:52

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Spring

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Summer

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10 ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********
***  NONE  ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector   4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Autumn

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

FLOWSECTOR   ended 08/15/22 13:18:00

REFINE       started 08/15/22 13:18:00

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

REFINE ended 08/15/22 13:18:01
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time  08/15/22 13:18:03
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT

0.24400E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27631E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30190E+01 50.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32555E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.32693E+01 77.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23238E+01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16525E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13005E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10601E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.88691E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.75758E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65790E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57898E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51497E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46258E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41835E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38126E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34969E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32207E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29804E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27706E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25860E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24201E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22724E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21400E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20201E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19114E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18126E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17224E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16389E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15623E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14919E+00 750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14268E+00 775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13665E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13106E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12586E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12101E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11649E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11223E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10823E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10448E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10094E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.97589E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.94429E-01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91444E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.88620E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.85951E-01 1125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83414E-01 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81005E-01 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78715E-01 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76535E-01 1225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.74459E-01 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72479E-01 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70590E-01 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68784E-01 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67059E-01 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65407E-01 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63825E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62778E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61299E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59878E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58514E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57203E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55942E-01 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54728E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53559E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52433E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51347E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50299E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49288E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48312E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47369E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46457E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45575E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44721E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43895E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43095E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42320E-01 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41569E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40841E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40134E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39448E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38783E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38136E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37508E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36898E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36305E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35728E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35167E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34621E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34089E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33571E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33067E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32576E-01 2300.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32097E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31630E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31175E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30731E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30298E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29876E-01 2449.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29463E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29061E-01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28668E-01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28284E-01 2550.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27908E-01 2575.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27541E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27183E-01 2625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26833E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26490E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26155E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25827E-01 2725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25506E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25192E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24884E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24583E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24289E-01 2850.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24000E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23718E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23441E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23169E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22903E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22642E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22386E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22136E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21890E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21649E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21412E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21180E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20952E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20728E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20508E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20293E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20081E-01 3275.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19873E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19669E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19468E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19271E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19078E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18887E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18700E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18517E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18336E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18158E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17983E-01 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17812E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17643E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17476E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17313E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17152E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16993E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16838E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16684E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16533E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16385E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16238E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16094E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15952E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15812E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15675E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15539E-01 3950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15406E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15274E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15145E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15017E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14891E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14767E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14645E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14524E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14405E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14288E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14172E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14059E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13946E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13835E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13726E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13618E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13512E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13407E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13304E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13202E-01 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13101E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13001E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12903E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12806E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12711E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12616E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12523E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12431E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/AERSCREEN/2022.08.15_TheMercury_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[8/17/2022 1:04:42 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12340E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12251E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12162E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12075E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11988E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11903E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11819E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11735E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11653E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11572E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11492E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11412E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11334E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11257E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment D
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment E

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
EXHIBIT 2
August 5, 2022
Via E-mail
Julia Gonzalez, Deputy Director
Community & Economic Development Department, Planning Division City of Pico Rivera
6615 Passons Boulevard
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project at 8825 Washington Boulevard Dear Deputy Director Gonzalez:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Mercury Mixed-Use Development project, including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a six-story mixed-use development building with 255 residential units, approximately 5,730 square feet of commercial space, and a “wrap” style internal parking structure with 464 parking spaces, located at 8825 Washington Boulevard in Pico Rivera, California (“Project”).

After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude that the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Pico Rivera (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.

This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offerman, PE, CIH. Mr. Offermann’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project applicant, Mercury Bowl, LLC: Green Rivera, LLC, is seeking approval from the City of Pico Rivera for implementation of The Mercury Specific Plan (Specific Plan) that includes the development of a three to six-story mixed-use building with a 6.5-level parking structure in the core, including 1 level of subterranean parking, ground-floor retail and residential Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022