Appendix L.6: Mississippi Power Company: Chevron Cogeneration, Plant Daniel 

and Plant Watson 

Appendix L.6 contents: 

 L.6.1 Appendix summaries 

 

L.6.2 BART information request letters 

 

 L.6.3 BART eligibility letters 

 

 L.6.4 Modeling protocols 

 

 L.6.5 EPA comments on modeling protocols 

 L.6.6 BART modeling reports 

 L.6.7 BART exemption letter 

 L.6.8 New IMPROVE equation information request letter 

 L.6.9 New IMPROVE equation spreadsheets 
MS Power Company – Chevron Cogeneration (1280-00048) BART Process Summary 

As a fossil fuel fired steam electric plant, MS Power – Chevron Cogeneration meets the 

initial BART eligibility requirement of source category code. Chevron Cogeneration is 

48 km from Breton National Wildlife Refuge, a Class I area, and has a possible visibility 

impact. Therefore, on February 28, 2002, Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting information to determine BART eligibility. 

Based on the information received from MS Power – Chevron Cogeneration, several 

units were deemed BART eligible because they met the following criteria: 

• operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962 to Aug.7, 1977 

• having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for 

SO2, NOx, or PM10. 

The following are the BART-eligible point sources for MS Power–Chevron Cogen. 

SO2 NOx PM10

Combustion Turbine w/HRSG 306 n/a n/a 8 n/a

Combustion Turbine w/HRSG 306 n/a n/a 9 n/a

Combustion Turbine w/HRSG 456 n/a n/a 11 n/a

Combustion Turbine w/HRSG 456 n/a n/a 11 n/a

Totals 0039

Emission Unit Heat Duty 

(MMBtu/hr)

Maximum Emission Rates (tons per year) Existing 

Control Equip.

As a result, Chevron Cogeneration was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on these 

units. The new IMPROVE equation was used in the modeling analysis. No sea salt value 

was available for Breton; therefore, the sea salt value for St. Marks, Florida was used 

because it is the nearest coastal Gulf of Mexico IMPROVE site. The modeling analysis 

demonstrated a 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.02 dv for Breton. 

The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, MS Power – 

Chevron Cogeneration is not BART subject. 

Appendix L.6.1
MS Power Company – Plant Daniel (1280-00090) BART Process Summary 

As a fossil fuel fired steam electric plant, MS Power – Plant Daniel meets the initial 

BART eligibility requirement of source category code. Plant Daniel is 61 km from 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge, a Class I area, and has a possible visibility impact. 

Therefore, on February 28, 2002, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting information to determine BART eligibility. Based 

on the information received from MS Power – Plant Daniel, several units were deemed 

BART eligible because they met the following criteria: 

• operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962 to Aug.7, 1977 

• having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for 

SO2, NOx, or PM10. 

The following are the BART-eligible point sources for MS Power–Plant Daniel 

SO2 NOx PM10

Utility Boiler 1 5461 n/a n/a 249 ESP

Utility Boiler 2 5461 n/a n/a 291 ESP

Totals 0 0 540

Emission Unit Heat Duty 

(MMBtu/hr)

Maximum Emission Rates (tons per year) Existing Control 

Equip.

As a result, Plant Daniel was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on these units. 

The new IMPROVE equation was used in the modeling analysis. No sea salt value was 

available for Breton; therefore, the sea salt value for St. Marks, Florida was used because 

it is the nearest coastal Gulf of Mexico IMPROVE site. The modeling analysis 

demonstrated a 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.23 dv for Breton. 

The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, MS Power – Plant 

Daniel is not BART subject. 

Appendix L.6.1
MS Power Company – Plant Watson (1280-00055) BART Process Summary 

As a fossil fuel fired steam electric plant, MS Power – Plant Watson meets the initial 

BART eligibility requirement of source category code. Plant Watson is 45 km from 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge, a Class I area, and has a possible visibility impact. 

Therefore, on February 28, 2002, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting information to determine BART eligibility. Based 

on the information received from MS Power – Plant Watson, several units were deemed 

BART eligible because they met the following criteria: 

• operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962 to Aug.7, 1977 

• having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for 

SO2, NOx, or PM10. 

The following are the BART-eligible point sources for MS Power–Plant Watson 

SO2 NOx PM10

Utility Boiler 4 2526 n/a n/a 558 ESP

Utility Boiler 5 5095 n/a n/a 1276 ESP

Totals 0 0 1834

Emission Unit Heat Duty 

(MMBtu/hr)

Maximum Emission Rates (tons per year) Existing Control 

Equip.

As a result, Plant Watson was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on these units. 

The new IMPROVE equation was used in the modeling analysis. No sea salt value was 

available for Breton; therefore, the sea salt value for St. Marks, Florida was used because 

it is the nearest coastal Gulf of Mexico IMPROVE site. The modeling analysis 

demonstrated a 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.42 dv for Breton. 

The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, MS Power – Plant 

Watson is not BART subject. 

Appendix L.6.1
Appendix L.6.2
Appendix L.6.2
Appendix L.6.2
Appendix L.6.2
Appendix L.6.2
Appendix L.6.2
MISSISSIPPI

October 22, 2003

Mr. C.R. Berry

Mississippi Power Company

P.O. Box 4079

Gulfport, MS 39502-4079

Re: . BART eligibility

Watson Plant - Facility # 1020-00055

Harrison County, Mississippi

Chevron Plant - Facility # 1280-00048

Jackson County, Mississippi

Daniel Plant - Facility # 1280-00090

Jackson County, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Berry :

This letter is to update you on the status of the Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) regulations and guidelines. Based on our previous information request and

your response, the referenced facilities have been identified as BART eligible and will

be listed on the VISTAS website (hnp:/ /www. vistas-sesarm.org) as such by the end of

October. Only the company name and city will be listed on the site. Please note that a

BART eligible source is one that will be considered for retrofit technology controls. It

does not necessarily mean that additional controls will be required for the source.

Those determinations will be made over the next several years during the Regional

Haze planning and our State Implementation Plan (SIP) development process.

EP A entered into a consent decree stating it will issue proposed rules and guidelines for

the BART Rule by April 15, 2004 and will issue the fmal rule on this matter by April

15,2005. In order to meet the Regional Haze SIP schedule, we will work to identify

the specific emission units and emissions control requirements at the facility prior to the

fmal rule. However, conclusive decisions concerning the BART requirements will not

be made until the fmal rule and guidance documents are published.

We will continue to update you on the

your facility as this work

~

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DAVID RONALD M\.JSOROVE, GovERNoIl

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

CHAIu.Es H. CHISOLM. ExECl1TlVE Dl1'.ECJ'OR

- Watson Plant, Chevron Plant, & Daniel Plant

statUs of this rule and the potential impact on

If you have questions or comments regarding the progresses,

Appendix L.6.3
BART requirements or this designation, please contact me at (601) 961-5176 or

Deborah Boleware at (601) 961-5768.

Sincerely,

£~:.i~~J;'~r

Elliott Bickerstaff, P.E., DEE

Chief, Air Support Branch

~

Appendix L.6.3
BART Modeling Protocol: 

Mississippi Power Company 

Plant Chevron

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Mississippi Power Company 

August 2006

Appendix L.6.4
i August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Organization of protocol document................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 General modeling procedures: ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) ............................................................... 3-1

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas ................................................................. 3-1

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Model selection and features.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 4-2

5.0 Presentation of modeling results........................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendix A Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case..............A-1 
ii August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Chevron modeling emission parameters ....................................................................... 2-2

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Chevron................................................... 1-2
1-1 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Preliminary feedback from the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality indicates that they anticipate making the decision that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and 

NOx for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling protocol focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for 

particulate matter (PM) only. 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Chevron, located near Pascagoula, which are owned and operated by Mississippi 

Power Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The purpose of this document is to 

summarize the procedures by which a modeling analysis will be conducted for this source. The modeling 

procedures outlined will be used to determine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption 

modeling). If it is determined that the source is subject to BART, this protocol will be updated (e.g., adding data 

to Table 2-1) and then the procedures below will be used to evaluate the visibility improvement factor in the 

BART determination step (determination modeling). The modeling procedures are consistent with those 

outlined in the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3 

– July 18, 2006), available at http://www.vistassesarm.org/BART/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3_18Jul2006.pdf. This source-specific BART modeling protocol 

references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Chevron are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of 

Plant Chevron relative to nearby Class I Areas. There is one Class I area within 300 km of the plant: Breton 

Island (48.1 km). The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in this source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. If necessary, visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step will 

be performed for this Class I area if the exemption modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

1.3 Organization of protocol document 

Section 2 of this protocol describes the source emissions that will be used as input to the BART exemption 

modeling and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling. Section 3 describes the input data to be used 

for the modeling including the modeling domain, terrain and land use, and meteorological data. Section 4 

describes the air quality modeling procedures and Section 5 discusses the presentation of modeling results. 

Since all of the references cited are also included in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 

7.), no additional references section is included in this document. Appendix A provides additional information 

on the baseline source emissions. 
1-2 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Chevron 
2-1 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Chevron 

are discussed in this section. As noted earlier, indications from the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality are that they will issue rules stating that CAIR will suffice for EGU BART for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, 

this protocol focuses only on PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility 

extinction efficiencies, the PM10 emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS 

common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of sourcespecific emissions and speciation factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and 

speciation approach to be used for the modeling described in this protocol is indicated in the bullets below. 

Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a combustion turbine unit firing natural gas with 

no post-combustion control equipment . 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Since stack tests are not performed for the Chevron Units, baseline filterable PM10 emissions are 

based on AP-42 emissions factors and the highest 24 hour fuel burn for the most recent 3-year period 

(2003-2005). This results in the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the 

VISTAS protocol. 

• All of the filterable PM10 is assumed to be fine (less than 2.5 microns in size). Of the fine portion, 

6.7% is elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. Total condensable PM10 emissions are based on the 

emissions factor in AP-42, Table 3.1-2a. 

• Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Mississippi Power to 

derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released 

from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type 

and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., heat recovery steam generator). Appendix 

A provides the basis for the site-specific value used. 

• Baseline emissions of secondary organic aerosols (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are 

derived as the difference between the total condensable emissions and the H2SO4 emissions. 

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters to be used in the BART CALPUFF 

modeling, consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendix A for the baseline. All of the 

emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from fuel burn data for the 2003 to 2005 period and represent the 

maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). 

For NOx, SO2, and filterable PM10 the values are calculated using daily fuel burn data and emission factors 

from AP-42, Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2a. PM10 speciation was then performed as indicated above such that total 

Filterable PM10 is all assumed to be Fine PM (i.e., total of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon). 

If the BART exemption modeling indicates that a BART determination is required, then one or more particulate 

matter control options will be considered for the modeling to determine visibility improvement from the baseline 

case. The BART engineering analysis will provide the justifications for the selected, technically feasible 

options and the species-specific control efficiencies. Table 2-1 will be updated to provide the modeling 

parameters for these feasible options and resubmitted to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

for review. Any site-specific deviations from the default particulate matter speciation guidance would be 

outlined at that time. 
2-2 

082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Table 2-1 Plant Chevron modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Parti

Case Source / Unit UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM 

 m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 1 356,694 3,357,386 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 491.3 0.75 119.58 1.90 0.54 0.00 0.54 Baseline Unit 2 356,662 3,357,383 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 498.6 0.78 122.63 1.95 0.56 0.00 0.56 Baseline Unit 3 356,652 3,357,370 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 506.9 1.00 159.23 2.55 0.73 0.00 0.73 Baseline Unit 4 356,633 3,357,391 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 514.7 0.98 156.84 2.50 0.72 0.00 0.72 

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Stack 1 Unit 1 356,694 3,357,386 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 491.3 0.75 119.58 1.90 0.54 0.00 0.54 Stack 2 Unit 2 356,662 3,357,383 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 498.6 0.78 122.63 1.95 0.56 0.00 0.56 Stack 3 Unit 3 356,652 3,357,370 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 506.9 1.00 159.23 2.55 0.73 0.00 0.73 Stack 4 Unit 4 356,633 3,357,391 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 514.7 0.98 156.84 2.50 0.72 0.00 0.72 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 Unit 1 356,694 3,357,386 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 491.3 0.09 15.07 0.24 0.07 0.00 0.07 Stack 2 Unit 2 356,662 3,357,383 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 498.6 0.10 15.45 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.07 Stack 3 Unit 3 356,652 3,357,370 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 506.9 0.13 20.06 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.09 Stack 4 Unit 4 356,633 3,357,391 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 514.7 0.12 19.76 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.09 

Retrofit Control Options (if BART analysis is required4Control 1 Unit 1 

È Unit 1 

Control n Unit 1 Control 1 Unit 2 

È Unit 2 

Control n Unit 2 
2-3 

082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Table 2-1 (Continued) Plant Chevron modeling emission parameters Notes:

1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack height credit is equal to actual height; stack height is less than 65 m de minimis GEP height.4 This data will be provided later if a BART determination analysis is required. 
3-1 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model 

3.1 General modeling procedures: 

VISTAS has developed five sub-regional 4-km CALMET meteorological databases for three years (2001-

2003) (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2). The sub-regional modeling domains are strategically 

designed to cover all potential BART eligible sources within VISTAS states and all PSD Class I areas within 

300 km of those sources (to the nearest edge). The extents of the 4-km sub-regional domains are shown in 

Figure 4-4 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The BART modeling for Plant Chevron will be 

done using the 4-km subdomain 4. 

USGS 90-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files were used by VISTAS to generate the terrain data at 4-km 

resolution for input to the 4-km sub-regional CALMET run. Likewise, USGS 90-meter Composite Theme Grid 

(CTG) files were used by VISTAS to generate the land use data at 4-km resolution for input to the 4-km subregional CALMET run. 

Three years of MM5 data (2001-2003) were used by VISTAS to generate the 4-km sub-regional 

meteorological datasets. See Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol for 

more detail on these issues. 

It is intended that all of the modeling for Plant Chevron will use the 4-km subdomain 4. However, if the results 

indicate that the modeling could be improved with a CALPUFF run using a finer grid, then refinements in the 

modeling procedures will be considered and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality will be 

asked to approve these refinements. 

In the event that a finer grid resolution is used, CALMET must be rerun. Other modifications to inputs of 

CALMET would include the extent of the modeling domain, the resolution of the terrain and land use data, and 

other relevant settings. The same MM5 data and observations as used for the 4-km sub-regional CALMET 

simulations would be used. The extent of the modeling domain may need to be changed because of disk 

space restrictions. The size of the CALMET output is directly proportional to the grid resolution of the run. The 

domain would be limited to the source and the exclusive Class I area(s) being assessed with a higher grid 

resolution, including a 50-km buffer in all directions. 

If CALMET needs to be run at even a finer grid resolution, then the appropriate model setting/files (specifically 

the GEO.DAT file) will be modified. A summary of these modifications would be provided to the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality for review and approval. 

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) 

Hourly measurements of ozone from all non-urban monitors, as generated by VISTAS and available on the 

VISTAS CALPUFF page on the Earth Tech web site (http://www.src.com/verio/download/sample_files.htm), 

will be used as input to CALPUFF. For ammonia, a 0.5 ppb background value as recommended by VISTAS 

will be used. However, since only PM emissions are being modeled, ozone and ammonia data is not really 

needed given that this data has no effect on PM results in CALPUFF. 

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas 

For each of the applicable Class I areas, natural background conditions must be established in order to 

determine a change in natural conditions related to a source’s emissions. The modeling described by this 

protocol document intends to use annual average natural background light extinction (EPA 2003 values). 
3-2 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

To determine the input to CALPUFF, it is first necessary to convert the deciviews to extinction using the 

equation: 

Extinction (Mm-1) = 10 exp(deciviews/10). 

For example, the EPA guidance document indicates for Great Smoky Mountains National Park that the 

deciview value for the average of the days is 7.60. This is equivalent to an extinction of 21.38 inverse 

megameters (Mm-1). 

This extinction includes the default 10 Mm-1 for Rayleigh scattering. The remaining extinction is due to 

naturally occurring particles, and should be held constant for the entire year’s simulation. Therefore, the data 

provided to CALPOST for Great Smoky Mountains would be the total natural background extinction minus 10 

(expressed in Mm-1), or 11.38. This is most easily input as fine soil concentrations (11.38 μg/m3

) in CALPOST, 

since the extinction efficiency of soil (PM-fine) is 1.0 and there is no f(RH) component. The concentration 

entries for all other particle constituents would be set to zero, and the fine soil concentration would be kept the 

same for each month of the year. The monthly values for f(RH) that CALPOST needs will be taken from 

"Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule" (EPA, 2003) Appendix A, Table A-3. 
4-1 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

This section provides a summary of the modeling procedures outlined in the VISTAS protocol that will be used 

for the refined CALPUFF analysis to be conducted for Plant Chevron. 

4.1 Model selection and features 

As noted in the VISTAS protocol (Summary, Recommendations Section II.), VISTAS will use CALPUFF 

Version 5.754 and CALMET Version 5.7, which can be obtained at 

http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm#VISTAS_VERSION. These versions contain 

enhancements funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and VISTAS. They are maintained on 

TRC’s Atmospheric Studies Group CALPUFF website for public access. This release includes CALMET, 

CALPUFF, CALPOST, CALSUM, and POSTUTIL as well as CALVIEW. 

The major features of the CALPUFF modeling system, including those of CALMET and the post processors 

(CALPOST and POSTUTIL), are referenced in Section 3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors 

The initial Plant Chevron BART runs will use the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as 

discussed above. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, plus a 50-km buffer. If 

there is the need for a refined analysis with a finer grid, a supplement to this modeling protocol will be provided 

describing the proposed procedures. 

The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as 

recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for Chevron Units 1 thru 4 (BART eligible units) for each 

Class I area within 300 km of the source (Breton Island). If necessary, Unit 1 thru 4 will each be modeled 

separately for the visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step for Breton Island if 

exemption modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling 

CALMET modeling for the VISTAS-provided 4-km subdomains will be performed per the procedures specified 

in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. If it is decided to conduct additional modeling with a finer 

grid than 4 km, this modeling protocol will be updated to specify the technical options to be used in the 

CALMET run, in order to allow for state agency review and approval. 

For CALPUFF model options, Plant Chevron will follow the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol 

(Section 4.4.1), which states that we should use IWAQM (EPA, 1998) guidance. The VISTAS protocol 

(Section 4.3.3) also notes that building downwash effects are not required to be included unless the state 

directs the source to include these effects. Since Plant Chevron is more than 40 km from the nearest Class I 

area, building downwash effects will not be included in the CALPUFF modeling. 

The POSTUTIL utility program (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2) will be used to repartition HNO3 and 

NO3 using VISTAS-provided ammonia concentrations derived from previous 2002 CMAQ modeling conducted 

by EPA or the alternate ammonia concentrations approach recommended by VISTAS, if the CMAQ data is 

unavailable. As indicated earlier, since only PM emissions are being modeled, the treatment of ammonia 

should not have an affect on PM results from CALPUFF. 
4-2 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor will be used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the 

impact from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. 

The formula that is used is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) IMPROVE/EPA formula, which is 

applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the particulate matter component 

concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3

 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

The assessment of visibility impacts at the Class I areas will use CALPOST Method 6 (VISTAS common 

protocol Section 4.3.2). Each hour’s source-caused extinction is calculated by first using the hygroscopic 

components of the source-caused concentrations, due to ammonium sulfate and nitrate, and monthly Class I 

area-specific f(RH) values. The contribution to the total source-caused extinction from ammonium sulfate and 

nitrate is then added to the other, non-hygroscopic components of the particulate concentration (from coarse 

and fine soil, secondary organic aerosols, and from elemental carbon) to yield the total hourly source-caused 

extinction. 

The BART rule significance threshold for the contribution to visibility impairment is 0.5 deciviews. The VISTAS 

protocol (Section 4.3.2) indicates that with the use of the 4-km sub-regional CALMET database, a source does 

not cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day’s change in extinction 

from natural conditions does not exceed 0.5 deciviews for any of the modeled years (an added check is: the 

22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled should also not exceed 0.5 deciviews for a source to be 

exempted from a BART determination). Both the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day's change in extinction 

from natural conditions for any modeled year and the 22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled 

will be evaluated. The maximum impact from each method should not exceed 0.5 deciviews for the source 

to be exempted from a BART determination. 

Figure 4-1 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol presents a flow chart showing the components of 

that protocol for the analysis to determine whether a source is subject to BART. Again, it should be noted that 

the modeling for Plant Chevron will focus on Subregional Fine-Scale modeling as depicted in the lower half of 

the figure. 

If the exemption modeling demonstrates that Plant Chevron does not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment, then the source will not be subject to BART requirements, and no further analysis is needed. 

Otherwise, the source will proceed to perform BART determination modeling for the baseline and each control 

option in a similar manner as has been described in this document. This protocol will be supplemented with a 

revised Table 2-1 and any other source specific adjustments if the source is determined to be subject-toBART. 
5-1 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

5.0 Presentation of modeling results 

The BART exemption and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling results for Plant Chevron will be 

provided to the state agency in a manner as described in the VISTAS protocol (Section 4.5). A report will be 

produced that includes the following elements (as suggested in the VISTAS protocol): 

1. A map of the source location and Class I areas within 300 km of the source. 

2. For the CALPUFF modeling domain, a table listing all Class I areas in the VISTAS domain and those 

in neighboring states and impacts from the BART 4-km grid exemption modeling at those Class I 

areas within 300 km of the source, as illustrated in Table 4-3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

3. A discussion of the number of Class I areas with visibility impairment due to source emissions for the 

98th percentile days in each year (and the 98th percentile over all three years modeled) greater than 

0.5 dv. 

4. For the Class I area with the maximum impact, a discussion of the number of days beyond those 

excluded (e.g., the 98th percentile for refined analyses) that the impact of the source exceeds 0.5 

dv, the number of receptors in the Class I area where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv, and the maximum 

impact. 

5. For any finer grid CALPUFF exemption modeling, results for those Class I areas for which impacts of 

the source exceeded 0.5 dv in the 4-km initial modeling. We would report the same type of results 

as provided for 4-km exemption modeling. 

The BART determination modeling will be performed for those Class I areas shown in the exemption modeling 

to exceed 0.5 dv impact. The extent of the BART determination modeling results will depend on the number of 

technically viable controls identified in the engineering analysis phase of the BART assessment. The results 

presented will be a comparison of the 98th percentile value for the baseline and each control strategy derived 

as is outlined above for the exemption modeling. The same statistics as those mentioned above in Steps 3 

and 4 would be provided, and a summary of the relative results among all emission scenarios run would be 

produced. 

Additionally, the appropriate electronic files used to conduct the CALPUFF modeling will be submitted on CDROM or DVD media. 
A-1 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART 

Baseline Case 
A-2 August 2006 082506 Chevron BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Emissions

During the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, a percentage of the SO2 formed is further oxidized to SO3. 

As the flue gas cools across the air heater, this SO3 combines with flue gas moisture to form vapor-phase 

and/or condensed sulfuric acid (H2SO4). The baseline H2SO4 emissions shown in Table 2-1 of this BART 

modeling protocol were calculated consistent with the method used by Southern Company to derive these 

emissions for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) purposes. This method is documented in a report titled 

Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants: Revision 3 (2005) prepared by Keith 

Harrison and Dr. Larry Monroe (Southern Company Services) and Edward Cichanowicz (Consultant). The 

approach described in this report assumes that H2SO4 emissions released from the stack are proportional to 

SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream 

equipment (i.e., heat recovery steam generator). 

The calculations below show baseline sulfuric acid emissions that are expected. Since this facility does not 

contain post combustion NOx controls, the baseline sulfuric acid emissions estimate accounts for the 

manufacture of H2SO4 through combustion. Calculated sulfuric acid releases then account for loss or removal 

within the system. 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion (EMComb): 

EMComb = K x F1 x E2 

where, 

EMComb = total sulfuric acid manufactured from combustion, lbs/yr 

K = Molecular weight and units conversion constant = 98.07 / 64.04 * 2000 = 3,063 

(98.07 = Molecular weight of sulfuric acid; 64.04 = Molecular weight of SO2; Conversion from tons per 

year to pounds per year – multiply by 2000.) 

F1 = Fuel Impact Factor (from the emissions estimating report) 

E2 = Sulfur dioxide emissions, tons (from CEMS data). 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion is: 

Chevron 1: 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.0555 x 0.750 lbs/hr / 2000 = 0.064 lbs/hr 

Chevron 2 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.0555 x 0.775 lbs/hr / 2000 = 0.066 lbs/hr 

Chevron 3: 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.0555 x 1.000 lbs/hr / 2000 = 0.085 lbs/hr 

Chevron 4 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.0555 x 0.983 lbs/hr / 2000 = 0.084 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Released from Combustion (ERComb) 

ERComb = EMComb x F2 (technology impact factor for HRSG) 

ERComb = EMComb x (0.5) 

Chevron 1 

ERComb = 0.064 lbs/hr x (0.5) = 0.032 lbs/hr 

Chevron 2 

ERComb = 0.066 lbs/hr x (0.5) = 0.033 lbs/hr 

Chevron 3 

ERComb = 0.085 lbs/hr x (0.5) = 0.043 lbs/hr 

Chevron 4 

ERComb = 0.084 lbs/hr x (0.5) = 0.042 lbs/hr 
BART Modeling Protocol: 

Mississippi Power Company 

Plant Daniel

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Mississippi Power Company 

August 2006

Appendix L.6.4
i August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Organization of protocol document................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 General modeling procedures: ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) ............................................................... 3-1

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas ................................................................. 3-1

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Model selection and features.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 4-2

5.0 Presentation of modeling results........................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendix A Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case..............A-1 

Appendix B Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate From 

 Coal-Fired Power Plants .......................................................................................................B-1 
ii August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Daniel modeling emission parameters........................................................................... 2-3

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Daniel....................................................... 1-2
1-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Preliminary feedback from the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality indicates that they anticipate making the decision that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and 

NOx for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling protocol focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for 

particulate matter (PM) only. 

Units 1 and 2 at Plant Daniel, located near Escatawpa, which are owned and operated by Mississippi Power 

Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The purpose of this document is to summarize the 

procedures by which a modeling analysis will be conducted for this source. The modeling procedures 

outlined will be used to determine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). 

If it is determined that the source is subject to BART, this protocol will be updated (e.g., adding data to Table 2-

1) and then the procedures below will be used to evaluate the visibility improvement factor in the BART 

determination step (determination modeling). The modeling procedures are consistent with those outlined in 

the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3 – July 18, 

2006), available at http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/BART/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3_18Jul2006.pdf. This 

source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling 

protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 1 and 2 at Plant Daniel are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant 

Daniel relative to nearby Class I Areas. There is one Class I area within 300 km of the plant: Breton Island 

(61.3 km). The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in this source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. If necessary, visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step will 

be performed for this Class I area if the exemption modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

1.3 Organization of protocol document 

Section 2 of this protocol describes the source emissions that will be used as input to the BART exemption 

modeling and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling. Section 3 describes the input data to be used 

for the modeling including the modeling domain, terrain and land use, and meteorological data. Section 4 

describes the air quality modeling procedures and Section 5 discusses the presentation of modeling results. 

Since all of the references cited are also included in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 

7.), no additional references section is included in this document. Appendices A and B provide additional 

information on the baseline source emissions. 
1-2 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Daniel 
2-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Daniel are 

discussed in this section. As noted earlier, indications from the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality are that they will issue rules stating that CAIR will suffice for EGU BART for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, 

this protocol focuses only on PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility 

extinction efficiencies, the PM10 emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS 

common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of sourcespecific emissions and speciation factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and 

speciation approach to be used for the modeling described in this protocol is indicated in the bullets below. 

Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where current (baseline) emission 

controls include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustion NOx or SO2 control equipment 

exists. 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Baseline filterable PM10 emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year 

period (2003-2005). This stack test is combined with the highest 24 hour heat input value for this 

period from CEMS data to calculate the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the 

VISTAS protocol. 

• Filterable PM10 will be subdivided by size category consistent with the default approach from AP-42 

Table 1-1.6, and as noted on pages 43 and 44 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6 specifies for the emission controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PM10

emissions is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is 

elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. 

• Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Mississippi Power to 

derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released 

from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type 

and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern 

bituminous coal the baseline H2SO4 release rate is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5% of the SO2 emissions. 

Appendix A provides the basis for the site-specific values used. 

• Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are derived 

based on the supporting field observational information in Appendix B and is estimated as 0.32% of 

SO2 emitted. 

• Coarse filterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) will be modeled with a geometric mass 

mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles will be modeled with a 

geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value for fine 

particles. The geometric standard deviation for both fine and coarse particles will be set to 2 microns, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented on the TRC web site. There is no default 

value presented for the coarse particles on the TRC web site. However, since 5 is the geometric 

mass mean diameter of 2.5 and 10 (the bounds of coarse particle sizes), it is a reasonable estimate 

for the geometric mass mean diameter for that class of particles. 
2-2 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

In practice, CALPUFF allows for the user to input certain components of PM10 as separate species and 

separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more 

accurate effects on light scattering. As noted above, the particle size distribution information is provided in 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and will be used for the BART exemption modeling as well as the BART determination 

modeling, if needed. 

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters to be used in the BART CALPUFF 

modeling, consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B for the baseline. All of 

the emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 period and represent the 

maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). 

For NOx and SO2 the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PM10 emissions were calculated using the 

highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplying these values times the maximum 24-hour 

average heat input derived from CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1.1-

6 that indicate that PM10 is 67% of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM10 speciation was then 

performed as indicated above such that total Filterable PM10 is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and 

total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC). 

If the BART exemption modeling indicates that a BART determination is required, then one or more particulate 

matter control options will be considered for the modeling to determine visibility improvement from the baseline 

case. The BART engineering analysis will provide the justifications for the selected, technically feasible 

options and the species-specific control efficiencies. Table 2-1 will be updated to provide the modeling 

parameters for these feasible options and resubmitted to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

for review. Any site-specific deviations from the default particulate matter speciation guidance would be 

outlined at that time. 
2-3 

082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Table 2-1 Plant Daniel modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Parti

Case Source / Unit UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM 

 m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 1 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 5718.33 2156.09 56.90 12.46 6.93 5.53 Baseline Unit 2 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 5451.7 2186.40 66.41 24.01 13.35 10.66 

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Stack 1 1&2 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 11170.05 4342.49 123.31 36.47 20.28 16.19 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 1407.43 547.15 15.54 4.60 2.56 2.04 

Retrofit Control Options (if BART analysis is required4Control 1 Unit 1 

È Unit 1 

Control n Unit 1 Control 1 Unit 2 

È Unit 2 

Control n Unit 2 1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered under stack height regulations. 4 This data will be provided later if a BART determination analysis is required. 
3-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model 

3.1 General modeling procedures: 

VISTAS has developed five sub-regional 4-km CALMET meteorological databases for three years (2001-

2003) (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2). The sub-regional modeling domains are strategically 

designed to cover all potential BART eligible sources within VISTAS states and all PSD Class I areas within 

300 km of those sources (to the nearest edge). The extents of the 4-km sub-regional domains are shown in 

Figure 4-4 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The BART modeling for Plant Daniel will be done 

using the 4-km subdomain 4. 

USGS 90-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files were used by VISTAS to generate the terrain data at 4-km 

resolution for input to the 4-km sub-regional CALMET run. Likewise, USGS 90-meter Composite Theme Grid 

(CTG) files were used by VISTAS to generate the land use data at 4-km resolution for input to the 4-km subregional CALMET run. 

Three years of MM5 data (2001-2003) were used by VISTAS to generate the 4-km sub-regional 

meteorological datasets. See Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol for 

more detail on these issues. 

It is intended that all of the modeling for Plant Daniel will use the 4-km subdomain 4. However, if the results 

indicate that the modeling could be improved with a CALPUFF run using a finer grid, then refinements in the 

modeling procedures will be considered and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality will be 

asked to approve these refinements. 

In the event that a finer grid resolution is used, CALMET must be rerun. Other modifications to inputs of 

CALMET would include the extent of the modeling domain, the resolution of the terrain and land use data, and 

other relevant settings. The same MM5 data and observations as used for the 4-km sub-regional CALMET 

simulations would be used. The extent of the modeling domain may need to be changed because of disk 

space restrictions. The size of the CALMET output is directly proportional to the grid resolution of the run. The 

domain would be limited to the source and the exclusive Class I area(s) being assessed with a higher grid 

resolution, including a 50-km buffer in all directions. 

If CALMET needs to be run at even a finer grid resolution, then the appropriate model setting/files (specifically 

the GEO.DAT file) will be modified. A summary of these modifications would be provided to the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality for review and approval. 

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) 

Hourly measurements of ozone from all non-urban monitors, as generated by VISTAS and available on the 

VISTAS CALPUFF page on the Earth Tech web site (http://www.src.com/verio/download/sample_files.htm), 

will be used as input to CALPUFF. For ammonia, a 0.5 ppb background value as recommended by VISTAS 

will be used. However, since only PM emissions are being modeled, ozone and ammonia data is not really 

needed given that this data has no effect on PM results in CALPUFF. 

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas 

For each of the applicable Class I areas, natural background conditions must be established in order to 

determine a change in natural conditions related to a source’s emissions. The modeling described by this 

protocol document intends to use annual average natural background light extinction (EPA 2003 values). 
3-2 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

To determine the input to CALPUFF, it is first necessary to convert the deciviews to extinction using the 

equation: 

Extinction (Mm-1) = 10 exp(deciviews/10). 

For example, the EPA guidance document indicates for Great Smoky Mountains National Park that the 

deciview value for the average of the days is 7.60. This is equivalent to an extinction of 21.38 inverse 

megameters (Mm-1). 

This extinction includes the default 10 Mm-1 for Rayleigh scattering. The remaining extinction is due to 

naturally occurring particles, and should be held constant for the entire year’s simulation. Therefore, the data 

provided to CALPOST for Great Smoky Mountains would be the total natural background extinction minus 10 

(expressed in Mm-1), or 11.38. This is most easily input as fine soil concentrations (11.38 μg/m3

) in CALPOST, 

since the extinction efficiency of soil (PM-fine) is 1.0 and there is no f(RH) component. The concentration 

entries for all other particle constituents would be set to zero, and the fine soil concentration would be kept the 

same for each month of the year. The monthly values for f(RH) that CALPOST needs will be taken from 

"Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule" (EPA, 2003) Appendix A, Table A-3. 
4-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

This section provides a summary of the modeling procedures outlined in the VISTAS protocol that will be used 

for the refined CALPUFF analysis to be conducted for Plant Daniel. 

4.1 Model selection and features 

As noted in the VISTAS protocol (Summary, Recommendations Section II.), VISTAS will use CALPUFF 

Version 5.754 and CALMET Version 5.7, which can be obtained at 

http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm#VISTAS_VERSION. These versions contain 

enhancements funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and VISTAS. They are maintained on 

TRC’s Atmospheric Studies Group CALPUFF website for public access. This release includes CALMET, 

CALPUFF, CALPOST, CALSUM, and POSTUTIL as well as CALVIEW. 

The major features of the CALPUFF modeling system, including those of CALMET and the post processors 

(CALPOST and POSTUTIL), are referenced in Section 3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors 

The initial Plant Daniel BART runs will use the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as 

discussed above. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, plus a 50-km buffer. If 

there is the need for a refined analysis with a finer grid, a supplement to this modeling protocol will be provided 

describing the proposed procedures. 

The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as 

recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for Daniel Units 1 and 2 (BART eligible units) for each Class 

I area within 300 km of the source (Breton Island). If necessary, Unit 1 and 2 will each be modeled separately 

for the visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step for Breton Island if exemption 

modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling 

CALMET modeling for the VISTAS-provided 4-km subdomains will be performed per the procedures specified 

in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. If it is decided to conduct additional modeling with a finer 

grid than 4 km, this modeling protocol will be updated to specify the technical options to be used in the 

CALMET run, in order to allow for state agency review and approval. 

For CALPUFF model options, Plant Daniel will follow the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 

4.4.1), which states that we should use IWAQM (EPA, 1998) guidance. The VISTAS protocol (Section 4.3.3) 

also notes that building downwash effects are not required to be included unless the state directs the source to 

include these effects. Since Plant Daniel is more than 40 km from the nearest Class I area, building 

downwash effects will not be included in the CALPUFF modeling. 

The POSTUTIL utility program (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2) will be used to repartition HNO3 and 

NO3 using VISTAS-provided ammonia concentrations derived from previous 2002 CMAQ modeling conducted 

by EPA or the alternate ammonia concentrations approach recommended by VISTAS, if the CMAQ data is 

unavailable. As indicated earlier, since only PM emissions are being modeled, the treatment of ammonia 

should not have an affect on PM results from CALPUFF. 
4-2 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor will be used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the 

impact from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. 

The formula that is used is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) IMPROVE/EPA formula, which is 

applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the particulate matter component 

concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3

 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

The assessment of visibility impacts at the Class I areas will use CALPOST Method 6 (VISTAS common 

protocol Section 4.3.2). Each hour’s source-caused extinction is calculated by first using the hygroscopic 

components of the source-caused concentrations, due to ammonium sulfate and nitrate, and monthly Class I 

area-specific f(RH) values. The contribution to the total source-caused extinction from ammonium sulfate and 

nitrate is then added to the other, non-hygroscopic components of the particulate concentration (from coarse 

and fine soil, secondary organic aerosols, and from elemental carbon) to yield the total hourly source-caused 

extinction. 

The BART rule significance threshold for the contribution to visibility impairment is 0.5 deciviews. The VISTAS 

protocol (Section 4.3.2) indicates that with the use of the 4-km sub-regional CALMET database, a source does 

not cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day’s change in extinction 

from natural conditions does not exceed 0.5 deciviews for any of the modeled years (an added check is: the 

22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled should also not exceed 0.5 deciviews for a source to be 

exempted from a BART determination). Both the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day's change in extinction 

from natural conditions for any modeled year and the 22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled 

will be evaluated. The maximum impact from each method should not exceed 0.5 deciviews for the source 

to be exempted from a BART determination. 

Figure 4-1 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol presents a flow chart showing the components of 

that protocol for the analysis to determine whether a source is subject to BART. Again, it should be noted that 

the modeling for Plant Daniel will focus on Subregional Fine-Scale modeling as depicted in the lower half of 

the figure. 

If the exemption modeling demonstrates that Plant Daniel does not cause or contribute to visibility impairment, 

then the source will not be subject to BART requirements, and no further analysis is needed. Otherwise, the 

source will proceed to perform BART determination modeling for the baseline and each control option in a 

similar manner as has been described in this document. This protocol will be supplemented with a revised 

Table 2-1 and any other source specific adjustments if the source is determined to be subject-to-BART. 
5-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

5.0 Presentation of modeling results 

The BART exemption and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling results for Plant Daniel will be 

provided to the state agency in a manner as described in the VISTAS protocol (Section 4.5). A report will be 

produced that includes the following elements (as suggested in the VISTAS protocol): 

1. A map of the source location and Class I areas within 300 km of the source. 

2. For the CALPUFF modeling domain, a table listing all Class I areas in the VISTAS domain and those 

in neighboring states and impacts from the BART 4-km grid exemption modeling at those Class I 

areas within 300 km of the source, as illustrated in Table 4-3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

3. A discussion of the number of Class I areas with visibility impairment due to source emissions for the 

98th percentile days in each year (and the 98th percentile over all three years modeled) greater than 

0.5 dv. 

4. For the Class I area with the maximum impact, a discussion of the number of days beyond those 

excluded (e.g., the 98th percentile for refined analyses) that the impact of the source exceeds 0.5 

dv, the number of receptors in the Class I area where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv, and the maximum 

impact. 

5. For any finer grid CALPUFF exemption modeling, results for those Class I areas for which impacts of 

the source exceeded 0.5 dv in the 4-km initial modeling. We would report the same type of results 

as provided for 4-km exemption modeling. 

The BART determination modeling will be performed for those Class I areas shown in the exemption modeling 

to exceed 0.5 dv impact. The extent of the BART determination modeling results will depend on the number of 

technically viable controls identified in the engineering analysis phase of the BART assessment. The results 

presented will be a comparison of the 98th percentile value for the baseline and each control strategy derived 

as is outlined above for the exemption modeling. The same statistics as those mentioned above in Steps 3 

and 4 would be provided, and a summary of the relative results among all emission scenarios run would be 

produced. 

Additionally, the appropriate electronic files used to conduct the CALPUFF modeling will be submitted on CDROM or DVD media. 
A-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART 

Baseline Case 
A-2 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Emissions

During the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, a percentage of the SO2 formed is further oxidized to SO3. 

As the flue gas cools across the air heater, this SO3 combines with flue gas moisture to form vapor-phase 

and/or condensed sulfuric acid (H2SO4). The baseline H2SO4 emissions shown in Table 2-1 of this BART 

modeling protocol were calculated consistent with the method used by Southern Company to derive these 

emissions for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) purposes. This method is documented in a report titled 

Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants: Revision 3 (2005) prepared by Keith 

Harrison and Dr. Larry Monroe (Southern Company Services) and Edward Cichanowicz (Consultant). The 

approach described in this report assumes that H2SO4 emissions released from the stack are proportional to 

SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream 

equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). 

The calculations below show baseline sulfuric acid emissions that are expected. Since this facility does not 

contain post combustion NOx or SO2 controls, the baseline sulfuric acid emissions estimate only accounts for 

the manufacture of H2SO4 through combustion. This facility contains a flue gas conditioning system the 

sulfuric acid emissions estimate also accounts for the manufacture of H2SO4 through injection of SO3 prior to 

the ESP. Calculated sulfuric acid releases then account for loss or removal within the system. 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion (EMComb): 

EMComb = K x F1 x E2 

where, 

EMComb = total sulfuric acid manufactured from combustion, lbs/yr 

K = Molecular weight and units conversion constant = 98.07 / 64.04 * 2000 = 3,063 

(98.07 = Molecular weight of sulfuric acid; 64.04 = Molecular weight of SO2; Conversion from tons per 

year to pounds per year – multiply by 2000.) 

F1 = Fuel Impact Factor (from the emissions estimating report) 

E2 = Sulfur dioxide emissions, tons (from CEMS data). 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion is: 

Daniel 1: 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.008 x 5,718.3 lbs/hr / 2000 = 70.1 lbs/hr 

Daniel 2 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.008 x 5,451.7 lbs/hr / 2000 = 66.8 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Released from Combustion (ERComb) 

ERComb = EMComb x F2 (technology impact factors for air heater and ESP) 

ERComb = EMComb x (0.49) x (0.49) 

Daniel 1 

ERComb = 70.1 lbs/hr x (0.24) = 16.8 lbs/hr 

Daniel 2 

ERComb = 66.8 lbs/hr x (0.24) = 16.0 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Flue Gas Conditioning (EMfgc): 

EMfgc = Ke x B x fe x Is 

where, 

EMfgc = total sulfuric acid manufactured from flue gas conditioning system, lbs/hr 

Ke = Conversion Factor = 3,799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 
A-3 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

fe = Operating factor of FGC system, fraction of coal burned when FGC operates 

Is =SO3 injection rate in ppmv at 6% O2, wet 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from FGC system is: 

Daniel 1 

EMfgc = 3,799 x 0.006129 x 1.0 x 4.0 = 93.1 lbs/hr 

Daniel 2 

EMfgc = 3,799 x 0.005871 x 1.0 x 4.0 = 89.2 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Released from FGC (ERfgc) 

ERfgc = [EMfgc – (Ke * B * fe * INH3)] * F3 x F2 

where, 

ERfgc = Total sulfuric acid released from FGC, lbs per hour 

EMfgc = Total sulfuric acid manufactured from FGC, lbs per hour 

Ke = Conversion factor = 3799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 

fe = Operating factor of FGC system, fraction of coal burn when FGC operates 

INH3 = NH3 injection for dual flue gas conditioning system, ppmv at 6% O2, wet (= 0 if no NH3 used) 

F3 = Technology Impact Factors for FGC 

F2 = Technology Impact Factors for equipment after ESP only

 If no control after ESP, F2 = 1 

Sulfuric Acid Released from FGC system is: 

Daniel 1 

ERfgc = [93.1 – (3799 x 0.006129 x 1.0 x 0.0) x 0.10 x 1.0] = 9.3 lbs/hr 

Daniel 2 

ERfgc = [89.2 – (3799 x 0.005871 x 1.0 x 0.0) x 0.10 x 1.0] = 8.9 lbs/hr 

Total Sulfuric Acid Released (TSAR): 

TSAR = ERComb + ERfgc 

Daniel 1: 

TSAR = 16.8 + 9.3 = 26.1 lb/hr 

Daniel 2: 

TSAR = 16.0 + 8.9 = 25.0 lb/hr 

 
B-1 August 2006 082506 Daniel BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix B 

Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate 

From Coal-Fired Power Plants 

[The above titled paper is included as a separate document along with 

this site specific BART modeling protocol. This paper was prepared for 

Southern Company by Eric S. Edgerton of Atmospheric Research & 

Analysis, Inc.] 
BART Modeling Protocol: 

Mississippi Power Company 

Plant Watson

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Mississippi Power Company 

August 2006

Appendix L.6.4
i August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Organization of protocol document................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 General modeling procedures: ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) ............................................................... 3-1

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas ................................................................. 3-1

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Model selection and features.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 4-2

5.0 Presentation of modeling results........................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendix A Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case..............A-1 

Appendix B Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate From 

 Coal-Fired Power Plants .......................................................................................................B-1 
ii August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Watson modeling emission parameters......................................................................... 2-3

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Watson .................................................... 1-2
1-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Preliminary feedback from the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality indicates that they anticipate making the decision that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and 

NOx for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling protocol focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for 

particulate matter (PM) only. 

Units 4 and 5 at Plant Watson, located near Gulfport, which are owned and operated by Mississippi Power 

Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The purpose of this document is to summarize the 

procedures by which a modeling analysis will be conducted for this source. The modeling procedures 

outlined will be used to determine whether the source is subject to BART requirements (exemption modeling). 

If it is determined that the source is subject to BART, this protocol will be updated (e.g., adding data to Table 2-

1) and then the procedures below will be used to evaluate the visibility improvement factor in the BART 

determination step (determination modeling). The modeling procedures are consistent with those outlined in 

the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3 – July 18, 

2006), available at http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/BART/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3_18Jul2006.pdf. This 

source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling 

protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 4 and 5 at Plant Watson are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant 

Watson relative to nearby Class I Areas. There is one Class I area within 300 km of the plant: Breton Island 

(44.8 km). The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in this source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. If necessary, visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step will 

be performed for this Class I area if the exemption modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

1.3 Organization of protocol document 

Section 2 of this protocol describes the source emissions that will be used as input to the BART exemption 

modeling and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling. Section 3 describes the input data to be used 

for the modeling including the modeling domain, terrain and land use, and meteorological data. Section 4 

describes the air quality modeling procedures and Section 5 discusses the presentation of modeling results. 

Since all of the references cited are also included in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 

7.), no additional references section is included in this document. Appendices A and B provide additional 

information on the baseline source emissions. 
1-2 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Watson 
2-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Watson 

are discussed in this section. As noted earlier, indications from the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality are that they will issue rules stating that CAIR will suffice for EGU BART for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, 

this protocol focuses only on PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility 

extinction efficiencies, the PM10 emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS 

common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of sourcespecific emissions and speciation factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and 

speciation approach to be used for the modeling described in this protocol is indicated in the bullets below. 

Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where current (baseline) emission 

controls include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustion NOx or SO2 control equipment 

exists. 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Baseline filterable PM10 emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year 

period (2003-2005). This stack test is combined with the highest 24 hour heat input value for this 

period from CEMS data to calculate the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the 

VISTAS protocol. 

• Filterable PM10 will be subdivided by size category consistent with the default approach from AP-42 

Table 1-1.6, and as noted on pages 43 and 44 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6 specifies for the emission controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PM10

emissions is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is 

elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. 

• Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Mississippi Power to 

derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released 

from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type 

and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern 

bituminous coal the baseline H2SO4 release rate is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5% of the SO2 emissions. 

Appendix A provides the basis for the site-specific values used. 

• Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are derived 

based on the supporting field observational information in Appendix B and is estimated as 0.32% of 

SO2 emitted. 

• Coarse filterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) will be modeled with a geometric mass 

mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles will be modeled with a 

geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value for fine 

particles. The geometric standard deviation for both fine and coarse particles will be set to 2 microns, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented on the TRC web site. There is no default 

value presented for the coarse particles on the TRC web site. However, since 5 is the geometric 

mass mean diameter of 2.5 and 10 (the bounds of coarse particle sizes), it is a reasonable estimate 

for the geometric mass mean diameter for that class of particles. 
2-2 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

In practice, CALPUFF allows for the user to input certain components of PM10 as separate species and 

separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more 

accurate effects on light scattering. As noted above, the particle size distribution information is provided in 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and will be used for the BART exemption modeling as well as the BART determination 

modeling, if needed. 

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters to be used in the BART CALPUFF 

modeling, consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B for the baseline. All of 

the emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 period and represent the 

maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). 

For NOx and SO2 the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PM10 emissions were calculated using the 

highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplying these values times the maximum 24-hour 

average heat input derived from CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1.1-

6 that indicate that PM10 is 67% of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM10 speciation was then 

performed as indicated above such that total Filterable PM10 is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and 

total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC). 

If the BART exemption modeling indicates that a BART determination is required, then one or more particulate 

matter control options will be considered for the modeling to determine visibility improvement from the baseline 

case. The BART engineering analysis will provide the justifications for the selected, technically feasible 

options and the species-specific control efficiencies. Table 2-1 will be updated to provide the modeling 

parameters for these feasible options and resubmitted to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

for review. Any site-specific deviations from the default particulate matter speciation guidance would be 

outlined at that time. 
2-3 

082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Table 2-1 Plant Watson modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Parti

Case Source / Unit UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM 

 m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 4 305,854 3,368,909 106.7 5.5 4.9 25.0 397.6 8596.27 1626.48 127.35 74.56 41.45 33.10 3Baseline Unit 5 305,854 3,368,909 121.9 5.5 6.4 28.4 444.5 10540.08 4122.86 291.29 211.46 117.57 93.89 9

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Stack 4 Unit 4 305,854 3,368,909 106.7 5.5 4.9 25.0 397.6 8596.27 1626.48 127.35 74.56 41.45 33.10 3Stack 5 Unit 5 305,854 3,368,909 121.9 5.5 6.4 28.4 444.5 10540.08 4122.86 291.29 211.46 117.57 93.89 9

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 4 Unit 4 305,854 3,368,909 106.7 5.5 4.9 25.0 397.6 1083.13 204.94 16.05 9.39 5.22 4.17 Stack 5 Unit 5 305,854 3,368,909 121.9 5.5 6.4 28.4 444.5 1328.05 519.48 36.70 26.64 14.81 11.83 

Retrofit Control Options (if BART analysis is required4Control 1 Unit 1 

È Unit 1 

Control n Unit 1 Control 1 Unit 2 

È Unit 2 

Control n Unit 2 1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered under stack height regulations. 4 This data will be provided later if a BART determination analysis is required. 
3-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model 

3.1 General modeling procedures: 

VISTAS has developed five sub-regional 4-km CALMET meteorological databases for three years (2001-

2003) (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2). The sub-regional modeling domains are strategically 

designed to cover all potential BART eligible sources within VISTAS states and all PSD Class I areas within 

300 km of those sources (to the nearest edge). The extents of the 4-km sub-regional domains are shown in 

Figure 4-4 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The BART modeling for Plant Watson will be 

done using the 4-km subdomain 4. 

USGS 90-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files were used by VISTAS to generate the terrain data at 4-km 

resolution for input to the 4-km sub-regional CALMET run. Likewise, USGS 90-meter Composite Theme Grid 

(CTG) files were used by VISTAS to generate the land use data at 4-km resolution for input to the 4-km subregional CALMET run. 

Three years of MM5 data (2001-2003) were used by VISTAS to generate the 4-km sub-regional 

meteorological datasets. See Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol for 

more detail on these issues. 

It is intended that all of the modeling for Plant Watson will use the 4-km subdomain 4. However, if the results 

indicate that the modeling could be improved with a CALPUFF run using a finer grid, then refinements in the 

modeling procedures will be considered and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality will be 

asked to approve these refinements. 

In the event that a finer grid resolution is used, CALMET must be rerun. Other modifications to inputs of 

CALMET would include the extent of the modeling domain, the resolution of the terrain and land use data, and 

other relevant settings. The same MM5 data and observations as used for the 4-km sub-regional CALMET 

simulations would be used. The extent of the modeling domain may need to be changed because of disk 

space restrictions. The size of the CALMET output is directly proportional to the grid resolution of the run. The 

domain would be limited to the source and the exclusive Class I area(s) being assessed with a higher grid 

resolution, including a 50-km buffer in all directions. 

If CALMET needs to be run at even a finer grid resolution, then the appropriate model setting/files (specifically 

the GEO.DAT file) will be modified. A summary of these modifications would be provided to the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality for review and approval. 

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) 

Hourly measurements of ozone from all non-urban monitors, as generated by VISTAS and available on the 

VISTAS CALPUFF page on the Earth Tech web site (http://www.src.com/verio/download/sample_files.htm), 

will be used as input to CALPUFF. For ammonia, a 0.5 ppb background value as recommended by VISTAS 

will be used. However, since only PM emissions are being modeled, ozone and ammonia data is not really 

needed given that this data has no effect on PM results in CALPUFF. 

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas 

For each of the applicable Class I areas, natural background conditions must be established in order to 

determine a change in natural conditions related to a source’s emissions. The modeling described by this 

protocol document intends to use annual average natural background light extinction (EPA 2003 values). 
3-2 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

To determine the input to CALPUFF, it is first necessary to convert the deciviews to extinction using the 

equation: 

Extinction (Mm-1) = 10 exp(deciviews/10). 

For example, the EPA guidance document indicates for Great Smoky Mountains National Park that the 

deciview value for the average of the days is 7.60. This is equivalent to an extinction of 21.38 inverse 

megameters (Mm-1). 

This extinction includes the default 10 Mm-1 for Rayleigh scattering. The remaining extinction is due to 

naturally occurring particles, and should be held constant for the entire year’s simulation. Therefore, the data 

provided to CALPOST for Great Smoky Mountains would be the total natural background extinction minus 10 

(expressed in Mm-1), or 11.38. This is most easily input as fine soil concentrations (11.38 μg/m3

) in CALPOST, 

since the extinction efficiency of soil (PM-fine) is 1.0 and there is no f(RH) component. The concentration 

entries for all other particle constituents would be set to zero, and the fine soil concentration would be kept the 

same for each month of the year. The monthly values for f(RH) that CALPOST needs will be taken from 

"Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule" (EPA, 2003) Appendix A, Table A-3. 
4-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

This section provides a summary of the modeling procedures outlined in the VISTAS protocol that will be used 

for the refined CALPUFF analysis to be conducted for Plant Watson. 

4.1 Model selection and features 

As noted in the VISTAS protocol (Summary, Recommendations Section II.), VISTAS will use CALPUFF 

Version 5.754 and CALMET Version 5.7, which can be obtained at 

http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm#VISTAS_VERSION. These versions contain 

enhancements funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and VISTAS. They are maintained on 

TRC’s Atmospheric Studies Group CALPUFF website for public access. This release includes CALMET, 

CALPUFF, CALPOST, CALSUM, and POSTUTIL as well as CALVIEW. 

The major features of the CALPUFF modeling system, including those of CALMET and the post processors 

(CALPOST and POSTUTIL), are referenced in Section 3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors 

The initial Plant Watson BART runs will use the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as 

discussed above. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, plus a 50-km buffer. If 

there is the need for a refined analysis with a finer grid, a supplement to this modeling protocol will be provided 

describing the proposed procedures. 

The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as 

recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

The BART exemption modeling will be conducted for Watson Units 4 and 5 (BART eligible units) for each 

Class I area within 300 km of the source (Breton Island). If necessary, Unit 4 and 5 will each be modeled 

separately for the visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination step for Breton Island if 

exemption modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling 

CALMET modeling for the VISTAS-provided 4-km subdomains will be performed per the procedures specified 

in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. If it is decided to conduct additional modeling with a finer 

grid than 4 km, this modeling protocol will be updated to specify the technical options to be used in the 

CALMET run, in order to allow for state agency review and approval. 

For CALPUFF model options, Plant Watson will follow the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 

4.4.1), which states that we should use IWAQM (EPA, 1998) guidance. The VISTAS protocol (Section 4.3.3) 

also notes that building downwash effects are not required to be included unless the state directs the source to 

include these effects. Since Plant Watson is more than 40 km from the nearest Class I area, building 

downwash effects will not be included in the CALPUFF modeling. 

The POSTUTIL utility program (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2) will be used to repartition HNO3 and 

NO3 using VISTAS-provided ammonia concentrations derived from previous 2002 CMAQ modeling conducted 

by EPA or the alternate ammonia concentrations approach recommended by VISTAS, if the CMAQ data is 

unavailable. As indicated earlier, since only PM emissions are being modeled, the treatment of ammonia 

should not have an affect on PM results from CALPUFF. 
4-2 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor will be used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the 

impact from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. 

The formula that is used is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) IMPROVE/EPA formula, which is 

applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the particulate matter component 

concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3

 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

The assessment of visibility impacts at the Class I areas will use CALPOST Method 6 (VISTAS common 

protocol Section 4.3.2). Each hour’s source-caused extinction is calculated by first using the hygroscopic 

components of the source-caused concentrations, due to ammonium sulfate and nitrate, and monthly Class I 

area-specific f(RH) values. The contribution to the total source-caused extinction from ammonium sulfate and 

nitrate is then added to the other, non-hygroscopic components of the particulate concentration (from coarse 

and fine soil, secondary organic aerosols, and from elemental carbon) to yield the total hourly source-caused 

extinction. 

The BART rule significance threshold for the contribution to visibility impairment is 0.5 deciviews. The VISTAS 

protocol (Section 4.3.2) indicates that with the use of the 4-km sub-regional CALMET database, a source does 

not cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day’s change in extinction 

from natural conditions does not exceed 0.5 deciviews for any of the modeled years (an added check is: the 

22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled should also not exceed 0.5 deciviews for a source to be 

exempted from a BART determination). Both the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day's change in extinction 

from natural conditions for any modeled year and the 22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled 

will be evaluated. The maximum impact from each method should not exceed 0.5 deciviews for the source 

to be exempted from a BART determination. 

Figure 4-1 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol presents a flow chart showing the components of 

that protocol for the analysis to determine whether a source is subject to BART. Again, it should be noted that 

the modeling for Plant Watson will focus on Subregional Fine-Scale modeling as depicted in the lower half of 

the figure. 

If the exemption modeling demonstrates that Plant Watson does not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment, then the source will not be subject to BART requirements, and no further analysis is needed. 

Otherwise, the source will proceed to perform BART determination modeling for the baseline and each control 

option in a similar manner as has been described in this document. This protocol will be supplemented with a 

revised Table 2-1 and any other source specific adjustments if the source is determined to be subject-toBART. 
5-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

5.0 Presentation of modeling results 

The BART exemption and, if necessary, the BART determination modeling results for Plant Watson will be 

provided to the state agency in a manner as described in the VISTAS protocol (Section 4.5). A report will be 

produced that includes the following elements (as suggested in the VISTAS protocol): 

1. A map of the source location and Class I areas within 300 km of the source. 

2. For the CALPUFF modeling domain, a table listing all Class I areas in the VISTAS domain and those 

in neighboring states and impacts from the BART 4-km grid exemption modeling at those Class I 

areas within 300 km of the source, as illustrated in Table 4-3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

3. A discussion of the number of Class I areas with visibility impairment due to source emissions for the 

98th percentile days in each year (and the 98th percentile over all three years modeled) greater than 

0.5 dv. 

4. For the Class I area with the maximum impact, a discussion of the number of days beyond those 

excluded (e.g., the 98th percentile for refined analyses) that the impact of the source exceeds 0.5 

dv, the number of receptors in the Class I area where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv, and the maximum 

impact. 

5. For any finer grid CALPUFF exemption modeling, results for those Class I areas for which impacts of 

the source exceeded 0.5 dv in the 4-km initial modeling. We would report the same type of results 

as provided for 4-km exemption modeling. 

The BART determination modeling will be performed for those Class I areas shown in the exemption modeling 

to exceed 0.5 dv impact. The extent of the BART determination modeling results will depend on the number of 

technically viable controls identified in the engineering analysis phase of the BART assessment. The results 

presented will be a comparison of the 98th percentile value for the baseline and each control strategy derived 

as is outlined above for the exemption modeling. The same statistics as those mentioned above in Steps 3 

and 4 would be provided, and a summary of the relative results among all emission scenarios run would be 

produced. 

Additionally, the appropriate electronic files used to conduct the CALPUFF modeling will be submitted on CDROM or DVD media. 
A-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART 

Baseline Case 
A-2 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions for BART Baseline Case 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Emissions

During the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, a percentage of the SO2 formed is further oxidized to SO3. 

As the flue gas cools across the air heater, this SO3 combines with flue gas moisture to form vapor-phase 

and/or condensed sulfuric acid (H2SO4). The baseline H2SO4 emissions shown in Table 2-1 of this BART 

modeling protocol were calculated consistent with the method used by Southern Company to derive these 

emissions for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) purposes. This method is documented in a report titled 

Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants: Revision 3 (2005) prepared by Keith 

Harrison and Dr. Larry Monroe (Southern Company Services) and Edward Cichanowicz (Consultant). The 

approach described in this report assumes that H2SO4 emissions released from the stack are proportional to 

SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream 

equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). 

The calculations below show baseline sulfuric acid emissions that are expected. Since this facility does not 

contain post combustion NOx or SO2 controls, the baseline sulfuric acid emissions estimate only accounts for 

the manufacture of H2SO4 through combustion. Also, since Watson 5 contains a flue gas conditioning system 

the sulfuric acid emissions estimate for this unit also accounts for the manufacture of H2SO4 through injection 

of SO3 prior to the ESP. Calculated sulfuric acid releases then account for loss or removal within the system. 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion (EMComb): 

EMComb = K x F1 x E2 

where, 

EMComb = total sulfuric acid manufactured from combustion, lbs/yr 

K = Molecular weight and units conversion constant = 98.07 / 64.04 * 2000 = 3,063 

(98.07 = Molecular weight of sulfuric acid; 64.04 = Molecular weight of SO2; Conversion from tons per 

year to pounds per year – multiply by 2000.) 

F1 = Fuel Impact Factor (from the emissions estimating report) 

E2 = Sulfur dioxide emissions, tons (from CEMS data). 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion is: 

Watson 4: 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.008 x 8,596.3 lbs/hr / 2000 = 105.3 lbs/hr 

Watson 5 

EMComb = 3,063 x 0.008 x 10,540.1 lbs/hr / 2000 = 129.1 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Released from Combustion (ERComb) 

ERComb = EMComb x F2 (technology impact factors for air heater and ESP) 

ERComb = EMComb x (0.49) x (0.49) 

Watson 4 

ERComb =105.3 lbs/hr x (0.24) = 25.3 lbs/hr 

Watson 5 

ERComb = 129.1 lbs/hr x (0.24) = 31.0 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Flue Gas Conditioning (EMfgc): 

EMfgc = Ke x B x fe x Is 

where, 

EMfgc = total sulfuric acid manufactured from flue gas conditioning system, lbs/hr 

Ke = Conversion Factor = 3,799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 
A-3 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

fe = Operating factor of FGC system, fraction of coal burned when FGC operates 

Is =SO3 injection rate in ppmv at 6% O2, wet 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from FGC system is: 

Watson 5 

EMfgc = 3,799 x 0.005677 x 1.0 x 7.0 = 151.0 lbs/hr 

Sulfuric Acid Released from FGC (ERfgc) 

ERfgc = [EMfgc – (Ke * B * fe * INH3)] * F3 x F2 

where, 

ERfgc = Total sulfuric acid released from FGC, lbs per hour 

EMfgc = Total sulfuric acid manufactured from FGC, lbs per hour 

Ke = Conversion factor = 3799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 

fe = Operating factor of FGC system, fraction of coal burn when FGC operates 

INH3 = NH3 injection for dual flue gas conditioning system, ppmv at 6% O2, wet (= 0 if no NH3 used) 

F3 = Technology Impact Factors for FGC 

F2 = Technology Impact Factors for equipment after ESP only

 If no control after ESP, F2 = 1 

Sulfuric Acid Released from FGC system is: 

Watson 5 

ERfgc = [151.0 – (3799 x 0.005677 x 1.0 x 0.0) x 0.10 x 1.0] = 15.1 lbs/hr 

Total Sulfuric Acid Released (TSAR): 

TSAR = ERComb + ERfgc[Watson 5 only] 

Watson 4: 

TSAR = 25.3 lb/hr 

Watson 5: 

TSAR = 31.0 + 15.1 = 46.1 lb/hr 

 
B-1 August 2006 082506 Watson BART Modeling Protocol.doc

Appendix B 

Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate 

From Coal-Fired Power Plants 

[The above titled paper is included as a separate document along with 

this site specific BART modeling protocol. This paper was prepared for 

Southern Company by Eric S. Edgerton of Atmospheric Research & 

Analysis, Inc.] 
U.S. EPA Region 4 Comments on the 

BART Modeling Protocols for: 

Mississippi Power Company, Plant Chevron 

Mississippi Power Company, Plant Daniel 

Mississippi Power Company, Plant Watson 

September 29, 2006 

Comments Applicable to All Three Protocols:

1. The modeling protocols for each of the three Mississippi Power Company plants 

were prepared by Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation and each 

contain similar content. The protocols state that the procedures for conducting the 

modeling will generally follow the VISTAS Bart Modeling Protocol, dated July 

18, 2006. EPA Region 4 supports the proposal to follow the procedures contained 

in the VISTAS protocol. (Note that a more recent revision to the VISTAS 

protocol, Revision 3.2, dated August 31, 2006, is available and should be 

referenced). Overall, the modeling procedures described in the protocols are 

acceptable to EPA Region 4. 

2. The three Mississippi Power Company modeling protocols indicate that a 0.5 

deciview (dv) threshold will be used for determining if the BART eligible 

emission sources contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. The 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality should decide on the 

appropriateness of the 0.5 dv threshold for excluding sources from the need to 

further evaluate BART controls. Mississippi will be required to provide an 

explanation for selection of the contribution threshold, whether it is 0.5 dv or 

some other threshold, in the Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA. As described 

in the BART Guidelines contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, the number of 

emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue, the magnitude of the sources’ 

impacts, and the location of the sources should be considered when establishing 

this threshold. (See 70 FR 39161-39162, July 6, 2005.) EPA will evaluate the 

thresholds selected by Mississippi for reasonableness based on these 

considerations. 

3. One of the most important factors in any modeling exercise is to ensure that the 

source parameters (e.g., emission rates, stack parameters) are correct. EPA 

Region 4 recommends that Mississippi carefully compares these parameters with 

existing permits and databases to ensure that appropriate values are being used for 

the BART modeling. 

4. The protocols do not provide a discussion of the quality assurance and quality 

control (QA/QC) procedures that will be followed to ensure the quality of the 

modeling results. The QA/QC issues discussed in Section 6 of the VISTAS 

BART Modeling Protocol should be addressed. The report containing the 

Appendix L.6.5
modeling results should provide documentation that adequate QA/QC procedures 

were followed. 

5. Section 4.3 of the protocols indicates that POSTUTIL will be used to repartition 

HNO3 and NO3 using ammonia concentrations from 2002 CMAQ modeling or 

alternate ammonia concentrations if the CMAQ data is unavailable. EPA is 

currently evaluating the technical merits of using CMAQ data to develop the 

background ammonia concentration inputs for POSTUTIL. This evaluation may 

not be completed in time to meet MS DEQ’s BART processing schedule. 

Therefore, EPA recommends that the protocols be revised to be consistent with 

the latest version of the VISTAS protocol (Revision 3.2, 8/31/2006) which 

indicates that background ammonia concentrations should be developed in 

accordance with the IWAQM Phase 2 Guidance. 

Appendix L.6.5
BART Exemption Modeling Report: 

Mississippi Power Company 

Plant Chevron

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Mississippi Power Company 

January 2007

Appendix L.6.6
i January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 General quality assurance procedures........................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 Modeling results....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Appendix A Delta-Deciview Values for The Top 20 Days – For Each Year/Each Class I Area 

 and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years.....................................................................A-1 

Appendix B Breton Wilderness Receptors..............................................................................................B-1 
ii January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Chevron modeling emission parameters ....................................................................... 2-2

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Chevron................................................... 1-2
1-1 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

indicates that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and NOx for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report focuses on 

performing the BART modeling analysis for particulate matter (PM) only. 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Chevron, located near Pascagoula, which are owned and operated by Mississippi 

Power Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The modeling procedures outlined in the 

source-specific modeling protocol for Plant Chevron were used to determine whether the source is subject to 

BART requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling procedures are consistent with those outlined in the 

updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3.2 – August 31, 

2006), available at http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/documents/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3.2_31Aug06.pdf. 

The source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling 

protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Chevron are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of 

Plant Chevron relative to nearby Class I Areas. There is one Class I area within 300 km of the plant: Breton 

Island (48.1 km). The BART exemption modeling was conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. 
1-2 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Chevron 
2-1 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Chevron 

are discussed in this section. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality has indicated that CAIR 

will satisfy BART for EGUs for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, this BART exemption modeling analysis focuses only 

on PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility extinction efficiencies, the PM10

emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 

4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of source-specific emissions and speciation 

factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and speciation approach that were used for the 

modeling is indicated below. Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a combustion 

turbine unit firing natural gas with no post-combustion control equipment. 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Since stack tests are not performed for the Chevron Units, baseline filterable PM10 emissions are 

based on AP-42 emissions factors and the highest 24 hour fuel burn for the most recent 3-year period 

(2003-2005). This results in the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the 

VISTAS protocol. 

• All of the filterable PM10 is assumed to be fine (less than 2.5 microns in size). Of the fine portion, 

6.7% is elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. Total condensable PM10 emissions are based on the 

emissions factor in AP-42, Table 3.1-2a. 

• Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Mississippi Power to 

derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released 

from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type 

and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., heat recovery steam generator). Appendix 

A of the site-specific modeling protocol provides the basis for the site-specific value used. 

• Baseline emissions of secondary organic aerosols (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are 

derived as the difference between the total condensable emissions and the H2SO4 emissions. 

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters used in the BART CALPUFF modeling, 

consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendix A of the site-specific modeling protocol for 

the baseline. All of the emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from fuel burn data for the 2003 to 2005 period 

and represent the maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or 

malfunctions occurred). For NOx, SO2, and filterable PM10 the values are calculated using daily fuel burn data 

and emission factors from AP-42, Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2a. PM10 speciation was then performed as indicated 

above such that total Filterable PM10 is all assumed to be Fine PM (i.e., total of Fine Soil plus Elemental 

Carbon). 
2-2 

010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

Table 2-1 Plant Chevron modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Parti

Case Source / Unit UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM 

 m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 1 356,694 3,357,386 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 491.3 0.750 119.583 1.903 0.542 0.000 0.542 0Baseline Unit 2 356,662 3,357,383 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 498.6 0.775 122.635 1.954 0.558 0.000 0.558 0Baseline Unit 3 356,652 3,357,370 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 506.9 1.000 159.225 2.545 0.733 0.000 0.733 0Baseline Unit 4 356,633 3,357,391 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 514.7 0.983 156.842 2.502 0.717 0.000 0.717 0

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Stack 1 Unit 1 356,694 3,357,386 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 491.3 0.750 119.583 1.903 0.542 0.000 0.542 0Stack 2 Unit 2 356,662 3,357,383 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 498.6 0.775 122.635 1.954 0.558 0.000 0.558 0Stack 3 Unit 3 356,652 3,357,370 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 506.9 1.000 159.225 2.545 0.733 0.000 0.733 0Stack 4 Unit 4 356,633 3,357,391 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 514.7 0.983 156.842 2.502 0.717 0.000 0.717 0

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 Unit 1 356,694 3,357,386 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 491.3 0.095 15.068 0.240 0.068 0.000 0.068 0Stack 2 Unit 2 356,662 3,357,383 11.9 2.6 3.1 8.9 498.6 0.098 15.452 0.246 0.070 0.000 0.070 0Stack 3 Unit 3 356,652 3,357,370 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 506.9 0.126 20.062 0.321 0.092 0.000 0.092 0Stack 4 Unit 4 356,633 3,357,391 18.0 2.6 3.0 9.1 514.7 0.124 19.762 0.315 0.090 0.000 0.090 0
2-3 

010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

Table 2-1 (Continued) Plant Chevron modeling emission parameters Notes:

1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack height credit is equal to actual height; stack height is less than 65 m de minimis GEP height.
3-1 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

3.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

The BART exemption modeling was conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the referenced VISTAS 

common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific BART modeling 

protocol for Plant Chevron. This section provides a discussion of additional modeling procedures that were 

used and describes the quality assurance procedure was followed. 

3.1 Modeling domain and receptors 

The Plant Chevron BART runs used the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as discussed 

in the source-specific modeling protocol. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, 

plus a 50-km buffer. 

The BART exemption modeling was conducted for Chevron Units 1 thru 4 (BART eligible units) for each Class 

I area within 300 km of the source (Breton Island). The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based 

on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

For Breton, Mississippi Power has included in the modeling analysis all of the receptors that the US F&WS 

has identified. However, Mississippi Power does not believe that all of the receptors are still valid receptors. 

As a result of hurricane activity, several of the receptors identified by the US F&WS for Breton are now 

located over water, rather than over land. Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, which defines wilderness 

as "land," and because Congress made clear when it created the Breton wilderness area that only the land 

mass was designated as wilderness, receptors that are now over water are not relevant for assessing 

visibility impacts at Breton. Nevertheless, Mississippi Power is including both the valid and invalid receptors 

for purposes of this analysis. Appendix B provides more detailed support for the identification and 

elimination of invalid receptors at Breton. 

3.2 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor was used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the impact 

from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. The 

formula that is currently used in CALPOST is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) IMPROVE/EPA 

formula, which is applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the particulate matter 

component concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3

 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

New IMPROVE Equation. Mississippi Power Company used the new IMPROVE equation to analyze the 

CALPUFF results for Breton Island. This was done for several reasons. First, the new equation is the result of 

an extensive evaluation of the most recent scientific data, undertaken by an ad hoc group of scientists 

including representatives from the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, academia, and industry. The old equation was based on data and information that was over a 

decade old. The new equation is based on the most recent data and information gleaned from scientific 

studies done over the past decade. The new equation adds more accurate terms for estimating light extinction 

due to sulfate and nitrate, through the incorporation of size differentiation and revisions to the extinction 

coefficients. Organic matter estimates are improved through a refinement to the organic compound mass to 

organic mass ratio. Second, the new equation corrects several errors and omissions in the old equation. For 

example, sea salt, which affects light extinction, was not part of the old equation, but has been added to the 
3-2 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

new equation. Moreover, the old equation’s constant Rayleigh scattering term (corresponding to scattering at 

10,000 feet elevation) has been revised to reflect the actual elevation of the specific Class I area. 

The ad hoc group of scientists who recommended the changes to the equation drafted a technical support 

document entitled “Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data” 

(November 30, 2005). That document demonstrates that, for 21 Class I areas with nephelometer data, the 

new equation produces more accurate results than the old equation. The IMPROVE Steering Committee 

reviewed the work of the ad hoc group and its technical support document, and approved the new equation in 

December 2005. 

The revisions to the IMPROVE equation are particularly important for coastal sites (such as Breton). Sea salt 

is an important component of extinction at coastal sites, and thus should be included in the equation for 

estimating visibility impacts. In addition, the site-specific Rayleigh scattering term is important for coastal sites 

because the default value in the old equation (10 Mm-1) was based on an elevation of 10,000 feet. At nearzero sea level, the new equation uses a more accurate coefficient of 11 Mm-1. 

The new formula is shown below. 

The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfate compounds into the concentrations of the small and 

large size fractions is accomplished using the following equations. 

This revised version of the IMPROVE Equation was used to perform the BART exemption modeling. Dr. Ivar 

Tombach (VISTAS consultant) has produced a spreadsheet tool (September 29, 2006) to allow the new 

IMPROVE formula results to be derived from the basic CALPOST outputs. Also, since the BART modeling is 

focused only on PM, NO2 was set to zero in the new formula. For informational purposes, results from the old 

equation are also presented. 

)]([33.0

( )

[6.0 ]

][)(7.1

][1

[10 ]

[8.2 [1.6] ]

[)(4.2 [)(1.5] ]

[)(2.2 [)(8.4] ]

2 ppbNO

Rayleigh Scattering SpecificSite

Course Mass

SaltSeaRHf

SoilFine

Elemental Carbon

Small Organic Mass OrganicrgeLa Mass

RHf Small Nitrate NitratergeLaRHf

b RHf Small Sulfate SulfatergeLaRHf

SS

S L

ext S L

×+

+

×+

××+

×+

×+

×+ ×+

××+ ××+

××≈ + × ×

3

3 [ [], /20] /20

[ ] [ ] Total Sulfate Total Sulfate mg

mg

Total Sulfate SulfatergeLa μ

μ = × <

3 [ SulfatergeLa = [] Total Sulfate [], Total Sulfate ≥ μ /20] mg

[Small Sulfate = [] Total Sulfate −[] SulfatergeLa ]
3-3 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

3.3 General quality assurance procedures 

Chapter 6 of the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol discusses Quality Assurance (QA). The purpose of the QA 

program is to establish procedures for ensuring that products produced by the application of the modeling 

techniques for BART studies satisfy the regulatory objectives of the BART program. 

The air quality modeling staff at Southern Company Services is managing and/or conducting the BART 

Exemption Modeling application for this plant owned by Mississippi Power Company. They made sure that all 

recommended methods specified in the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol were followed and that the modeling 

was carefully and professionally conducted. Initially, the Company retained the services of ENSR/AECOM to 

supplement the training received as part of VISTAS training courses. Additionally, ENSR/AECOM experts 

were given source data for one of Southern Company’s BART eligible sources, and they performed a 

complete analysis following the VISTAS common protocol. During this process, the lead Southern Company 

modelers were taught each technical step. 

ENSR/AECOM was used as a third-party review for the CALPUFF analyses. ENSR has conducted numerous 

CALPUFF analyses, and uses CALDESK animation software as well as Lakes Environmental CALVIEW 

software with base maps to visualize the sources, receptors, and meteorology. ENSR/AECOM also uses the 

CALPUFF QA output files in conjunction with ArcMap GIS software to plot the locations of the sources and 

receptors as CALPUFF interprets them from the input data. The output files from CALPUFF and CALPOST 

are typically reviewed independently by ENSR/AECOM staff to assure accuracy and compliance with 

approved regulatory procedures. 

For the exemption modeling, Southern Company’s BART modelers made sure that all checks were made 

manually/visually as well as by using UltaEdit-32, a file comparing software. Additionally, these datasets were 

randomly checked by another Southern Company modeler. During the modeling process, periodic progress 

meetings were conducted with the project management team members, and phone calls and e-mail 

exchanges were made with the CALPUFF modeling experts at ENSR/AECOM to resolve issues as they 

arose. 

The VISTAS Modeling Protocol states, “To the extent that modeling applications are using pre-defined 

CALMET files and CALPUFF templates, the quality assurance will be straightforward. More detailed steps are 

needed for the setup of modeling files for source-specific applications of sub-regional domains finer than 4 

km.” For this application, the 4-km grid-spaced CALMET files for sub-domain 4 developed by VISTAS and the 

CALPUFF templates were used. Southern Company BART modelers used the test met file to “benchmark” 

the use of the CALMET files on their computers as indicated on page 59 of the VISTAS common protocol. For 

this BART exemption modeling application, documents were developed and will be submitted that contained 

source data required by the CALPUFF modeling system (CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL). 

 
4-1 January 2007 010207 Chevron BART Modeling Report.doc

4.0 Modeling results 

The exemption modeling results are provided in Table 4-1, and Appendix A lists delta-deciview results for the 

top 20 days for each year modeled and the top 25 days for the overall three years at each Class I area. The 

table indicates that both the 8th highest day’s impacts for each year and the 22nd highest day’s impacts over all 

three years are below 0.5 delta-dv. These results demonstrate that Plant Chevron’s PM10 emissions do not 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment. Therefore, the source is not subject to BART for PM10, and no 

further BART analysis is required. 

Electronic data related to this application are provided on the attached disk. They include all input (INP) and 

list (LST) files.
Table 4-1 Summary of Results – Plant Chevron Refined BART Exemption Modeling 

 2001 2002 2003 

Class I area 

Distance 

from source 

to Class I 

area 

boundary 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

Highest of 

8th Highest 

delta-dv 

for the 3-

years 

22nd

Highest 

delta-dv 

over 3-

year 

period 

km Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv delta-dv delta-dv 

Breton 

Island 

New Improve 

Orig Recept 48.1 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

New Improve 

Valid Recept 48.1 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Old Improve 

Orig Recept 48.1 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 

Old Improve 

Valid Recept 48.1 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0.03 0.03 
Appendix A 

Delta-Deciview Values for the Top 20 Days – for Each Year/Each 

Class I Area and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years
New IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 294 35 8.09 8.02 0.07 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.85% 0.00% 76.59% 7.29% 0.00% 9.28% 1 

2001 266 35 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.89% 0.00% 75.09% 7.86% 0.00% 9.16% 2 

2001 118 33 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.65% 0.00% 75.71% 8.14% 0.00% 9.50% 3 

2001 234 22 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.80% 0.00% 74.97% 7.95% 0.00% 9.28% 4 

2001 293 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.35% 0.00% 75.99% 7.40% 0.00% 9.25% 5 

2001 180 35 8.23 8.21 0.03 4.5 3.3 4.9 7.60% 0.00% 76.04% 7.27% 0.00% 9.09% 6 

2001 82 33 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.46% 0.00% 75.64% 7.51% 0.00% 9.39% 7 

2001 254 14 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.27% 0.00% 74.43% 7.69% 0.00% 9.61% 8 

2001 308 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 9 

2001 59 35 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.67% 0.00% 76.52% 8.41% 0.00% 8.41% 10 

2001 119 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.37% 0.00% 76.85% 6.76% 0.00% 9.02% 11 

2001 313 33 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 12 

2001 255 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.01% 0.00% 75.70% 6.98% 0.00% 9.31% 13 

2001 120 30 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 5.95% 0.00% 77.07% 7.28% 0.00% 9.71% 14 

2001 58 33 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 5.90% 0.00% 76.76% 7.43% 0.00% 9.91% 15 

2001 43 35 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 16 

2001 317 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 17 

2001 33 12 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.26% 0.00% 75.34% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 18 

2001 321 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 19 

2001 315 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 20 

 

2002 101 30 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.38% 0.00% 76.69% 7.81% 0.00% 9.11% 1 

2002 241 24 8.36 8.33 0.03 4.9 3.5 5.1 9.03% 0.00% 74.87% 7.16% 0.00% 8.95% 2 

2002 13 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.24% 0.00% 76.08% 7.86% 0.00% 9.82% 3 

2002 272 35 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.40% 0.00% 74.05% 7.80% 0.00% 9.75% 4 

2002 27 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.44% 0.00% 76.17% 7.02% 0.00% 9.36% 5 

2002 142 35 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.97% 0.00% 75.07% 7.27% 0.00% 9.69% 6 

2002 47 33 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 7 

2002 307 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.14% 0.00% 75.83% 7.73% 0.00% 10.30% 8 

2002 298 20 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 9 

2002 183 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.62% 0.00% 73.44% 7.69% 0.00% 10.25% 10 

2002 249 9 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.24% 0.00% 75.95% 8.40% 0.00% 8.40% 11 

2002 248 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.40% 0.00% 75.42% 8.59% 0.00% 8.59% 12 

2002 141 26 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.25% 0.00% 75.12% 8.82% 0.00% 8.82% 13 

2002 153 9 8.22 8.21 0.02 4.5 3.3 4.9 7.36% 0.00% 75.03% 8.81% 0.00% 8.81% 14 

2002 116 20 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.79% 0.00% 76.32% 6.36% 0.00% 9.54% 15 

2002 343 35 8.03 8.02 0.01 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.79% 0.00% 75.88% 6.53% 0.00% 9.80% 16 

2002 147 30 8.12 8.10 0.01 4.2 3.2 4.6 8.03% 0.00% 75.68% 6.51% 0.00% 9.77% 17 

2002 135 34 8.12 8.10 0.01 4.2 3.2 4.6 8.46% 0.00% 74.39% 6.86% 0.00% 10.29% 18 

2002 35 24 7.95 7.94 0.01 3.8 2.9 4.3 5.62% 0.00% 76.70% 7.07% 0.00% 10.61% 19 

2002 282 35 8.03 8.02 0.01 4.0 3.0 4.5 5.78% 0.00% 76.04% 7.27% 0.00% 10.91% 20 

 

2003 294 35 8.07 8.02 0.06 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.92% 0.00% 75.65% 7.84% 0.00% 9.58% 1 

2003 326 35 8.05 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.47% 0.00% 75.64% 8.13% 0.00% 9.76% 2 

2003 287 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.05% 0.00% 76.98% 7.10% 0.00% 8.87% 3 

2003 145 30 8.13 8.10 0.03 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.70% 0.00% 75.45% 7.49% 0.00% 9.36% 4 

2003 66 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 5 

2003 71 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 6 

2003 133 20 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.68% 0.00% 75.97% 7.01% 0.00% 9.34% 7 

2003 237 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.99% 0.00% 75.40% 7.12% 0.00% 9.50% 8 

2003 293 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 9 

2003 279 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 9 

2003 221 20 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.29% 0.00% 74.46% 7.39% 0.00% 9.86% 11 

2003 70 20 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.14% 0.00% 75.83% 7.73% 0.00% 10.30% 12 

2003 235 30 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.45% 0.00% 73.96% 7.54% 0.00% 10.05% 13 

2003 312 12 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 14 

2003 308 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.57% 0.00% 76.88% 8.27% 0.00% 8.27% 15 

2003 286 24 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.72% 0.00% 76.38% 8.45% 0.00% 8.45% 16 

2003 280 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.02% 0.00% 75.30% 8.84% 0.00% 8.84% 17 

2003 60 35 7.95 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 7.40% 0.00% 77.05% 6.22% 0.00% 9.33% 18 

2003 118 14 8.03 8.02 0.01 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.99% 0.00% 75.72% 6.52% 0.00% 9.78% 19 

2003 57 35 7.95 7.94 0.01 3.8 2.9 4.3 5.32% 0.00% 77.91% 6.71% 0.00% 10.06% 20 
New IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 294 35 8.09 8.02 0.07 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.85% 0.00% 76.59% 7.29% 0.00% 9.28% 1 

2003 294 35 8.07 8.02 0.06 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.92% 0.00% 75.65% 7.84% 0.00% 9.58% 2 

2002 101 30 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.38% 0.00% 76.69% 7.81% 0.00% 9.11% 3 

2001 266 35 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.89% 0.00% 75.09% 7.86% 0.00% 9.16% 4 

2001 118 33 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.65% 0.00% 75.71% 8.14% 0.00% 9.50% 5 

2001 234 22 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.80% 0.00% 74.97% 7.95% 0.00% 9.28% 6 

2003 326 35 8.05 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.47% 0.00% 75.64% 8.13% 0.00% 9.76% 7 

2003 287 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.05% 0.00% 76.98% 7.10% 0.00% 8.87% 8 

2002 241 24 8.36 8.33 0.03 4.9 3.5 5.1 9.03% 0.00% 74.87% 7.16% 0.00% 8.95% 9 

2001 293 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.35% 0.00% 75.99% 7.40% 0.00% 9.25% 10 

2001 180 35 8.23 8.21 0.03 4.5 3.3 4.9 7.60% 0.00% 76.04% 7.27% 0.00% 9.09% 11 

2001 82 33 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.46% 0.00% 75.64% 7.51% 0.00% 9.39% 12 

2003 145 30 8.13 8.10 0.03 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.70% 0.00% 75.45% 7.49% 0.00% 9.36% 13 

2002 13 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.24% 0.00% 76.08% 7.86% 0.00% 9.82% 14 

2001 254 14 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.27% 0.00% 74.43% 7.69% 0.00% 9.61% 15 

2001 308 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 16 

2003 66 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 17 

2002 272 35 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.40% 0.00% 74.05% 7.80% 0.00% 9.75% 18 

2001 59 35 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.67% 0.00% 76.52% 8.41% 0.00% 8.41% 19 

2001 119 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.37% 0.00% 76.85% 6.76% 0.00% 9.02% 20 

2001 313 33 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 21 

2003 71 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 22 

2002 27 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.44% 0.00% 76.17% 7.02% 0.00% 9.36% 23 

2003 133 20 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.68% 0.00% 75.97% 7.01% 0.00% 9.34% 24 

2001 255 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.01% 0.00% 75.70% 6.98% 0.00% 9.31% 25 
New IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 294 35 8.09 8.02 0.07 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.85% 0.00% 76.59% 7.29% 0.00% 9.28% 1 

2001 266 35 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.89% 0.00% 75.09% 7.86% 0.00% 9.16% 2 

2001 118 33 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.65% 0.00% 75.71% 8.14% 0.00% 9.50% 3 

2001 234 22 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.80% 0.00% 74.97% 7.95% 0.00% 9.28% 4 

2001 293 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.35% 0.00% 75.99% 7.40% 0.00% 9.25% 5 

2001 180 35 8.23 8.21 0.03 4.5 3.3 4.9 7.60% 0.00% 76.04% 7.27% 0.00% 9.09% 6 

2001 82 33 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.46% 0.00% 75.64% 7.51% 0.00% 9.39% 7 

2001 254 14 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.27% 0.00% 74.43% 7.69% 0.00% 9.61% 8 

2001 308 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 9 

2001 59 35 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.67% 0.00% 76.52% 8.41% 0.00% 8.41% 10 

2001 119 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.37% 0.00% 76.85% 6.76% 0.00% 9.02% 11 

2001 313 33 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 12 

2001 255 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.01% 0.00% 75.70% 6.98% 0.00% 9.31% 13 

2001 120 30 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 5.95% 0.00% 77.07% 7.28% 0.00% 9.71% 14 

2001 58 33 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 5.90% 0.00% 76.76% 7.43% 0.00% 9.91% 15 

2001 43 35 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 16 

2001 317 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 17 

2001 33 12 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.26% 0.00% 75.34% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 18 

2001 321 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 19 

2001 315 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 20 

 

2002 101 30 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.38% 0.00% 76.69% 7.81% 0.00% 9.11% 1 

2002 241 24 8.36 8.33 0.03 4.9 3.5 5.1 9.03% 0.00% 74.87% 7.16% 0.00% 8.95% 2 

2002 13 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.24% 0.00% 76.08% 7.86% 0.00% 9.82% 3 

2002 272 35 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.40% 0.00% 74.05% 7.80% 0.00% 9.75% 4 

2002 27 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.44% 0.00% 76.17% 7.02% 0.00% 9.36% 5 

2002 142 35 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.97% 0.00% 75.07% 7.27% 0.00% 9.69% 6 

2002 47 33 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 7 

2002 307 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.14% 0.00% 75.83% 7.73% 0.00% 10.30% 8 

2002 298 20 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 9 

2002 183 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.62% 0.00% 73.44% 7.69% 0.00% 10.25% 10 

2002 249 9 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.24% 0.00% 75.95% 8.40% 0.00% 8.40% 11 

2002 248 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.40% 0.00% 75.42% 8.59% 0.00% 8.59% 12 

2002 141 26 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.25% 0.00% 75.12% 8.82% 0.00% 8.82% 13 

2002 153 9 8.22 8.21 0.02 4.5 3.3 4.9 7.36% 0.00% 75.03% 8.81% 0.00% 8.81% 14 

2002 116 20 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.79% 0.00% 76.32% 6.36% 0.00% 9.54% 15 

2002 343 35 8.03 8.02 0.01 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.79% 0.00% 75.88% 6.53% 0.00% 9.80% 16 

2002 147 30 8.12 8.10 0.01 4.2 3.2 4.6 8.03% 0.00% 75.68% 6.51% 0.00% 9.77% 17 

2002 135 34 8.12 8.10 0.01 4.2 3.2 4.6 8.46% 0.00% 74.39% 6.86% 0.00% 10.29% 18 

2002 35 24 7.95 7.94 0.01 3.8 2.9 4.3 5.62% 0.00% 76.70% 7.07% 0.00% 10.61% 19 

2002 282 35 8.03 8.02 0.01 4.0 3.0 4.5 5.78% 0.00% 76.04% 7.27% 0.00% 10.91% 20 

 

2003 294 35 8.07 8.02 0.06 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.92% 0.00% 75.65% 7.84% 0.00% 9.58% 1 

2003 326 35 8.05 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.47% 0.00% 75.64% 8.13% 0.00% 9.76% 2 

2003 287 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.05% 0.00% 76.98% 7.10% 0.00% 8.87% 3 

2003 145 30 8.13 8.10 0.03 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.70% 0.00% 75.45% 7.49% 0.00% 9.36% 4 

2003 66 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 5 

2003 71 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 6 

2003 133 20 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.68% 0.00% 75.97% 7.01% 0.00% 9.34% 7 

2003 237 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.99% 0.00% 75.40% 7.12% 0.00% 9.50% 8 

2003 293 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 9 

2003 279 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.02% 0.00% 76.30% 7.58% 0.00% 10.10% 9 

2003 221 20 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.29% 0.00% 74.46% 7.39% 0.00% 9.86% 11 

2003 70 20 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.14% 0.00% 75.83% 7.73% 0.00% 10.30% 12 

2003 235 30 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.45% 0.00% 73.96% 7.54% 0.00% 10.05% 13 

2003 312 12 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.27% 0.00% 75.33% 7.89% 0.00% 10.51% 14 

2003 308 30 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.57% 0.00% 76.88% 8.27% 0.00% 8.27% 15 

2003 286 24 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.72% 0.00% 76.38% 8.45% 0.00% 8.45% 16 

2003 280 35 8.03 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.02% 0.00% 75.30% 8.84% 0.00% 8.84% 17 

2003 60 35 7.95 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 7.40% 0.00% 77.05% 6.22% 0.00% 9.33% 18 

2003 118 14 8.03 8.02 0.01 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.99% 0.00% 75.72% 6.52% 0.00% 9.78% 19 

2003 57 35 7.95 7.94 0.01 3.8 2.9 4.3 5.32% 0.00% 77.91% 6.71% 0.00% 10.06% 20 
New IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 294 35 8.09 8.02 0.07 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.85% 0.00% 76.59% 7.29% 0.00% 9.28% 1 

2003 294 35 8.07 8.02 0.06 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.92% 0.00% 75.65% 7.84% 0.00% 9.58% 2 

2002 101 30 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.38% 0.00% 76.69% 7.81% 0.00% 9.11% 3 

2001 266 35 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.89% 0.00% 75.09% 7.86% 0.00% 9.16% 4 

2001 118 33 8.05 8.02 0.04 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.65% 0.00% 75.71% 8.14% 0.00% 9.50% 5 

2001 234 22 8.37 8.33 0.04 4.9 3.5 5.1 7.80% 0.00% 74.97% 7.95% 0.00% 9.28% 6 

2003 326 35 8.05 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.47% 0.00% 75.64% 8.13% 0.00% 9.76% 7 

2003 287 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.05% 0.00% 76.98% 7.10% 0.00% 8.87% 8 

2002 241 24 8.36 8.33 0.03 4.9 3.5 5.1 9.03% 0.00% 74.87% 7.16% 0.00% 8.95% 9 

2001 293 35 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.35% 0.00% 75.99% 7.40% 0.00% 9.25% 10 

2001 180 35 8.23 8.21 0.03 4.5 3.3 4.9 7.60% 0.00% 76.04% 7.27% 0.00% 9.09% 11 

2001 82 33 8.04 8.02 0.03 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.46% 0.00% 75.64% 7.51% 0.00% 9.39% 12 

2003 145 30 8.13 8.10 0.03 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.70% 0.00% 75.45% 7.49% 0.00% 9.36% 13 

2002 13 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.24% 0.00% 76.08% 7.86% 0.00% 9.82% 14 

2001 254 14 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.27% 0.00% 74.43% 7.69% 0.00% 9.61% 15 

2001 308 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 16 

2003 66 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 6.34% 0.00% 75.71% 7.98% 0.00% 9.97% 17 

2002 272 35 8.36 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.40% 0.00% 74.05% 7.80% 0.00% 9.75% 18 

2001 59 35 7.96 7.94 0.02 3.8 2.9 4.3 6.67% 0.00% 76.52% 8.41% 0.00% 8.41% 19 

2001 119 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.37% 0.00% 76.85% 6.76% 0.00% 9.02% 20 

2001 313 33 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 21 

2003 71 35 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.31% 0.00% 76.59% 6.90% 0.00% 9.20% 22 

2002 27 24 8.04 8.02 0.02 4.0 3.0 4.5 7.44% 0.00% 76.17% 7.02% 0.00% 9.36% 23 

2003 133 20 8.12 8.10 0.02 4.2 3.2 4.6 7.68% 0.00% 75.97% 7.01% 0.00% 9.34% 24 

2001 255 35 8.35 8.33 0.02 4.9 3.5 5.1 8.01% 0.00% 75.70% 6.98% 0.00% 9.31% 25 
Old IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking

2001 294 35 7.778 7.692 0.086 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 1 

2001 266 38 7.739 7.692 0.047 4.2 7.84 0 78.58 6.04 0 7.54 2 

2001 234 22 7.735 7.692 0.043 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 3 

2001 118 33 7.734 7.692 0.042 3.6 6.79 0 79.49 6.1 0 7.62 4 

2001 308 38 7.727 7.692 0.036 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 5 

2001 293 38 7.726 7.692 0.034 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 6 

2001 180 39 7.726 7.692 0.034 4 7.49 0 78.88 6.06 0 7.56 7 

2001 82 33 7.722 7.692 0.03 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 8 

2001 254 14 7.721 7.692 0.029 4.2 7.84 0 78.59 6.04 0 7.54 9 

2001 183 40 7.719 7.692 0.028 4.3 8.01 0 78.45 6.02 0 7.52 10 

2001 59 37 7.719 7.692 0.027 3.5 6.62 0 79.63 6.11 0 7.64 11 

2001 119 24 7.717 7.692 0.026 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 12 

2001 313 33 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 13 

2001 296 40 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.1 0 7.61 14 

2001 255 35 7.717 7.692 0.025 4.2 7.84 0 78.58 6.03 0 7.54 15 

2001 317 37 7.715 7.692 0.024 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 16 

2001 205 40 7.716 7.692 0.024 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 17 

2001 120 30 7.715 7.692 0.024 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 18 

2001 312 40 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 19 

2001 176 40 7.715 7.692 0.023 4 7.49 0 78.88 6.05 0 7.57 20 

 

2002 101 30 7.736 7.692 0.044 3.6 6.79 0 79.47 6.11 0 7.62 1 

2002 241 24 7.724 7.692 0.032 4.3 8.01 0 78.45 6.02 0 7.52 2 

2002 272 37 7.722 7.692 0.03 4.2 7.83 0 78.59 6.03 0 7.54 3 

2002 13 35 7.721 7.692 0.029 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 4 

2002 142 38 7.719 7.692 0.027 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.07 0 7.59 5 

2002 27 24 7.716 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 6 

2002 248 39 7.716 7.692 0.024 4.2 7.83 0 78.6 6.02 0 7.54 7 

2002 307 37 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 8 

2002 183 38 7.715 7.692 0.023 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 9 

2002 47 33 7.714 7.692 0.023 3.5 6.62 0 79.64 6.11 0 7.64 10 

2002 282 40 7.714 7.692 0.022 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 11 

2002 343 39 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 12 

2002 298 19 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 13 

2002 249 10 7.713 7.692 0.021 4.2 7.84 0 78.59 6.03 0 7.54 14 

2002 153 8 7.711 7.692 0.02 4 7.49 0 78.87 6.06 0 7.56 15 

2002 141 26 7.711 7.692 0.019 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.07 0 7.59 16 

2002 116 19 7.71 7.692 0.018 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 17 

2002 147 30 7.709 7.692 0.017 3.8 7.14 0 79.19 6.07 0 7.59 18 

2002 135 34 7.708 7.692 0.017 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.07 0 7.59 19 

2002 304 8 7.708 7.692 0.016 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 20 

 

2003 294 35 7.757 7.692 0.065 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 1 

2003 287 37 7.728 7.692 0.036 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 2 

2003 326 37 7.727 7.692 0.035 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 3 

2003 145 30 7.722 7.692 0.031 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.08 0 7.59 4 

2003 66 35 7.72 7.692 0.028 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.1 0 7.61 5 

2003 293 39 7.718 7.692 0.026 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.08 0 7.61 6 

2003 280 40 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.11 0 7.61 7 

2003 237 37 7.717 7.692 0.025 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.03 0 7.52 8 

2003 133 20 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.08 0 7.59 9 

2003 71 37 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.08 0 7.61 10 

2003 279 30 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 11 

2003 221 19 7.715 7.692 0.023 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 12 

2003 60 40 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.5 6.62 0 79.63 6.11 0 7.64 13 

2003 278 40 7.713 7.692 0.022 3.7 6.97 0 79.34 6.08 0 7.61 14 

2003 235 30 7.714 7.692 0.022 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.03 0 7.52 15 

2003 70 19 7.714 7.692 0.022 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 16 

2003 312 12 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 17 

2003 308 30 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 18 

2003 286 24 7.712 7.692 0.02 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 19 

2003 118 14 7.709 7.692 0.018 3.6 6.79 0 79.47 6.1 0 7.62 20 
Old IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking

2001 294 35 7.778 7.692 0.086 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 1 

2003 294 35 7.757 7.692 0.065 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 2 

2001 266 38 7.739 7.692 0.047 4.2 7.84 0 78.58 6.04 0 7.54 3 

2002 101 30 7.736 7.692 0.044 3.6 6.79 0 79.47 6.11 0 7.62 4 

2001 234 22 7.735 7.692 0.043 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 5 

2001 118 33 7.734 7.692 0.042 3.6 6.79 0 79.49 6.1 0 7.62 6 

2001 308 38 7.727 7.692 0.036 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 7 

2003 287 37 7.728 7.692 0.036 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 8 

2003 326 37 7.727 7.692 0.035 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 9 

2001 293 38 7.726 7.692 0.034 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 10 

2001 180 39 7.726 7.692 0.034 4 7.49 0 78.88 6.06 0 7.56 11 

2002 241 24 7.724 7.692 0.032 4.3 8.01 0 78.45 6.02 0 7.52 12 

2003 145 30 7.722 7.692 0.031 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.08 0 7.59 13 

2001 82 33 7.722 7.692 0.03 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 14 

2002 272 37 7.722 7.692 0.03 4.2 7.83 0 78.59 6.03 0 7.54 15 

2001 254 14 7.721 7.692 0.029 4.2 7.84 0 78.59 6.04 0 7.54 16 

2002 13 35 7.721 7.692 0.029 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 17 

2001 183 40 7.719 7.692 0.028 4.3 8.01 0 78.45 6.02 0 7.52 18 

2003 66 35 7.72 7.692 0.028 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.1 0 7.61 19 

2001 59 37 7.719 7.692 0.027 3.5 6.62 0 79.63 6.11 0 7.64 20 

2002 142 38 7.719 7.692 0.027 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.07 0 7.59 21 

2001 119 24 7.717 7.692 0.026 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 22 

2003 293 39 7.718 7.692 0.026 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.08 0 7.61 23 

2001 313 33 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 24 

2001 296 40 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.1 0 7.61 25 
Old IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank 

2001 294 35 7.778 7.692 0.086 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 1 

2001 266 35 7.735 7.692 0.043 4.2 7.84 0 78.58 6.04 0 7.54 2 

2001 234 22 7.735 7.692 0.043 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 3 

2001 118 33 7.734 7.692 0.042 3.6 6.79 0 79.49 6.1 0 7.62 4 

2001 180 35 7.723 7.692 0.032 4 7.49 0 78.88 6.06 0 7.57 5 

2001 293 35 7.723 7.692 0.031 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 6 

2001 82 33 7.722 7.692 0.03 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 7 

2001 308 35 7.72 7.692 0.029 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 8 

2001 254 14 7.721 7.692 0.029 4.2 7.84 0 78.59 6.04 0 7.54 9 

2001 59 35 7.719 7.692 0.027 3.5 6.62 0 79.64 6.11 0 7.64 10 

2001 119 24 7.717 7.692 0.026 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 11 

2001 313 33 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 12 

2001 255 35 7.717 7.692 0.025 4.2 7.84 0 78.58 6.03 0 7.54 13 

2001 120 30 7.715 7.692 0.024 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 14 

2001 317 35 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 15 

2001 58 33 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.5 6.62 0 79.61 6.12 0 7.64 16 

2001 43 35 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.5 6.62 0 79.63 6.11 0 7.64 17 

2001 321 30 7.713 7.692 0.022 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.08 0 7.61 18 

2001 326 20 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 19 

2001 315 30 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.08 0 7.61 20 

 

2002 101 30 7.736 7.692 0.044 3.6 6.79 0 79.47 6.11 0 7.62 1 

2002 241 24 7.724 7.692 0.032 4.3 8.01 0 78.45 6.02 0 7.52 2 

2002 272 35 7.72 7.692 0.029 4.2 7.83 0 78.59 6.03 0 7.54 3 

2002 13 35 7.721 7.692 0.029 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 4 

2002 27 24 7.716 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 5 

2002 142 35 7.715 7.692 0.024 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.08 0 7.59 6 

2002 47 33 7.714 7.692 0.023 3.5 6.62 0 79.64 6.11 0 7.64 7 

2002 307 35 7.714 7.692 0.022 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 8 

2002 183 35 7.714 7.692 0.022 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 9 

2002 298 20 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 10 

2002 249 9 7.712 7.692 0.021 4.2 7.84 0 78.6 6.03 0 7.54 11 

2002 248 35 7.712 7.692 0.02 4.2 7.83 0 78.6 6.02 0 7.54 12 

2002 153 9 7.711 7.692 0.019 4 7.49 0 78.87 6.06 0 7.56 13 

2002 141 26 7.711 7.692 0.019 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.07 0 7.59 14 

2002 116 20 7.71 7.692 0.018 3.6 6.79 0 79.48 6.1 0 7.62 15 

2002 343 35 7.709 7.692 0.017 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 16 

2002 147 30 7.709 7.692 0.017 3.8 7.14 0 79.19 6.07 0 7.59 17 

2002 135 34 7.708 7.692 0.017 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.07 0 7.59 18 

2002 282 35 7.707 7.692 0.016 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 19 

2002 35 24 7.708 7.692 0.016 3.5 6.62 0 79.63 6.11 0 7.64 20 

 

2003 294 35 7.757 7.692 0.065 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 1 

2003 326 35 7.727 7.692 0.035 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 2 

2003 287 35 7.725 7.692 0.033 3.7 6.97 0 79.31 6.11 0 7.61 3 

2003 145 30 7.722 7.692 0.031 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.08 0 7.59 4 

2003 66 35 7.72 7.692 0.028 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.1 0 7.61 5 

2003 133 20 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.8 7.14 0 79.18 6.08 0 7.59 6 

2003 71 35 7.717 7.692 0.025 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 7 

2003 237 35 7.716 7.692 0.024 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.03 0 7.52 8 

2003 293 35 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.08 0 7.61 9 

2003 279 30 7.715 7.692 0.023 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 10 

2003 221 20 7.715 7.692 0.023 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.02 0 7.52 11 

2003 235 30 7.714 7.692 0.022 4.3 8.01 0 78.44 6.03 0 7.52 12 

2003 70 20 7.714 7.692 0.022 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 13 

2003 312 12 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 14 

2003 308 30 7.713 7.692 0.021 3.7 6.97 0 79.32 6.09 0 7.61 15 

2003 286 24 7.712 7.692 0.02 3.7 6.97 0 79.33 6.09 0 7.61 16 

2003 280 35 7.711 7.692 0.019 3.7 6.97 0 79.3 6.12 0 7.61 17 

2003 60 35 7.71 7.692 0.019 3.5 6.62 0 79.63 6.11 0 7.64 18 

2003 118 14 7.709 7.692 0.018 3.6 6.79 0 79.47 6.1 0 7.62 19 

2003 278 35 7.709 7.692 0.017 3.7 6.97 0 79.3 6.12 0 7.61 20 
Old IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank 

2001 294 35 7.78 7.69 0.09 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 1 

2003 294 35 7.76 7.69 0.07 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 2 

2002 101 30 7.74 7.69 0.04 3.6 6.79 0.00 79.47 6.11 0.00 7.62 3 

2001 266 35 7.74 7.69 0.04 4.2 7.84 0.00 78.58 6.04 0.00 7.54 4 

2001 234 22 7.74 7.69 0.04 4.3 8.01 0.00 78.44 6.02 0.00 7.52 5 

2001 118 33 7.73 7.69 0.04 3.6 6.79 0.00 79.49 6.10 0.00 7.62 6 

2003 326 35 7.73 7.69 0.04 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 7 

2003 287 35 7.73 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.31 6.11 0.00 7.61 8 

2001 180 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 4.0 7.49 0.00 78.88 6.06 0.00 7.57 9 

2002 241 24 7.72 7.69 0.03 4.3 8.01 0.00 78.45 6.02 0.00 7.52 10 

2001 293 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 11 

2003 145 30 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.8 7.14 0.00 79.18 6.08 0.00 7.59 12 

2001 82 33 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.32 6.09 0.00 7.61 13 

2001 308 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.32 6.09 0.00 7.61 14 

2001 254 14 7.72 7.69 0.03 4.2 7.84 0.00 78.59 6.04 0.00 7.54 15 

2002 272 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 4.2 7.83 0.00 78.59 6.03 0.00 7.54 16 

2002 13 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 17 

2003 66 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.32 6.10 0.00 7.61 18 

2001 59 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.5 6.62 0.00 79.64 6.11 0.00 7.64 19 

2001 119 24 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.6 6.79 0.00 79.48 6.10 0.00 7.62 20 

2001 313 33 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.32 6.09 0.00 7.61 21 

2001 255 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 4.2 7.84 0.00 78.58 6.03 0.00 7.54 22 

2002 27 24 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 23 

2003 133 20 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.8 7.14 0.00 79.18 6.08 0.00 7.59 24 

2003 71 35 7.72 7.69 0.03 3.7 6.97 0.00 79.33 6.09 0.00 7.61 25 
Appendix B 

Breton Wilderness Receptors 

[The material referenced in Appendix B is included as a separate 

document along with this site specific BART modeling report.] 
BART Exemption Modeling Report: 

Mississippi Power Company 

Plant Daniel

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Mississippi Power Company 

January 2007

Appendix L.6.6
i January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 General quality assurance procedures........................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 Modeling results....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Appendix A Delta-Deciview Values for The Top 20 Days – For Each Year/Each Class I Area 

 and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years.....................................................................A-1 

Appendix B Breton Wilderness Receptors..............................................................................................B-1 
ii January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Daniel modeling emission parameters........................................................................... 2-3

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Daniel....................................................... 1-2
1-1 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

indicates that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and NOx for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report focuses on 

performing the BART modeling analysis for particulate matter (PM) only. 

Units 1 and 2 at Plant Daniel, located near Escatawpa, which are owned and operated by Mississippi Power 

Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The modeling procedures outlined in the sourcespecific modeling protocol for Plant Daniel were used to determine whether the source is subject to BART 

requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling procedures are consistent with those outlined in the 

updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3.2 – August 31, 

2006), available at http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/documents/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3.2_31Aug06.pdf. 

The source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling 

protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 1 and 2 at Plant Daniel are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant 

Daniel relative to nearby Class I Areas. There is one Class I area within 300 km of the plant: Breton Island 

(61.3 km). The BART exemption modeling was conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. 
1-2 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Daniel 
2-1 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Daniel are 

discussed in this section. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality has indicated that CAIR will 

satisfy BART for EGUs for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, this BART exemption modeling analysis focuses only on 

PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility extinction efficiencies, the PM10

emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 

4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of source-specific emissions and speciation 

factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and speciation approach that were used for the 

modeling is indicated below. Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where 

current (baseline) emission controls include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustion NOx or 

SO2 control equipment exists. 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Baseline filterable PM10 emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year 

period (2003-2005). This stack test is combined with the highest 24 hour heat input value for this 

period from CEMS data to calculate the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the 

VISTAS protocol. 

• Filterable PM10 has been subdivided by size category consistent with the default approach from AP-42 

Table 1-1.6, and as noted on pages 43 and 44 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6 specifies for the emission controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PM10

emission is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is 

elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. 

• Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Mississippi Power to 

derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released 

from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type 

and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern 

bituminous coal the baseline H2SO4 release rate is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5% of the SO2 emissions. 

Appendix A of the site-specific modeling protocol provides the basis for the site-specific values used. 

• Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are derived 

based on the supporting field observational information in Appendix B of the site-specific modeling 

protocol and is estimated as 0.32% of SO2 emitted. 

• Coarse filterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) are modeled with a geometric mass 

mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles are modeled with a 

geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value for fine 

particles. The geometric standard deviation for both fine and coarse particles are set to 2 microns, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented on the TRC web site. There is no default 

value presented for the coarse particles on the TRC web site. However, since 5 is the geometric 

mass mean diameter of 2.5 and 10 (the bounds of coarse particle sizes), it is a reasonable estimate 

for the geometric mass mean diameter for that class of particles. 

In practice, CALPUFF allows for the user to input certain components of PM10 as separate species and 

separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more 
2-2 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

accurate effects on light scattering. As noted above, the particle size distribution information is provided in 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and was used for the BART exemption modeling. 

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters used in the BART CALPUFF modeling, 

consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B of the site-specific modeling 

protocol for the baseline. All of the emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 

period and represent the maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or 

malfunctions occurred). For NOx and SO2 the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PM10 emissions were 

calculated using the highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplying these values times the 

maximum 24-hour average heat input derived from CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 

factors from Table 1.1-6 that indicate that PM10 is 67% of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM10

speciation was then performed as indicated above such that total Filterable PM10 is made up of Coarse Soil 

plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC). 
2-3 

010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

Table 2-1 Plant Daniel modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Parti

Case Source / Unit UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM 

 m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 1 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 5718.33 2156.09 56.90 12.46 6.93 5.53 Baseline Unit 2 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 5451.7 2186.40 66.41 24.01 13.35 10.66 

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Stack 1 1&2 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 11170.05 4342.49 123.31 36.47 20.28 16.19 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 350,592 3,378,843 106.7 7.0 10.4 21.7 419.1 1407.43 547.15 15.54 4.60 2.56 2.04 

1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered under stack height regulations. 
3-1 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

3.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

The BART exemption modeling was conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the referenced VISTAS 

common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific BART modeling 

protocol for Plant Daniel. This section provides a discussion of additional modeling procedures that were used 

and describes the quality assurance procedure was followed. 

3.1 Modeling domain and receptors 

The Plant Daniel BART runs used the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as discussed 

in the source-specific modeling protocol. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, 

plus a 50-km buffer. 

The BART exemption modeling was conducted for Daniel Units 1 and 2 (BART eligible units) for each Class I 

area within 300 km of the source (Breton Island). The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based 

on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

For Breton, Mississippi Power has included in the modeling analysis all of the receptors that the US F&WS 

has identified. However, Mississippi Power does not believe that all of the receptors are still valid receptors. 

As a result of hurricane activity, several of the receptors identified by the US F&WS for Breton are now 

located over water, rather than over land. Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, which defines wilderness 

as "land," and because Congress made clear when it created the Breton wilderness area that only the land 

mass was designated as wilderness, receptors that are now over water are not relevant for assessing 

visibility impacts at Breton. Nevertheless, Mississippi Power is including both the valid and invalid receptors 

for purposes of this analysis. Appendix B provides more detailed support for the identification and 

elimination of invalid receptors at Breton. 

3.2 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor was used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the impact 

from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. The 

formula that is currently used in CALPOST is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) IMPROVE/EPA 

formula, which is applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the particulate matter 

component concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3

 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

New IMPROVE Equation. Mississippi Power Company used the new IMPROVE equation to analyze the 

CALPUFF results for Breton Island. This was done for several reasons. First, the new equation is the result of 

an extensive evaluation of the most recent scientific data, undertaken by an ad hoc group of scientists 

including representatives from the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, academia, and industry. The old equation was based on data and information that was over a 

decade old. The new equation is based on the most recent data and information gleaned from scientific 

studies done over the past decade. The new equation adds more accurate terms for estimating light extinction 

due to sulfate and nitrate, through the incorporation of size differentiation and revisions to the extinction 

coefficients. Organic matter estimates are improved through a refinement to the organic compound mass to 

organic mass ratio. Second, the new equation corrects several errors and omissions in the old equation. For 

example, sea salt, which affects light extinction, was not part of the old equation, but has been added to the 
3-2 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

new equation. Moreover, the old equation’s constant Rayleigh scattering term (corresponding to scattering at 

10,000 feet elevation) has been revised to reflect the actual elevation of the specific Class I area. 

The ad hoc group of scientists who recommended the changes to the equation drafted a technical support 

document entitled “Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data” 

(November 30, 2005). That document demonstrates that, for 21 Class I areas with nephelometer data, the 

new equation produces more accurate results than the old equation. The IMPROVE Steering Committee 

reviewed the work of the ad hoc group and its technical support document, and approved the new equation in 

December 2005. 

The revisions to the IMPROVE equation are particularly important for coastal sites (such as Breton). Sea salt 

is an important component of extinction at coastal sites, and thus should be included in the equation for 

estimating visibility impacts. In addition, the site-specific Rayleigh scattering term is important for coastal sites 

because the default value in the old equation (10 Mm-1) was based on an elevation of 10,000 feet. At nearzero sea level, the new equation uses a more accurate coefficient of 11 Mm-1. 

The new formula is shown below. 

The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfate compounds into the concentrations of the small and 

large size fractions is accomplished using the following equations. 

This revised version of the IMPROVE Equation was used to perform the BART exemption modeling. Dr. Ivar 

Tombach (VISTAS consultant) has produced a spreadsheet tool (September 29, 2006) to allow the new 

IMPROVE formula results to be derived from the basic CALPOST outputs. Also, since the BART modeling is 

focused only on PM, NO2 was set to zero in the new formula. For informational purposes, results from the old 

equation are also presented. 

)]([33.0

( )

[6.0 ]

][)(7.1

][1

[10 ]

[8.2 [1.6] ]

[)(4.2 [)(1.5] ]

[)(2.2 [)(8.4] ]

2 ppbNO

Rayleigh Scattering SpecificSite

Course Mass

SaltSeaRHf

SoilFine

Elemental Carbon

Small Organic Mass OrganicrgeLa Mass

RHf Small Nitrate NitratergeLaRHf

b RHf Small Sulfate SulfatergeLaRHf

SS

S L

ext S L

×+

+

×+

××+

×+

×+

×+ ×+

××+ ××+

××≈ + × ×

3

3 [ [], /20] /20

[ ] [ ] Total Sulfate Total Sulfate mg

mg

Total Sulfate SulfatergeLa μ

μ = × <

3 [ SulfatergeLa = [] Total Sulfate [], Total Sulfate ≥ μ /20] mg

[Small Sulfate = [] Total Sulfate −[] SulfatergeLa ]
3-3 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

3.3 General quality assurance procedures 

Chapter 6 of the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol discusses Quality Assurance (QA). The purpose of the QA 

program is to establish procedures for ensuring that products produced by the application of the modeling 

techniques for BART studies satisfy the regulatory objectives of the BART program. 

The air quality modeling staff at Southern Company Services is managing and/or conducting the BART 

Exemption Modeling application for this plant owned by Mississippi Power Company. They made sure that all 

recommended methods specified in the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol were followed and that the modeling 

was carefully and professionally conducted. Initially, the Company retained the services of ENSR/AECOM to 

supplement the training received as part of VISTAS training courses. Additionally, ENSR/AECOM experts 

were given source data for one of Southern Company’s BART eligible sources, and they performed a 

complete analysis following the VISTAS common protocol. During this process, the lead Southern Company 

modelers were taught each technical step. 

ENSR/AECOM was used as a third-party review for the CALPUFF analyses. ENSR has conducted numerous 

CALPUFF analyses, and uses CALDESK animation software as well as Lakes Environmental CALVIEW 

software with base maps to visualize the sources, receptors, and meteorology. ENSR/AECOM also uses the 

CALPUFF QA output files in conjunction with ArcMap GIS software to plot the locations of the sources and 

receptors as CALPUFF interprets them from the input data. The output files from CALPUFF and CALPOST 

are typically reviewed independently by ENSR/AECOM staff to assure accuracy and compliance with 

approved regulatory procedures. 

For the exemption modeling, Southern Company’s BART modelers made sure that all checks were made 

manually/visually as well as by using UltaEdit-32, a file comparing software. Additionally, these datasets were 

randomly checked by another Southern Company modeler. During the modeling process, periodic progress 

meetings were conducted with the project management team members, and phone calls and e-mail 

exchanges were made with the CALPUFF modeling experts at ENSR/AECOM to resolve issues as they 

arose. 

The VISTAS Modeling Protocol states, “To the extent that modeling applications are using pre-defined 

CALMET files and CALPUFF templates, the quality assurance will be straightforward. More detailed steps are 

needed for the setup of modeling files for source-specific applications of sub-regional domains finer than 4 

km.” For this application, the 4-km grid-spaced CALMET files for sub-domain 4 developed by VISTAS and the 

CALPUFF templates were used. Southern Company BART modelers used the test met file to “benchmark” 

the use of the CALMET files on their computers as indicated on page 59 of the VISTAS common protocol. For 

this BART exemption modeling application, documents were developed and will be submitted that contained 

source data required by the CALPUFF modeling system (CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL). 
4-1 January 2007 010207 Daniel BART Modeling Report.doc

4.0 Modeling results 

The exemption modeling results are provided in Table 4-1, and Appendix A lists delta-deciview results for the 

top 20 days for each year modeled and the top 25 days for the overall three years at each Class I area. The 

table indicates that both the 8th highest day’s impacts for each year and the 22nd highest day’s impacts over all 

three years are below 0.5 delta-dv. These results demonstrate that Plant Daniel’s PM10 emissions do not 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment. Therefore, the source is not subject to BART for PM10, and no 

further BART analysis is required. 

Electronic data related to this application are provided on the attached disk. They include all input (INP) and 

list (LST) files.
Table 4-1 Summary of Results – Plant Daniel Refined BART Exemption Modeling 

 2001 2002 2003 

Class I area 

Distance 

from source 

to Class I 

area 

boundary 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

Highest of 

8th Highest 

delta-dv 

for the 3-

years 

22nd

Highest 

delta-dv 

over 3-

year 

period 

km Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv delta-dv delta-dv 

Breton 

Island 

New Improve 

Orig Recept 61.3 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.22 0 0 0.22 0.23 0.23 

New Improve 

Valid Recept 61.3 0 0 0.20 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.21 0.21 0.20 

Old Improve 

Orig Recept 61.3 0 0 0.29 0 0 0.28 0 0 0.26 0.29 0.28 

Old Improve 

Valid Recept 61.3 0 0 0.24 0 0 0.21 0 0 0.26 0.26 0.25 
Appendix A 

Delta-Deciview Values for the Top 20 Days – for Each Year/Each 

Class I Area and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years 
New IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 24 32 8.46 8.02 0.45 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.01% 0.00% 14.78% 0.80% 1.30% 2.10% 1 

2001 270 40 8.65 8.33 0.32 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.91% 0.00% 12.38% 0.69% 1.24% 1.79% 2 

2001 365 39 8.32 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.84% 0.00% 14.74% 0.88% 1.47% 2.06% 3 

2001 300 38 8.32 8.02 0.30 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.80% 0.00% 14.72% 0.90% 1.49% 2.09% 4 

2001 117 40 8.31 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.89% 0.00% 14.75% 0.78% 1.56% 2.03% 5 

2001 337 32 8.30 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.08% 0.00% 14.81% 0.79% 1.26% 2.05% 6 

2001 77 38 8.26 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.83% 0.00% 14.74% 0.92% 1.48% 2.03% 7 

2001 144 19 8.34 8.10 0.23 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.96% 0.00% 14.00% 0.77% 1.35% 1.92% 8 

2001 275 37 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.83% 0.00% 14.73% 0.84% 1.48% 2.11% 9 

2001 344 40 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.81% 0.00% 14.67% 0.86% 1.51% 2.15% 10 

2001 23 30 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.92% 0.00% 14.76% 0.87% 1.30% 2.16% 11 

2001 86 30 8.21 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.78% 0.00% 14.75% 0.94% 1.41% 2.11% 12 

2001 269 33 8.52 8.33 0.19 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.81% 0.00% 12.50% 0.69% 1.15% 1.84% 13 

2001 355 19 8.20 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.04% 0.00% 14.80% 0.73% 1.47% 1.96% 14 

2001 316 12 8.20 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.29% 0.00% 14.71% 0.75% 1.25% 2.00% 15 

2001 326 40 8.19 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.90% 0.00% 14.78% 0.76% 1.53% 2.03% 16 

2001 314 39 8.19 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.90% 0.00% 14.78% 0.76% 1.53% 2.03% 16 

2001 281 40 8.19 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.99% 0.00% 14.67% 0.77% 1.53% 2.05% 18 

2001 175 12 8.38 8.21 0.17 4.5 3.3 4.9 82.93% 0.00% 13.20% 0.77% 1.29% 1.81% 19 

2001 33 40 8.11 7.94 0.17 3.8 2.9 4.3 79.96% 0.00% 15.51% 0.80% 1.60% 2.13% 20 

 

2002 350 38 8.33 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.02% 0.00% 14.79% 0.87% 1.30% 2.02% 1 

2002 334 40 8.29 8.02 0.27 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.71% 0.83% 1.50% 2.00% 2 

2002 96 30 8.28 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.79% 0.00% 14.69% 0.87% 1.56% 2.09% 3 

2002 2 33 8.25 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.06% 0.00% 14.72% 0.77% 1.34% 2.11% 4 

2002 95 40 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.77% 0.00% 14.76% 0.78% 1.55% 2.14% 5 

2002 83 40 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.76% 0.00% 14.73% 0.78% 1.57% 2.15% 6 

2002 167 19 8.43 8.21 0.23 4.5 3.3 4.9 82.84% 0.00% 13.24% 0.79% 1.37% 1.77% 7 

2002 140 40 8.32 8.10 0.22 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.73% 0.00% 14.05% 0.81% 1.41% 2.01% 8 

2002 305 24 8.23 8.02 0.22 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.67% 0.83% 1.46% 2.08% 9 

2002 26 19 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.78% 0.00% 14.66% 0.87% 1.52% 2.17% 10 

2002 312 38 8.21 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.82% 0.00% 14.68% 0.95% 1.42% 2.13% 11 

2002 287 36 8.20 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.72% 0.00% 14.72% 0.96% 1.44% 2.16% 12 

2002 336 37 8.20 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.94% 0.00% 14.79% 0.75% 1.51% 2.01% 13 

2002 291 40 8.19 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.99% 0.00% 14.67% 0.77% 1.53% 2.05% 14 

2002 332 22 8.18 8.02 0.17 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.90% 0.00% 14.80% 0.81% 1.34% 2.15% 15 

2002 60 40 8.10 7.94 0.17 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.12% 0.00% 15.50% 0.82% 1.37% 2.19% 16 

2002 34 24 8.09 7.94 0.15 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.06% 0.00% 15.47% 0.89% 1.49% 2.09% 17 

2002 70 35 8.17 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.73% 0.00% 14.74% 0.91% 1.51% 2.11% 18 

2002 54 22 8.06 7.94 0.12 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.00% 0.00% 15.54% 0.74% 1.49% 2.23% 19 

2002 27 40 8.13 8.02 0.12 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.91% 0.00% 14.87% 0.77% 1.54% 1.92% 20 

 

2003 118 40 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.94% 0.00% 14.72% 0.87% 1.44% 2.02% 1 

2003 259 37 8.77 8.33 0.44 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.91% 0.00% 12.43% 0.69% 1.19% 1.78% 2 

2003 82 38 8.40 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.90% 0.00% 14.73% 0.83% 1.42% 2.12% 3 

2003 144 24 8.43 8.10 0.32 4.2 3.2 4.6 82.24% 0.00% 14.06% 0.82% 0.96% 1.92% 4 

2003 276 40 8.33 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.72% 0.86% 1.44% 2.01% 5 

2003 43 38 8.18 7.94 0.25 3.8 2.9 4.3 79.98% 0.00% 15.42% 0.92% 1.47% 2.21% 6 

2003 313 40 8.26 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.80% 0.00% 14.73% 0.93% 1.49% 2.05% 7 

2003 249 35 8.55 8.33 0.22 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.76% 0.00% 12.39% 0.81% 1.21% 1.82% 8 

2003 133 40 8.31 8.10 0.21 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.88% 0.00% 14.06% 0.85% 1.28% 1.92% 9 

2003 148 35 8.31 8.10 0.21 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.95% 0.00% 13.97% 0.86% 1.29% 1.93% 10 

2003 318 28 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.82% 0.00% 14.79% 0.88% 1.54% 1.97% 11 

2003 104 24 8.22 8.02 0.20 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.24% 0.00% 14.70% 0.90% 1.13% 2.03% 12 

2003 312 40 8.21 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.59% 0.00% 14.72% 0.94% 1.64% 2.11% 13 

2003 13 39 8.20 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.18% 0.00% 14.80% 0.75% 1.26% 2.01% 14 

2003 25 40 8.19 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.07% 0.00% 14.84% 0.77% 1.28% 2.04% 15 

2003 37 30 8.11 7.94 0.17 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.03% 0.00% 15.35% 0.81% 1.63% 2.17% 16 

2003 292 33 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.05% 0.00% 14.75% 0.84% 1.40% 1.96% 17 

2003 275 35 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.74% 0.00% 14.77% 0.84% 1.68% 1.96% 18 

2003 40 40 8.09 7.94 0.16 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.20% 0.00% 15.41% 0.88% 1.46% 2.05% 19 

2003 28 19 8.17 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.68% 0.00% 14.78% 0.91% 1.51% 2.12% 20 
New IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2003 118 40 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.94% 0.00% 14.72% 0.87% 1.44% 2.02% 1 

2001 24 32 8.46 8.02 0.45 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.01% 0.00% 14.78% 0.80% 1.30% 2.10% 2 

2003 259 37 8.77 8.33 0.44 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.91% 0.00% 12.43% 0.69% 1.19% 1.78% 3 

2003 82 38 8.40 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.90% 0.00% 14.73% 0.83% 1.42% 2.12% 4 

2003 144 24 8.43 8.10 0.32 4.2 3.2 4.6 82.24% 0.00% 14.06% 0.82% 0.96% 1.92% 5 

2001 270 40 8.65 8.33 0.32 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.91% 0.00% 12.38% 0.69% 1.24% 1.79% 6 

2003 276 40 8.33 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.72% 0.86% 1.44% 2.01% 7 

2002 350 38 8.33 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.02% 0.00% 14.79% 0.87% 1.30% 2.02% 8 

2001 365 39 8.32 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.84% 0.00% 14.74% 0.88% 1.47% 2.06% 9 

2001 300 38 8.32 8.02 0.30 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.80% 0.00% 14.72% 0.90% 1.49% 2.09% 10 

2001 117 40 8.31 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.89% 0.00% 14.75% 0.78% 1.56% 2.03% 11 

2001 337 32 8.30 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.08% 0.00% 14.81% 0.79% 1.26% 2.05% 12 

2002 334 40 8.29 8.02 0.27 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.71% 0.83% 1.50% 2.00% 13 

2002 96 30 8.28 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.79% 0.00% 14.69% 0.87% 1.56% 2.09% 14 

2003 43 38 8.18 7.94 0.25 3.8 2.9 4.3 79.98% 0.00% 15.42% 0.92% 1.47% 2.21% 15 

2001 77 38 8.26 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.83% 0.00% 14.74% 0.92% 1.48% 2.03% 16 

2003 313 40 8.26 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.80% 0.00% 14.73% 0.93% 1.49% 2.05% 17 

2002 2 33 8.25 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.06% 0.00% 14.72% 0.77% 1.34% 2.11% 18 

2001 144 19 8.34 8.10 0.23 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.96% 0.00% 14.00% 0.77% 1.35% 1.92% 19 

2002 95 40 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.77% 0.00% 14.76% 0.78% 1.55% 2.14% 20 

2002 83 40 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.76% 0.00% 14.73% 0.78% 1.57% 2.15% 21 

2002 167 19 8.43 8.21 0.23 4.5 3.3 4.9 82.84% 0.00% 13.24% 0.79% 1.37% 1.77% 22 

2002 140 40 8.32 8.10 0.22 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.73% 0.00% 14.05% 0.81% 1.41% 2.01% 23 

2002 305 24 8.23 8.02 0.22 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.67% 0.83% 1.46% 2.08% 24 

2003 249 35 8.55 8.33 0.22 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.76% 0.00% 12.39% 0.81% 1.21% 1.82% 25 
New IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 24 31 8.46 8.02 0.45 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.12% 0.00% 14.75% 0.80% 1.21% 2.11% 1 

2001 337 33 8.30 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.08% 0.00% 14.81% 0.79% 1.26% 2.05% 2 

2001 365 35 8.27 8.02 0.25 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.81% 0.00% 14.75% 0.89% 1.42% 2.13% 3 

2001 144 20 8.33 8.10 0.23 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.97% 0.00% 13.96% 0.77% 1.36% 1.94% 4 

2001 275 35 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.84% 0.00% 14.65% 0.86% 1.50% 2.15% 5 

2001 23 30 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.92% 0.00% 14.76% 0.87% 1.30% 2.16% 6 

2001 77 35 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.89% 0.00% 14.74% 0.87% 1.53% 1.97% 7 

2001 270 35 8.53 8.33 0.20 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.93% 0.00% 12.49% 0.67% 1.12% 1.79% 8 

2001 86 30 8.21 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.78% 0.00% 14.75% 0.94% 1.41% 2.11% 9 

2001 269 33 8.52 8.33 0.19 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.81% 0.00% 12.50% 0.69% 1.15% 1.84% 10 

2001 300 35 8.20 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.04% 0.00% 14.80% 0.73% 1.47% 1.96% 11 

2001 355 12 8.20 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.00% 0.00% 14.83% 0.74% 1.47% 1.96% 12 

2001 316 12 8.20 8.02 0.18 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.29% 0.00% 14.71% 0.75% 1.25% 2.00% 13 

2001 175 12 8.38 8.21 0.17 4.5 3.3 4.9 82.93% 0.00% 13.20% 0.77% 1.29% 1.81% 14 

2001 116 24 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.91% 0.00% 14.65% 0.83% 1.67% 1.95% 15 

2001 70 35 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.10% 0.00% 14.72% 0.84% 1.40% 1.95% 16 

2001 196 24 8.49 8.33 0.16 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.73% 0.00% 12.46% 0.82% 1.36% 1.63% 17 

2001 69 24 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.97% 0.00% 14.76% 0.85% 1.42% 1.99% 18 

2001 344 35 8.17 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.02% 0.00% 14.67% 0.86% 1.43% 2.01% 19 

2001 301 12 8.17 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.02% 0.00% 14.67% 0.86% 1.43% 2.01% 20 

 

2002 350 35 8.30 8.02 0.28 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.07% 0.00% 14.74% 0.81% 1.29% 2.09% 1 

2002 96 30 8.28 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.79% 0.00% 14.69% 0.87% 1.56% 2.09% 2 

2002 2 33 8.25 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.06% 0.00% 14.72% 0.77% 1.34% 2.11% 3 

2002 167 20 8.43 8.21 0.22 4.5 3.3 4.9 82.75% 0.00% 13.30% 0.79% 1.38% 1.78% 4 

2002 305 24 8.23 8.02 0.22 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.67% 0.83% 1.46% 2.08% 5 

2002 26 14 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.89% 0.00% 14.74% 0.87% 1.53% 1.97% 6 

2002 287 35 8.20 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.72% 0.00% 14.72% 0.96% 1.44% 2.16% 7 

2002 332 22 8.18 8.02 0.17 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.90% 0.00% 14.80% 0.81% 1.34% 2.15% 8 

2002 312 35 8.18 8.02 0.17 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.91% 0.00% 14.70% 0.82% 1.37% 2.20% 9 

2002 336 35 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.86% 0.00% 14.73% 0.83% 1.38% 2.20% 10 

2002 95 35 8.17 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.92% 0.00% 14.70% 0.88% 1.46% 2.04% 11 

2002 34 24 8.09 7.94 0.15 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.06% 0.00% 15.47% 0.89% 1.49% 2.09% 12 

2002 70 35 8.17 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.73% 0.00% 14.74% 0.91% 1.51% 2.11% 13 

2002 140 24 8.25 8.10 0.15 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.49% 0.00% 13.99% 0.90% 1.50% 2.11% 14 

2002 291 35 8.16 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.78% 0.00% 14.65% 0.91% 1.52% 2.13% 15 

2002 60 35 8.07 7.94 0.13 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.08% 0.00% 15.45% 1.03% 1.38% 2.06% 16 

2002 54 22 8.06 7.94 0.12 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.00% 0.00% 15.54% 0.74% 1.49% 2.23% 17 

2002 40 35 8.05 7.94 0.12 3.8 2.9 4.3 79.92% 0.00% 15.40% 0.78% 1.56% 2.34% 18 

2002 318 12 8.12 8.02 0.11 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.87% 0.83% 1.25% 2.09% 19 

2002 83 35 8.12 8.02 0.11 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.63% 0.00% 14.73% 0.84% 1.69% 2.11% 20 

 

2003 259 35 8.72 8.33 0.38 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.98% 0.00% 12.39% 0.68% 1.25% 1.70% 1 

2003 82 35 8.37 8.02 0.35 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.95% 0.00% 14.69% 0.90% 1.41% 2.05% 2 

2003 144 24 8.43 8.10 0.32 4.2 3.2 4.6 82.24% 0.00% 14.06% 0.82% 0.96% 1.92% 3 

2003 118 35 8.27 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.66% 0.88% 1.40% 2.10% 4 

2003 43 35 8.16 7.94 0.22 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.13% 0.00% 15.49% 0.83% 1.46% 2.08% 5 

2003 249 35 8.55 8.33 0.22 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.76% 0.00% 12.39% 0.81% 1.21% 1.82% 6 

2003 148 35 8.31 8.10 0.21 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.95% 0.00% 13.97% 0.86% 1.29% 1.93% 7 

2003 318 28 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.82% 0.00% 14.79% 0.88% 1.54% 1.97% 8 

2003 104 24 8.22 8.02 0.20 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.24% 0.00% 14.70% 0.90% 1.13% 2.03% 9 

2003 313 35 8.21 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.79% 0.00% 14.66% 0.96% 1.44% 2.15% 10 

2003 37 30 8.11 7.94 0.17 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.03% 0.00% 15.35% 0.81% 1.63% 2.17% 11 

2003 292 33 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.05% 0.00% 14.75% 0.84% 1.40% 1.96% 12 

2003 275 35 8.18 8.02 0.16 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.74% 0.00% 14.77% 0.84% 1.68% 1.96% 13 

2003 13 35 8.17 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.10% 0.00% 14.74% 0.89% 1.19% 2.08% 14 

2003 25 35 8.17 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.06% 0.00% 14.77% 0.89% 1.19% 2.09% 15 

2003 28 20 8.16 8.02 0.15 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.78% 0.00% 14.65% 0.91% 1.52% 2.13% 16 

2003 276 35 8.16 8.02 0.14 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.99% 0.00% 14.61% 0.94% 1.26% 2.20% 17 

2003 312 35 8.16 8.02 0.14 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.81% 0.00% 14.63% 0.98% 1.63% 1.95% 18 

2003 133 35 8.23 8.10 0.13 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.92% 0.00% 13.93% 0.69% 1.38% 2.07% 19 

2003 273 35 8.46 8.33 0.13 4.9 3.5 5.1 84.07% 0.00% 12.55% 0.68% 1.01% 1.69% 20 
New IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 24 31 8.46 8.02 0.45 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.12% 0.00% 14.75% 0.80% 1.21% 2.11% 1 

2003 259 35 8.72 8.33 0.38 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.98% 0.00% 12.39% 0.68% 1.25% 1.70% 2 

2003 82 35 8.37 8.02 0.35 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.95% 0.00% 14.69% 0.90% 1.41% 2.05% 3 

2003 144 24 8.43 8.10 0.32 4.2 3.2 4.6 82.24% 0.00% 14.06% 0.82% 0.96% 1.92% 4 

2001 337 33 8.30 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.08% 0.00% 14.81% 0.79% 1.26% 2.05% 5 

2002 350 35 8.30 8.02 0.28 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.07% 0.00% 14.74% 0.81% 1.29% 2.09% 6 

2002 96 30 8.28 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.79% 0.00% 14.69% 0.87% 1.56% 2.09% 7 

2003 118 35 8.27 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.66% 0.88% 1.40% 2.10% 8 

2001 365 35 8.27 8.02 0.25 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.81% 0.00% 14.75% 0.89% 1.42% 2.13% 9 

2002 2 33 8.25 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.06% 0.00% 14.72% 0.77% 1.34% 2.11% 10 

2001 144 20 8.33 8.10 0.23 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.97% 0.00% 13.96% 0.77% 1.36% 1.94% 11 

2002 167 20 8.43 8.21 0.22 4.5 3.3 4.9 82.75% 0.00% 13.30% 0.79% 1.38% 1.78% 12 

2003 43 35 8.16 7.94 0.22 3.8 2.9 4.3 80.13% 0.00% 15.49% 0.83% 1.46% 2.08% 13 

2002 305 24 8.23 8.02 0.22 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.96% 0.00% 14.67% 0.83% 1.46% 2.08% 14 

2003 249 35 8.55 8.33 0.22 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.76% 0.00% 12.39% 0.81% 1.21% 1.82% 15 

2001 275 35 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.84% 0.00% 14.65% 0.86% 1.50% 2.15% 16 

2001 23 30 8.23 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.92% 0.00% 14.76% 0.87% 1.30% 2.16% 17 

2003 148 35 8.31 8.10 0.21 4.2 3.2 4.6 81.95% 0.00% 13.97% 0.86% 1.29% 1.93% 18 

2001 77 35 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.89% 0.00% 14.74% 0.87% 1.53% 1.97% 19 

2002 26 14 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.89% 0.00% 14.74% 0.87% 1.53% 1.97% 20 

2003 318 28 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.82% 0.00% 14.79% 0.88% 1.54% 1.97% 21 

2003 104 24 8.22 8.02 0.20 4.0 3.0 4.5 81.24% 0.00% 14.70% 0.90% 1.13% 2.03% 22 

2001 270 35 8.53 8.33 0.20 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.93% 0.00% 12.49% 0.67% 1.12% 1.79% 23 

2001 86 30 8.21 8.02 0.19 4.0 3.0 4.5 80.78% 0.00% 14.75% 0.94% 1.41% 2.11% 24 

2001 269 33 8.52 8.33 0.19 4.9 3.5 5.1 83.81% 0.00% 12.50% 0.69% 1.15% 1.84% 25 
Old IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking

2001 24 32 8.253 7.692 0.561 3.7 81.44 0 15.22 0.68 1.01 1.66 1 

2001 270 40 8.078 7.692 0.386 4.2 83.18 0 13.7 0.61 1.02 1.49 2 

2001 365 39 8.077 7.692 0.385 3.7 81.32 0 15.2 0.68 1.15 1.65 3 

2001 300 38 8.072 7.692 0.38 3.7 81.24 0 15.18 0.67 1.25 1.65 4 

2001 337 32 8.053 7.692 0.361 3.7 81.42 0 15.22 0.68 1.03 1.66 5 

2001 117 40 8.049 7.692 0.357 3.6 80.86 0 15.53 0.69 1.22 1.69 6 

2001 77 38 8.001 7.692 0.309 3.7 81.28 0 15.19 0.68 1.2 1.65 7 

2001 144 19 7.981 7.692 0.289 3.8 81.72 0 14.87 0.66 1.13 1.62 8 

2001 275 37 7.963 7.692 0.271 3.7 81.29 0 15.19 0.68 1.19 1.65 9 

2001 344 40 7.958 7.692 0.266 3.7 81.26 0 15.19 0.68 1.22 1.65 10 

2001 23 30 7.956 7.692 0.264 3.7 81.43 0 15.22 0.68 1.02 1.66 11 

2001 86 30 7.935 7.692 0.243 3.7 81.28 0 15.19 0.68 1.2 1.65 12 

2001 355 19 7.926 7.692 0.234 3.7 81.32 0 15.2 0.68 1.15 1.65 13 

2001 269 33 7.924 7.692 0.233 4.2 83.14 0 13.69 0.61 1.07 1.49 14 

2001 316 12 7.922 7.692 0.23 3.7 81.41 0 15.22 0.68 1.04 1.66 15 

2001 314 39 7.918 7.692 0.226 3.7 81.28 0 15.19 0.68 1.2 1.65 16 

2001 326 40 7.917 7.692 0.225 3.7 81.29 0 15.19 0.68 1.19 1.65 17 

2001 281 40 7.916 7.692 0.224 3.7 81.26 0 15.19 0.68 1.22 1.65 18 

2001 33 40 7.907 7.692 0.215 3.5 80.39 0 15.88 0.71 1.29 1.73 19 

2001 175 12 7.905 7.692 0.214 4 82.49 0 14.26 0.63 1.06 1.55 20 

 

2002 350 38 8.085 7.692 0.393 3.7 81.43 0 15.22 0.68 1.02 1.66 1 

2002 334 40 8.034 7.692 0.343 3.7 81.27 0 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 2 

2002 96 30 8.012 7.692 0.32 3.6 80.85 0 15.53 0.69 1.23 1.69 3 

2002 2 33 7.99 7.692 0.298 3.7 81.39 0 15.21 0.68 1.07 1.66 4 

2002 83 40 7.983 7.692 0.291 3.7 81.27 0 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 5 

2002 95 40 7.979 7.692 0.287 3.6 80.85 0 15.53 0.69 1.24 1.69 6 

2002 167 19 7.971 7.692 0.28 4 82.44 0 14.25 0.63 1.13 1.55 7 

2002 140 40 7.968 7.692 0.276 3.8 81.65 0 14.86 0.66 1.22 1.62 8 

2002 305 24 7.966 7.692 0.275 3.7 81.36 0 15.21 0.68 1.1 1.66 9 

2002 26 19 7.955 7.692 0.263 3.7 81.25 0 15.19 0.67 1.23 1.65 10 

2002 312 38 7.933 7.692 0.241 3.7 81.36 0 15.21 0.68 1.1 1.66 11 

2002 287 36 7.93 7.692 0.238 3.7 81.27 0 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 12 

2002 336 37 7.92 7.692 0.228 3.7 81.27 0 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 13 

2002 291 40 7.916 7.692 0.225 3.7 81.3 0 15.2 0.68 1.17 1.65 14 

2002 332 22 7.905 7.692 0.213 3.7 81.3 0 15.2 0.68 1.17 1.65 15 

2002 60 40 7.901 7.692 0.21 3.5 80.51 0 15.91 0.71 1.15 1.73 16 

2002 34 24 7.885 7.692 0.193 3.5 80.48 0 15.9 0.71 1.18 1.73 17 

2002 70 35 7.882 7.692 0.19 3.7 81.24 0 15.18 0.67 1.25 1.65 18 

2002 54 22 7.847 7.692 0.155 3.5 80.38 0 15.88 0.71 1.31 1.73 19 

2002 27 40 7.842 7.692 0.15 3.7 81.26 0 15.19 0.68 1.22 1.65 20 

 

2003 118 40 8.263 7.692 0.571 3.6 80.88 0 15.54 0.69 1.2 1.69 1 

2003 259 37 8.225 7.692 0.533 4.2 83.17 0 13.69 0.61 1.03 1.49 2 

2003 82 38 8.171 7.692 0.479 3.7 81.36 0 15.21 0.68 1.1 1.66 3 

2003 144 24 8.094 7.692 0.402 3.8 82 0 14.92 0.66 0.79 1.62 4 

2003 276 40 8.087 7.692 0.395 3.7 81.32 0 15.2 0.68 1.15 1.66 5 

2003 43 38 8.001 7.692 0.309 3.5 80.49 0 15.9 0.71 1.17 1.73 6 

2003 313 40 7.998 7.692 0.306 3.7 81.34 0 15.2 0.68 1.13 1.66 7 

2003 249 35 7.956 7.692 0.264 4.2 83.2 0 13.7 0.61 1 1.49 8 

2003 318 28 7.953 7.692 0.261 3.7 81.24 0 15.18 0.67 1.24 1.65 9 

2003 133 40 7.953 7.692 0.261 3.8 81.76 0 14.88 0.66 1.08 1.62 10 

2003 148 35 7.952 7.692 0.26 3.8 81.71 0 14.87 0.66 1.14 1.62 11 

2003 104 24 7.94 7.692 0.248 3.6 81.14 0 15.59 0.69 0.88 1.7 12 

2003 312 40 7.936 7.692 0.244 3.7 81.21 0 15.18 0.67 1.28 1.65 13 

2003 13 39 7.92 7.692 0.228 3.7 81.47 0 15.23 0.68 0.97 1.66 14 

2003 25 40 7.917 7.692 0.225 3.7 81.34 0 15.2 0.68 1.12 1.66 15 

2003 37 30 7.903 7.692 0.211 3.5 80.46 0 15.9 0.71 1.2 1.73 16 

2003 292 33 7.897 7.692 0.205 3.7 81.33 0 15.2 0.68 1.13 1.66 17 

2003 275 35 7.896 7.692 0.204 3.7 81.23 0 15.18 0.67 1.26 1.65 18 

2003 40 40 7.889 7.692 0.197 3.5 80.42 0 15.89 0.71 1.25 1.73 19 

2003 28 19 7.881 7.692 0.189 3.7 81.35 0 15.21 0.68 1.11 1.66 20 
Old IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking

2003 118 40 8.263 7.692 0.571 3.6 80.88 0 15.54 0.69 1.2 1.69 1 

2001 24 32 8.253 7.692 0.561 3.7 81.44 0 15.22 0.68 1.01 1.66 2 

2003 259 37 8.225 7.692 0.533 4.2 83.17 0 13.69 0.61 1.03 1.49 3 

2003 82 38 8.171 7.692 0.479 3.7 81.36 0 15.21 0.68 1.1 1.66 4 

2003 144 24 8.094 7.692 0.402 3.8 82 0 14.92 0.66 0.79 1.62 5 

2003 276 40 8.087 7.692 0.395 3.7 81.32 0 15.2 0.68 1.15 1.66 6 

2002 350 38 8.085 7.692 0.393 3.7 81.43 0 15.22 0.68 1.02 1.66 7 

2001 270 40 8.078 7.692 0.386 4.2 83.18 0 13.7 0.61 1.02 1.49 8 

2001 365 39 8.077 7.692 0.385 3.7 81.32 0 15.2 0.68 1.15 1.65 9 

2001 300 38 8.072 7.692 0.38 3.7 81.24 0 15.18 0.67 1.25 1.65 10 

2001 337 32 8.053 7.692 0.361 3.7 81.42 0 15.22 0.68 1.03 1.66 11 

2001 117 40 8.049 7.692 0.357 3.6 80.86 0 15.53 0.69 1.22 1.69 12 

2002 334 40 8.034 7.692 0.343 3.7 81.27 0 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 13 

2002 96 30 8.012 7.692 0.32 3.6 80.85 0 15.53 0.69 1.23 1.69 14 

2001 77 38 8.001 7.692 0.309 3.7 81.28 0 15.19 0.68 1.2 1.65 15 

2003 43 38 8.001 7.692 0.309 3.5 80.49 0 15.9 0.71 1.17 1.73 16 

2003 313 40 7.998 7.692 0.306 3.7 81.34 0 15.2 0.68 1.13 1.66 17 

2002 2 33 7.99 7.692 0.298 3.7 81.39 0 15.21 0.68 1.07 1.66 18 

2002 83 40 7.983 7.692 0.291 3.7 81.27 0 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 19 

2001 144 19 7.981 7.692 0.289 3.8 81.72 0 14.87 0.66 1.13 1.62 20 

2002 95 40 7.979 7.692 0.287 3.6 80.85 0 15.53 0.69 1.24 1.69 21 

2002 167 19 7.971 7.692 0.28 4 82.44 0 14.25 0.63 1.13 1.55 22 

2002 140 40 7.968 7.692 0.276 3.8 81.65 0 14.86 0.66 1.22 1.62 23 

2002 305 24 7.966 7.692 0.275 3.7 81.36 0 15.21 0.68 1.1 1.66 24 

2001 275 37 7.963 7.692 0.271 3.7 81.29 0 15.19 0.68 1.19 1.65 25 
Old IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days Each Year) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank 

2001 24 31 8.25 7.69 0.56 3.7 81.46 0.00 15.22 0.68 0.98 1.66 1 

2001 337 33 8.05 7.69 0.36 3.7 81.42 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.03 1.66 2 

2001 365 35 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.7 81.32 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.15 1.66 3 

2001 144 20 7.98 7.69 0.29 3.8 81.71 0.00 14.87 0.66 1.14 1.62 4 

2001 275 35 7.96 7.69 0.27 3.7 81.32 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.15 1.66 5 

2001 23 30 7.96 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.43 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.02 1.66 6 

2001 77 35 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.28 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.19 1.65 7 

2001 86 30 7.94 7.69 0.24 3.7 81.28 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.20 1.65 8 

2001 270 35 7.93 7.69 0.24 4.2 83.20 0.00 13.70 0.61 1.00 1.49 9 

2001 355 12 7.93 7.69 0.23 3.7 81.35 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.11 1.66 10 

2001 300 35 7.93 7.69 0.23 3.7 81.25 0.00 15.19 0.67 1.24 1.65 11 

2001 269 33 7.92 7.69 0.23 4.2 83.14 0.00 13.69 0.61 1.07 1.49 12 

2001 316 12 7.92 7.69 0.23 3.7 81.41 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.04 1.66 13 

2001 175 12 7.91 7.69 0.21 4.0 82.49 0.00 14.26 0.63 1.06 1.55 14 

2001 70 35 7.90 7.69 0.21 3.7 81.33 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.14 1.66 15 

2001 116 24 7.89 7.69 0.20 3.6 80.81 0.00 15.52 0.69 1.29 1.69 16 

2001 69 24 7.89 7.69 0.20 3.7 81.24 0.00 15.18 0.67 1.24 1.65 17 

2001 344 35 7.89 7.69 0.20 3.7 81.26 0.00 15.19 0.67 1.23 1.65 18 

2001 301 12 7.89 7.69 0.20 3.7 81.36 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.10 1.66 19 

2001 196 24 7.89 7.69 0.20 4.3 83.44 0.00 13.42 0.60 1.08 1.46 20 

 

2002 350 35 8.05 7.69 0.35 3.7 81.44 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.00 1.66 1 

2002 96 30 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.6 80.85 0.00 15.53 0.69 1.23 1.69 2 

2002 2 33 7.99 7.69 0.30 3.7 81.39 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.07 1.66 3 

2002 167 20 7.97 7.69 0.28 4.0 82.44 0.00 14.25 0.63 1.13 1.55 4 

2002 305 24 7.97 7.69 0.28 3.7 81.36 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.10 1.66 5 

2002 26 14 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.26 0.00 15.19 0.67 1.23 1.65 6 

2002 287 35 7.93 7.69 0.24 3.7 81.27 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.21 1.65 7 

2002 332 22 7.91 7.69 0.21 3.7 81.30 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.17 1.65 8 

2002 336 35 7.90 7.69 0.21 3.7 81.28 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.20 1.65 9 

2002 312 35 7.90 7.69 0.21 3.7 81.38 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.08 1.66 10 

2002 34 24 7.89 7.69 0.19 3.5 80.48 0.00 15.90 0.71 1.18 1.73 11 

2002 95 35 7.88 7.69 0.19 3.6 80.86 0.00 15.53 0.69 1.23 1.69 12 

2002 70 35 7.88 7.69 0.19 3.7 81.24 0.00 15.18 0.67 1.25 1.65 13 

2002 291 35 7.88 7.69 0.19 3.7 81.35 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.11 1.66 14 

2002 140 24 7.88 7.69 0.19 3.8 81.71 0.00 14.87 0.66 1.14 1.62 15 

2002 60 35 7.86 7.69 0.17 3.5 80.53 0.00 15.91 0.71 1.12 1.73 16 

2002 54 22 7.85 7.69 0.16 3.5 80.38 0.00 15.88 0.71 1.31 1.73 17 

2002 40 35 7.84 7.69 0.15 3.5 80.50 0.00 15.90 0.71 1.16 1.73 18 

2002 318 12 7.83 7.69 0.14 3.7 81.40 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.05 1.66 19 

2002 83 35 7.83 7.69 0.14 3.7 81.29 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.19 1.65 20 

 

2003 259 35 8.16 7.69 0.47 4.2 83.15 0.00 13.69 0.61 1.06 1.49 1 

2003 82 35 8.13 7.69 0.44 3.7 81.35 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.11 1.66 2 

2003 144 24 8.09 7.69 0.40 3.8 82.00 0.00 14.92 0.66 0.79 1.62 3 

2003 118 35 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.6 80.90 0.00 15.54 0.69 1.17 1.69 4 

2003 43 35 7.97 7.69 0.28 3.5 80.49 0.00 15.90 0.71 1.17 1.73 5 

2003 249 35 7.96 7.69 0.26 4.2 83.20 0.00 13.70 0.61 1.00 1.49 6 

2003 318 28 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.24 0.00 15.18 0.67 1.24 1.65 7 

2003 148 35 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.8 81.71 0.00 14.87 0.66 1.14 1.62 8 

2003 104 24 7.94 7.69 0.25 3.6 81.14 0.00 15.59 0.69 0.88 1.70 9 

2003 313 35 7.93 7.69 0.24 3.7 81.32 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.15 1.65 10 

2003 37 30 7.90 7.69 0.21 3.5 80.46 0.00 15.90 0.71 1.20 1.73 11 

2003 292 33 7.90 7.69 0.21 3.7 81.33 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.13 1.66 12 

2003 275 35 7.90 7.69 0.20 3.7 81.23 0.00 15.18 0.67 1.26 1.65 13 

2003 25 35 7.88 7.69 0.19 3.7 81.40 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.05 1.66 14 

2003 13 35 7.89 7.69 0.19 3.7 81.50 0.00 15.23 0.68 0.93 1.66 15 

2003 28 20 7.88 7.69 0.19 3.7 81.35 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.11 1.66 16 

2003 276 35 7.87 7.69 0.18 3.7 81.40 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.05 1.66 17 

2003 312 35 7.87 7.69 0.18 3.7 81.21 0.00 15.18 0.67 1.28 1.65 18 

2003 222 11 7.85 7.69 0.16 4.3 83.44 0.00 13.42 0.60 1.08 1.46 19 

2003 133 35 7.85 7.69 0.16 3.8 81.79 0.00 14.89 0.66 1.04 1.62 20 
Old IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY RECEPTOR DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank 

2001 24 31 8.25 7.69 0.56 3.7 81.46 0.00 15.22 0.68 0.98 1.66 1 

2003 259 35 8.16 7.69 0.47 4.2 83.15 0.00 13.69 0.61 1.06 1.49 2 

2003 82 35 8.13 7.69 0.44 3.7 81.35 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.11 1.66 3 

2003 144 24 8.09 7.69 0.40 3.8 82.00 0.00 14.92 0.66 0.79 1.62 4 

2001 337 33 8.05 7.69 0.36 3.7 81.42 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.03 1.66 5 

2002 350 35 8.05 7.69 0.35 3.7 81.44 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.00 1.66 6 

2001 365 35 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.7 81.32 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.15 1.66 7 

2002 96 30 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.6 80.85 0.00 15.53 0.69 1.23 1.69 8 

2003 118 35 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.6 80.90 0.00 15.54 0.69 1.17 1.69 9 

2002 2 33 7.99 7.69 0.30 3.7 81.39 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.07 1.66 10 

2001 144 20 7.98 7.69 0.29 3.8 81.71 0.00 14.87 0.66 1.14 1.62 11 

2002 167 20 7.97 7.69 0.28 4.0 82.44 0.00 14.25 0.63 1.13 1.55 12 

2002 305 24 7.97 7.69 0.28 3.7 81.36 0.00 15.21 0.68 1.10 1.66 13 

2003 43 35 7.97 7.69 0.28 3.5 80.49 0.00 15.90 0.71 1.17 1.73 14 

2001 275 35 7.96 7.69 0.27 3.7 81.32 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.15 1.66 15 

2001 23 30 7.96 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.43 0.00 15.22 0.68 1.02 1.66 16 

2003 249 35 7.96 7.69 0.26 4.2 83.20 0.00 13.70 0.61 1.00 1.49 17 

2001 77 35 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.28 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.19 1.65 18 

2002 26 14 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.26 0.00 15.19 0.67 1.23 1.65 19 

2003 318 28 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 81.24 0.00 15.18 0.67 1.24 1.65 20 

2003 148 35 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.8 81.71 0.00 14.87 0.66 1.14 1.62 21 

2003 104 24 7.94 7.69 0.25 3.6 81.14 0.00 15.59 0.69 0.88 1.70 22 

2001 86 30 7.94 7.69 0.24 3.7 81.28 0.00 15.19 0.68 1.20 1.65 23 

2001 270 35 7.93 7.69 0.24 4.2 83.20 0.00 13.70 0.61 1.00 1.49 24 

2003 313 35 7.93 7.69 0.24 3.7 81.32 0.00 15.20 0.68 1.15 1.65 25 
Appendix B 

Breton Wilderness Receptors 

[The material referenced in Appendix B is included as a separate 

document along with this site specific BART modeling report.] 
BART Exemption Modeling Report: 

Mississippi Power Company 

Plant Watson

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Mississippi Power Company 

January 2007

Appendix L.6.6
i January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 General quality assurance procedures........................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 Modeling results....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Appendix A Delta-Deciview Values for The Top 20 Days – For Each Year/Each Class I Area 

 and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years.....................................................................A-1 

Appendix B Breton Wilderness Receptors..............................................................................................B-1 
ii January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Watson modeling emission parameters......................................................................... 2-3

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of PSD Class I Areas in relation to Plant Watson .................................................... 1-2
1-1 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Feedback from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

indicates that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and NOx for EGUs. Therefore, this modeling report focuses on 

performing the BART modeling analysis for particulate matter (PM) only. 

Units 4 and 5 at Plant Watson, located near Gulfport, which are owned and operated by Mississippi Power 

Company, have been identified as a BART-eligible source. The modeling procedures outlined in the sourcespecific modeling protocol for Plant Watson were used to determine whether the source is subject to BART 

requirements (exemption modeling). The modeling procedures are consistent with those outlined in the 

updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (dated December 22, 2005, revision 3.2 – August 31, 

2006), available at http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/documents/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3.2_31Aug06.pdf. 

The source-specific BART modeling protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling 

protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 4 and 5 at Plant Watson are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant 

Watson relative to nearby Class I Areas. There is one Class I area within 300 km of the plant: Breton Island 

(44.8 km). The BART exemption modeling was conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. 
1-2 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Watson 
2-1 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Watson 

are discussed in this section. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality has indicated that CAIR 

will satisfy BART for EGUs for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, this BART exemption modeling analysis focuses only 

on PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility extinction efficiencies, the PM10

emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS common protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 

4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of source-specific emissions and speciation 

factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and speciation approach that were used for the 

modeling is indicated below. Where default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where 

current (baseline) emission controls include electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), but no post-combustion NOx or 

SO2 control equipment exists. 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Baseline filterable PM10 emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year 

period (2003-2005). This stack test is combined with the highest 24 hour heat input value for this 

period from CEMS data to calculate the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the 

VISTAS protocol. 

• Filterable PM10 has been subdivided by size category consistent with the default approach from AP-42 

Table 1-1.6, and as noted on pages 43 and 44 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6 specifies for the emission controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PM10

emission is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is 

elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. 

• Baseline H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Mississippi Power to 

derive these emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released 

from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type 

and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern 

bituminous coal the baseline H2SO4 release rate is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5% of the SO2 emissions. 

Appendix A of the site-specific modeling protocol provides the basis for the site-specific values used. 

• Baseline emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are derived 

based on the supporting field observational information in Appendix B of the site-specific modeling 

protocol and is estimated as 0.32% of SO2 emitted. 

• Coarse filterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) are modeled with a geometric mass 

mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles are modeled with a 

geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value for fine 

particles. The geometric standard deviation for both fine and coarse particles are set to 2 microns, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented on the TRC web site. There is no default 

value presented for the coarse particles on the TRC web site. However, since 5 is the geometric 

mass mean diameter of 2.5 and 10 (the bounds of coarse particle sizes), it is a reasonable estimate 

for the geometric mass mean diameter for that class of particles. 

In practice, CALPUFF allows for the user to input certain components of PM10 as separate species and 

separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more 
2-2 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

accurate effects on light scattering. As noted above, the particle size distribution information is provided in 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and was used for the BART exemption modeling. 

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters used in the BART CALPUFF modeling, 

consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B of the site-specific modeling 

protocol for the baseline. All of the emissions in Table 2-1 were derived from CEMS data for the 2003 to 2005 

period and represent the maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, shutdown, or 

malfunctions occurred). For NOx and SO2 the values are directly from CEMS. Filterable PM10 emissions were 

calculated using the highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period and multiplying these values times the 

maximum 24-hour average heat input derived from CEMS. These values were then adjusted using AP-42 

factors from Table 1.1-6 that indicate that PM10 is 67% of total PM for a pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM10

speciation was then performed as indicated above such that total Filterable PM10 is made up of Coarse Soil 

plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus Elemental Carbon (EC). 
2-3 

010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

Table 2-1 Plant Watson modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Parti

Case Source / Unit UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM 

 m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 4 305,854 3,368,909 106.7 5.5 4.9 25.0 397.6 8596.27 1626.48 127.35 74.56 41.45 33.10 3Baseline Unit 5 305,854 3,368,909 121.9 5.5 6.4 28.4 444.5 10540.08 4122.86 291.29 211.46 117.57 93.89 9

Baseline Data - Current Configuration (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr l

Stack 4 Unit 4 305,854 3,368,909 106.7 5.5 4.9 25.0 397.6 8596.27 1626.48 127.35 74.56 41.45 33.10 3Stack 5 Unit 5 305,854 3,368,909 121.9 5.5 6.4 28.4 444.5 10540.08 4122.86 291.29 211.46 117.57 93.89 9

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 4 Unit 4 305,854 3,368,909 106.7 5.5 4.9 25.0 397.6 1083.13 204.94 16.05 9.39 5.22 4.17 Stack 5 Unit 5 305,854 3,368,909 121.9 5.5 6.4 28.4 444.5 1328.05 519.48 36.70 26.64 14.81 11.83 

1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively, therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered under stack height regulations. 
3-1 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

3.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

The BART exemption modeling was conducted for this Class I area in accordance with the referenced VISTAS 

common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in the source-specific BART modeling 

protocol for Plant Watson. This section provides a discussion of additional modeling procedures that were 

used and describes the quality assurance procedure was followed. 

3.1 Modeling domain and receptors 

The Plant Watson BART runs used the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as discussed 

in the source-specific modeling protocol. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, 

plus a 50-km buffer. 

The BART exemption modeling was conducted for Watson Units 4 and 5 (BART eligible units) for each Class I 

area within 300 km of the source (Breton Island). The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based 

on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

For Breton, Mississippi Power has included in the modeling analysis all of the receptors that the US F&WS 

has identified. However, Mississippi Power does not believe that all of the receptors are still valid receptors. 

As a result of hurricane activity, several of the receptors identified by the US F&WS for Breton are now 

located over water, rather than over land. Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, which defines wilderness 

as "land," and because Congress made clear when it created the Breton wilderness area that only the land 

mass was designated as wilderness, receptors that are now over water are not relevant for assessing 

visibility impacts at Breton. Nevertheless, Mississippi Power is including both the valid and invalid receptors 

for purposes of this analysis. Appendix B provides more detailed support for the identification and 

elimination of invalid receptors at Breton. 

3.2 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor was used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the impact 

from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. The 

formula that is currently used in CALPOST is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) IMPROVE/EPA 

formula, which is applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the particulate matter 

component concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3

 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

New IMPROVE Equation. Mississippi Power Company used the new IMPROVE equation to analyze the 

CALPUFF results for Breton Island. This was done for several reasons. First, the new equation is the result of 

an extensive evaluation of the most recent scientific data, undertaken by an ad hoc group of scientists 

including representatives from the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, academia, and industry. The old equation was based on data and information that was over a 

decade old. The new equation is based on the most recent data and information gleaned from scientific 

studies done over the past decade. The new equation adds more accurate terms for estimating light extinction 

due to sulfate and nitrate, through the incorporation of size differentiation and revisions to the extinction 

coefficients. Organic matter estimates are improved through a refinement to the organic compound mass to 

organic mass ratio. Second, the new equation corrects several errors and omissions in the old equation. For 

example, sea salt, which affects light extinction, was not part of the old equation, but has been added to the 
3-2 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

new equation. Moreover, the old equation’s constant Rayleigh scattering term (corresponding to scattering at 

10,000 feet elevation) has been revised to reflect the actual elevation of the specific Class I area. 

The ad hoc group of scientists who recommended the changes to the equation drafted a technical support 

document entitled “Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data” 

(November 30, 2005). That document demonstrates that, for 21 Class I areas with nephelometer data, the 

new equation produces more accurate results than the old equation. The IMPROVE Steering Committee 

reviewed the work of the ad hoc group and its technical support document, and approved the new equation in 

December 2005. 

The revisions to the IMPROVE equation are particularly important for coastal sites (such as Breton). Sea salt 

is an important component of extinction at coastal sites, and thus should be included in the equation for 

estimating visibility impacts. In addition, the site-specific Rayleigh scattering term is important for coastal sites 

because the default value in the old equation (10 Mm-1) was based on an elevation of 10,000 feet. At nearzero sea level, the new equation uses a more accurate coefficient of 11 Mm-1. 

The new formula is shown below. 

The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfate compounds into the concentrations of the small and 

large size fractions is accomplished using the following equations. 

This revised version of the IMPROVE Equation was used to perform the BART exemption modeling. Dr. Ivar 

Tombach (VISTAS consultant) has produced a spreadsheet tool (September 29, 2006) to allow the new 

IMPROVE formula results to be derived from the basic CALPOST outputs. Also, since the BART modeling is 

focused only on PM, NO2 was set to zero in the new formula. For informational purposes, results from the old 

equation are also presented. 

)]([33.0

( )

[6.0 ]

][)(7.1

][1

[10 ]

[8.2 [1.6] ]

[)(4.2 [)(1.5] ]

[)(2.2 [)(8.4] ]

2 ppbNO

Rayleigh Scattering SpecificSite

Course Mass

SaltSeaRHf

SoilFine

Elemental Carbon

Small Organic Mass OrganicrgeLa Mass

RHf Small Nitrate NitratergeLaRHf

b RHf Small Sulfate SulfatergeLaRHf

SS

S L

ext S L

×+

+

×+

××+

×+

×+

×+ ×+

××+ ××+

××≈ + × ×

3

3 [ [], /20] /20

[ ] [ ] Total Sulfate Total Sulfate mg

mg

Total Sulfate SulfatergeLa μ

μ = × <

3 [ SulfatergeLa = [] Total Sulfate [], Total Sulfate ≥ μ /20] mg

[Small Sulfate = [] Total Sulfate −[] SulfatergeLa ]
3-3 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

3.3 General quality assurance procedures 

Chapter 6 of the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol discusses Quality Assurance (QA). The purpose of the QA 

program is to establish procedures for ensuring that products produced by the application of the modeling 

techniques for BART studies satisfy the regulatory objectives of the BART program. 

The air quality modeling staff at Southern Company Services is managing and/or conducting the BART 

Exemption Modeling application for this plant owned by Mississippi Power Company. They made sure that all 

recommended methods specified in the Final VISTAS Modeling Protocol were followed and that the modeling 

was carefully and professionally conducted. Initially, the Company retained the services of ENSR/AECOM to 

supplement the training received as part of VISTAS training courses. Additionally, ENSR/AECOM experts 

were given source data for one of Southern Company’s BART eligible sources, and they performed a 

complete analysis following the VISTAS common protocol. During this process, the lead Southern Company 

modelers were taught each technical step. 

ENSR/AECOM was used as a third-party review for the CALPUFF analyses. ENSR has conducted numerous 

CALPUFF analyses, and uses CALDESK animation software as well as Lakes Environmental CALVIEW 

software with base maps to visualize the sources, receptors, and meteorology. ENSR/AECOM also uses the 

CALPUFF QA output files in conjunction with ArcMap GIS software to plot the locations of the sources and 

receptors as CALPUFF interprets them from the input data. The output files from CALPUFF and CALPOST 

are typically reviewed independently by ENSR/AECOM staff to assure accuracy and compliance with 

approved regulatory procedures. 

For the exemption modeling, Southern Company’s BART modelers made sure that all checks were made 

manually/visually as well as by using UltaEdit-32, a file comparing software. Additionally, these datasets were 

randomly checked by another Southern Company modeler. During the modeling process, periodic progress 

meetings were conducted with the project management team members, and phone calls and e-mail 

exchanges were made with the CALPUFF modeling experts at ENSR/AECOM to resolve issues as they 

arose. 

The VISTAS Modeling Protocol states, “To the extent that modeling applications are using pre-defined 

CALMET files and CALPUFF templates, the quality assurance will be straightforward. More detailed steps are 

needed for the setup of modeling files for source-specific applications of sub-regional domains finer than 4 

km.” For this application, the 4-km grid-spaced CALMET files for sub-domain 4 developed by VISTAS and the 

CALPUFF templates were used. Southern Company BART modelers used the test met file to “benchmark” 

the use of the CALMET files on their computers as indicated on page 59 of the VISTAS common protocol. For 

this BART exemption modeling application, documents were developed and will be submitted that contained 

source data required by the CALPUFF modeling system (CALPUFF, CALPOST and POSTUTIL). 
4-1 January 2007 010207 Watson BART Modeling Report.doc

4.0 Modeling results 

The exemption modeling results are provided in Table 4-1, and Appendix A lists delta-deciview results for the 

top 20 days for each year modeled and the top 25 days for the overall three years at each Class I area. The 

table indicates that both the 8th highest day’s impacts for each year and the 22nd highest day’s impacts over all 

three years are below 0.5 delta-dv. These results demonstrate that Plant Watson’s PM10 emissions do not 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment. Therefore, the source is not subject to BART for PM10, and no 

further BART analysis is required. 

Electronic data related to this application are provided on the attached disk. They include all input (INP) and 

list (LST) files.
Table 4-1 Summary of Results – Plant Watson Refined BART Exemption Modeling 

 2001 2002 2003 

Class I area 

Distance 

from source 

to Class I 

area 

boundary 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

# of days and 

receptors 

beyond 98th

percentile with 

impact > 0.5 

delta-dv 

8th

Highest 

delta-dv 

Highest of 

8th Highest 

delta-dv 

for the 3-

years 

22nd

Highest 

delta-dv 

over 3-

year 

period 

km Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv Days Rec delta-dv delta-dv delta-dv 

Breton 

Island 

New Improve 

Orig Recept 44.8 0 0 0.37 0 0 0.42 0 0 0.41 0.42 0.40 

New Improve 

Valid Recept 44.8 0 0 0.32 0 0 0.38 0 0 0.37 0.38 0.35 

Old Improve 

Orig Recept 44.8 0 0 0.45 1 1 0.52 1 1 0.50 0.52 0.48 

Old Improve 

Valid Recept 44.8 0 0 0.39 0 0 0.47 0 0 0.46 0.47 0.43 
Appendix A 

Delta-Deciview Values for the Top 20 Days – for Each Year/Each 

Class I Area and for the Top 25 Days – Over Three Years
New IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days for Each Year) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 9 39 8.68 8.02 0.66 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.33% 0.00% 14.78% 3.54% 7.08% 9.28% 1 

2001 13 40 8.56 8.02 0.54 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.37% 0.00% 14.71% 3.54% 7.00% 9.39% 2 

2001 195 40 8.73 8.33 0.40 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.01% 0.00% 13.15% 3.06% 5.79% 7.98% 3 

2001 34 4 8.33 7.94 0.39 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.54% 0.00% 16.25% 3.57% 6.44% 9.20% 4 

2001 37 34 8.33 7.94 0.39 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.39% 0.00% 16.62% 3.34% 6.79% 8.86% 5 

2001 73 40 8.40 8.02 0.39 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.23% 0.00% 15.62% 3.47% 5.67% 9.02% 6 

2001 206 40 8.70 8.33 0.37 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.18% 0.00% 13.80% 2.92% 5.50% 7.60% 7 

2001 359 5 8.39 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.61% 0.00% 14.71% 3.65% 6.68% 9.36% 8 

2001 66 37 8.37 8.02 0.35 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.84% 0.00% 15.26% 3.47% 6.30% 9.13% 9 

2001 20 37 8.35 8.02 0.33 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.26% 0.00% 14.59% 3.63% 7.12% 9.41% 10 

2001 177 40 8.53 8.21 0.32 4.5 3.3 4.9 68.63% 0.00% 14.65% 2.99% 5.71% 8.02% 11 

2001 25 37 8.34 8.02 0.32 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.56% 0.00% 15.72% 3.38% 6.47% 8.87% 12 

2001 353 40 8.33 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.54% 0.00% 14.93% 3.47% 6.80% 9.26% 13 

2001 7 40 8.33 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 15.47% 3.35% 6.70% 8.88% 14 

2001 10 4 8.32 8.02 0.30 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.80% 0.00% 14.62% 3.71% 6.38% 9.50% 15 

2001 168 40 8.48 8.21 0.27 4.5 3.3 4.9 68.41% 0.00% 14.01% 3.26% 6.02% 8.30% 16 

2001 143 5 8.37 8.10 0.27 4.2 3.2 4.6 67.03% 0.00% 14.18% 3.46% 6.26% 9.06% 17 

2001 336 40 8.28 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.73% 0.00% 15.64% 3.45% 6.21% 8.97% 18 

2001 81 38 8.27 8.02 0.25 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.32% 0.00% 14.75% 3.62% 7.07% 9.24% 19 

2001 360 2 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.63% 0.00% 14.67% 3.67% 6.57% 9.46% 20 

 

2002 44 40 8.71 7.94 0.77 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.45% 0.00% 15.36% 3.72% 6.75% 9.73% 1 

2002 239 37 9.03 8.33 0.70 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.20% 0.00% 13.24% 3.04% 5.60% 7.91% 2 

2002 205 24 8.89 8.33 0.56 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.25% 0.00% 12.73% 3.17% 5.57% 8.28% 3 

2002 362 40 8.51 8.02 0.49 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.70% 0.00% 13.33% 3.98% 6.69% 10.31% 4 

2002 240 17 8.81 8.33 0.47 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.65% 0.00% 13.27% 3.02% 5.03% 8.04% 5 

2002 346 40 8.47 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.96% 0.00% 16.37% 3.22% 5.95% 8.49% 6 

2002 63 40 8.45 8.02 0.43 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.36% 0.00% 14.59% 3.64% 6.96% 9.45% 7 

2002 363 40 8.44 8.02 0.42 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.23% 0.00% 16.57% 3.19% 5.63% 8.39% 8 

2002 49 40 8.34 7.94 0.41 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.38% 0.00% 15.95% 3.56% 6.78% 9.33% 9 

2002 73 40 8.42 8.02 0.40 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.34% 0.00% 17.56% 2.93% 5.40% 7.77% 10 

2002 311 40 8.40 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.35% 0.00% 14.58% 3.62% 7.00% 9.45% 11 

2002 64 39 8.39 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.76% 0.00% 14.70% 3.57% 6.43% 9.53% 12 

2002 43 40 8.30 7.94 0.36 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.70% 0.00% 15.48% 3.66% 6.44% 9.72% 13 

2002 349 40 8.34 8.02 0.33 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.50% 0.00% 14.89% 3.57% 6.72% 9.32% 14 

2002 215 2 8.66 8.33 0.32 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.26% 0.00% 12.87% 3.10% 5.53% 8.23% 15 

2002 187 6 8.65 8.33 0.32 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.21% 0.00% 13.25% 3.03% 5.51% 7.99% 16 

2002 345 37 8.32 8.02 0.30 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.83% 0.00% 14.88% 3.75% 4.80% 9.74% 17 

2002 340 40 8.31 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.72% 0.00% 14.84% 3.55% 6.48% 9.41% 18 

2002 58 38 8.23 7.94 0.29 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.07% 0.00% 15.29% 3.75% 7.20% 9.70% 19 

2002 55 40 8.22 7.94 0.28 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.45% 0.00% 15.25% 3.68% 6.87% 9.75% 20 

 

2003 354 40 8.71 8.02 0.69 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.86% 0.00% 14.71% 3.63% 6.31% 9.49% 1 

2003 82 40 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.88% 0.00% 14.96% 3.58% 6.29% 9.29% 2 

2003 359 9 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.41% 0.00% 14.93% 3.59% 5.54% 9.52% 3 

2003 23 6 8.44 8.02 0.43 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 15.45% 3.37% 6.63% 8.95% 4 

2003 301 1 8.43 8.02 0.42 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.74% 0.00% 14.97% 3.54% 6.43% 9.32% 5 

2003 50 39 8.35 7.94 0.41 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.63% 0.00% 15.31% 3.82% 6.43% 9.81% 6 

2003 143 6 8.51 8.10 0.41 4.2 3.2 4.6 66.92% 0.00% 14.55% 3.34% 6.36% 8.83% 7 

2003 333 33 8.42 8.02 0.41 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.55% 0.00% 14.62% 3.64% 6.72% 9.47% 8 

2003 117 4 8.42 8.02 0.40 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.76% 0.00% 14.96% 3.57% 6.46% 9.25% 9 

2003 222 40 8.72 8.33 0.38 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.56% 0.00% 13.50% 2.94% 5.20% 7.80% 10 

2003 346 40 8.39 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.51% 0.00% 14.71% 3.58% 6.79% 9.42% 11 

2003 62 7 8.39 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.72% 0.00% 14.82% 3.60% 6.49% 9.37% 12 

2003 83 13 8.35 8.02 0.34 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.56% 0.00% 14.99% 3.60% 6.66% 9.19% 13 

2003 223 40 8.66 8.33 0.32 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.34% 0.00% 13.66% 2.96% 5.38% 7.66% 14 

2003 11 4 8.33 8.02 0.32 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.34% 0.00% 14.71% 3.54% 7.08% 9.34% 15 

2003 89 2 8.31 8.02 0.30 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 14.63% 3.62% 6.64% 9.51% 16 

2003 15 1 8.31 8.02 0.30 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.48% 0.00% 14.68% 3.66% 6.72% 9.46% 17 

2003 100 40 8.31 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.79% 0.00% 14.81% 3.57% 6.52% 9.31% 18 

2003 5 4 8.30 8.02 0.28 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.64% 0.00% 14.59% 3.70% 6.59% 9.48% 19 

2003 91 40 8.29 8.02 0.27 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.74% 0.00% 14.60% 3.63% 6.44% 9.58% 20 
New IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2002 44 40 8.71 7.94 0.77 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.45% 0.00% 15.36% 3.72% 6.75% 9.73% 1 

2002 239 37 9.03 8.33 0.70 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.20% 0.00% 13.24% 3.04% 5.60% 7.91% 2 

2003 354 40 8.71 8.02 0.69 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.86% 0.00% 14.71% 3.63% 6.31% 9.49% 3 

2001 9 39 8.68 8.02 0.66 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.33% 0.00% 14.78% 3.54% 7.08% 9.28% 4 

2002 205 24 8.89 8.33 0.56 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.25% 0.00% 12.73% 3.17% 5.57% 8.28% 5 

2001 13 40 8.56 8.02 0.54 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.37% 0.00% 14.71% 3.54% 7.00% 9.39% 6 

2002 362 40 8.51 8.02 0.49 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.70% 0.00% 13.33% 3.98% 6.69% 10.31% 7 

2002 240 17 8.81 8.33 0.47 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.65% 0.00% 13.27% 3.02% 5.03% 8.04% 8 

2003 82 40 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.88% 0.00% 14.96% 3.58% 6.29% 9.29% 9 

2003 359 9 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.41% 0.00% 14.93% 3.59% 5.54% 9.52% 10 

2002 346 40 8.47 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.96% 0.00% 16.37% 3.22% 5.95% 8.49% 11 

2002 63 40 8.45 8.02 0.43 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.36% 0.00% 14.59% 3.64% 6.96% 9.45% 12 

2003 23 6 8.44 8.02 0.43 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 15.45% 3.37% 6.63% 8.95% 13 

2002 363 40 8.44 8.02 0.42 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.23% 0.00% 16.57% 3.19% 5.63% 8.39% 14 

2003 301 1 8.43 8.02 0.42 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.74% 0.00% 14.97% 3.54% 6.43% 9.32% 15 

2003 50 39 8.35 7.94 0.41 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.63% 0.00% 15.31% 3.82% 6.43% 9.81% 16 

2003 143 6 8.51 8.10 0.41 4.2 3.2 4.6 66.92% 0.00% 14.55% 3.34% 6.36% 8.83% 17 

2002 49 40 8.34 7.94 0.41 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.38% 0.00% 15.95% 3.56% 6.78% 9.33% 18 

2003 333 33 8.42 8.02 0.41 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.55% 0.00% 14.62% 3.64% 6.72% 9.47% 19 

2003 117 4 8.42 8.02 0.40 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.76% 0.00% 14.96% 3.57% 6.46% 9.25% 20 

2002 73 40 8.42 8.02 0.40 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.34% 0.00% 17.56% 2.93% 5.40% 7.77% 21 

2001 195 40 8.73 8.33 0.40 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.01% 0.00% 13.15% 3.06% 5.79% 7.98% 22 

2001 34 4 8.33 7.94 0.39 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.54% 0.00% 16.25% 3.57% 6.44% 9.20% 23 

2001 37 34 8.33 7.94 0.39 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.39% 0.00% 16.62% 3.34% 6.79% 8.86% 24 

2001 73 40 8.40 8.02 0.39 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.23% 0.00% 15.62% 3.47% 5.67% 9.02% 25 
New IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days for Each Year) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2001 9 35 8.62 8.02 0.61 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.33% 0.00% 14.84% 3.57% 7.00% 9.26% 1 

2001 13 34 8.42 8.02 0.41 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.61% 0.00% 14.78% 3.52% 6.72% 9.36% 2 

2001 37 34 8.33 7.94 0.39 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.39% 0.00% 16.62% 3.34% 6.79% 8.86% 3 

2001 195 35 8.69 8.33 0.35 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.17% 0.00% 13.25% 3.07% 5.65% 7.86% 4 

2001 66 35 8.35 8.02 0.34 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.92% 0.00% 15.23% 3.45% 6.24% 9.16% 5 

2001 73 35 8.35 8.02 0.34 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.07% 0.00% 15.52% 3.47% 5.87% 9.07% 6 

2001 206 35 8.66 8.33 0.33 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.38% 0.00% 14.15% 2.78% 5.29% 7.40% 7 

2001 25 33 8.33 8.02 0.32 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.61% 0.00% 15.71% 3.42% 6.42% 8.84% 8 

2001 20 35 8.33 8.02 0.32 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.42% 0.00% 14.61% 3.57% 6.99% 9.42% 9 

2001 177 35 8.52 8.21 0.31 4.5 3.3 4.9 68.63% 0.00% 14.50% 3.09% 5.76% 8.01% 10 

2001 7 35 8.28 8.02 0.27 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.46% 0.00% 15.45% 3.38% 6.76% 8.95% 11 

2001 336 35 8.27 8.02 0.25 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.85% 0.00% 15.62% 3.42% 6.12% 8.99% 12 

2001 353 34 8.26 8.02 0.25 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.91% 0.00% 15.13% 3.50% 6.26% 9.20% 13 

2001 168 27 8.44 8.21 0.24 4.5 3.3 4.9 68.52% 0.00% 13.99% 3.16% 5.95% 8.37% 14 

2001 81 35 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.27% 0.00% 14.66% 3.67% 7.14% 9.26% 15 

2001 65 35 8.25 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.27% 0.00% 14.23% 3.71% 7.23% 9.57% 16 

2001 143 7 8.32 8.10 0.22 4.2 3.2 4.6 67.10% 0.00% 14.19% 3.54% 6.03% 9.15% 17 

2001 92 35 8.22 8.02 0.20 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.76% 0.00% 14.76% 3.58% 6.50% 9.41% 18 

2001 67 35 8.22 8.02 0.20 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.50% 0.00% 14.77% 3.63% 6.80% 9.30% 19 

2001 83 35 8.21 8.02 0.20 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.64% 0.00% 15.00% 3.46% 6.68% 9.22% 20 

 

2002 239 35 9.01 8.33 0.68 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.21% 0.00% 13.25% 3.03% 5.56% 7.96% 1 

2002 44 27 8.59 7.94 0.65 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.94% 0.00% 15.48% 3.77% 6.02% 9.79% 2 

2002 205 24 8.89 8.33 0.56 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.25% 0.00% 12.73% 3.17% 5.57% 8.28% 3 

2002 240 17 8.81 8.33 0.47 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.65% 0.00% 13.27% 3.02% 5.03% 8.04% 4 

2002 346 35 8.46 8.02 0.44 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.25% 0.00% 16.26% 3.25% 5.59% 8.64% 5 

2002 362 34 8.45 8.02 0.43 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.85% 0.00% 13.48% 3.91% 6.48% 10.28% 6 

2002 63 34 8.41 8.02 0.39 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.54% 0.00% 14.61% 3.67% 6.66% 9.53% 7 

2002 73 27 8.40 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.41% 0.00% 17.63% 2.96% 5.20% 7.81% 8 

2002 363 35 8.38 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.22% 0.00% 16.54% 3.20% 5.54% 8.50% 9 

2002 64 35 8.37 8.02 0.35 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.92% 0.00% 14.72% 3.69% 6.11% 9.55% 10 

2002 49 35 8.26 7.94 0.32 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.79% 0.00% 16.18% 3.50% 6.30% 9.24% 11 

2002 187 7 8.65 8.33 0.32 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.21% 0.00% 13.25% 3.03% 5.51% 7.99% 12 

2002 349 35 8.32 8.02 0.31 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 15.09% 3.54% 6.49% 9.29% 13 

2002 43 35 8.23 7.94 0.29 3.8 2.9 4.3 65.15% 0.00% 15.64% 3.78% 5.67% 9.77% 14 

2002 345 35 8.30 8.02 0.29 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.81% 0.00% 14.84% 3.76% 4.86% 9.73% 15 

2002 58 35 8.22 7.94 0.28 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.12% 0.00% 15.32% 3.75% 7.18% 9.63% 16 

2002 311 34 8.29 8.02 0.27 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.50% 0.00% 14.64% 3.64% 6.79% 9.44% 17 

2002 340 16 8.29 8.02 0.27 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.40% 0.00% 15.04% 3.68% 5.35% 9.53% 18 

2002 241 7 8.59 8.33 0.26 4.9 3.5 5.1 71.30% 0.00% 13.42% 3.02% 4.20% 8.06% 19 

2002 199 35 8.58 8.33 0.25 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.45% 0.00% 13.53% 3.03% 5.16% 7.83% 20 

 

2003 354 34 8.63 8.02 0.61 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.94% 0.00% 15.06% 3.69% 4.77% 9.54% 1 

2003 359 9 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.41% 0.00% 14.93% 3.59% 5.54% 9.52% 2 

2003 23 7 8.44 8.02 0.42 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 15.40% 3.40% 6.69% 8.91% 3 

2003 143 7 8.51 8.10 0.41 4.2 3.2 4.6 66.85% 0.00% 14.67% 3.35% 6.37% 8.75% 4 

2003 333 33 8.42 8.02 0.41 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.55% 0.00% 14.62% 3.64% 6.72% 9.47% 5 

2003 50 35 8.34 7.94 0.40 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.78% 0.00% 15.24% 3.84% 6.21% 9.93% 6 

2003 82 35 8.39 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.82% 0.00% 14.99% 3.60% 6.24% 9.36% 7 

2003 62 7 8.39 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.72% 0.00% 14.82% 3.60% 6.49% 9.37% 8 

2003 222 35 8.68 8.33 0.35 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.55% 0.00% 13.57% 2.98% 5.09% 7.82% 9 

2003 83 14 8.35 8.02 0.34 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.56% 0.00% 14.99% 3.60% 6.66% 9.19% 10 

2003 346 11 8.34 8.02 0.33 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.14% 0.00% 14.85% 3.58% 5.92% 9.51% 11 

2003 301 7 8.29 8.02 0.28 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.76% 0.00% 14.88% 3.58% 6.34% 9.43% 12 

2003 223 35 8.60 8.33 0.26 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.31% 0.00% 13.69% 2.97% 5.28% 7.75% 13 

2003 18 35 8.28 8.02 0.26 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.83% 0.00% 14.70% 3.62% 6.38% 9.48% 14 

2003 100 34 8.25 8.02 0.24 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.66% 0.00% 15.06% 3.62% 5.14% 9.52% 15 

2003 5 7 8.24 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.04% 0.00% 14.40% 3.75% 6.13% 9.68% 16 

2003 103 33 8.24 8.02 0.23 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.80% 0.00% 15.63% 3.39% 6.19% 8.98% 17 

2003 105 35 8.24 8.02 0.22 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.16% 0.00% 15.32% 3.50% 5.76% 9.26% 18 

2003 324 35 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.35% 0.00% 14.98% 3.69% 5.43% 9.55% 19 

2003 340 7 8.22 8.02 0.21 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.48% 0.00% 14.83% 3.74% 5.50% 9.45% 20 
New IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 F(RH) % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV S L SS %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank

2002 239 35 9.01 8.33 0.68 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.21% 0.00% 13.25% 3.03% 5.56% 7.96% 1 

2002 44 27 8.59 7.94 0.65 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.94% 0.00% 15.48% 3.77% 6.02% 9.79% 2 

2003 354 34 8.63 8.02 0.61 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.94% 0.00% 15.06% 3.69% 4.77% 9.54% 3 

2001 9 35 8.62 8.02 0.61 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.33% 0.00% 14.84% 3.57% 7.00% 9.26% 4 

2002 205 24 8.89 8.33 0.56 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.25% 0.00% 12.73% 3.17% 5.57% 8.28% 5 

2002 240 17 8.81 8.33 0.47 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.65% 0.00% 13.27% 3.02% 5.03% 8.04% 6 

2003 359 9 8.48 8.02 0.46 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.41% 0.00% 14.93% 3.59% 5.54% 9.52% 7 

2002 346 35 8.46 8.02 0.44 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.25% 0.00% 16.26% 3.25% 5.59% 8.64% 8 

2002 362 34 8.45 8.02 0.43 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.85% 0.00% 13.48% 3.91% 6.48% 10.28% 9 

2003 23 7 8.44 8.02 0.42 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.60% 0.00% 15.40% 3.40% 6.69% 8.91% 10 

2003 143 7 8.51 8.10 0.41 4.2 3.2 4.6 66.85% 0.00% 14.67% 3.35% 6.37% 8.75% 11 

2001 13 34 8.42 8.02 0.41 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.61% 0.00% 14.78% 3.52% 6.72% 9.36% 12 

2003 333 33 8.42 8.02 0.41 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.55% 0.00% 14.62% 3.64% 6.72% 9.47% 13 

2003 50 35 8.34 7.94 0.40 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.78% 0.00% 15.24% 3.84% 6.21% 9.93% 14 

2001 37 34 8.33 7.94 0.39 3.8 2.9 4.3 64.39% 0.00% 16.62% 3.34% 6.79% 8.86% 15 

2002 63 34 8.41 8.02 0.39 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.54% 0.00% 14.61% 3.67% 6.66% 9.53% 16 

2002 73 27 8.40 8.02 0.38 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.41% 0.00% 17.63% 2.96% 5.20% 7.81% 17 

2003 82 35 8.39 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.82% 0.00% 14.99% 3.60% 6.24% 9.36% 18 

2003 62 7 8.39 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.72% 0.00% 14.82% 3.60% 6.49% 9.37% 19 

2002 363 35 8.38 8.02 0.37 4.0 3.0 4.5 66.22% 0.00% 16.54% 3.20% 5.54% 8.50% 20 

2001 195 35 8.69 8.33 0.35 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.17% 0.00% 13.25% 3.07% 5.65% 7.86% 21 

2002 64 35 8.37 8.02 0.35 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.92% 0.00% 14.72% 3.69% 6.11% 9.55% 22 

2003 222 35 8.68 8.33 0.35 4.9 3.5 5.1 70.55% 0.00% 13.57% 2.98% 5.09% 7.82% 23 

2001 66 35 8.35 8.02 0.34 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.92% 0.00% 15.23% 3.45% 6.24% 9.16% 24 

2003 83 14 8.35 8.02 0.34 4.0 3.0 4.5 65.56% 0.00% 14.99% 3.60% 6.66% 9.19% 25 
Old IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days for Each Year) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking

2001 9 39 8.497 7.692 0.806 3.7 67.79 0 15.77 2.93 5.84 7.67 1 

2001 13 40 8.35 7.692 0.658 3.7 67.87 0 15.67 2.96 5.76 7.74 2 

2001 195 40 8.175 7.692 0.484 4.3 71.12 0 14.48 2.6 4.99 6.81 3 

2001 37 34 8.169 7.692 0.477 3.5 66.62 0 17.66 2.79 5.58 7.34 4 

2001 34 4 8.169 7.692 0.477 3.5 66.88 0 17.28 2.89 5.35 7.59 5 

2001 73 40 8.167 7.692 0.475 3.7 68.46 0 16.55 2.84 4.71 7.44 6 

2001 206 40 8.145 7.692 0.453 4.3 71.19 0 15.22 2.46 4.68 6.46 7 

2001 359 5 8.143 7.692 0.451 3.7 68.05 0 15.7 2.97 5.52 7.77 8 

2001 66 37 8.12 7.692 0.428 3.7 68.2 0 16.23 2.88 5.15 7.54 9 

2001 20 37 8.1 7.692 0.408 3.7 67.83 0 15.56 2.98 5.85 7.78 10 

2001 177 40 8.085 7.692 0.393 4 69.71 0 16.08 2.57 4.86 6.77 11 

2001 25 37 8.083 7.692 0.392 3.7 67.92 0 16.66 2.77 5.39 7.27 12 

2001 353 40 8.072 7.692 0.38 3.7 67.97 0 15.88 2.93 5.57 7.66 13 

2001 7 40 8.071 7.692 0.379 3.7 67.86 0 16.44 2.81 5.54 7.36 14 

2001 10 4 8.063 7.692 0.371 3.7 68.23 0 15.56 3.02 5.33 7.87 15 

2001 168 40 8.02 7.692 0.328 4 69.7 0 15.36 2.72 5.1 7.12 16 

2001 143 5 8.019 7.692 0.328 3.8 68.72 0 15.43 2.92 5.29 7.64 17 

2001 336 40 8.013 7.692 0.321 3.7 68.15 0 16.61 2.8 5.1 7.34 18 

2001 81 38 7.997 7.692 0.305 3.7 67.78 0 15.7 2.95 5.87 7.7 19 

2001 360 2 7.978 7.692 0.286 3.7 68.17 0 15.7 2.98 5.36 7.79 20 

 

2002 44 40 8.625 7.692 0.933 3.5 66.94 0 16.34 3.09 5.57 8.07 1 

2002 239 37 8.544 7.692 0.852 4.3 71.26 0 14.59 2.59 4.78 6.78 2 

2002 205 24 8.368 7.692 0.676 4.3 71.39 0 14.05 2.71 4.78 7.07 3 

2002 362 40 8.292 7.692 0.6 3.7 68.35 0 14.23 3.29 5.57 8.55 4 

2002 240 17 8.268 7.692 0.576 4.3 71.64 0 14.6 2.62 4.29 6.85 5 

2002 346 40 8.253 7.692 0.561 3.7 68.14 0 17.35 2.65 4.89 6.98 6 

2002 63 40 8.217 7.692 0.525 3.7 67.87 0 15.58 2.98 5.79 7.78 7 

2002 363 40 8.209 7.692 0.518 3.7 68.26 0 17.57 2.62 4.66 6.9 8 

2002 49 40 8.184 7.692 0.493 3.5 66.79 0 16.96 2.95 5.57 7.73 9 

2002 73 40 8.182 7.692 0.49 3.7 68.18 0 18.57 2.41 4.45 6.39 10 

2002 311 40 8.161 7.692 0.469 3.7 67.88 0 15.59 2.98 5.77 7.78 11 

2002 64 39 8.152 7.692 0.46 3.7 68.2 0 15.63 3 5.34 7.83 12 

2002 43 40 8.127 7.692 0.435 3.5 67.1 0 16.5 3.07 5.31 8.03 13 

2002 349 40 8.093 7.692 0.401 3.7 67.97 0 15.9 2.93 5.55 7.65 14 

2002 215 2 8.085 7.692 0.393 4.3 71.43 0 14.17 2.69 4.69 7.02 15 

2002 187 6 8.078 7.692 0.386 4.3 71.29 0 14.56 2.6 4.75 6.8 16 

2002 345 37 8.06 7.692 0.368 3.7 69.2 0 15.76 3.06 3.98 7.99 17 

2002 340 40 8.049 7.692 0.357 3.7 68.17 0 15.76 2.97 5.34 7.76 18 

2002 58 38 8.043 7.692 0.352 3.5 66.63 0 16.34 3.06 5.98 7.99 19 

2002 55 40 8.037 7.692 0.345 3.5 66.86 0 16.26 3.09 5.7 8.08 20 

 

2003 354 40 8.535 7.692 0.843 3.7 68.3 0 15.63 3.01 5.21 7.85 1 

2003 82 40 8.256 7.692 0.564 3.7 68.27 0 15.92 2.95 5.16 7.71 2 

2003 359 9 8.254 7.692 0.562 3.7 68.71 0 15.89 2.99 4.58 7.82 3 

2003 23 6 8.211 7.692 0.52 3.7 67.93 0 16.41 2.82 5.45 7.39 4 

2003 301 1 8.202 7.692 0.51 3.7 68.17 0 15.95 2.93 5.28 7.67 5 

2003 50 39 8.194 7.692 0.502 3.5 67.12 0 16.33 3.11 5.33 8.12 6 

2003 333 33 8.188 7.692 0.497 3.7 68.02 0 15.57 2.99 5.59 7.82 7 

2003 143 6 8.189 7.692 0.497 3.8 68.55 0 15.8 2.83 5.4 7.42 8 

2003 117 4 8.175 7.692 0.483 3.6 67.51 0 16.22 2.99 5.46 7.81 9 

2003 222 40 8.161 7.692 0.469 4.3 71.49 0 14.89 2.55 4.4 6.68 10 

2003 346 40 8.151 7.692 0.459 3.7 67.99 0 15.68 2.97 5.59 7.76 11 

2003 62 7 8.148 7.692 0.456 3.7 68.18 0 15.75 2.97 5.32 7.77 12 

2003 83 13 8.104 7.692 0.413 3.7 68 0 15.94 2.92 5.5 7.63 13 

2003 223 40 8.088 7.692 0.396 4.3 71.26 0 15.09 2.49 4.63 6.54 14 

2003 11 4 8.08 7.692 0.388 3.7 67.83 0 15.64 2.96 5.82 7.74 15 

2003 89 2 8.057 7.692 0.365 3.7 68.06 0 15.64 2.98 5.52 7.8 16 

2003 15 1 8.052 7.692 0.361 3.7 68.04 0 15.59 2.99 5.56 7.81 17 

2003 100 40 8.041 7.692 0.349 3.6 67.56 0 16.08 3.02 5.44 7.89 18 

2003 5 4 8.035 7.692 0.343 3.7 68.17 0 15.56 3.01 5.4 7.86 19 

2003 91 40 8.026 7.692 0.334 3.7 68.19 0 15.52 3.02 5.38 7.88 20 
Old IMPROVE/Old Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Ranking

2002 44 40 8.625 7.692 0.933 3.5 66.94 0 16.34 3.09 5.57 8.07 1 

2002 239 37 8.544 7.692 0.852 4.3 71.26 0 14.59 2.59 4.78 6.78 2 

2003 354 40 8.535 7.692 0.843 3.7 68.3 0 15.63 3.01 5.21 7.85 3 

2001 9 39 8.497 7.692 0.806 3.7 67.79 0 15.77 2.93 5.84 7.67 4 

2002 205 24 8.368 7.692 0.676 4.3 71.39 0 14.05 2.71 4.78 7.07 5 

2001 13 40 8.35 7.692 0.658 3.7 67.87 0 15.67 2.96 5.76 7.74 6 

2002 362 40 8.292 7.692 0.6 3.7 68.35 0 14.23 3.29 5.57 8.55 7 

2002 240 17 8.268 7.692 0.576 4.3 71.64 0 14.6 2.62 4.29 6.85 8 

2003 82 40 8.256 7.692 0.564 3.7 68.27 0 15.92 2.95 5.16 7.71 9 

2003 359 9 8.254 7.692 0.562 3.7 68.71 0 15.89 2.99 4.58 7.82 10 

2002 346 40 8.253 7.692 0.561 3.7 68.14 0 17.35 2.65 4.89 6.98 11 

2002 63 40 8.217 7.692 0.525 3.7 67.87 0 15.58 2.98 5.79 7.78 12 

2003 23 6 8.211 7.692 0.52 3.7 67.93 0 16.41 2.82 5.45 7.39 13 

2002 363 40 8.209 7.692 0.518 3.7 68.26 0 17.57 2.62 4.66 6.9 14 

2003 301 1 8.202 7.692 0.51 3.7 68.17 0 15.95 2.93 5.28 7.67 15 

2003 50 39 8.194 7.692 0.502 3.5 67.12 0 16.33 3.11 5.33 8.12 16 

2003 333 33 8.188 7.692 0.497 3.7 68.02 0 15.57 2.99 5.59 7.82 17 

2003 143 6 8.189 7.692 0.497 3.8 68.55 0 15.8 2.83 5.4 7.42 18 

2002 49 40 8.184 7.692 0.493 3.5 66.79 0 16.96 2.95 5.57 7.73 19 

2002 73 40 8.182 7.692 0.49 3.7 68.18 0 18.57 2.41 4.45 6.39 20 

2001 195 40 8.175 7.692 0.484 4.3 71.12 0 14.48 2.6 4.99 6.81 21 

2003 117 4 8.175 7.692 0.483 3.6 67.51 0 16.22 2.99 5.46 7.81 22 

2001 37 34 8.169 7.692 0.477 3.5 66.62 0 17.66 2.79 5.58 7.34 23 

2001 34 4 8.169 7.692 0.477 3.5 66.88 0 17.28 2.89 5.35 7.59 24 

2001 73 40 8.167 7.692 0.475 3.7 68.46 0 16.55 2.84 4.71 7.44 25 
Old IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 20 Days for Each Year) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank 

2001 9 35 8.43 7.69 0.74 3.7 67.81 0.00 15.80 2.93 5.79 7.66 1 

2001 13 34 8.19 7.69 0.50 3.7 68.02 0.00 15.77 2.95 5.53 7.72 2 

2001 37 34 8.17 7.69 0.48 3.5 66.62 0.00 17.66 2.79 5.58 7.34 3 

2001 195 35 8.12 7.69 0.43 4.3 71.20 0.00 14.64 2.58 4.84 6.75 4 

2001 66 35 8.11 7.69 0.42 3.7 68.21 0.00 16.20 2.89 5.14 7.56 5 

2001 73 35 8.11 7.69 0.41 3.7 68.40 0.00 16.51 2.84 4.80 7.45 6 

2001 206 35 8.10 7.69 0.40 4.3 71.21 0.00 15.55 2.39 4.55 6.30 7 

2001 25 33 8.08 7.69 0.39 3.7 67.95 0.00 16.66 2.77 5.35 7.27 8 

2001 20 35 8.08 7.69 0.39 3.7 67.85 0.00 15.59 2.97 5.81 7.77 9 

2001 177 35 8.07 7.69 0.38 4.0 69.70 0.00 15.96 2.60 4.92 6.82 10 

2001 7 35 8.02 7.69 0.33 3.7 67.87 0.00 16.44 2.81 5.52 7.36 11 

2001 336 35 8.00 7.69 0.31 3.7 68.23 0.00 16.65 2.80 4.98 7.34 12 

2001 353 34 7.99 7.69 0.30 3.7 68.25 0.00 16.17 2.90 5.10 7.58 13 

2001 168 27 7.98 7.69 0.29 4.0 69.69 0.00 15.34 2.72 5.12 7.12 14 

2001 81 35 7.98 7.69 0.29 3.7 67.79 0.00 15.66 2.96 5.87 7.73 15 

2001 65 35 7.98 7.69 0.28 3.7 67.82 0.00 15.18 3.05 5.98 7.96 16 

2001 143 7 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.8 68.82 0.00 15.46 2.93 5.15 7.65 17 

2001 67 35 7.94 7.69 0.24 3.7 68.03 0.00 15.69 2.97 5.55 7.77 18 

2001 92 35 7.94 7.69 0.24 3.6 67.55 0.00 15.93 3.05 5.51 7.96 19 

2001 83 35 7.93 7.69 0.24 3.7 67.97 0.00 15.91 2.92 5.55 7.64 20 

 

2002 239 35 8.51 7.69 0.82 4.3 71.26 0.00 14.57 2.59 4.78 6.79 1 

2002 44 27 8.48 7.69 0.79 3.5 67.34 0.00 16.50 3.09 4.98 8.09 2 

2002 205 24 8.37 7.69 0.68 4.3 71.39 0.00 14.05 2.71 4.78 7.07 3 

2002 240 17 8.27 7.69 0.58 4.3 71.64 0.00 14.60 2.62 4.29 6.85 4 

2002 346 35 8.23 7.69 0.54 3.7 68.41 0.00 17.21 2.70 4.58 7.11 5 

2002 362 34 8.22 7.69 0.53 3.7 68.48 0.00 14.43 3.27 5.34 8.48 6 

2002 63 34 8.17 7.69 0.48 3.7 68.08 0.00 15.58 3.00 5.51 7.83 7 

2002 73 27 8.16 7.69 0.47 3.7 68.30 0.00 18.59 2.42 4.28 6.41 8 

2002 363 35 8.14 7.69 0.45 3.7 68.32 0.00 17.48 2.64 4.60 6.96 9 

2002 64 35 8.12 7.69 0.43 3.7 68.39 0.00 15.69 3.00 5.06 7.85 10 

2002 49 35 8.09 7.69 0.39 3.5 67.00 0.00 17.21 2.92 5.22 7.65 11 

2002 187 7 8.08 7.69 0.39 4.3 71.29 0.00 14.56 2.60 4.76 6.80 12 

2002 349 35 8.07 7.69 0.37 3.7 68.11 0.00 16.03 2.91 5.33 7.62 13 

2002 345 35 8.04 7.69 0.35 3.7 69.18 0.00 15.76 3.06 4.00 7.99 14 

2002 43 35 8.04 7.69 0.35 3.5 67.52 0.00 16.62 3.09 4.70 8.07 15 

2002 58 35 8.03 7.69 0.34 3.5 66.65 0.00 16.31 3.07 5.96 8.01 16 

2002 311 34 8.03 7.69 0.33 3.7 67.96 0.00 15.61 2.98 5.66 7.79 17 

2002 340 16 8.02 7.69 0.33 3.7 68.87 0.00 15.96 2.99 4.35 7.82 18 

2002 241 7 8.01 7.69 0.32 4.3 72.10 0.00 14.80 2.61 3.64 6.84 19 

2002 199 35 7.99 7.69 0.30 4.3 71.46 0.00 14.97 2.53 4.41 6.63 20 

 

2003 354 34 8.44 7.69 0.75 3.7 69.20 0.00 15.97 3.02 3.92 7.89 1 

2003 359 9 8.25 7.69 0.56 3.7 68.71 0.00 15.89 2.99 4.58 7.82 2 

2003 23 7 8.21 7.69 0.52 3.7 67.91 0.00 16.40 2.82 5.48 7.39 3 

2003 333 33 8.19 7.69 0.50 3.7 68.02 0.00 15.57 2.99 5.59 7.82 4 

2003 143 7 8.19 7.69 0.50 3.8 68.55 0.00 15.94 2.81 5.36 7.35 5 

2003 50 35 8.18 7.69 0.48 3.5 67.28 0.00 16.26 3.14 5.13 8.19 6 

2003 82 35 8.15 7.69 0.46 3.7 68.31 0.00 15.92 2.95 5.11 7.72 7 

2003 62 7 8.15 7.69 0.46 3.7 68.18 0.00 15.75 2.97 5.32 7.77 8 

2003 222 35 8.12 7.69 0.43 4.3 71.49 0.00 14.93 2.54 4.38 6.66 9 

2003 83 14 8.10 7.69 0.41 3.7 67.99 0.00 15.93 2.92 5.52 7.64 10 

2003 346 11 8.09 7.69 0.40 3.7 68.47 0.00 15.77 3.00 4.94 7.82 11 

2003 301 7 8.03 7.69 0.34 3.7 68.20 0.00 15.84 2.96 5.27 7.73 12 

2003 223 35 8.02 7.69 0.32 4.3 71.32 0.00 15.03 2.51 4.56 6.58 13 

2003 18 35 8.01 7.69 0.32 3.7 68.22 0.00 15.62 3.00 5.31 7.84 14 

2003 100 34 7.98 7.69 0.29 3.6 68.34 0.00 16.28 3.05 4.35 7.98 15 

2003 5 7 7.97 7.69 0.28 3.7 68.48 0.00 15.40 3.07 5.04 8.01 16 

2003 103 33 7.96 7.69 0.27 3.6 67.56 0.00 16.88 2.86 5.19 7.50 17 

2003 105 35 7.96 7.69 0.27 3.6 67.84 0.00 16.61 2.94 4.91 7.70 18 

2003 324 35 7.95 7.69 0.26 3.7 68.76 0.00 15.86 3.00 4.53 7.84 19 

2003 340 7 7.95 7.69 0.25 3.7 68.79 0.00 15.84 3.01 4.50 7.86 20 
Old IMPROVE/New Receptors - Ranked Daily Visibility Change for Breton (Top 25 Days Over 3 Years) 

 % of Modeled Extinction by Species 

YEAR DAY REC DV(Total) DV(BKG) DELTA DV F(RH) %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF Rank 

2002 239 35 8.51 7.69 0.82 4.3 71.26 0.00 14.57 2.59 4.78 6.79 1 

2002 44 27 8.48 7.69 0.79 3.5 67.34 0.00 16.50 3.09 4.98 8.09 2 

2003 354 34 8.44 7.69 0.75 3.7 69.20 0.00 15.97 3.02 3.92 7.89 3 

2001 9 35 8.43 7.69 0.74 3.7 67.81 0.00 15.80 2.93 5.79 7.66 4 

2002 205 24 8.37 7.69 0.68 4.3 71.39 0.00 14.05 2.71 4.78 7.07 5 

2002 240 17 8.27 7.69 0.58 4.3 71.64 0.00 14.60 2.62 4.29 6.85 6 

2003 359 9 8.25 7.69 0.56 3.7 68.71 0.00 15.89 2.99 4.58 7.82 7 

2002 346 35 8.23 7.69 0.54 3.7 68.41 0.00 17.21 2.70 4.58 7.11 8 

2002 362 34 8.22 7.69 0.53 3.7 68.48 0.00 14.43 3.27 5.34 8.48 9 

2003 23 7 8.21 7.69 0.52 3.7 67.91 0.00 16.40 2.82 5.48 7.39 10 

2001 13 34 8.19 7.69 0.50 3.7 68.02 0.00 15.77 2.95 5.53 7.72 11 

2003 333 33 8.19 7.69 0.50 3.7 68.02 0.00 15.57 2.99 5.59 7.82 12 

2003 143 7 8.19 7.69 0.50 3.8 68.55 0.00 15.94 2.81 5.36 7.35 13 

2003 50 35 8.18 7.69 0.48 3.5 67.28 0.00 16.26 3.14 5.13 8.19 14 

2001 37 34 8.17 7.69 0.48 3.5 66.62 0.00 17.66 2.79 5.58 7.34 15 

2002 63 34 8.17 7.69 0.48 3.7 68.08 0.00 15.58 3.00 5.51 7.83 16 

2002 73 27 8.16 7.69 0.47 3.7 68.30 0.00 18.59 2.42 4.28 6.41 17 

2003 82 35 8.15 7.69 0.46 3.7 68.31 0.00 15.92 2.95 5.11 7.72 18 

2003 62 7 8.15 7.69 0.46 3.7 68.18 0.00 15.75 2.97 5.32 7.77 19 

2002 363 35 8.14 7.69 0.45 3.7 68.32 0.00 17.48 2.64 4.60 6.96 20 

2001 195 35 8.12 7.69 0.43 4.3 71.20 0.00 14.64 2.58 4.84 6.75 21 

2002 64 35 8.12 7.69 0.43 3.7 68.39 0.00 15.69 3.00 5.06 7.85 22 

2003 222 35 8.12 7.69 0.43 4.3 71.49 0.00 14.93 2.54 4.38 6.66 23 

2001 66 35 8.11 7.69 0.42 3.7 68.21 0.00 16.20 2.89 5.14 7.56 24 

2001 73 35 8.11 7.69 0.41 3.7 68.40 0.00 16.51 2.84 4.80 7.45 25 
Appendix B 

Breton Wilderness Receptors 

[The material referenced in Appendix B is included as a separate 

document along with this site specific BART modeling report.]
Appendix L.6.7
Appendix L.6.8
Appendix L.6.8
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2002 44 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 2.11 21.58 23.69 9.78 3.5 1.412 0 0.345 0.065 0.118 0.17 1 8.62 

2002 239 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 1.919 21.58 23.499 8.89 4.3 1.367 0 0.28 0.05 0.092 0.13 2 8.54 2002 205 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 1.509 21.58 23.089 6.99 4.3 1.077 0 0.212 0.041 0.072 0.107 3 8.37 2002 362 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.334 21.58 22.914 6.18 3.7 0.912 0 0.19 0.044 0.074 0.114 4 8.29 2002 240 0 17 791.921 -1085.83 D 1.28 21.58 22.86 5.93 4.3 0.917 0 0.187 0.033 0.055 0.088 5 8.27 2002 346 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.245 21.58 22.825 5.77 3.7 0.848 0 0.216 0.033 0.061 0.087 6 8.25 2002 63 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.164 21.58 22.744 5.39 3.7 0.79 0 0.181 0.035 0.067 0.091 7 8.22 2002 363 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.146 21.58 22.726 5.31 3.7 0.783 0 0.201 0.03 0.053 0.079 8 8.21 2002 49 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.09 21.58 22.67 5.05 3.5 0.728 0 0.185 0.032 0.061 0.084 9 8.18 2002 73 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.085 21.58 22.665 5.03 3.7 0.74 0 0.201 0.026 0.048 0.069 10 8.18 2002 311 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.036 21.58 22.616 4.8 3.7 0.703 0 0.161 0.031 0.06 0.081 11 8.16 2002 64 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 1.017 21.58 22.597 4.71 3.7 0.693 0 0.159 0.03 0.054 0.08 12 8.15 2002 43 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.96 21.58 22.54 4.45 3.5 0.644 0 0.158 0.029 0.051 0.077 13 8.13 2002 349 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.883 21.58 22.463 4.09 3.7 0.6 0 0.14 0.026 0.049 0.068 14 8.09 2002 215 0 2 779.971 -1115.94 D 0.866 21.58 22.446 4.01 4.3 0.618 0 0.123 0.023 0.041 0.061 15 8.09 2002 187 0 6 789.227 -1101.06 D 0.849 21.58 22.429 3.93 4.3 0.605 0 0.124 0.022 0.04 0.058 16 8.08 2002 345 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.81 21.58 22.39 3.75 3.7 0.56 0 0.128 0.025 0.032 0.065 17 8.06 2002 340 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.785 21.58 22.365 3.64 3.7 0.535 0 0.124 0.023 0.042 0.061 18 8.05 2002 58 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.772 21.58 22.352 3.58 3.5 0.515 0 0.126 0.024 0.046 0.062 19 8.04 2002 55 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.759 21.58 22.339 3.51 3.5 0.507 0 0.123 0.023 0.043 0.061 20 8.04 2002 289 0 5 785.607 -1106.07 D 0.75 21.58 22.33 3.48 3.7 0.513 0 0.118 0.023 0.037 0.059 21 8.03 2002 199 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.725 21.58 22.305 3.36 4.3 0.518 0 0.109 0.018 0.032 0.048 22 8.02 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2002 44 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.748 22.12 23.898 8.06 86 1.126 0 0.268 0.065 0.118 0.17 0 1 8.71 2002 239 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 1.643 23.01 24.682 7.26 90 1.153 0 0.218 0.05 0.092 0.13 0 2 9.03 2002 205 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 1.293 23.01 24.325 5.71 90 0.908 0 0.165 0.041 0.072 0.107 0 3 8.89 2002 362 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.106 22.29 23.417 5.05 87 0.727 0 0.147 0.044 0.074 0.114 0 4 8.51 2002 240 0 17 791.921 -1085.83 D 1.094 23.01 24.124 4.84 90 0.773 0 0.145 0.033 0.055 0.088 0 5 8.81 2002 346 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.024 22.29 23.336 4.69 87 0.676 0 0.168 0.033 0.061 0.087 0 6 8.47 2002 63 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.963 22.29 23.272 4.40 87 0.629 0 0.14 0.035 0.067 0.091 0 7 8.45 2002 363 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.942 22.29 23.252 4.31 87 0.624 0 0.156 0.03 0.053 0.079 0 8 8.44 2002 49 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.900 22.12 23.034 4.15 86 0.579 0 0.144 0.032 0.061 0.084 0 9 8.34 2002 73 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.888 22.29 23.199 4.07 87 0.589 0 0.156 0.026 0.048 0.069 0 10 8.42 2002 311 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.857 22.29 23.164 3.92 87 0.56 0 0.125 0.031 0.06 0.081 0 11 8.40 2002 64 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.839 22.29 23.146 3.84 87 0.552 0 0.123 0.03 0.054 0.08 0 12 8.39 2002 43 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.792 22.12 22.923 3.65 86 0.512 0 0.123 0.029 0.051 0.077 0 13 8.30 2002 349 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.729 22.29 23.034 3.33 87 0.478 0 0.109 0.026 0.049 0.068 0 14 8.34 2002 215 0 2 779.971 -1115.94 D 0.741 23.01 23.764 3.27 90 0.521 0 0.095 0.023 0.041 0.061 0 15 8.66 2002 187 0 6 789.227 -1101.06 D 0.726 23.01 23.749 3.21 90 0.51 0 0.096 0.022 0.04 0.058 0 16 8.65 2002 345 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.667 22.29 22.971 3.05 87 0.446 0 0.099 0.025 0.032 0.065 0 17 8.32 2002 340 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.648 22.29 22.951 2.96 87 0.426 0 0.096 0.023 0.042 0.061 0 18 8.31 2002 58 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.639 22.12 22.768 2.95 86 0.41 0 0.098 0.024 0.046 0.062 0 19 8.23 2002 55 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.626 22.12 22.754 2.88 86 0.403 0 0.095 0.023 0.043 0.061 0 20 8.22 2002 289 0 5 785.607 -1106.07 D 0.619 22.29 22.921 2.83 87 0.408 0 0.092 0.023 0.037 0.059 0 21 8.29 2002 199 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.619 23.01 23.640 2.74 90 0.436 0 0.085 0.018 0.032 0.048 0 22 8.60 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2001 9 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 1.811 21.58 23.391 8.39 3.7 1.227 0 0.285 0.053 0.106 0.139 1 8.50 

2001 13 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.468 21.58 23.048 6.8 3.7 0.996 0 0.23 0.043 0.085 0.114 2 8.35 2001 195 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.069 21.58 22.649 4.95 4.3 0.76 0 0.155 0.028 0.053 0.073 3 8.18 2001 37 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.055 21.58 22.635 4.89 3.5 0.703 0 0.186 0.029 0.059 0.077 4 8.17 2001 34 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 1.055 21.58 22.635 4.89 3.5 0.705 0 0.182 0.031 0.056 0.08 5 8.17 2001 73 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.05 21.58 22.63 4.86 3.7 0.719 0 0.174 0.03 0.049 0.078 6 8.17 2001 206 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.001 21.58 22.581 4.64 4.3 0.712 0 0.152 0.025 0.047 0.065 7 8.15 2001 359 0 5 785.607 -1106.07 D 0.996 21.58 22.576 4.62 3.7 0.678 0 0.156 0.03 0.055 0.077 8 8.14 2001 66 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.943 21.58 22.523 4.37 3.7 0.643 0 0.153 0.027 0.049 0.071 9 8.12 2001 20 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.899 21.58 22.479 4.17 3.7 0.61 0 0.14 0.027 0.053 0.07 10 8.10 2001 177 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.865 21.58 22.445 4.01 4 0.603 0 0.139 0.022 0.042 0.059 11 8.08 2001 25 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.862 21.58 22.442 3.99 3.7 0.585 0 0.144 0.024 0.046 0.063 12 8.08 2001 353 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.836 21.58 22.416 3.88 3.7 0.569 0 0.133 0.024 0.047 0.064 13 8.07 2001 7 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.834 21.58 22.414 3.87 3.7 0.566 0 0.137 0.023 0.046 0.061 14 8.07 2001 10 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.816 21.58 22.396 3.78 3.7 0.557 0 0.127 0.025 0.043 0.064 15 8.06 2001 168 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.72 21.58 22.3 3.33 4 0.502 0 0.111 0.02 0.037 0.051 16 8.02 2001 143 0 5 785.607 -1106.07 D 0.719 21.58 22.299 3.33 3.8 0.494 0 0.111 0.021 0.038 0.055 17 8.02 2001 336 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.703 21.58 22.283 3.26 3.7 0.479 0 0.117 0.02 0.036 0.052 18 8.01 2001 81 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.668 21.58 22.248 3.09 3.7 0.453 0 0.105 0.02 0.039 0.051 19 8.00 2001 360 0 2 779.971 -1115.94 D 0.627 21.58 22.207 2.9 3.7 0.427 0 0.098 0.019 0.034 0.049 20 7.98 2001 65 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.62 21.58 22.2 2.88 3.7 0.421 0 0.094 0.019 0.037 0.049 21 7.98 2001 349 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.612 21.58 22.192 2.83 3.7 0.416 0 0.101 0.017 0.033 0.045 22 7.97 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2001 9 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 1.498 22.29 23.817 6.85 87 0.979 0 0.221 0.053 0.106 0.139 0 1 8.68 2001 13 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.215 22.29 23.528 5.55 87 0.794 0 0.179 0.043 0.085 0.114 0 2 8.56 2001 195 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.915 23.01 23.941 4.04 90 0.64 0 0.12 0.028 0.053 0.073 0 3 8.73 2001 37 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.869 22.12 23.003 4.01 86 0.559 0 0.144 0.029 0.059 0.077 0 5 8.33 2001 34 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.869 22.12 23.003 4.01 86 0.561 0 0.141 0.031 0.056 0.08 0 4 8.33 2001 73 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.865 22.29 23.173 3.96 87 0.573 0 0.135 0.03 0.049 0.078 0 6 8.40 2001 206 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.855 23.01 23.881 3.78 90 0.6 0 0.118 0.025 0.047 0.065 0 7 8.70 2001 359 0 5 785.607 -1106.07 D 0.823 22.29 23.129 3.76 87 0.54 0 0.121 0.03 0.055 0.077 0 8 8.39 2001 66 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.778 22.29 23.084 3.56 87 0.512 0 0.119 0.027 0.049 0.071 0 9 8.37 2001 20 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.744 22.29 23.049 3.40 87 0.486 0 0.109 0.027 0.053 0.07 0 10 8.35 2001 177 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.736 22.72 23.470 3.30 89 0.505 0 0.108 0.022 0.042 0.059 0 11 8.53 2001 25 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.710 22.29 23.015 3.25 87 0.466 0 0.112 0.024 0.046 0.063 0 12 8.34 2001 353 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.691 22.29 22.995 3.16 87 0.453 0 0.103 0.024 0.047 0.064 0 13 8.33 2001 7 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.687 22.29 22.991 3.14 87 0.451 0 0.106 0.023 0.046 0.061 0 14 8.33 2001 10 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.674 22.29 22.977 3.08 87 0.443 0 0.098 0.025 0.043 0.064 0 15 8.32 2001 168 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.614 22.72 23.346 2.75 89 0.42 0 0.086 0.02 0.037 0.051 0 16 8.48 2001 143 0 5 785.607 -1106.07 D 0.607 22.48 23.102 2.75 88 0.407 0 0.086 0.021 0.038 0.055 0 17 8.37 2001 336 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.580 22.29 22.882 2.65 87 0.381 0 0.091 0.02 0.036 0.052 0 18 8.28 2001 81 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.552 22.29 22.853 2.52 87 0.361 0 0.081 0.02 0.039 0.051 0 19 8.27 2001 360 0 2 779.971 -1115.94 D 0.518 22.29 22.818 2.37 87 0.34 0 0.076 0.019 0.034 0.049 0 20 8.25 2001 65 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.513 22.29 22.813 2.34 87 0.335 0 0.073 0.019 0.037 0.049 0 21 8.25 2001 349 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.504 22.29 22.805 2.31 87 0.331 0 0.078 0.017 0.033 0.045 0 22 8.24 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2003 354 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.677 21.58 23.257 7.77 3.7 1.161 0 0.268 0.051 0.066 0.132 1 8.44 

2003 359 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 1.248 21.58 22.828 5.78 3.7 0.858 0 0.198 0.037 0.057 0.098 2 8.25 2003 23 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 1.143 21.58 22.723 5.3 3.7 0.776 0 0.187 0.032 0.063 0.084 3 8.21 2003 333 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 1.099 21.58 22.679 5.09 3.7 0.747 0 0.171 0.033 0.061 0.086 4 8.19 2003 143 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 1.096 21.58 22.676 5.08 3.8 0.751 0 0.175 0.031 0.059 0.081 5 8.19 2003 50 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.071 21.58 22.651 4.96 3.5 0.721 0 0.174 0.034 0.055 0.088 6 8.18 2003 82 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.009 21.58 22.589 4.67 3.7 0.689 0 0.161 0.03 0.052 0.078 7 8.15 2003 62 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 1.008 21.58 22.588 4.67 3.7 0.687 0 0.159 0.03 0.054 0.078 8 8.15 2003 222 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.944 21.58 22.524 4.38 4.3 0.675 0 0.141 0.024 0.041 0.063 9 8.12 2003 83 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.909 21.58 22.489 4.21 3.7 0.618 0 0.145 0.027 0.05 0.069 10 8.10 2003 346 0 11 791.701 -1092.4 D 0.88 21.58 22.46 4.08 3.7 0.603 0 0.139 0.026 0.043 0.069 11 8.09 2003 301 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.745 21.58 22.325 3.45 3.7 0.508 0 0.118 0.022 0.039 0.058 12 8.03 2003 223 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.71 21.58 22.29 3.29 4.3 0.506 0 0.107 0.018 0.032 0.047 13 8.02 2003 18 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.704 21.58 22.284 3.26 3.7 0.48 0 0.11 0.021 0.037 0.055 14 8.01 2003 100 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.626 21.58 22.206 2.9 3.6 0.428 0 0.102 0.019 0.027 0.05 15 7.98 2003 5 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.613 21.58 22.193 2.84 3.7 0.42 0 0.094 0.019 0.031 0.049 16 7.97 2003 103 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.596 21.58 22.176 2.76 3.6 0.403 0 0.101 0.017 0.031 0.045 17 7.96 2003 105 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.579 21.58 22.159 2.68 3.6 0.393 0 0.096 0.017 0.028 0.045 18 7.96 2003 324 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.558 21.58 22.138 2.59 3.7 0.384 0 0.089 0.017 0.025 0.044 19 7.95 2003 340 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.552 21.58 22.132 2.56 3.7 0.38 0 0.087 0.017 0.025 0.043 20 7.94 2003 15 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.532 21.58 22.112 2.47 3.7 0.361 0 0.091 0.014 0.028 0.038 21 7.94 2003 91 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.522 21.58 22.102 2.42 3.7 0.358 0 0.082 0.016 0.025 0.041 22 7.93 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2003 354 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.383 22.29 23.701 6.33 87 0.926 0 0.208 0.051 0.066 0.132 0 1 8.63 2003 359 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 1.029 22.29 23.340 4.71 87 0.684 0 0.154 0.037 0.057 0.098 0 2 8.48 2003 23 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.942 22.29 23.252 4.31 87 0.618 0 0.145 0.032 0.063 0.084 0 3 8.44 2003 333 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.908 22.29 23.216 4.15 87 0.595 0 0.133 0.033 0.061 0.086 0 5 8.42 2003 143 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.926 22.48 23.427 4.19 88 0.619 0 0.136 0.031 0.059 0.081 0 4 8.51 2003 50 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.886 22.12 23.019 4.08 86 0.574 0 0.135 0.034 0.055 0.088 0 6 8.34 2003 82 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.834 22.29 23.140 3.81 87 0.549 0 0.125 0.03 0.052 0.078 0 7 8.39 2003 62 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.832 22.29 23.139 3.81 87 0.547 0 0.123 0.03 0.054 0.078 0 8 8.39 2003 222 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.806 23.01 23.831 3.56 90 0.569 0 0.109 0.024 0.041 0.063 0 9 8.68 2003 83 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.751 22.29 23.056 3.43 87 0.492 0 0.112 0.027 0.05 0.069 0 10 8.35 2003 346 0 11 791.701 -1092.4 D 0.726 22.29 23.031 3.32 87 0.48 0 0.108 0.026 0.043 0.069 0 11 8.34 2003 301 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.615 22.29 22.917 2.81 87 0.404 0 0.092 0.022 0.039 0.058 0 12 8.29 2003 223 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.606 23.01 23.627 2.68 90 0.426 0 0.083 0.018 0.032 0.047 0 13 8.60 2003 18 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.580 22.29 22.882 2.65 87 0.382 0 0.085 0.021 0.037 0.055 0 14 8.28 2003 100 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.525 22.29 22.826 2.40 87 0.35 0 0.079 0.019 0.027 0.05 0 15 8.25 2003 5 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.506 22.29 22.806 2.31 87 0.334 0 0.073 0.019 0.031 0.049 0 16 8.24 2003 103 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.501 22.29 22.802 2.29 87 0.33 0 0.078 0.017 0.031 0.045 0 17 8.24 2003 105 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.486 22.29 22.786 2.22 87 0.321 0 0.074 0.017 0.028 0.045 0 18 8.24 2003 324 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.461 22.29 22.760 2.11 87 0.306 0 0.069 0.017 0.025 0.044 0 19 8.22 2003 340 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.455 22.29 22.754 2.08 87 0.302 0 0.067 0.017 0.025 0.043 0 20 8.22 2003 15 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.438 22.29 22.737 2.00 87 0.287 0 0.071 0.014 0.028 0.038 0 21 8.21 2003 91 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.430 22.29 22.729 1.97 87 0.285 0 0.064 0.016 0.025 0.041 0 22 8.21 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2002 239 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.85 21.58 23.43 8.57 4.3 1.318 0 0.27 0.048 0.088 0.126 1 8.51 

2002 44 0 27 790.446 -1078.47 D 1.766 21.58 23.346 8.19 3.5 1.19 0 0.291 0.055 0.088 0.143 2 8.48 2002 205 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 1.509 21.58 23.089 6.99 4.3 1.077 0 0.212 0.041 0.072 0.107 3 8.37 2002 240 0 17 791.921 -1085.83 D 1.28 21.58 22.86 5.93 4.3 0.917 0 0.187 0.033 0.055 0.088 4 8.27 2002 346 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.195 21.58 22.775 5.54 3.7 0.818 0 0.206 0.032 0.055 0.085 5 8.23 2002 362 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.174 21.58 22.754 5.44 3.7 0.804 0 0.169 0.038 0.063 0.1 6 8.22 2002 63 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.054 21.58 22.634 4.88 3.7 0.717 0 0.164 0.032 0.058 0.083 7 8.17 2002 73 0 27 790.446 -1078.47 D 1.031 21.58 22.611 4.78 3.7 0.705 0 0.192 0.025 0.044 0.066 8 8.16 2002 363 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.988 21.58 22.568 4.58 3.7 0.675 0 0.173 0.026 0.045 0.069 9 8.14 2002 64 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.95 21.58 22.53 4.4 3.7 0.65 0 0.149 0.029 0.048 0.075 10 8.12 2002 49 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.868 21.58 22.448 4.02 3.5 0.582 0 0.149 0.025 0.045 0.066 11 8.09 2002 187 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.849 21.58 22.429 3.93 4.3 0.605 0 0.124 0.022 0.04 0.058 12 8.08 2002 349 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.821 21.58 22.401 3.8 3.7 0.559 0 0.132 0.024 0.044 0.063 13 8.07 2002 345 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.773 21.58 22.353 3.58 3.7 0.535 0 0.122 0.024 0.031 0.062 14 8.04 2002 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.77 21.58 22.35 3.57 3.5 0.52 0 0.128 0.024 0.036 0.062 15 8.04 2002 58 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.741 21.58 22.321 3.43 3.5 0.494 0 0.121 0.023 0.044 0.059 16 8.03 2002 311 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.731 21.58 22.311 3.39 3.7 0.497 0 0.114 0.022 0.041 0.057 17 8.02 2002 340 0 16 792.004 -1086.76 D 0.725 21.58 22.305 3.36 3.7 0.499 0 0.116 0.022 0.032 0.057 18 8.02 2002 241 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.699 21.58 22.279 3.24 4.3 0.504 0 0.103 0.018 0.025 0.048 19 8.01 2002 199 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.657 21.58 22.237 3.05 4.3 0.47 0 0.098 0.017 0.029 0.044 20 7.99 2002 290 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.631 21.58 22.211 2.92 3.7 0.435 0 0.1 0.019 0.027 0.05 21 7.98 2002 360 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.617 21.58 22.197 2.86 3.7 0.424 0 0.097 0.019 0.029 0.049 22 7.97 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2002 239 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.584 23.01 24.621 7.00 90 1.112 0 0.21 0.048 0.088 0.126 0 1 9.01 2002 44 0 27 790.446 -1078.47 D 1.461 22.12 23.605 6.74 86 0.948 0 0.226 0.055 0.088 0.143 0 2 8.59 2002 205 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 1.293 23.01 24.325 5.71 90 0.908 0 0.165 0.041 0.072 0.107 0 3 8.89 2002 240 0 17 791.921 -1085.83 D 1.094 23.01 24.124 4.84 90 0.773 0 0.145 0.033 0.055 0.088 0 4 8.81 2002 346 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.984 22.29 23.295 4.50 87 0.652 0 0.16 0.032 0.055 0.085 0 5 8.46 2002 362 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.973 22.29 23.281 4.44 87 0.641 0 0.131 0.038 0.063 0.1 0 6 8.45 2002 63 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.871 22.29 23.179 3.98 87 0.571 0 0.127 0.032 0.058 0.083 0 7 8.41 2002 73 0 27 790.446 -1078.47 D 0.846 22.29 23.155 3.88 87 0.561 0 0.149 0.025 0.044 0.066 0 8 8.40 2002 363 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.812 22.29 23.119 3.72 87 0.538 0 0.134 0.026 0.045 0.069 0 9 8.38 2002 64 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.785 22.29 23.091 3.59 87 0.518 0 0.116 0.029 0.048 0.075 0 10 8.37 2002 49 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.715 22.12 22.845 3.30 86 0.463 0 0.116 0.025 0.045 0.066 0 11 8.26 2002 187 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.726 23.01 23.749 3.21 90 0.51 0 0.096 0.022 0.04 0.058 0 12 8.65 2002 349 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.678 22.29 22.982 3.10 87 0.445 0 0.102 0.024 0.044 0.063 0 13 8.32 2002 345 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.637 22.29 22.941 2.91 87 0.426 0 0.095 0.024 0.031 0.062 0 15 8.30 2002 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.635 22.12 22.763 2.93 86 0.414 0 0.099 0.024 0.036 0.062 0 14 8.23 2002 58 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.613 22.12 22.740 2.82 86 0.393 0 0.094 0.023 0.044 0.059 0 16 8.22 2002 311 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.604 22.29 22.906 2.76 87 0.396 0 0.088 0.022 0.041 0.057 0 17 8.29 2002 340 0 16 792.004 -1086.76 D 0.598 22.29 22.900 2.74 87 0.397 0 0.09 0.022 0.032 0.057 0 18 8.29 2002 241 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.595 23.01 23.616 2.63 90 0.424 0 0.08 0.018 0.025 0.048 0 19 8.59 2002 199 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.562 23.01 23.582 2.48 90 0.396 0 0.076 0.017 0.029 0.044 0 20 8.58 2002 290 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.520 22.29 22.820 2.38 87 0.346 0 0.078 0.019 0.027 0.05 0 21 8.25 2002 360 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.510 22.29 22.810 2.33 87 0.337 0 0.075 0.019 0.029 0.049 0 22 8.25 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2001 9 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.658 21.58 23.238 7.68 3.7 1.124 0 0.262 0.049 0.096 0.127 1 8.43 

2001 13 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.1 21.58 22.68 5.1 3.7 0.748 0 0.173 0.032 0.061 0.085 2 8.19 2001 37 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 1.055 21.58 22.635 4.89 3.5 0.703 0 0.186 0.029 0.059 0.077 3 8.17 2001 195 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.952 21.58 22.532 4.41 4.3 0.678 0 0.139 0.025 0.046 0.064 4 8.12 2001 66 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.915 21.58 22.495 4.24 3.7 0.624 0 0.148 0.026 0.047 0.069 5 8.11 2001 73 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.91 21.58 22.49 4.22 3.7 0.622 0 0.15 0.026 0.044 0.068 6 8.10 2001 206 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.888 21.58 22.468 4.11 4.3 0.632 0 0.138 0.021 0.04 0.056 7 8.10 2001 25 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.851 21.58 22.431 3.94 3.7 0.578 0 0.142 0.024 0.045 0.062 8 8.08 2001 20 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.849 21.58 22.429 3.93 3.7 0.576 0 0.132 0.025 0.049 0.066 9 8.08 2001 177 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.836 21.58 22.416 3.88 4 0.583 0 0.133 0.022 0.041 0.057 10 8.07 2001 7 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.717 21.58 22.297 3.32 3.7 0.487 0 0.118 0.02 0.04 0.053 11 8.02 2001 336 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.675 21.58 22.255 3.13 3.7 0.46 0 0.112 0.019 0.034 0.05 12 8.00 2001 353 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.659 21.58 22.239 3.05 3.7 0.45 0 0.106 0.019 0.034 0.05 13 7.99 2001 168 0 27 790.446 -1078.47 D 0.632 21.58 22.212 2.93 4 0.44 0 0.097 0.017 0.032 0.045 14 7.98 2001 81 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.627 21.58 22.207 2.91 3.7 0.425 0 0.098 0.019 0.037 0.048 15 7.98 2001 65 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.62 21.58 22.2 2.87 3.7 0.42 0 0.094 0.019 0.037 0.049 16 7.98 2001 143 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.57 21.58 22.15 2.64 3.8 0.392 0 0.088 0.017 0.029 0.044 17 7.95 2001 67 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.533 21.58 22.113 2.47 3.7 0.363 0 0.084 0.016 0.03 0.041 18 7.94 2001 92 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.532 21.58 22.112 2.46 3.6 0.359 0 0.085 0.016 0.029 0.042 19 7.94 2001 83 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.527 21.58 22.107 2.44 3.7 0.358 0 0.084 0.015 0.029 0.04 20 7.93 2001 136 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.515 21.58 22.095 2.39 3.8 0.354 0 0.082 0.015 0.026 0.038 21 7.93 2001 359 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.513 21.58 22.093 2.38 3.7 0.349 0 0.081 0.015 0.029 0.04 22 7.93 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2001 9 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.372 22.29 23.689 6.27 87 0.896 0 0.204 0.049 0.096 0.127 0 1 8.62 2001 13 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.908 22.29 23.216 4.15 87 0.596 0 0.134 0.032 0.061 0.085 0 2 8.42 2001 37 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.869 22.12 23.003 4.01 86 0.559 0 0.144 0.029 0.059 0.077 0 3 8.33 2001 195 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.814 23.01 23.839 3.60 90 0.571 0 0.108 0.025 0.046 0.064 0 4 8.69 2001 66 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.754 22.29 23.059 3.45 87 0.497 0 0.115 0.026 0.047 0.069 0 5 8.35 2001 73 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.750 22.29 23.055 3.43 87 0.495 0 0.116 0.026 0.044 0.068 0 6 8.35 2001 206 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.756 23.01 23.781 3.35 90 0.532 0 0.107 0.021 0.04 0.056 0 7 8.66 2001 25 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.701 22.29 23.006 3.21 87 0.46 0 0.11 0.024 0.045 0.062 0 8 8.33 2001 20 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.701 22.29 23.005 3.20 87 0.459 0 0.102 0.025 0.049 0.066 0 9 8.33 2001 177 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.711 22.72 23.445 3.19 89 0.488 0 0.103 0.022 0.041 0.057 0 10 8.52 2001 7 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.592 22.29 22.895 2.71 87 0.388 0 0.092 0.02 0.04 0.053 0 11 8.28 2001 336 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.556 22.29 22.858 2.54 87 0.366 0 0.087 0.019 0.034 0.05 0 12 8.27 2001 353 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.543 22.29 22.845 2.48 87 0.358 0 0.082 0.019 0.034 0.05 0 13 8.26 2001 168 0 27 790.446 -1078.47 D 0.538 22.72 23.268 2.41 89 0.368 0 0.075 0.017 0.032 0.045 0 14 8.44 2001 81 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.518 22.29 22.819 2.37 87 0.338 0 0.076 0.019 0.037 0.048 0 15 8.25 2001 65 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.512 22.29 22.812 2.34 87 0.334 0 0.073 0.019 0.037 0.049 0 16 8.25 2001 143 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.481 22.48 22.974 2.18 88 0.323 0 0.068 0.017 0.029 0.044 0 17 8.32 2001 67 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.441 22.29 22.740 2.02 87 0.289 0 0.065 0.016 0.03 0.041 0 19 8.22 2001 92 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.446 22.29 22.746 2.04 87 0.294 0 0.066 0.016 0.029 0.042 0 18 8.22 2001 83 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.434 22.29 22.733 1.98 87 0.285 0 0.065 0.015 0.029 0.04 0 20 8.21 2001 136 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.434 22.48 22.926 1.97 88 0.291 0 0.064 0.015 0.026 0.038 0 21 8.30 2001 359 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.424 22.29 22.723 1.94 87 0.278 0 0.063 0.015 0.029 0.04 0 22 8.21 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2003 118 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.269 21.58 22.849 5.88 3.6 1.026 0 0.197 0.009 0.015 0.021 1 8.26 

2003 259 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 1.182 21.58 22.762 5.48 4.2 0.983 0 0.162 0.007 0.012 0.018 2 8.23 2003 82 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 1.059 21.58 22.639 4.91 3.7 0.861 0 0.161 0.007 0.012 0.018 3 8.17 2003 144 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.886 21.58 22.466 4.11 3.8 0.727 0 0.132 0.006 0.007 0.014 4 8.09 2003 276 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.869 21.58 22.449 4.03 3.7 0.707 0 0.132 0.006 0.01 0.014 5 8.09 2003 43 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.678 21.58 22.258 3.14 3.5 0.546 0 0.108 0.005 0.008 0.012 6 8.00 2003 313 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.67 21.58 22.25 3.1 3.7 0.545 0 0.102 0.005 0.008 0.011 7 8.00 2003 249 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.577 21.58 22.157 2.68 4.2 0.48 0 0.079 0.004 0.006 0.009 8 7.96 2003 318 0 28 791.25 -1078.39 D 0.57 21.58 22.15 2.64 3.7 0.463 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.009 9 7.95 2003 133 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.571 21.58 22.151 2.64 3.8 0.466 0 0.085 0.004 0.006 0.009 10 7.95 2003 148 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.568 21.58 22.148 2.63 3.8 0.464 0 0.084 0.004 0.006 0.009 11 7.95 2003 104 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.542 21.58 22.122 2.51 3.6 0.44 0 0.084 0.004 0.005 0.009 12 7.94 2003 312 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.532 21.58 22.112 2.47 3.7 0.432 0 0.081 0.004 0.007 0.009 13 7.94 2003 13 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.498 21.58 22.078 2.31 3.7 0.406 0 0.076 0.003 0.005 0.008 14 7.92 2003 25 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.491 21.58 22.071 2.27 3.7 0.399 0 0.075 0.003 0.005 0.008 15 7.92 2003 37 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.461 21.58 22.041 2.14 3.5 0.371 0 0.073 0.003 0.006 0.008 16 7.90 2003 292 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.448 21.58 22.028 2.07 3.7 0.364 0 0.068 0.003 0.005 0.007 17 7.90 2003 275 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.446 21.58 22.026 2.06 3.7 0.362 0 0.068 0.003 0.006 0.007 18 7.90 2003 40 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.43 21.58 22.01 1.99 3.5 0.345 0 0.068 0.003 0.005 0.007 19 7.89 2003 28 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.412 21.58 21.992 1.91 3.7 0.335 0 0.063 0.003 0.005 0.007 20 7.88 2003 149 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.395 21.58 21.975 1.83 3.8 0.322 0 0.059 0.003 0.005 0.006 21 7.87 2003 273 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.373 21.58 21.953 1.73 4.2 0.31 0 0.051 0.002 0.004 0.006 22 7.86 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2003 118 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.039 22.29 23.350 4.75 87 0.841 0 0.153 0.009 0.015 0.021 0 1 8.48 2003 259 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 1.011 23.01 24.039 4.47 90 0.848 0 0.126 0.007 0.012 0.018 0 2 8.77 2003 82 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.848 22.29 23.156 3.88 87 0.686 0 0.125 0.007 0.012 0.018 0 3 8.40 2003 144 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.728 22.48 23.226 3.30 88 0.599 0 0.102 0.006 0.007 0.014 0 4 8.43 2003 276 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.695 22.29 23.000 3.18 87 0.563 0 0.102 0.006 0.01 0.014 0 5 8.33 2003 43 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.543 22.12 22.670 2.51 86 0.434 0 0.084 0.005 0.008 0.012 0 6 8.18 2003 313 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.537 22.29 22.839 2.46 87 0.434 0 0.079 0.005 0.008 0.011 0 7 8.26 2003 249 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.494 23.01 23.513 2.18 90 0.414 0 0.061 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 8 8.55 2003 318 0 28 791.25 -1078.39 D 0.456 22.29 22.756 2.09 87 0.368 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 11 8.22 2003 133 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.469 22.48 22.961 2.12 88 0.384 0 0.066 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 9 8.31 2003 148 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.466 22.48 22.959 2.11 88 0.382 0 0.065 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 10 8.31 2003 104 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.443 22.29 22.743 2.03 87 0.36 0 0.065 0.004 0.005 0.009 0 12 8.22 2003 312 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.427 22.29 22.726 1.95 87 0.344 0 0.063 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 13 8.21 2003 13 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.398 22.29 22.697 1.82 87 0.323 0 0.059 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 14 8.20 2003 25 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.392 22.29 22.690 1.79 87 0.317 0 0.058 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 15 8.19 2003 37 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.369 22.12 22.492 1.70 86 0.295 0 0.057 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 16 8.11 2003 292 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.357 22.29 22.655 1.64 87 0.29 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 17 8.18 2003 275 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.357 22.29 22.655 1.63 87 0.288 0 0.053 0.003 0.006 0.007 0 18 8.18 2003 40 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.342 22.12 22.465 1.58 86 0.274 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 19 8.09 2003 28 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.330 22.29 22.628 1.51 87 0.267 0 0.049 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 20 8.17 2003 149 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.325 22.48 22.815 1.47 88 0.265 0 0.046 0.003 0.005 0.006 0 21 8.25 2003 273 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.319 23.01 23.335 1.41 90 0.267 0 0.04 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 22 8.47 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2002 350 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.864 21.58 22.444 4.01 3.7 0.704 0 0.132 0.006 0.009 0.014 1 8.08 

2002 334 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.752 21.58 22.332 3.49 3.7 0.611 0 0.114 0.005 0.009 0.012 2 8.03 2002 96 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.702 21.58 22.282 3.25 3.6 0.568 0 0.109 0.005 0.009 0.012 3 8.01 2002 2 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.653 21.58 22.233 3.03 3.7 0.531 0 0.099 0.004 0.007 0.011 4 7.99 2002 83 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.637 21.58 22.217 2.95 3.7 0.518 0 0.097 0.004 0.008 0.011 5 7.98 2002 95 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.628 21.58 22.208 2.91 3.6 0.508 0 0.098 0.004 0.008 0.011 6 7.98 2002 167 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.612 21.58 22.192 2.84 4 0.504 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.009 7 7.97 2002 140 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.604 21.58 22.184 2.8 3.8 0.493 0 0.09 0.004 0.007 0.01 8 7.97 2002 305 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.601 21.58 22.181 2.78 3.7 0.489 0 0.091 0.004 0.007 0.01 9 7.97 2002 26 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.575 21.58 22.155 2.67 3.7 0.467 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.01 10 7.95 2002 312 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.527 21.58 22.107 2.44 3.7 0.429 0 0.08 0.004 0.006 0.009 11 7.93 2002 287 0 36 788.252 -1072.11 D 0.52 21.58 22.1 2.41 3.7 0.422 0 0.079 0.004 0.006 0.009 12 7.93 2002 336 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.498 21.58 22.078 2.31 3.7 0.405 0 0.076 0.003 0.006 0.008 13 7.92 2002 291 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.49 21.58 22.07 2.27 3.7 0.398 0 0.074 0.003 0.006 0.008 14 7.92 2002 332 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.465 21.58 22.045 2.15 3.7 0.378 0 0.071 0.003 0.005 0.008 15 7.91 2002 60 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.457 21.58 22.037 2.12 3.5 0.368 0 0.073 0.003 0.005 0.008 16 7.90 2002 34 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.42 21.58 22 1.95 3.5 0.338 0 0.067 0.003 0.005 0.007 17 7.88 2002 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.414 21.58 21.994 1.92 3.7 0.336 0 0.063 0.003 0.005 0.007 18 7.88 2002 54 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.337 21.58 21.917 1.56 3.5 0.271 0 0.054 0.002 0.004 0.006 19 7.85 2002 27 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.326 21.58 21.906 1.51 3.7 0.265 0 0.05 0.002 0.004 0.005 20 7.84 2002 40 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.32 21.58 21.9 1.48 3.5 0.258 0 0.051 0.002 0.004 0.006 21 7.84 2002 3 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.317 21.58 21.897 1.47 3.7 0.258 0 0.048 0.002 0.004 0.005 22 7.84 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2002 350 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.692 22.29 22.997 3.17 87 0.561 0 0.102 0.006 0.009 0.014 0 1 8.33 2002 334 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.601 22.29 22.904 2.75 87 0.486 0 0.088 0.005 0.009 0.012 0 2 8.29 2002 96 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.575 22.29 22.878 2.63 87 0.465 0 0.085 0.005 0.009 0.012 0 3 8.28 2002 2 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.521 22.29 22.823 2.39 87 0.423 0 0.077 0.004 0.007 0.011 0 4 8.25 2002 83 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.511 22.29 22.812 2.34 87 0.412 0 0.075 0.004 0.008 0.011 0 6 8.25 2002 95 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.515 22.29 22.816 2.36 87 0.416 0 0.076 0.004 0.008 0.011 0 5 8.25 2002 167 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.509 22.72 23.240 2.28 89 0.422 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 7 8.43 2002 140 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.497 22.48 22.990 2.25 88 0.406 0 0.07 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 8 8.32 2002 305 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.481 22.29 22.781 2.20 87 0.389 0 0.071 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 9 8.23 2002 26 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.460 22.29 22.760 2.11 87 0.372 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 10 8.22 2002 312 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.422 22.29 22.722 1.93 87 0.341 0 0.062 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 11 8.21 2002 287 0 36 788.252 -1072.11 D 0.416 22.29 22.715 1.90 87 0.336 0 0.061 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 12 8.20 2002 336 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.398 22.29 22.697 1.82 87 0.322 0 0.059 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 13 8.20 2002 291 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.391 22.29 22.690 1.79 87 0.317 0 0.057 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 14 8.19 2002 332 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.372 22.29 22.670 1.70 87 0.301 0 0.055 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 15 8.18 2002 60 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.365 22.12 22.488 1.69 86 0.293 0 0.057 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 16 8.10 2002 34 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.336 22.12 22.458 1.55 86 0.269 0 0.052 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 17 8.09 2002 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.331 22.29 22.629 1.52 87 0.267 0 0.049 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 18 8.17 2002 54 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.269 22.12 22.391 1.24 86 0.215 0 0.042 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 19 8.06 2002 27 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.261 22.29 22.557 1.19 87 0.211 0 0.039 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 20 8.13 2002 40 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.257 22.12 22.378 1.18 86 0.205 0 0.04 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 21 8.05 2002 3 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.253 22.29 22.549 1.16 87 0.205 0 0.037 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 22 8.13 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2001 24 0 32 790.195 -1075.68 D 1.245 21.58 22.825 5.77 3.7 1.014 0 0.19 0.008 0.013 0.021 1 8.25 

2001 270 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.85 21.58 22.43 3.94 4.2 0.707 0 0.116 0.005 0.009 0.013 2 8.08 2001 365 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.848 21.58 22.428 3.93 3.7 0.689 0 0.129 0.006 0.01 0.014 3 8.08 2001 300 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.836 21.58 22.416 3.87 3.7 0.679 0 0.127 0.006 0.01 0.014 4 8.07 2001 337 0 32 790.195 -1075.68 D 0.793 21.58 22.373 3.67 3.7 0.645 0 0.121 0.005 0.008 0.013 5 8.05 2001 117 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.784 21.58 22.364 3.63 3.6 0.634 0 0.122 0.005 0.01 0.013 6 8.05 2001 77 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.677 21.58 22.257 3.14 3.7 0.55 0 0.103 0.005 0.008 0.011 7 8.00 2001 144 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.634 21.58 22.214 2.94 3.8 0.518 0 0.094 0.004 0.007 0.01 8 7.98 2001 275 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.592 21.58 22.172 2.74 3.7 0.481 0 0.09 0.004 0.007 0.01 9 7.96 2001 344 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.581 21.58 22.161 2.69 3.7 0.472 0 0.088 0.004 0.007 0.01 10 7.96 2001 23 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.577 21.58 22.157 2.68 3.7 0.47 0 0.088 0.004 0.006 0.01 11 7.96 2001 86 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.531 21.58 22.111 2.46 3.7 0.432 0 0.081 0.004 0.006 0.009 12 7.93 2001 355 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.511 21.58 22.091 2.37 3.7 0.416 0 0.078 0.003 0.006 0.008 13 7.93 2001 269 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.508 21.58 22.088 2.35 4.2 0.422 0 0.07 0.003 0.005 0.008 14 7.92 2001 316 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.502 21.58 22.082 2.33 3.7 0.409 0 0.076 0.003 0.005 0.008 15 7.92 2001 326 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.492 21.58 22.072 2.28 3.7 0.4 0 0.075 0.003 0.006 0.008 16 7.92 2001 314 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.493 21.58 22.073 2.28 3.7 0.4 0 0.075 0.003 0.006 0.008 17 7.92 2001 281 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.489 21.58 22.069 2.27 3.7 0.398 0 0.074 0.003 0.006 0.008 18 7.92 2001 33 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.469 21.58 22.049 2.18 3.5 0.377 0 0.075 0.003 0.006 0.008 19 7.91 2001 175 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.466 21.58 22.046 2.16 4 0.384 0 0.066 0.003 0.005 0.007 20 7.91 2001 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.449 21.58 22.029 2.08 3.7 0.365 0 0.068 0.003 0.005 0.007 21 7.90 2001 116 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.441 21.58 22.021 2.04 3.6 0.356 0 0.068 0.003 0.006 0.007 22 7.89 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2001 24 0 32 790.195 -1075.68 D 0.998 22.29 23.309 4.57 87 0.808 0 0.147 0.008 0.013 0.021 0 1 8.46 2001 270 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.727 23.01 23.750 3.21 90 0.61 0 0.09 0.005 0.009 0.013 0 2 8.65 2001 365 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.679 22.29 22.983 3.11 87 0.549 0 0.1 0.006 0.01 0.014 0 3 8.32 2001 300 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.669 22.29 22.973 3.06 87 0.541 0 0.098 0.006 0.01 0.014 0 4 8.32 2001 337 0 32 790.195 -1075.68 D 0.633 22.29 22.937 2.90 87 0.514 0 0.094 0.005 0.008 0.013 0 6 8.30 2001 117 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.641 22.29 22.945 2.94 87 0.519 0 0.095 0.005 0.01 0.013 0 5 8.31 2001 77 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.542 22.29 22.843 2.48 87 0.438 0 0.08 0.005 0.008 0.011 0 7 8.26 2001 144 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.520 22.48 23.014 2.36 88 0.427 0 0.073 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 8 8.34 2001 275 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.474 22.29 22.774 2.17 87 0.383 0 0.07 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 9 8.23 2001 344 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.465 22.29 22.765 2.13 87 0.376 0 0.068 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 10 8.23 2001 23 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.462 22.29 22.762 2.12 87 0.374 0 0.068 0.004 0.006 0.01 0 11 8.23 2001 86 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.426 22.29 22.725 1.95 87 0.344 0 0.063 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 12 8.21 2001 355 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.408 22.29 22.708 1.87 87 0.331 0 0.06 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 14 8.20 2001 269 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.434 23.01 23.452 1.92 90 0.364 0 0.054 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 13 8.52 2001 316 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.400 22.29 22.699 1.83 87 0.325 0 0.059 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 15 8.20 2001 326 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.393 22.29 22.692 1.80 87 0.318 0 0.058 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 16 8.19 2001 314 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.393 22.29 22.692 1.80 87 0.318 0 0.058 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 16 8.19 2001 281 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.391 22.29 22.690 1.79 87 0.317 0 0.057 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 18 8.19 2001 33 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.375 22.12 22.498 1.73 86 0.3 0 0.058 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 20 8.11 2001 175 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.388 22.72 23.116 1.74 89 0.321 0 0.051 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 19 8.38 2001 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.358 22.29 22.656 1.64 87 0.29 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 22 8.18 2001 116 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.360 22.29 22.658 1.65 87 0.291 0 0.053 0.003 0.006 0.007 0 21 8.18 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2003 259 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 1.033 21.58 22.613 4.79 4.2 0.859 0 0.141 0.006 0.011 0.015 1 8.16 

2003 82 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.976 21.58 22.556 4.52 3.7 0.794 0 0.148 0.007 0.011 0.016 2 8.13 2003 144 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.886 21.58 22.466 4.11 3.8 0.727 0 0.132 0.006 0.007 0.014 3 8.09 2003 118 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.698 21.58 22.278 3.23 3.6 0.565 0 0.108 0.005 0.008 0.012 4 8.01 2003 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.601 21.58 22.181 2.78 3.5 0.484 0 0.096 0.004 0.007 0.01 5 7.97 2003 249 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.577 21.58 22.157 2.68 4.2 0.48 0 0.079 0.004 0.006 0.009 6 7.96 2003 318 0 28 791.25 -1078.39 D 0.57 21.58 22.15 2.64 3.7 0.463 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.009 7 7.95 2003 148 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.568 21.58 22.148 2.63 3.8 0.464 0 0.084 0.004 0.006 0.009 8 7.95 2003 104 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.542 21.58 22.122 2.51 3.6 0.44 0 0.084 0.004 0.005 0.009 9 7.94 2003 313 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.521 21.58 22.101 2.41 3.7 0.424 0 0.079 0.004 0.006 0.009 10 7.93 2003 37 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.461 21.58 22.041 2.14 3.5 0.371 0 0.073 0.003 0.006 0.008 11 7.90 2003 292 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.448 21.58 22.028 2.07 3.7 0.364 0 0.068 0.003 0.005 0.007 12 7.90 2003 275 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.446 21.58 22.026 2.06 3.7 0.362 0 0.068 0.003 0.006 0.007 13 7.90 2003 13 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.421 21.58 22.001 1.95 3.7 0.343 0 0.064 0.003 0.004 0.007 14 7.89 2003 25 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.42 21.58 22 1.94 3.7 0.342 0 0.064 0.003 0.004 0.007 15 7.88 2003 28 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.409 21.58 21.989 1.89 3.7 0.333 0 0.062 0.003 0.005 0.007 16 7.88 2003 276 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.398 21.58 21.978 1.84 3.7 0.324 0 0.06 0.003 0.004 0.007 17 7.87 2003 312 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.384 21.58 21.964 1.78 3.7 0.312 0 0.058 0.003 0.005 0.006 18 7.87 2003 222 0 11 791.701 -1092.4 D 0.352 21.58 21.932 1.63 4.3 0.294 0 0.047 0.002 0.004 0.005 19 7.85 2003 133 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.352 21.58 21.932 1.63 3.8 0.288 0 0.052 0.002 0.004 0.006 20 7.85 2003 273 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.347 21.58 21.927 1.61 4.2 0.289 0 0.048 0.002 0.003 0.005 21 7.85 2003 221 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.336 21.58 21.916 1.56 4.3 0.281 0 0.045 0.002 0.004 0.005 22 7.85 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2003 259 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.883 23.01 23.908 3.90 90 0.741 0 0.109 0.006 0.011 0.015 0 1 8.72 2003 82 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.781 22.29 23.088 3.58 87 0.633 0 0.115 0.007 0.011 0.016 0 2 8.37 2003 144 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.728 22.48 23.226 3.30 88 0.599 0 0.102 0.006 0.007 0.014 0 3 8.43 2003 118 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.571 22.29 22.873 2.61 87 0.462 0 0.084 0.005 0.008 0.012 0 4 8.27 2003 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.480 22.12 22.606 2.22 86 0.385 0 0.074 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 5 8.16 2003 249 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.494 23.01 23.513 2.18 90 0.414 0 0.061 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 6 8.55 2003 318 0 28 791.25 -1078.39 D 0.456 22.29 22.756 2.09 87 0.368 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 8 8.22 2003 148 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.466 22.48 22.959 2.11 88 0.382 0 0.065 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 7 8.31 2003 104 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.443 22.29 22.743 2.03 87 0.36 0 0.065 0.004 0.005 0.009 0 9 8.22 2003 313 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.418 22.29 22.717 1.91 87 0.337 0 0.061 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 10 8.21 2003 37 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.369 22.12 22.492 1.70 86 0.295 0 0.057 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 11 8.11 2003 292 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.357 22.29 22.655 1.64 87 0.29 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 12 8.18 2003 275 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.357 22.29 22.655 1.63 87 0.288 0 0.053 0.003 0.006 0.007 0 13 8.18 2003 13 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.336 22.29 22.634 1.54 87 0.273 0 0.05 0.003 0.004 0.007 0 14 8.17 2003 25 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.336 22.29 22.633 1.54 87 0.272 0 0.05 0.003 0.004 0.007 0 15 8.17 2003 28 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.328 22.29 22.625 1.50 87 0.265 0 0.048 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 16 8.16 2003 276 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.318 22.29 22.615 1.46 87 0.258 0 0.046 0.003 0.004 0.007 0 17 8.16 2003 312 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.307 22.29 22.604 1.41 87 0.248 0 0.045 0.003 0.005 0.006 0 18 8.16 2003 222 0 11 791.701 -1092.4 D 0.295 23.01 23.311 1.30 90 0.247 0 0.036 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 21 8.46 2003 133 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.289 22.48 22.779 1.31 88 0.237 0 0.04 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 19 8.23 2003 273 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.296 23.01 23.312 1.31 90 0.249 0 0.037 0.002 0.003 0.005 0 20 8.46 2003 221 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.282 23.01 23.298 1.25 90 0.237 0 0.035 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 22 8.46 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2002 350 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.775 21.58 22.355 3.59 3.7 0.632 0 0.118 0.005 0.008 0.013 1 8.04 

2002 96 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.702 21.58 22.282 3.25 3.6 0.568 0 0.109 0.005 0.009 0.012 2 8.01 2002 2 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.653 21.58 22.233 3.03 3.7 0.531 0 0.099 0.004 0.007 0.011 3 7.99 2002 167 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.608 21.58 22.188 2.82 4 0.501 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.009 4 7.97 2002 305 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.601 21.58 22.181 2.78 3.7 0.489 0 0.091 0.004 0.007 0.01 5 7.97 2002 26 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.572 21.58 22.152 2.65 3.7 0.465 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.009 6 7.95 2002 287 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.519 21.58 22.099 2.41 3.7 0.422 0 0.079 0.004 0.006 0.009 7 7.93 2002 332 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.465 21.58 22.045 2.15 3.7 0.378 0 0.071 0.003 0.005 0.008 8 7.91 2002 336 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.454 21.58 22.034 2.1 3.7 0.369 0 0.069 0.003 0.005 0.008 9 7.90 2002 312 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.454 21.58 22.034 2.1 3.7 0.37 0 0.069 0.003 0.005 0.008 10 7.90 2002 34 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.42 21.58 22 1.95 3.5 0.338 0 0.067 0.003 0.005 0.007 11 7.88 2002 95 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.419 21.58 21.999 1.94 3.6 0.339 0 0.065 0.003 0.005 0.007 12 7.88 2002 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.414 21.58 21.994 1.92 3.7 0.336 0 0.063 0.003 0.005 0.007 13 7.88 2002 291 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.409 21.58 21.989 1.9 3.7 0.333 0 0.062 0.003 0.005 0.007 14 7.88 2002 140 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.402 21.58 21.982 1.86 3.8 0.329 0 0.06 0.003 0.005 0.007 15 7.88 2002 60 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.364 21.58 21.944 1.68 3.5 0.293 0 0.058 0.003 0.004 0.006 16 7.86 2002 54 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.337 21.58 21.917 1.56 3.5 0.271 0 0.054 0.002 0.004 0.006 17 7.85 2002 40 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.32 21.58 21.9 1.48 3.5 0.258 0 0.051 0.002 0.004 0.006 18 7.84 2002 318 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.3 21.58 21.88 1.39 3.7 0.244 0 0.046 0.002 0.003 0.005 19 7.83 2002 83 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.295 21.58 21.875 1.37 3.7 0.24 0 0.045 0.002 0.004 0.005 20 7.83 2002 16 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.295 21.58 21.875 1.37 3.7 0.24 0 0.045 0.002 0.004 0.005 21 7.83 2002 3 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.292 21.58 21.872 1.36 3.7 0.238 0 0.044 0.002 0.004 0.005 22 7.83 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2002 350 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.621 22.29 22.924 2.84 87 0.503 0 0.092 0.005 0.008 0.013 0 1 8.30 2002 96 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.575 22.29 22.878 2.63 87 0.465 0 0.085 0.005 0.009 0.012 0 2 8.28 2002 2 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.521 22.29 22.823 2.39 87 0.423 0 0.077 0.004 0.007 0.011 0 3 8.25 2002 167 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.507 22.72 23.237 2.27 89 0.419 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 4 8.43 2002 305 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.481 22.29 22.781 2.20 87 0.389 0 0.071 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 5 8.23 2002 26 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.458 22.29 22.758 2.09 87 0.37 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 6 8.22 2002 287 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.416 22.29 22.715 1.90 87 0.336 0 0.061 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 7 8.20 2002 332 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.372 22.29 22.670 1.70 87 0.301 0 0.055 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 8 8.18 2002 336 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.363 22.29 22.661 1.66 87 0.294 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 10 8.18 2002 312 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.364 22.29 22.662 1.67 87 0.294 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 9 8.18 2002 34 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.336 22.12 22.458 1.55 86 0.269 0 0.052 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 12 8.09 2002 95 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.343 22.29 22.640 1.57 87 0.277 0 0.05 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 11 8.17 2002 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.331 22.29 22.629 1.52 87 0.267 0 0.049 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 13 8.17 2002 291 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.328 22.29 22.625 1.50 87 0.265 0 0.048 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 15 8.16 2002 140 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.332 22.48 22.822 1.51 88 0.271 0 0.046 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 14 8.25 2002 60 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.291 22.12 22.413 1.34 86 0.233 0 0.045 0.003 0.004 0.006 0 16 8.07 2002 54 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.269 22.12 22.391 1.24 86 0.215 0 0.042 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 17 8.06 2002 40 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.257 22.12 22.378 1.18 86 0.205 0 0.04 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 18 8.05 2002 318 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.240 22.29 22.535 1.10 87 0.194 0 0.036 0.002 0.003 0.005 0 19 8.12 2002 83 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.237 22.29 22.532 1.08 87 0.191 0 0.035 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 20 8.12 2002 16 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.237 22.29 22.532 1.08 87 0.191 0 0.035 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 20 8.12 2002 3 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.234 22.29 22.530 1.07 87 0.189 0 0.034 0.002 0.004 0.005 0 22 8.12 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2001 24 0 31 790.279 -1076.61 D 1.242 21.58 22.822 5.76 3.7 1.012 0 0.189 0.008 0.012 0.021 1 8.25 

2001 337 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.792 21.58 22.372 3.67 3.7 0.645 0 0.121 0.005 0.008 0.013 2 8.05 2001 365 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.702 21.58 22.282 3.25 3.7 0.571 0 0.107 0.005 0.008 0.012 3 8.01 2001 144 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.629 21.58 22.209 2.91 3.8 0.514 0 0.093 0.004 0.007 0.01 4 7.98 2001 275 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.582 21.58 22.162 2.7 3.7 0.473 0 0.088 0.004 0.007 0.01 5 7.96 2001 23 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.577 21.58 22.157 2.68 3.7 0.47 0 0.088 0.004 0.006 0.01 6 7.96 2001 77 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.572 21.58 22.152 2.65 3.7 0.465 0 0.087 0.004 0.007 0.009 7 7.95 2001 86 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.531 21.58 22.111 2.46 3.7 0.432 0 0.081 0.004 0.006 0.009 8 7.93 2001 270 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.523 21.58 22.103 2.42 4.2 0.435 0 0.072 0.003 0.005 0.008 9 7.93 2001 355 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.511 21.58 22.091 2.37 3.7 0.415 0 0.078 0.003 0.006 0.008 10 7.93 2001 300 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.512 21.58 22.092 2.37 3.7 0.416 0 0.078 0.003 0.006 0.008 11 7.93 2001 269 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.508 21.58 22.088 2.35 4.2 0.422 0 0.07 0.003 0.005 0.008 12 7.92 2001 316 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.502 21.58 22.082 2.33 3.7 0.409 0 0.076 0.003 0.005 0.008 13 7.92 2001 175 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.466 21.58 22.046 2.16 4 0.384 0 0.066 0.003 0.005 0.007 14 7.91 2001 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.449 21.58 22.029 2.08 3.7 0.365 0 0.068 0.003 0.005 0.007 15 7.90 2001 116 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.441 21.58 22.021 2.04 3.6 0.356 0 0.068 0.003 0.006 0.007 16 7.89 2001 69 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.44 21.58 22.02 2.04 3.7 0.358 0 0.067 0.003 0.005 0.007 17 7.89 2001 344 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.437 21.58 22.017 2.02 3.7 0.355 0 0.066 0.003 0.005 0.007 18 7.89 2001 301 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.436 21.58 22.016 2.02 3.7 0.355 0 0.066 0.003 0.005 0.007 19 7.89 2001 196 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.437 21.58 22.017 2.02 4.3 0.365 0 0.059 0.003 0.005 0.006 20 7.89 2001 314 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.415 21.58 21.995 1.92 3.7 0.337 0 0.063 0.003 0.005 0.007 21 7.88 2001 249 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.412 21.58 21.991 1.91 4.2 0.342 0 0.056 0.003 0.004 0.006 22 7.88 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2001 24 0 31 790.279 -1076.61 D 0.994 22.29 23.305 4.55 87 0.807 0 0.147 0.008 0.012 0.021 0 1 8.46 2001 337 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.633 22.29 22.937 2.90 87 0.514 0 0.094 0.005 0.008 0.013 0 2 8.30 2001 365 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.563 22.29 22.865 2.57 87 0.455 0 0.083 0.005 0.008 0.012 0 3 8.27 2001 144 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.516 22.48 23.010 2.34 88 0.423 0 0.072 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 4 8.33 2001 275 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.466 22.29 22.766 2.13 87 0.376 0 0.068 0.004 0.007 0.01 0 5 8.23 2001 23 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.462 22.29 22.762 2.12 87 0.374 0 0.068 0.004 0.006 0.01 0 6 8.23 2001 77 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.458 22.29 22.758 2.09 87 0.37 0 0.067 0.004 0.007 0.009 0 7 8.22 2001 86 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.426 22.29 22.725 1.95 87 0.344 0 0.063 0.004 0.006 0.009 0 9 8.21 2001 270 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.447 23.01 23.465 1.98 90 0.375 0 0.056 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 8 8.53 2001 355 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.408 22.29 22.707 1.87 87 0.33 0 0.06 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 12 8.20 2001 300 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.408 22.29 22.708 1.87 87 0.331 0 0.06 0.003 0.006 0.008 0 11 8.20 2001 269 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.434 23.01 23.452 1.92 90 0.364 0 0.054 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 10 8.52 2001 316 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.400 22.29 22.699 1.83 87 0.325 0 0.059 0.003 0.005 0.008 0 13 8.20 2001 175 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.388 22.72 23.116 1.74 89 0.321 0 0.051 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 14 8.38 2001 70 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.358 22.29 22.656 1.64 87 0.29 0 0.053 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 16 8.18 2001 116 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.360 22.29 22.658 1.65 87 0.291 0 0.053 0.003 0.006 0.007 0 15 8.18 2001 69 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.352 22.29 22.650 1.61 87 0.285 0 0.052 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 18 8.18 2001 344 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.349 22.29 22.646 1.60 87 0.282 0 0.051 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 19 8.17 2001 301 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.349 22.29 22.646 1.60 87 0.282 0 0.051 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 19 8.17 2001 196 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.367 23.01 23.384 1.62 90 0.307 0 0.046 0.003 0.005 0.006 0 17 8.49 2001 314 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.332 22.29 22.629 1.52 87 0.268 0 0.049 0.003 0.005 0.007 0 22 8.17 2001 249 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.351 23.01 23.368 1.55 90 0.295 0 0.043 0.003 0.004 0.006 0 21 8.49 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2003 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.142 21.58 21.722 0.66 3.7 0.01 0 0.112 0.009 0 0.011 1 7.76 

2003 287 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.077 21.58 21.657 0.36 3.7 0.005 0 0.061 0.005 0 0.006 2 7.73 2003 326 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.077 21.58 21.657 0.35 3.7 0.005 0 0.061 0.005 0 0.006 3 7.73 2003 145 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.066 21.58 21.646 0.31 3.8 0.005 0 0.052 0.004 0 0.005 4 7.72 2003 66 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.061 21.58 21.641 0.28 3.7 0.004 0 0.049 0.004 0 0.005 5 7.72 2003 293 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.057 21.58 21.637 0.27 3.7 0.004 0 0.045 0.003 0 0.004 6 7.72 2003 280 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 7 7.72 2003 237 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 4.3 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 8 7.72 2003 133 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 3.8 0.004 0 0.042 0.003 0 0.004 9 7.72 2003 71 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.055 21.58 21.635 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 10 7.72 2003 279 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.7 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 11 7.71 2003 221 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 4.3 0.004 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 12 7.71 2003 60 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 13 7.71 2003 278 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.047 21.58 21.627 0.22 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 14 7.71 2003 235 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.048 21.58 21.628 0.22 4.3 0.004 0 0.038 0.003 0 0.004 15 7.71 2003 70 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.048 21.58 21.628 0.22 3.7 0.003 0 0.038 0.003 0 0.004 16 7.71 2003 312 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 17 7.71 2003 308 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.036 0.003 0 0.003 18 7.71 2003 286 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.044 21.58 21.624 0.2 3.7 0.003 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.003 19 7.71 2003 118 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.038 21.58 21.618 0.18 3.6 0.003 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 20 7.71 2003 57 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.039 21.58 21.619 0.18 3.5 0.003 0 0.031 0.002 0 0.003 21 7.71 2003 32 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.038 21.58 21.618 0.18 3.7 0.003 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 22 7.71 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2003 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.115 22.29 22.414 0.55 87 0.008 0 0.087 0.009 0 0.011 0 1 8.07 2003 287 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.062 22.29 22.358 0.30 87 0.004 0 0.047 0.005 0 0.006 0 2 8.05 2003 326 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.062 22.29 22.358 0.30 87 0.004 0 0.047 0.005 0 0.006 0 2 8.05 2003 145 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.053 22.48 22.541 0.25 88 0.004 0 0.04 0.004 0 0.005 0 4 8.13 2003 66 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.050 22.29 22.345 0.24 87 0.003 0 0.038 0.004 0 0.005 0 5 8.04 2003 293 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.045 22.29 22.339 0.22 87 0.003 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.004 0 6 8.04 2003 280 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 7 8.04 2003 237 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.044 23.01 23.057 0.20 90 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 10 8.35 2003 133 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.043 22.48 22.530 0.20 88 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 9 8.12 2003 71 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 7 8.04 2003 279 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.040 22.29 22.333 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 12 8.03 2003 221 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.041 23.01 23.054 0.19 90 0.003 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 13 8.35 2003 60 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.040 22.12 22.159 0.20 86 0.002 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 11 7.96 2003 278 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 16 8.03 2003 235 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.040 23.01 23.053 0.19 90 0.003 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 15 8.35 2003 70 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.039 22.29 22.332 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 14 8.03 2003 312 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 16 8.03 2003 308 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.036 22.29 22.330 0.17 87 0.002 0 0.028 0.003 0 0.003 0 18 8.03 2003 286 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.035 22.29 22.329 0.17 87 0.002 0 0.027 0.003 0 0.003 0 19 8.03 2003 118 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.031 22.29 22.324 0.15 87 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 21 8.03 2003 57 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.031 22.12 22.149 0.15 86 0.002 0 0.024 0.002 0 0.003 0 20 7.95 2003 32 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.031 22.29 22.324 0.15 87 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 22 8.03 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2002 101 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.095 21.58 21.675 0.44 3.6 0.006 0 0.076 0.006 0 0.007 1 7.74 

2002 241 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.069 21.58 21.649 0.32 4.3 0.006 0 0.054 0.004 0 0.005 2 7.72 2002 272 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.064 21.58 21.644 0.3 4.2 0.005 0 0.05 0.004 0 0.005 3 7.72 2002 13 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.063 21.58 21.643 0.29 3.7 0.004 0 0.05 0.004 0 0.005 4 7.72 2002 142 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.059 21.58 21.639 0.27 3.8 0.004 0 0.047 0.004 0 0.005 5 7.72 2002 27 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.053 21.58 21.633 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.042 0.003 0 0.004 6 7.72 2002 248 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.052 21.58 21.632 0.24 4.2 0.004 0 0.041 0.003 0 0.004 7 7.72 2002 307 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 3.7 0.004 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 8 7.71 2002 183 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 4.3 0.004 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 9 7.71 2002 47 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 10 7.71 2002 282 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.047 21.58 21.627 0.22 3.7 0.003 0 0.038 0.003 0 0.004 11 7.71 2002 343 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.045 21.58 21.625 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.003 12 7.71 2002 298 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 13 7.71 2002 249 0 10 791.785 -1093.33 D 0.045 21.58 21.625 0.21 4.2 0.004 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.003 14 7.71 2002 153 0 8 791.23 -1096.19 D 0.042 21.58 21.622 0.2 4 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.003 15 7.71 2002 141 0 26 791.334 -1079.32 D 0.042 21.58 21.622 0.19 3.8 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.003 16 7.71 2002 116 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.039 21.58 21.619 0.18 3.6 0.003 0 0.031 0.002 0 0.003 17 7.71 2002 147 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.037 21.58 21.617 0.17 3.8 0.003 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 18 7.71 2002 135 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.036 21.58 21.616 0.17 3.8 0.003 0 0.028 0.002 0 0.003 19 7.71 2002 304 0 8 791.23 -1096.19 D 0.035 21.58 21.615 0.16 3.7 0.002 0 0.028 0.002 0 0.003 20 7.71 2002 261 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.036 21.58 21.616 0.16 4.2 0.003 0 0.028 0.002 0 0.003 21 7.71 2002 35 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.035 21.58 21.615 0.16 3.5 0.002 0 0.028 0.002 0 0.003 22 7.71 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2002 101 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.077 22.29 22.373 0.37 87 0.005 0 0.059 0.006 0 0.007 0 1 8.05 2002 241 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.056 23.01 23.070 0.26 90 0.005 0 0.042 0.004 0 0.005 0 2 8.36 2002 272 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.052 23.01 23.066 0.24 90 0.004 0 0.039 0.004 0 0.005 0 4 8.36 2002 13 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.051 22.29 22.345 0.25 87 0.003 0 0.039 0.004 0 0.005 0 3 8.04 2002 142 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.049 22.48 22.536 0.23 88 0.003 0 0.036 0.004 0 0.005 0 5 8.13 2002 27 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 6 8.04 2002 248 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.042 23.01 23.056 0.20 90 0.003 0 0.032 0.003 0 0.004 0 8 8.35 2002 307 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.041 22.29 22.335 0.20 87 0.003 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 7 8.04 2002 183 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.041 23.01 23.054 0.19 90 0.003 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 10 8.35 2002 47 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.040 22.12 22.158 0.19 86 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 9 7.96 2002 282 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.039 22.29 22.332 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 11 8.03 2002 343 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.035 22.29 22.329 0.17 87 0.002 0 0.027 0.003 0 0.003 0 13 8.03 2002 298 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 12 8.03 2002 249 0 10 791.785 -1093.33 D 0.037 23.01 23.050 0.17 90 0.003 0 0.027 0.003 0 0.003 0 14 8.35 2002 153 0 8 791.23 -1096.19 D 0.034 22.72 22.757 0.16 89 0.003 0 0.026 0.003 0 0.003 0 16 8.22 2002 141 0 26 791.334 -1079.32 D 0.034 22.48 22.520 0.16 88 0.002 0 0.026 0.003 0 0.003 0 15 8.12 2002 116 0 19 792.559 -1083.9 D 0.031 22.29 22.325 0.15 87 0.002 0 0.024 0.002 0 0.003 0 17 8.03 2002 147 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.031 22.48 22.517 0.15 88 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 18 8.12 2002 135 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.029 22.48 22.515 0.14 88 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 19 8.12 2002 304 0 8 791.23 -1096.19 D 0.028 22.29 22.321 0.14 87 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 22 8.03 2002 261 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.029 23.01 23.042 0.14 90 0.003 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 21 8.35 2002 35 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.028 22.12 22.146 0.14 86 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 20 7.95 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2001 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.187 21.58 21.767 0.87 3.7 0.013 0 0.149 0.011 0 0.014 1 7.78 

2001 266 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.101 21.58 21.681 0.47 4.2 0.008 0 0.079 0.006 0 0.008 2 7.74 2001 234 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.093 21.58 21.673 0.43 4.3 0.007 0 0.073 0.006 0 0.007 3 7.73 2001 118 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.091 21.58 21.671 0.42 3.6 0.006 0 0.072 0.006 0 0.007 4 7.73 2001 308 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.077 21.58 21.657 0.36 3.7 0.005 0 0.061 0.005 0 0.006 5 7.73 2001 293 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.074 21.58 21.654 0.34 3.7 0.005 0 0.059 0.004 0 0.006 6 7.73 2001 180 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.073 21.58 21.653 0.34 4 0.005 0 0.058 0.004 0 0.006 7 7.73 2001 82 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.065 21.58 21.645 0.3 3.7 0.005 0 0.052 0.004 0 0.005 8 7.72 2001 254 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.063 21.58 21.643 0.29 4.2 0.005 0 0.05 0.004 0 0.005 9 7.72 2001 183 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.06 21.58 21.64 0.28 4.3 0.005 0 0.047 0.004 0 0.004 10 7.72 2001 59 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.059 21.58 21.639 0.27 3.5 0.004 0 0.047 0.004 0 0.005 11 7.72 2001 119 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.055 21.58 21.635 0.26 3.6 0.004 0 0.044 0.003 0 0.004 12 7.72 2001 313 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.055 21.58 21.635 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 13 7.72 2001 296 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 14 7.72 2001 255 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 4.2 0.004 0 0.042 0.003 0 0.004 15 7.72 2001 317 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.051 21.58 21.631 0.24 3.7 0.004 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 16 7.72 2001 205 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.051 21.58 21.631 0.24 4.3 0.004 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 17 7.72 2001 120 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.051 21.58 21.631 0.24 3.6 0.003 0 0.041 0.003 0 0.004 18 7.72 2001 312 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 3.7 0.004 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 19 7.71 2001 176 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 4 0.004 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 20 7.71 2001 58 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 21 7.71 2001 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 22 7.71 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2001 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.151 22.29 22.453 0.73 87 0.01 0 0.116 0.011 0 0.014 0 1 8.09 2001 266 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.082 23.01 23.099 0.38 90 0.007 0 0.061 0.006 0 0.008 0 2 8.37 2001 234 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.075 23.01 23.091 0.35 90 0.006 0 0.057 0.006 0 0.007 0 4 8.37 2001 118 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.074 22.29 22.370 0.35 87 0.005 0 0.056 0.006 0 0.007 0 3 8.05 2001 308 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.062 22.29 22.358 0.30 87 0.004 0 0.047 0.005 0 0.006 0 5 8.05 2001 293 0 38 787.281 -1070.32 D 0.060 22.29 22.355 0.29 87 0.004 0 0.046 0.004 0 0.006 0 6 8.04 2001 180 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.059 22.72 22.784 0.28 89 0.004 0 0.045 0.004 0 0.006 0 7 8.23 2001 82 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.053 22.29 22.348 0.26 87 0.004 0 0.04 0.004 0 0.005 0 8 8.04 2001 254 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.052 23.01 23.066 0.24 90 0.004 0 0.039 0.004 0 0.005 0 9 8.36 2001 183 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.049 23.01 23.063 0.23 90 0.004 0 0.036 0.004 0 0.004 0 11 8.36 2001 59 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.049 22.12 22.168 0.24 86 0.003 0 0.036 0.004 0 0.005 0 10 7.96 2001 119 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.044 22.29 22.338 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.034 0.003 0 0.004 0 12 8.04 2001 313 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 13 8.04 2001 296 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 13 8.04 2001 255 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.043 23.01 23.057 0.20 90 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 15 8.35 2001 317 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.041 22.29 22.335 0.20 87 0.003 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 17 8.04 2001 205 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.041 23.01 23.055 0.19 90 0.003 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 20 8.35 2001 120 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.041 22.29 22.335 0.20 87 0.002 0 0.032 0.003 0 0.004 0 16 8.04 2001 312 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.041 22.29 22.335 0.20 87 0.003 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 17 8.04 2001 176 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.041 22.72 22.764 0.19 89 0.003 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 22 8.23 2001 58 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.040 22.12 22.159 0.20 86 0.002 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 19 7.96 2001 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.040 22.12 22.158 0.19 86 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 21 7.96 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2003 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.142 21.58 21.722 0.66 3.7 0.01 0 0.112 0.009 0 0.011 1 7.76 

2003 326 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.076 21.58 21.656 0.35 3.7 0.005 0 0.06 0.005 0 0.006 2 7.73 2003 287 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.071 21.58 21.651 0.33 3.7 0.005 0 0.056 0.004 0 0.005 3 7.72 2003 145 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.066 21.58 21.646 0.31 3.8 0.005 0 0.052 0.004 0 0.005 4 7.72 2003 66 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.061 21.58 21.641 0.28 3.7 0.004 0 0.049 0.004 0 0.005 5 7.72 2003 133 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 3.8 0.004 0 0.042 0.003 0 0.004 6 7.72 2003 71 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.055 21.58 21.635 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 7 7.72 2003 237 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.053 21.58 21.633 0.24 4.3 0.004 0 0.041 0.003 0 0.004 8 7.72 2003 293 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.7 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 9 7.71 2003 279 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.7 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 10 7.71 2003 221 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 4.3 0.004 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 11 7.71 2003 235 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.048 21.58 21.628 0.22 4.3 0.004 0 0.038 0.003 0 0.004 12 7.71 2003 70 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.048 21.58 21.628 0.22 3.7 0.003 0 0.038 0.003 0 0.004 13 7.71 2003 312 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 14 7.71 2003 308 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.036 0.003 0 0.003 15 7.71 2003 286 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.044 21.58 21.624 0.2 3.7 0.003 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.003 16 7.71 2003 280 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.042 21.58 21.622 0.19 3.7 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.003 17 7.71 2003 60 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.04 21.58 21.62 0.19 3.5 0.003 0 0.032 0.002 0 0.003 18 7.71 2003 118 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.038 21.58 21.618 0.18 3.6 0.003 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 19 7.71 2003 278 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.037 21.58 21.617 0.17 3.7 0.003 0 0.029 0.002 0 0.003 20 7.71 2003 148 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.036 21.58 21.616 0.17 3.8 0.003 0 0.029 0.002 0 0.003 21 7.71 2003 57 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.037 21.58 21.617 0.17 3.5 0.002 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 22 7.71 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2003 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.115 22.29 22.414 0.55 87 0.008 0 0.087 0.009 0 0.011 0 1 8.07 2003 326 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.061 22.29 22.357 0.30 87 0.004 0 0.046 0.005 0 0.006 0 2 8.05 2003 287 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.056 22.29 22.351 0.27 87 0.004 0 0.043 0.004 0 0.005 0 3 8.04 2003 145 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.053 22.48 22.541 0.25 88 0.004 0 0.04 0.004 0 0.005 0 4 8.13 2003 66 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.050 22.29 22.345 0.24 87 0.003 0 0.038 0.004 0 0.005 0 5 8.04 2003 133 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.043 22.48 22.530 0.20 88 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 7 8.12 2003 71 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 6 8.04 2003 237 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.042 23.01 23.056 0.20 90 0.003 0 0.032 0.003 0 0.004 0 8 8.35 2003 293 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.040 22.29 22.333 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 9 8.03 2003 279 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.040 22.29 22.333 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 9 8.03 2003 221 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.041 23.01 23.054 0.19 90 0.003 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 11 8.35 2003 235 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.040 23.01 23.053 0.19 90 0.003 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 13 8.35 2003 70 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.039 22.29 22.332 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 12 8.03 2003 312 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 14 8.03 2003 308 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.036 22.29 22.330 0.17 87 0.002 0 0.028 0.003 0 0.003 0 15 8.03 2003 286 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.035 22.29 22.329 0.17 87 0.002 0 0.027 0.003 0 0.003 0 16 8.03 2003 280 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.034 22.29 22.327 0.16 87 0.002 0 0.026 0.003 0 0.003 0 17 8.03 2003 60 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.032 22.12 22.150 0.16 86 0.002 0 0.025 0.002 0 0.003 0 18 7.95 2003 118 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.031 22.29 22.324 0.15 87 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 19 8.03 2003 278 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.030 22.29 22.323 0.14 87 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 21 8.03 2003 148 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.030 22.48 22.516 0.14 88 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 22 8.12 2003 57 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.030 22.12 22.148 0.14 86 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 20 7.95 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2002 101 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.095 21.58 21.675 0.44 3.6 0.006 0 0.076 0.006 0 0.007 1 7.74 

2002 241 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.069 21.58 21.649 0.32 4.3 0.006 0 0.054 0.004 0 0.005 2 7.72 2002 272 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.062 21.58 21.642 0.29 4.2 0.005 0 0.049 0.004 0 0.005 3 7.72 2002 13 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.063 21.58 21.643 0.29 3.7 0.004 0 0.05 0.004 0 0.005 4 7.72 2002 27 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.053 21.58 21.633 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.042 0.003 0 0.004 5 7.72 2002 142 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.051 21.58 21.631 0.24 3.8 0.004 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 6 7.72 2002 47 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 7 7.71 2002 307 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.048 21.58 21.628 0.22 3.7 0.003 0 0.038 0.003 0 0.004 8 7.71 2002 183 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.047 21.58 21.627 0.22 4.3 0.004 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 9 7.71 2002 298 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 10 7.71 2002 249 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 0.045 21.58 21.625 0.21 4.2 0.003 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.003 11 7.71 2002 248 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.043 21.58 21.623 0.2 4.2 0.003 0 0.034 0.003 0 0.003 12 7.71 2002 153 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 0.041 21.58 21.621 0.19 4 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.003 13 7.71 2002 141 0 26 791.334 -1079.32 D 0.042 21.58 21.622 0.19 3.8 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.003 14 7.71 2002 116 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.039 21.58 21.619 0.18 3.6 0.003 0 0.031 0.002 0 0.003 15 7.71 2002 343 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.037 21.58 21.617 0.17 3.7 0.003 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 16 7.71 2002 147 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.037 21.58 21.617 0.17 3.8 0.003 0 0.03 0.002 0 0.003 17 7.71 2002 135 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.036 21.58 21.616 0.17 3.8 0.003 0 0.028 0.002 0 0.003 18 7.71 2002 282 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.034 21.58 21.614 0.16 3.7 0.002 0 0.027 0.002 0 0.003 19 7.71 2002 35 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.035 21.58 21.615 0.16 3.5 0.002 0 0.028 0.002 0 0.003 20 7.71 2002 28 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.034 21.58 21.614 0.16 3.7 0.002 0 0.027 0.002 0 0.003 21 7.71 2002 304 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 0.033 21.58 21.613 0.15 3.7 0.002 0 0.026 0.002 0 0.003 22 7.71 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2002 101 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.077 22.29 22.373 0.37 87 0.005 0 0.059 0.006 0 0.007 0 1 8.05 2002 241 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.056 23.01 23.070 0.26 90 0.005 0 0.042 0.004 0 0.005 0 2 8.36 2002 272 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.051 23.01 23.065 0.24 90 0.004 0 0.038 0.004 0 0.005 0 4 8.36 2002 13 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.051 22.29 22.345 0.25 87 0.003 0 0.039 0.004 0 0.005 0 3 8.04 2002 27 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 5 8.04 2002 142 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.041 22.48 22.528 0.20 88 0.003 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 6 8.12 2002 47 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.040 22.12 22.158 0.19 86 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 7 7.96 2002 307 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.039 22.29 22.332 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 8 8.03 2002 183 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.039 23.01 23.052 0.18 90 0.003 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 10 8.35 2002 298 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 9 8.03 2002 249 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 0.036 23.01 23.049 0.17 90 0.003 0 0.027 0.003 0 0.003 0 11 8.35 2002 248 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.035 23.01 23.048 0.16 90 0.003 0 0.026 0.003 0 0.003 0 12 8.35 2002 153 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 0.034 22.72 22.757 0.16 89 0.003 0 0.026 0.003 0 0.003 0 14 8.22 2002 141 0 26 791.334 -1079.32 D 0.034 22.48 22.520 0.16 88 0.002 0 0.026 0.003 0 0.003 0 13 8.12 2002 116 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.031 22.29 22.325 0.15 87 0.002 0 0.024 0.002 0 0.003 0 15 8.03 2002 343 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.031 22.29 22.324 0.15 87 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 16 8.03 2002 147 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.031 22.48 22.517 0.15 88 0.002 0 0.023 0.002 0 0.003 0 17 8.12 2002 135 0 34 789.224 -1073.89 D 0.029 22.48 22.515 0.14 88 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 18 8.12 2002 282 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.028 22.29 22.320 0.13 87 0.002 0 0.021 0.002 0 0.003 0 20 8.03 2002 35 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.028 22.12 22.146 0.14 86 0.002 0 0.022 0.002 0 0.003 0 19 7.95 2002 28 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.028 22.29 22.320 0.13 87 0.002 0 0.021 0.002 0 0.003 0 20 8.03 2002 304 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 0.027 22.29 22.319 0.13 87 0.002 0 0.02 0.002 0 0.003 0 22 8.03 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2001 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.187 21.58 21.767 0.87 3.7 0.013 0 0.149 0.011 0 0.014 1 7.78 

2001 266 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.094 21.58 21.674 0.43 4.2 0.007 0 0.074 0.006 0 0.007 2 7.74 2001 234 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.093 21.58 21.673 0.43 4.3 0.007 0 0.073 0.006 0 0.007 3 7.73 2001 118 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.091 21.58 21.671 0.42 3.6 0.006 0 0.072 0.006 0 0.007 4 7.73 2001 180 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.068 21.58 21.648 0.32 4 0.005 0 0.054 0.004 0 0.005 5 7.72 2001 293 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.067 21.58 21.647 0.31 3.7 0.005 0 0.053 0.004 0 0.005 6 7.72 2001 82 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.065 21.58 21.645 0.3 3.7 0.005 0 0.052 0.004 0 0.005 7 7.72 2001 308 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.062 21.58 21.642 0.29 3.7 0.004 0 0.049 0.004 0 0.005 8 7.72 2001 254 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.063 21.58 21.643 0.29 4.2 0.005 0 0.05 0.004 0 0.005 9 7.72 2001 59 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.058 21.58 21.638 0.27 3.5 0.004 0 0.047 0.004 0 0.004 10 7.72 2001 119 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.055 21.58 21.635 0.26 3.6 0.004 0 0.044 0.003 0 0.004 11 7.72 2001 313 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.055 21.58 21.635 0.25 3.7 0.004 0 0.043 0.003 0 0.004 12 7.72 2001 255 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.054 21.58 21.634 0.25 4.2 0.004 0 0.042 0.003 0 0.004 13 7.72 2001 120 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.051 21.58 21.631 0.24 3.6 0.003 0 0.041 0.003 0 0.004 14 7.72 2001 317 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 3.7 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 15 7.71 2001 58 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.05 21.58 21.63 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.04 0.003 0 0.004 16 7.71 2001 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.049 21.58 21.629 0.23 3.5 0.003 0 0.039 0.003 0 0.004 17 7.71 2001 321 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.047 21.58 21.627 0.22 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 18 7.71 2001 326 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.036 0.003 0 0.003 19 7.71 2001 315 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.7 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 20 7.71 2001 169 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.045 21.58 21.625 0.21 4 0.003 0 0.035 0.003 0 0.003 21 7.71 2001 33 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.046 21.58 21.626 0.21 3.5 0.003 0 0.037 0.003 0 0.004 22 7.71 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2001 294 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.151 22.29 22.453 0.73 87 0.01 0 0.116 0.011 0 0.014 0 1 8.09 2001 266 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.076 23.01 23.092 0.36 90 0.006 0 0.057 0.006 0 0.007 0 2 8.37 2001 234 0 22 792.391 -1082.04 D 0.075 23.01 23.091 0.35 90 0.006 0 0.057 0.006 0 0.007 0 4 8.37 2001 118 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.074 22.29 22.370 0.35 87 0.005 0 0.056 0.006 0 0.007 0 3 8.05 2001 180 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.055 22.72 22.780 0.26 89 0.004 0 0.042 0.004 0 0.005 0 6 8.23 2001 293 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.054 22.29 22.349 0.26 87 0.004 0 0.041 0.004 0 0.005 0 5 8.04 2001 82 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.053 22.29 22.348 0.26 87 0.004 0 0.04 0.004 0 0.005 0 7 8.04 2001 308 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.050 22.29 22.345 0.24 87 0.003 0 0.038 0.004 0 0.005 0 9 8.04 2001 254 0 14 792.172 -1088.61 D 0.052 23.01 23.066 0.24 90 0.004 0 0.039 0.004 0 0.005 0 8 8.36 2001 59 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.048 22.12 22.167 0.23 86 0.003 0 0.036 0.004 0 0.004 0 10 7.96 2001 119 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.044 22.29 22.338 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.034 0.003 0 0.004 0 11 8.04 2001 313 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.043 22.29 22.337 0.21 87 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 12 8.04 2001 255 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.043 23.01 23.057 0.20 90 0.003 0 0.033 0.003 0 0.004 0 13 8.35 2001 120 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.041 22.29 22.335 0.20 87 0.002 0 0.032 0.003 0 0.004 0 14 8.04 2001 317 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.040 22.29 22.333 0.19 87 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 17 8.03 2001 58 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.040 22.12 22.159 0.20 86 0.002 0 0.031 0.003 0 0.004 0 15 7.96 2001 43 0 35 789.14 -1072.97 D 0.040 22.12 22.158 0.19 86 0.002 0 0.03 0.003 0 0.004 0 16 7.96 2001 321 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 19 8.03 2001 326 0 20 792.475 -1082.97 D 0.036 22.29 22.330 0.17 87 0.002 0 0.028 0.003 0 0.003 0 21 8.03 2001 315 0 30 791.167 -1077.47 D 0.038 22.29 22.332 0.18 87 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 19 8.03 2001 169 0 24 792.307 -1081.11 D 0.036 22.72 22.759 0.17 89 0.003 0 0.027 0.003 0 0.003 0 22 8.22 2001 33 0 12 792.339 -1090.47 D 0.038 22.12 22.156 0.18 86 0.002 0 0.029 0.003 0 0.004 0 18 7.96 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9
CALPOST-IMPROVE Processor for the East 

CALPOST Recalculation with New IMPROVE Algorithm

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF Rank

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR COORDIN ATES (km)TYPE BEXT(Model) BEXT(BKG) BEXT(Total) %CHANGE F(RH) bxSO4 bxNO3 bxOC bxEC bxPMC bxPMF dv(total) d

2003 354 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.898 21.58 23.478 8.79 3.7 1.296 0 0.297 0.057 0.099 0.149 1 8.53 

2003 82 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.252 21.58 22.832 5.8 3.7 0.854 0 0.199 0.037 0.065 0.096 2 8.26 2003 359 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 1.248 21.58 22.828 5.78 3.7 0.858 0 0.198 0.037 0.057 0.098 3 8.25 2003 23 0 6 789.227 -1101.06 D 1.151 21.58 22.731 5.33 3.7 0.782 0 0.189 0.032 0.063 0.085 4 8.21 2003 301 0 1 777.71 -1118.01 D 1.13 21.58 22.71 5.24 3.7 0.77 0 0.18 0.033 0.06 0.087 5 8.20 2003 50 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 1.11 21.58 22.69 5.15 3.5 0.745 0 0.181 0.035 0.059 0.09 6 8.19 2003 143 0 6 789.227 -1101.06 D 1.1 21.58 22.68 5.1 3.8 0.754 0 0.174 0.031 0.059 0.082 7 8.19 2003 333 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 1.099 21.58 22.679 5.09 3.7 0.747 0 0.171 0.033 0.061 0.086 8 8.19 2003 117 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 1.069 21.58 22.649 4.95 3.6 0.721 0 0.173 0.032 0.058 0.083 9 8.18 2003 222 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.036 21.58 22.616 4.8 4.3 0.741 0 0.154 0.026 0.046 0.069 10 8.16 2003 346 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.014 21.58 22.594 4.7 3.7 0.69 0 0.159 0.03 0.057 0.079 11 8.15 2003 62 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 1.008 21.58 22.588 4.67 3.7 0.687 0 0.159 0.03 0.054 0.078 12 8.15 2003 83 0 13 792.256 -1089.54 D 0.909 21.58 22.489 4.21 3.7 0.618 0 0.145 0.027 0.05 0.069 13 8.10 2003 223 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.871 21.58 22.451 4.04 4.3 0.621 0 0.131 0.022 0.04 0.057 14 8.09 2003 11 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.854 21.58 22.434 3.96 3.7 0.58 0 0.134 0.025 0.05 0.066 15 8.08 2003 89 0 2 779.971 -1115.94 D 0.802 21.58 22.382 3.72 3.7 0.546 0 0.125 0.024 0.044 0.063 16 8.06 2003 15 0 1 777.71 -1118.01 D 0.792 21.58 22.372 3.67 3.7 0.539 0 0.124 0.024 0.044 0.062 17 8.05 2003 100 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.766 21.58 22.346 3.55 3.6 0.518 0 0.123 0.023 0.042 0.06 18 8.04 2003 5 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.752 21.58 22.332 3.49 3.7 0.513 0 0.117 0.023 0.041 0.059 19 8.03 2003 91 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.733 21.58 22.313 3.39 3.7 0.5 0 0.114 0.022 0.039 0.058 20 8.03 2003 18 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.717 21.58 22.297 3.32 3.7 0.489 0 0.112 0.022 0.038 0.056 21 8.02 2003 36 0 1 777.71 -1118.01 D 0.699 21.58 22.279 3.24 3.5 0.466 0 0.115 0.021 0.041 0.056 22 8.01 

11

0.03

YEAR DAY HR RECEPTOR TYPE BEXT(Source BEXT(BKG BEXT(Total)%CHANGE RH(%) bsSO4 bsNO3 bsOC bsEC bsPMC bsPMF baNO2 dv(total) d

2003 354 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.570 22.29 23.890 7.18 87 1.034 0 0.231 0.057 0.099 0.149 0 1 8.71 2003 82 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 1.033 22.29 23.344 4.72 87 0.68 0 0.154 0.037 0.065 0.096 0 2 8.48 2003 359 0 9 791.146 -1095.26 D 1.029 22.29 23.340 4.71 87 0.684 0 0.154 0.037 0.057 0.098 0 3 8.48 2003 23 0 6 789.227 -1101.06 D 0.950 22.29 23.259 4.34 87 0.623 0 0.147 0.032 0.063 0.085 0 4 8.44 2003 301 0 1 777.71 -1118.01 D 0.933 22.29 23.242 4.27 87 0.613 0 0.14 0.033 0.06 0.087 0 5 8.43 2003 50 0 39 786.394 -1069.47 D 0.917 22.12 23.051 4.23 86 0.593 0 0.14 0.035 0.059 0.09 0 6 8.35 2003 143 0 6 789.227 -1101.06 D 0.928 22.48 23.429 4.21 88 0.621 0 0.135 0.031 0.059 0.082 0 7 8.51 2003 333 0 33 790.111 -1074.75 D 0.908 22.29 23.216 4.15 87 0.595 0 0.133 0.033 0.061 0.086 0 8 8.42 2003 117 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.897 22.29 23.206 4.10 87 0.59 0 0.134 0.032 0.058 0.083 0 9 8.42 2003 222 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.885 23.01 23.911 3.91 90 0.624 0 0.119 0.026 0.046 0.069 0 10 8.72 2003 346 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.839 22.29 23.146 3.83 87 0.55 0 0.123 0.03 0.057 0.079 0 11 8.39 2003 62 0 7 789.783 -1098.2 D 0.832 22.29 23.139 3.81 87 0.547 0 0.123 0.03 0.054 0.078 0 12 8.39 2003 83 0 13 792.256 -1089.54 D 0.751 22.29 23.056 3.43 87 0.492 0 0.112 0.027 0.05 0.069 0 13 8.35 2003 223 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.744 23.01 23.767 3.29 90 0.523 0 0.102 0.022 0.04 0.057 0 14 8.66 2003 11 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.707 22.29 23.011 3.23 87 0.462 0 0.104 0.025 0.05 0.066 0 15 8.33 2003 89 0 2 779.971 -1115.94 D 0.663 22.29 22.966 3.03 87 0.435 0 0.097 0.024 0.044 0.063 0 16 8.31 2003 15 0 1 777.71 -1118.01 D 0.655 22.29 22.958 3.00 87 0.429 0 0.096 0.024 0.044 0.062 0 17 8.31 2003 100 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.644 22.29 22.947 2.95 87 0.424 0 0.095 0.023 0.042 0.06 0 18 8.31 2003 5 0 4 781.422 -1113.94 D 0.622 22.29 22.925 2.84 87 0.408 0 0.091 0.023 0.041 0.059 0 19 8.30 2003 91 0 40 785.506 -1068.61 D 0.605 22.29 22.908 2.77 87 0.398 0 0.088 0.022 0.039 0.058 0 20 8.29 2003 18 0 37 788.168 -1071.18 D 0.592 22.29 22.894 2.71 87 0.389 0 0.087 0.022 0.038 0.056 0 21 8.28 2003 36 0 1 777.71 -1118.01 D 0.578 22.12 22.705 2.66 86 0.371 0 0.089 0.021 0.041 0.056 0 22 8.20 

6. Enter desirratio (default 5. Check calcbelow agains"Ranked Dail

New Rank

---------------------------- INPUT from CALPOST (based on old IMPROVE algorithm) -----------

3. Enter value of site-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficient, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet

1. At cell A7, import "Ranked Daily Visibility Change" (bext) table, including column headings, from CALPOST (22 days, max)

COORDINATES (km)COORDINATES (km)

4. (Optional) Insert annual average sea salt concentration, from "Rayleigh & Sea Salt" worksheet. Leave blank if not used, i.e. default is 0.

---------------------------------- OUTPUT (based on new IMPROVE algorithm) ---------------------------

Appendix L.6.9