## BART Air Modeling Protocol

Individual Source Visibility Assessments for BART Control Analyses

September, 2006

State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division Cheyenne, WY 82002Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................................. 3

2.0 OVER V IE W

........................................................................................................... 4

3.0 EMISSIONS DAT A FOR MODELI NG

................................................................ 7

3.1 Baseline Mo deling

.............................................................................................. 7

3.2 Post-Control Modeling

........................................................................................ 8

4.0 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

................................................................................ 9

5.0 CALPUFF MODEL APPLICATION

................................................................... 12

6.0 POST PROCESSING

........................................................................................... 15

7.0 REPORTING

........................................................................................................ 19

21.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. EPA has issued final amendm ents to the Regional Haze Regulations, along with Guidelines for Best Available Re trofit Technology (BART) Determ inations. ( ) 1
The guidelines address the m e thodology for de term ining which facilities m u st apply BART (sources subject-to-BART) and the evaluation of control options.

The State of Wyom ing used air quali ty m odeling in acco rdance with the EPA

Guideline s to determ ine the W yom ing sources which a r e sub j ect-to-BART. This

Protocol def i nes the specific m e thodology to be used by those sources for determining

the im provem e nt in visibility to be achieved by BART controls.

The m e thod ology presented in this Protoc ol is consistent with EPA guidance and the Air Quality Division (AQD) determ inatio n of subject-to-BAR T sources. It is

intended th at all W y om ing sources that m u st conduct BART analyses will u s e this

Protocol for their evaluation of contro l technology visibility im provem e nt. Any
deviations fro m the procedures described he rein must be approved by the Division prior

to im plem entation.

( ) 1 40 CFR Part 51: Re gional Haze Regulations and Gu i d elines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BA R T) Determin atio n s ; Final Ru le. 70 Fed e r a l Reg i ster , 3 9 10 3-3 9 17 2, Ju ly 6, 2 005

.

32.0 OVERVIEW

Wyom ing AQD determ ined tha t eig h t f acili ties (sources) in th e state are subjectto-BART. The sources are listed in Table 1. Division m o deling indicated that each of

these sou r ces causes o r contributes to visibility impairm e nt in one or m o re Class I areas.

Each source m u st conduct a BART analysis to define Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) applicab le to that sou r ce, and quant if y the im provem e nt in Class I vis i bility

associa t ed with BART controls. This Prot ocol sets out the procedures for quantifying visibility im provem e nt. Other aspects of th e full BART analysis are not addressed here.

There are many Class I areas within a nd surrounding W y o m ing (See Figure 1).

On the basis of distance fro m subject-t o-BART sources, topography, m e teorology, and prior m odeling, the AQ D has determ ined that on ly five Class I areas need be add r es sed in BART individual source analyses. These are Badlands and W i nd Cave National Parks in South Dakota, Mt. Zirkel W ilderness Area in Colorado, and Bri dger and Fitzpatrick

W ilderness Areas in Wyo m ing. So urces in eastern W y o m in g have been shown to h a ve greatest vis i bility im pacts a t th e two Sout h Dak o ta Clas s I areas, and w e stern W y om ing

sources hav e m a xi m u m im pacts at Bridger and Fitzpatrick W ilderness Areas, and Mt. Zirkel. Visibility im p r ovem e nt at these hi ghest im pact areas will provide the best

m easure of the effectiveness of BART controls.

Each facility should carry out m ode ling with the CALPUFF m odeling system for the Class I areas sp ecified in Table 2. The AQD will provide m e teorological input for CALMET for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The m odel do m a in covered by the AQD

m e teorological data is centered in southwes t Wyo m ing, and extends roughly fro m Twi n Falls, ID in the west to the Missou r i River in th e east, and f r om Denver in the south to Helena, MT in the north. The dom ain is s hown, along with Class I areas, in Figure 1.

Sources m a y wish to utilize a sm aller dom ain for CALPUFF m odeling. Sm aller

dom a ins are acceptab l e if they provide ade quate additional area beyo nd the specific source and Class I areas being addressed. Fig u re 1 includ es a “south w est W y oming”

dom a in which represen ts the m i nimum accepta b l e area for s ources im pacting the Bridger and Fitzpatrick W ildern e ss Areas, and the Mt. Zirkel W ilderness Area, and a “northeast Wyom ing” dom a in as a m i ni m u m area for B a dlands and W i nd Cave National Parks modeling.

The CALPUFF m odel should be used with each of the three y ears o f

m e teorological d a ta to calcu late visibility im pacts for a baseline (existing em issions) case, and f o r cases ref l ecting BART contro ls . The control scenarios are to include individual scenarios for proposed BA RT cont rols for each pollutant (SO 2 , NO

x , and particulate m a tter), and a com b ined scenario representing applica tion of all proposed BART controls. If desired, additional m ode ling m a y be perfor m e d for controls that are

not selected as BART. This m i g h t be done, for exam pl e, to provide data usef ul in identifying the control technologies that repr esent BART. However, visibility m o d e ling is required only for the proposed BART controls.

4Table 1. Wyo m ing Sources Subject-to-BART

Basin Elec tr ic Laram i e River Power Pla n t Boilers #1,2

, 3 FMC Corporation Granger Soda Ash Plant Boilers #1,2 FMC Corporation Green River Sodium Plant Three boilers

General Chem ical Co. Green River Soda Ash Two boilers PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Power Plant Boilers #3,4 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Boilers #1 -4 PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Boilers #1,2,3 PacifiCorp Wyodak Po wer Plant Boiler

Results of v i sibility m o deli ng will be presented as a com p arison between baseline

im pacts and those calcu lated f o r the BART control scena r io s. Quantitative m easures of

im pact will be the 98 th percen tile deciview change ( ∆ dv) relative to the 20% best days natural background, and the num ber of days with deciview change exceeding 0.5 (E PA Regional H aze Regulations and Guidelines fo r Best Availab l e Retro f it Technology (BART) Determ inations, 70 FR 3910 3). Results should be presented for each year.

5Table 2. Source-Specific Class I Areas to be Addressed

Source Class I Areas to be Evaluated

Basin Elec tr ic

Laram i e River W i nd Cave NP, Badlands NP

FMC Corporation Granger Soda Ash Bridger W A , Fitzpatrick WA

FMC Corporation

Sodium Products Bridger W A , Fitzpatrick WA

General Che m ical

Green River Soda Ash Bridger W A , Fitzpatrick WA

Pacificorp

Dave Johnston W i nd Cave NP, Badlands NP

Pacificorp

Jim Bridger Bridger W A , Fitzpatrick WA,

Mt. Zirk el WA Pacificorp Naughton Plant Bridger W A , Fitzpatrick WA

Pacificorp Wyodak W i nd Cave NP, Badlands NP

63.0 EMISSIONS DAT A F O R MODELING

CALPUFF model input requires so urce (sta ck) – specific em ission rates for each pollutant, and stack param e ters (height, di ameter, ex it g a s tem p erature, and ex it gas velocity). Per EPA BART guidance, these param e ters must be representative of

m a xi m u m a c tual 24-ho ur average em itting cond itions for baseline (existing ) operation,

and m a xi m u m proposed 24-hour average em issions for future (BART) op erations.

3.1 Baseline Modeling

Sources are required to utilize representa tive baseline em ission conditions if data

are availab l e; baseline em issi ons m u st be documented. Possible sources of e m ission data are stack tests, CEM data, fuel consu m ption data, etc. Re mem b er that em issions should
represent m a xim u m 24- hour rates. EPA BART guidance states that you should “U se the

24-hour av erage actual em ission rate from th e highest em itting day of th e m e teorolo g ical period m o d e led (for the pre-control scenar io).” Thus, baseli ne conditions should

reference data from 200 1 through 2003 (or 2004).

As a m i nimu m , m odeled em issions must include:

S O 2 sulfur dioxide

N O

x oxides of nitrogen

P M 2. 5 particles with diam eter less than 2.5 μ m PM 10- 2. 5 particles with diam eters greater than 2.5μm but less than or equ a l to 10 μm

If

the f r ac tio n of PM 10 in the PM 2. 5 (fine) and P M 10- 2. 5 (coarse) categories cannot

be determ in ed all particulate m a tter should be assum e d to be PM 2. 5

.

In addition, direct em issions of sulfate (SO 4 ) sho u ld be inclu d ed where p o ssible.

Sulf ate can be em itted as sulf uric acid (H 2 SO 4 ), sulf ur triox i de (S O 3 ), or as sulfate

com pounds; em issions should be quantified as the equivalent m a ss of SO 4

.

When test o r engineerin g data are n o t available to specify S O 4 e m ission s or the relative fractions of fine and coarse partic les, use can be m a de of specia tion p r o f iles

available fro m Federal Land Managers at the website http://ww2.nature.nps.go v /air/pe r m its/ect/index. cfm. Profiles are availab l e for a number of source type and control technology com b ina tions. Th e FLM speciation factors are acceptable if data are availab l e for the appropriate source typ e

.

Em issions of VOC (volatile organic com pounds)

, condensable organics m easured in stack tests, and elem en tal carbon com ponents of PM 10 do not need to be included for

BART mod e ling. The only other pollutant noted in EPA BART guid a nce is ammonia (NH 3 ). Though ammonia is no t b e liev e d to b e a sign ificant contribu tor to v i sib i lity

7im pair m e nt in m o st cases in W y o m i ng, it could be im portant for sources with significant

ammonia em issions – for exam ple from so m e NO

x control system s. Sources th at are expected to em it ammonia (i n pre-or post-control conf igurations) should include

ammonia em issions in their m odel input.

If quantitative baseline em issions data ar e un av ailab l e and s ources b e lieve that th e

m a xi m u m 2 4 -hour em ission rates estim ated by th e Division (presented in the Subject-toBART final report) are representative of base line conditions for thei r facility, they m a y be used fo r baseline modeling. However, e m issions of sulfate and a m monia (if applicable) should be included based on the best available test inform ation or speciation

factors from curren t literature.

3.2 Post-Control Modeling

All pollu tan t s described above should be in cluded for each p o st-con tro l scenario.

Post-control e m issions (m axi m u m 24-hour av erage) will generally be the baseline

em issions multiplied b y a control f actor appr o p ria t e to th e BART control. However,

som e propo sed controls m a y si m p l y increase the efficiency of exis ting controls; others

m a y result in an increas e in em issio n s of one pollutant while controll ing another. These

factors m u st all be considered in defining em ission rates for post-control m odeling. Any changes in s t ack pa ram e ters resultin g f r om control application m u st also be includ ed.

The required visib i lity assessm ent will include the effect of each propo s e d BART

control. For exam ple, if a sour ce proposes to add a scrubber for SO 2 c ontrol, low NO

x burners for NO

x control, and a baghouse for particulate co ntrol, four s e ts of visibility results should be developed:

• Use of SO 2 control alone

• Use of NO

x control alone

• Use of particulate control alone

• Use of proposed com b ination of all three controls

All pollutan t s shou ld be m odeled in each CALPUFF m odel run, but the modeled

em issions should reflect only th e specific controls or com b in ation of controls addressed

in tha t run.

Additional modeling could be ne cessary in situa tions where a f acility is

com p rised of more than one subject-to-BART source, and different BART controls are applic able to dif f e rent sources. Excessi ve m odeling to addres s m u ltiple c ontrol

com b inations is not necessary; however, visibi lity m odeling should quantify the effect of

BART controls on all af f ected sources f o r eac h pollutan t

, and of all f acility B A RT

contro ls co mbined.

84.0 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Wyo m ing AQD will provide MM5 m e teorol ogical data fields for years 2001

, 2002, and 2003 that can be utilized as input to CALMET. The MM5 output will have 12

kilom e ter resolution and cover the full dom ain shown in Figure 1.

Mesoscale m e teorological data (MM5) were developed and evaluated as part of the AQD’s southwest Wyo m ing NO 2 increm ent analysis. Three years of MM5 data at 36

k m resolution were used to initialize 12 km MM5 sim u lations. The 12km MM5 modeling used identical physics options to th e original 36 km runs. CALMM5 was then used as a preprocessor to produce CALMET

– ready MM5 data input files. Qua lity

assurance w a s perform e d by com p aring the original MM5 output on the 36km national RPO grid to the 12 km MM5 output and observations.

The CALM ET m odel (version 5.53a, level 040716) should be used to prepare

m e teorological input for CALPUFF. The us er m a y select a dom ain sm aller than the

MM5 dom a i n for CALMET and CALPUFF mode ling if desired. Figure 1 shows

m i ni m u m d o m ain areas for m odeling of west ern and eastern W y o m in g BART so urces. Four kilom e ter resolution should be specified for CALMET o u tput.

CALMET p r ocessing should use the AQD MM 5 data, and appropriate surface, upper air, and precipitation da ta. Figure 2 shows the locati ons of surface and upper air

stations within the MM5 m odel dom ain. The MM5 data are us ed as the in itial g u ess wind field; this wind field is then adju sted by CALMET for terrain and land use to generate a step 1 wind field, and refined using surface and upper air data to create the final step 2 wind field.

Surface, upper air, and precip itatio n data can be obtained from the National

Clim atic Data Center. Land use and terrain da ta are available from the U.S. Geological Survey. Data can be for m atted for use in CALMET wi th stand a rd convers i on and

process i ng p r ogram s availab l e with the CALMET/CALPUFF software.

Table 3 provides a listing of appli cable CALMET input variables for BART

m e teorological processing. The table incl udes inputs that are specific to W y o m ing

BART m o d e ling. Inputs not shown in Table 3 are not relevant to the present application, are dependent on the specific m odel dom ain of the user, use model default values, or are obvious from the context.

9Table 3. CALMET Co ntrol File Inputs

V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e Input Group 1

I B Y R Y e a r 2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

IBTZ Base tim e zone 7

I R T Y P E R u n t y p e 1

L C A L G R D C o m pute data fi el ds for CALG RID T Input Group 2

P M A P M a p p r o j e c t i o n L C C

DGRIDKM Grid spacing (km ) 4

NZ Nu m b er of l a yers 10

ZFACE Cell face heights (m ) 0

2 0

4 0

1 0 0

1 4 0

3 2 0

5 8 0

1 0 2 0

1 4 8 0

2 2 2 0

3 5 0 0 Input Group 4

NOOBS No observation Mode 0 Input Group 5

I W F C O D M o d e l se le ction variable 1

IFRADJ Froude number adjustment 1

I K I N E K i n e m a t i c e f f e c t s 0

IOBR Use O’Brien procedure 0

ISLOPE Slope flow effects 1

IEXTRP Extrapolate surface win d observatio n s -4

ICALM Extrapolate calm surface winds 0

B I A S Biases for weights of surface and upper air s t ations All 0

RMIN2 Minim u m di stance for ex trapo l ation -1

IPROG Use gridded prognostic model output 14

ISTEPPG Tim e Step (hours) 1

LVARY Use varying radius of influence F

10Table 3. CALMET Co ntrol File Inputs (continued)

V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e RMAX 1 Maxim u m r a dius of influence (km ) 30

RMAX 2 Maxim u m r a dius of influence (km ) 50

RMIN Minim u m radius of influence (km ) 0.1

TERRAD Radius of influence for terrain (km ) 15

R1 Relative weighting of first guess wind field and observations (km ) 5

R2 Relative weighting aloft (km ) 25

IDIOPT 1 Surface temperatu r e 0

IDIOPT 2 Upper air la pse rate 0

ZUPT Lapse rate depth (m ) 200

IDIOPT 3 Average wind com pone nts 0

IUPW ND Upper air s t ation -1

ZUP W ND ( 1 )

ZUP W ND ( 2 ) Bottom and top of layer for do m a in scale winds (m ) 1, 1000 1, 1000

IDIOPT4 Surface wind com ponents 0

IDIOPT5 Upper air wind com pone nts 0 Input Group 6

I A V E Z I S p a t i a l a v e r a g i n g 1

M N M D A V M a x search r a d i u s 1

HAF ANG Half angle for averaging (deg) 30

ILEVZI Layer of winds in averaging 1

ZIMAX Maxim u m o v erland m i xing height (m) 3500

ITPROG 3D tem p erature source 1

I R A D I n t e r p o l a t i o n t y p e 1

TRADKM Radius of influe nce – temperature (k m ) 500

NUMTS Maxim u m n u m ber of Stations 5

IAVET Spatial averaging of temperatu r es 1

N F L A G P P r e c i p ita tion inte rpola tio n 2

115.0 CALPUFF MODEL APPLICATI O N

The CALPUFF m odel (version 5. 711a, leve l 040716) will be used to calculate pollutant co ncentration s at recep tors in each C l ass I area. A pplicatio n of CALPUFF should, in general, follow the guidance pres ented in the Interage ncy W o rkgroup on Air Quality Mo deling (IW AQM) Phase 2 report (EP A – 454/R98-019) and the EPA Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART Determ inations (70 FR 39103).

Appropriate CALPUFF c ontrol file inputs are in T a ble 4. Note should be taken of

the basis for several of the recomm e nded CALPUFF inputs.

• Building do wnwash effects n eed n o t be inclu d ed. Because of the transpo r t
distan ces in volved and the fact that m o st sources h a ve tall s t acks, build ing downwash is unlikely to have a si gnificant effect on m ode l-predicted

concentratio ns

• Puff splittin g is not requ ired. The a ddition a l co mputation tim e necessary for puff splitting is n o t justif ied f o r purposes of BART analyses.

• Hourly ozone files should be used to define background ozone concentration.

Data are ava ilab l e f r om the f o llowing sites within the m odel dom a in. Rocky Mountain NP, CO Craters of the Moon NP, ID AIRS – Hig h land UT

Mountain T hunder, WY Yellowstone NP, WY Centennial, WY Pinedale, W Y

The background ozone concentration shown in Table 4 is used only when hourly
data are m i ssing.

• A constant background ammonia concentratio n of 2.0 ppb is specified. This value is based upon m onito ring data from nearby states and IWAQM guidance. Experience suggests that 2.0 ppb is conservative in that it is unlikely to signif i can tly lim it nitr ate f o rm ation in the m odel com putations.

• MESOPUFF II chem ical transfor m a tion rates should be used.

• The species to be m o d e led should be the seven identified in CALPUFF: SO 2 , SO 4 , NO

x , HNO 3 , NO 3 , PM 2. 5 , and PM 10- 2. 5 . If amm oni a (NH 3 ) is em itted it

should be ad ded to the s p ecies list. In m o st cases , all pollutan t s m odeled will also

be em itted, except f o r H N O 3 and NO 3

.

12Concentration calcu lations should be m a de for recep tors covering the areas of the

Class I ar eas being addre ssed. Rec e p t ors in e ach Class I ar ea will be thos e design ated by the Federal Land Managers and available fr om the Nationa l Park Service website.

Table 4. CALPUFF Control File Inputs

V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e Input Group 1

METRUN Control param e ter for running all periods in m e t file 1

I B Y R S t a r t i n g y e a r 2 0 0 1

2002

2003

XBTZ Base tim e zone 7

NSPEC Num b er of chem ical species m odeled 7 (or 8)

NSE Num b er of species em itted 5 (or 6)

METFM Meteorological data form at 1 Input Group 2

MGAUS S Vertical distribution in near field 1

M C T A D J T e r r a i n adjustm e nt m e t h o d 3

MCTSG Subgrid scale com p lex terrain 0

M S L U G E l o n g a t e d p u f f

s 0

M T R A N S T r a n s i t i o n a l plum e r i s e 1

MTIP Stack tip downwash 1

MSHEAR Vertical wind shear 0

MSPLIT Puf f splittin g allowed ? 0

M C H E M C h e m ical mechanism 1 MAQCHEM Aqueous phase transform a tion 0

M W E T W e t rem ova l 1

M D R Y D r y d e p o s i t i o n 1

M D I S P D i s p e r s i o n Coefficients 3

MROUGH Adjust sigm a for roughness 0

MPARTL Partial plum e penetration of inversions 1

MPDF PDF for con v ective conditions 0 Input Group 4

P M A P M a p p r o j e c t i o n L C C

DGRIDKM G r i d s p a c i n g 4

13Table 4. CALPUFF Contro l File Inputs (continued)

ZFACE Cell face heights (m ) 0

2 0

4 0

1 0 0

1 4 0

3 2 0

5 8 0

1 0 2 0

1 4 8 0

2 2 2 0

3 5 0 0 Input Group 6

NHILL Num b er of t e rrain features Input Group 7 0

Dry Gas Depo Che m ical param e ters for dry gas deposition Def a ults

Input Group 8 Dry Part. D e p o Size param e ters for dry particle d e p o sition

SO 4 , NO 3 , PM25

PM10 Def a ults 6.5, 1.0 Input Group 11

MOZ Ozone Input option 1

B C K 0 3 Background ozone – all months (ppb) 44.0

B C K N H 3 Background ammonia – all months (ppb) 2.0

Input Group 12

X M A X Z I M a x i m u m m i x i n g h e i g h t (m ) 3500

X M I N Z I M i n i m u m m i x i n g h e i g h t (m ) 50

146.0 POST PROCESSI NG

Visibility impacts are calcu lated from th e CALPUFF concentr ation re sults us ing CALPOST. CALPOST version 5.51, leve l 030709 should be used; the output fro m CALPOST will p r ovide the h i ghes t deciv i ew impact on e ach day fro m all recep tors
within each Class I area modeled.

For som e CALPUFF applica tions su ch as deposition calculations, the PO STUTI L

program is used prior to CALPOST. POSTUTIL is also used to rep a rtition total nitr ate by accounting for a m monia lim itin g. The a mmonia lim iting calculation in POSTUTIL should not be applied for W y o m i ng BART modeling. If you believe that ammonia

lim iting is a ppropria te f o r a specif i c BART an alysis, ju stif ication should be discussed

with the Div i sion pr ior to its used.

Visibility ca lcula tions b y CALPOST f o r BART purposes use Method 6. This

m e thod requ ires input of m onthly relative hum id ity factors, f(RH), for eac h Class I area. The EPA guidance docum ent provides approp riate d a ta fo r each area. Table 5 lists monthly f(RH) factors to use for the W y o m i ng, Colorado, and South Dakota areas to be

addressed in BART mo deling. The factors shown in Table 5 include averages for the adjacen t Class I areas, and are within 0.2 uni ts of th e G u ideline tab l e values for th e individual C l ass I areas.

Natural background conditions as a refere nce for determ ination of the delta-dv change due to a source should be representative of the 20% best natural visibility days. EPA BART guidance provides the 20% best days deciview values for each Class I area on an annual basis, but does not provide sp ecies concen tration data f o r the 20 % best background conditions. These concentrations are needed for input to CALPOST.

Annual species concentrations corres ponding to the 20% best days were

calcu lated for each Class I area to be addressed, by scaling back the annual av erage concentratio ns given in Guidance f o r Estim ating Natural Vis i bility Cond itions Unde r the Regional Haze Rule (Table 2-1 ) . A separate s c aling facto r was deriv e d for each Class I

area su ch th at, when multip lied by the Guidanc e table annu al concen tra tions, the 2 0 % best days deciview value for that area would be calculated. The scaled aeroso l

concentratio ns were averaged for th e Bri dger and Fitzpatrick W A s, an d for W i nd Cave

and Badlan ds NPs, because of their ge ographical pro x im ity and sim ilar annual background visib i lity. The 20% b e st day s ae rosol concen trations to b e used for each month for Wyo m ing BART evaluations are listed in Table 6.

Table 7 is a list of inputs for CALPOST. The s e inputs should be used for all BART visibility calculations. Output from CALPOST shoul d be configured to provide a

ranked lis t o f the highes t delta-deciview values in each Class I area. The 98 th percentile

delta-deciview value an d the num ber of valu es exceeding 0.5 can then be determ ined directly from the CALPOST output.

15Table 5. Monthly f(RH) Factors for Class I Areas

M o n t h W i n d C a v e N P
Badlands NP Bridger W A Fitzpa trick WA Mt. Zirk el WA

J a n u a r y 2

. 6 5 2

. 5 0 2

. 2 0

F e b r u a r y 2

. 6 5 2

. 3 0 2

. 2 0

M a r c h 2

. 6 5 2

. 3 0 2

. 0 0

A p r i l 2

. 5 5 2

. 1 0 2

. 1 0

M a y 2

. 7 0 2

. 1 0 2

. 2 0

J u n e 2

. 6 0 1

. 8 0 1

. 8 0

J u l y 2

. 3 0 1

. 5 0 1

. 7 0

A u g u s t 2

. 3 0 1

. 5 0 1

. 8 0 Septem b e r 2

. 2 0 1

. 8 0 2

. 0 0

O c t o b e r 2

. 2 5 2

. 0 0 1

. 9 0

Nove m b e r 2

. 7 5 2

. 5 0 2

. 1 0

Decem b e r 2

. 6 5 2

. 4 0 2

. 1 0

16Table 6. Na tural Background Concentrations of Aerosol Components fo r 20% Best Days for BART Analyses (μg/m 3 )

Aerosol

Co m ponent W i nd Cave NP

Badlands NP Fitzpa trick WA Bridger W A Mt. Zirk el WA

Ammoniu m Sulfate .047 .045 .046

Ammoniu m Nitrate .040 .038 .038 Organic Carbon .186 .178 .179

Elem ental Carbon .008 .008 .008

S o i l

. 1 9 8

. 1 8 9

. 1 9 0

Coarse Mass 1.191 1.136 1.141

17Table 7. CALPOST Control File Inputs

V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e Input Group 1

A S P E C S p e c i e s t o P r o c e s s V I S I B

I L A Y E R L a y e r / d e p o s i t i o n c o d e 1

A

, B S c a l i n g f a c t o r s 0

, 0

LBACK Add background concentrations? F

BTZONE Base tim e zone 7

LVSO4 Species to b e includ ed in extinction T

L V N O 3 T

L V O C F

L V P M C T

L V P M F T

L V E C F

L V B K I n c l u d e background? T

SPECPMC Species nam e for particu l ates PM10

S P E C P M F P M 2 5

E E P M C E x t i n c t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s 0

. 6

E E P M F 1

. 0

E E P M C B K 0

. 6

E E S O 4 3

. 0

E E N O 3 3

. 0

E E O C 4

. 0

E E S O I L 1

. 0

E E E C 1 0

. 0

M V I S B K V i s i b i l i t y calculation m e t h o d 6

RHFAC Monthly RH adjustm e nt factors Table 5

BKSO4 Background concentrations Table 6

B K N O 3 T a b l e 6

B K P M C T a b l e 6

BK OC Table 6

B K S O I L T a b l e 6

B K E C T a b l e 6

BEXTRAY Extinction due to Rayleigh scattering 10.0

1819 7.0 REPORTING

A report on the BART visibility analysis should be submitted that clearly compares impacts for post-control emissions to those for baseline emissions. Data for

baseline and BART scenarios should include both the 98 th percentile values and the number of days with delta-deciview values exceeding 0.5. Results should be given for each model year.

Table 8 is an example of a recommended format for presentation of model input and model results. The example is for ba seline conditions; similar tables should be provided for each control scenario (SO 2 , NO

x , and PM10) and for the combination of all BART controls. Your report tables need not follow the exact format shown in Table 8; but the same information should be provided in a concise and clear form. If additional scenarios were modeled or you wish to present supplemental information, they should be provided in an appendix or separate from the specified final results.Table 8. Example Format for Presentation of Model Input and ResultsBaseline Conditions Model Input DataSource(Unit)DescriptionAnd IDSO2EmissionRate(lb/day)NOxEmissionRate(lb/day)PM2.5EmissionRate(lb/day)PM10-2.5EmissionRate(lb/day)SO4EmissionRate(lb/day)NH3EmissionRate(lb/day)LocationEastingUTM(m)LocationNorthingUTM(m)StackHeight(m)StackDiameter(m)ExitVelocity(m/s)ExitGasTemp(deg K)Baseline Visibility Modeling Results200120022003Name ofFacilityClass IArea98thPercentileValue(dv)No. ofdaysexceeding0.5 dv98thPercentileValue(dv)No. ofdaysexceeding0.5 dv98thPercentileValue(dv)No. ofdaysexceeding0.5 dv