Identification of Available 

PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technologies 

080828 1-1 

1.0 Identification of Available PM Control Technologies 

1.1 Available PM Control Technologies 

PM control technologies that were identified as available for retrofit at SJGS are 

listed below. Only post-combustion control is available for PM control. A short 

summary of each technology is included in the following sub-sections: 

− Pulse Jet Fabric Filter 

− Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 

1.1.1 Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (PJFF) 

As part of the consent decree environmental upgrade project, a PJFF system will 

be installed on each of the four units at SJGS. The PJFFs will be installed downstream of 

the existing hot-side ESPs and air heaters, and upstream of the wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) system. After the commissioning of the PJFF, the hot-side ESP 

will be de-energized. 

 In addition to particulate removal, the PJFF system being installed is also part of 

the emission control system for Hg emission reduction. Activated carbon will be injected 

into the flue gas downstream of the air heater for adsorption of Hg in the flue gas. The 

PJFF is used to capture the Hg-laden activated carbon and other PM. 

The PJFF outlet will be connected to the existing wet FGD system for SO2

emissions removal from flue gas. The wet FGD system is equipped with mist eliminators 

for the removal of entrained moisture droplet, which might also contain unreacted reagent 

(limestone particle in the slurry) from the FGD or byproduct particulates (calcium sulfite 

or calcium sulfate). These are also known as re-entrained scrubber solids. 

While the control effectiveness of the PJFF is usually defined by vendors at the 

outlet ductwork of the PJFF, the BART determination is based on the control 

effectiveness for particulate matter at the stack outlet. Therefore, the particulate matter 

emission rate has to take into account both the removal efficiency of the PJFF and the 

impacts of the wet FGD operation, where there is a potential for additional re-entrainment 

of scrubber solids into the flue gas, which increases the stack outlet particulate matter 

emission concentration. In this BART determination for particulate matter, the control 

effectiveness defined for the PJFF installed at SJGS for consent decree requirements, 

takes into account the impacts of operating the wet FGD system. The overall particulate 

matter emissions will be the cumulative removal efficiency of the consent decree PJFF 

and the mist eliminators of the wet FGD. 
 Identification of Available 

PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technologies 

080828 1-2 

1.1.2 Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 

A WESP collects particles on the same theoretical basis as a dry ESP: negatively 

charged particles are collected on positively charged surfaces. However, the collecting 

surfaces are wet instead of dry and are flushed with water to remove the particulate. 

Typically, a WESP is installed downstream of an existing wet FGD system where the 

flue gas is already saturated, so the amount of added water is minimized. The particulate 

collection efficiency is enhanced by a lack of re-entrainment after contact with the wet 

walls (as contrasted with re-entrainment due to rapping on a dry ESP). Therefore, the 

WESP can remove fine particulate or acid mist applications because it reduces opacity, 

sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), and other aerosols. 

A WESP can be installed in either horizontal or vertical gas flow orientation. In a 

horizontal gas flow orientation, a WESP is similar to a common dry ESP, and is located 

on the grade elevation of the plant. Vertical gas flow WESPs are usually of the tubular 

collection plate type, and is typically used if installed as part of the wet FGD absorber 

module. Since the existing wet FGD system at SJGS consists of a multiple absorber 

tower arrangement, the vertical flow wet ESP was not selected as it is more suited for 

retrofit on wet FGD systems with a single absorber tower. The horizontal flow wet ESP 

is therefore considered as the baseline design for this analysis. 

The WESP will be installed downstream of the existing wet FGD system with the 

consent decree PJFF in operation to remove a significant amount of particulate matter 

prior to the flue gas entering the wet FGD system. The moisture saturated flue gas at the 

wet FGD outlet will then be flowed through the WESP for additional particulate matter 

removal. In addition to PM, condensible particulate matter (including acid mist), will be 

effectively removed at the WESP. 

An alternative WESP arrangement where it is located upstream of the wet FGD 

system with the consent decree PJFF decommissioned was not considered for the 

following reasons. The inlet ductwork into the WESP would need to have a quenching 

system to saturate flue gas with moisture. The WESP casing would also have to be larger 

as more electrical fields would be needed for the higher particulate loading. A larger 

quantity of collected particulate matter from the WESP would also have to be removed 

from the collector plate wash water. Due to the increase in WESP casing size and retrofit 

complexity of the additional flue gas quenching and wash water treatment system, this 

arrangement for the WESP was not considered. In addition to that, the treated flue gas 

from the WESP will flow through the wet FGD system, where impacts of the wet FGD 

operations, as described in Subsection 1.1.1 will increase the stack outlet PM emission 

concentration. 
 Technical Feasibility of 

PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technologies 

080828 2-1 

2.0 Technical Feasibility of PM Control Technologies 

2.1 Technically Feasible PM Control Technologies 

In the process of eliminating technically infeasible alternatives, it is necessary to 

demonstrate that a technology is not applicable or not available for application at the 

source. This demonstration is made by showing that the technology is commercially 

unavailable and/or there are insurmountable technical difficulties with applying the 

technology to the applicable unit. Other factors that are considered when determining the 

technical feasibility of a technology include the following: 

− Size of the unit. 

− Location of the proposed technology. 

− Operating problems after retrofit of technology. 

− Space constraints. 

− Reliability. 

− Adverse effects on the rest of the facility. 

− Adverse community impacts. 

Additionally, a technology is technically infeasible if its level of emissions control 

does not achieve the required permit emissions limit applied to the source by the 

regulating agency. Finally, if there are multiple control technologies that have an 

equivalent level of control, the BART procedure allows for the consideration of the less 

costly control technology, therefore eliminating the need to evaluate higher cost 

technologies. 

For all the PM control technologies identified as available, a determination was 

made regarding the technical feasibility of the technology at the SJGS site on the basis of 

the criteria highlighted above. 

2.1.1 PJFF 

The PJFF is currently being installed at SJGS for the consent decree 

environmental upgrade project. Therefore, this technology combination is technically 

feasible for the reduction of PM emissions. 

2.1.2 WESP 

The WESP technology is based on the fundamentals of the ESP technology. 

WESP have also been installed in flue gas streams downstream of a Wet FGD for the 

removal of PM. Therefore, this technology is technically feasible. 
T

PNM San Juan Generating Station PM 080828 2.2 Technical Feasibility Summary 

Table 2-1 

Technically Feasible PM Control Technology Alternatives 

Pollutant Philosophy Technology 

Technically Feasible and Applicable? Remarks/Reasons for Techn

PM Control Technologies: PJFF Yes In the process of being insta

Consent Decree with existinoperation. 

 WESP Yes Technically feasible arrange

operating the Consent Decrewet FGD system. 
 Evaluation of Technically Feasible 

PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technology 

080828 3-1 

3.0 Evaluation of Technically Feasible Retrofit PM Emissions 

Control Technologies 

 This section discusses the control effectiveness evaluation of technically feasible 

PM control technologies beyond that achieved currently by the newly installed PJFF for 

the consent decree. 

3.1 Control Effectiveness 

The evaluation process in Step 3 determines the control effectiveness of the 

technically feasible PM control technologies. Control effectiveness is expressed in a 

common metric based on the amount of pollutant generated per unit of heat input 

(lb/MBtu). The evaluation of the control effectiveness was translated into an hourly rate 

(lb/h) for each pollutant, according to the design basis heat input data for each SJGS unit. 

The evaluation of control effectiveness was based on information indicated in Subsection 

1.2.3. 

Table 3-1 indicates the control effectiveness of each PM control technology. This 

control effectiveness was calculated from the consent decree values established for front 

half, filterable particulate matter at 0.015 lb/MBtu. 

The control effectiveness for each technology is also summarized in the Design 

Concept Definition tables in Appendix B. 
Evaluation 

PNM San Juan Generating Station P080828  Table 3-1 

Control Effectiveness for PM Control Technology Alternatives (Annual Average Emissions R

Unit SJGS 1 SJGS 2 SJGS 3 Design Basis Heat Input Data, MBtu/h 

3,707 3,688 5,758 

PM Emissions Cases lb/MBtu lb/h ton/yr lb/MBtu lb/h ton/yr lb/MBtu lb/h ton/yr lb/MPJFF (consent decree) 

0.015 55.6 207 0.015 55.3 207 0.015 86.4 321 0.0

WESP 0.010 37.1 138 0.010 36.9 137 0.010 57.6 214 0.0Notes: 1. Emissions levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on an annual average basis, front-half filterable PM only. 

2. Emissions (lb/h) calculations were based on the emissions level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input. 

3. Emissions levels listed were based on performance guarantees provided by the equipment vendor. 4. Yearly emissions (ton/yr) calculations were based on an annual unit capacity of 85 percent. 
Cost-Effectiveness 

PNM San Juan Generating Station of PM Control Technologies 

080828 4-1 

4.0 Cost-Effectiveness of PM Control Technologies 

This section discusses the cost-effectiveness for PM control technologies considered in 

this BART analysis. 

4.1 Cost-Effectiveness 

 The cost-effectiveness of each control technology was calculated from the cost of 

compliance and the amount of pollutant reduced. The cost-effectiveness is defined as the cost of 

control per amount of pollutant removed. The cost of control takes into account the impact 

analyses performed. The reduced emissions were estimated on a yearly basis according to the 

reduction from the consent decree emissions level shown in Table 3-1. Both the consent decree 

emissions level and the additional control technology alternative emissions level are documented 

in Table 3-1 and in the Design Concept Definition tables (Appendix B). 

 The cost-effectiveness values were based on 2007 dollars. 

4.2 Impact Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Results 

An impact analysis was performed for all the identified technically feasible control 

technologies. A summary of the calculated impact analysis is presented in Appendix C. The 

impact analysis of WESP includes auxiliary energy to power the WESP and fans, and an 

estimate of the additional water consumption requirements when operating the WESP. Water is 

consumed when collector plate wash water is re-entrained into the flue gas flow, as well as waste 

water discharged from WESP through the blow down process to maintain the wash water 

chemical properties. The cost of this impact is significant due to the scarcity of water in the 

region where SJGS is located. 

For all the additional PM control technologies evaluated, a summary table was developed 

for the impact analysis performed and the resultant cost-effectiveness. Table 4-1 presents the 

final evaluations for all four units. The expected post-control emissions levels are also included 

in the table. 
PNM San Juan Generating Station of PM 080828 

Table 4-1 

Impact Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Results of PM Control Technologies 

Total Total

Emission Expected Expected Expected Capital Annualized Incremental

Performance Emission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost 

Level Rate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness 

All Feasible Technologies (lb/MBtu) (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) 

SJGS Unit 1

WESP (see note 8) 0.010 37.1 138 69 99,308 11,855 171,797 PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 55.6 207 -- 67,072 10,427 -- 

SJGS Unit 2

WESP (see note 8) 0.010 36.9 137 69 99,663 11,895 173,265 PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 55.3 206 -- 69,840 10,764 -- 

SJGS Unit 3

WESP (see note 8) 0.010 57.6 214 107 129,565 15,558 145,151 PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 86.4 322 -- 72,696 12,454 -- 

SJGS Unit 4

WESP (see note 8) 0.010 56.5 210 105 130,012 15,609 148,436 PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 84.7 315 -- 73,328 12,527 -- 

Notes:1. All costs are in 2007$.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on 85 percent unit capacity factor (referer to Appendix A Design Basis).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were based on the consent decree upgrades control effectiveness as shown in Table 4

4. TCI and TAC are referenced from Appendix C Cost Analysis Summary.5. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is defined as ratio of TAC over Expected Emission Reduction (ton/yr).6. Expected emission reduction is based on annual emission reduction from consent decree upgrade emission levels (Table 4-1).7. Incremental cost effectiveness are based on increments in expected emission reduction (ton/yr).8. WESP scenario includes operating consent decee PJFF and existing wet FGD system.9. PJFF scenario includes operating existing wet FGD system.
Cost-Effectiveness 

PNM San Juan Generating Station of PM Control Technologies 

080828 4-3 

4.2.1 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison 

The Total Capital Investment (TCI) and Total Annualized Cost (TAC) for the 

consent decree PJFF at SJGS as shown in Table 4-1 are based on the values submitted in 

the June 6, 2007 BART application. The emission performance level of the consent 

decree PJFF at 0.015 lb/MBtu for front-half, filterable PM is the contract guarantee 

emission level for the on-going consent decree required environmental upgrade project at 

SJGS. This emission performance level is based on measuring PM emissions at the 

stack, which takes into account the impacts of operating the wet FGD system downstream 

of the newly-installed consent decree PJFF. The TCI for the consent decree PJFF ranges 

from $67 million to $73 million per SJGS unit. 

The WESP technology when operated downstream of the consent decree PJFF 

and existing wet FGD system will achieve an expected emission performance level of 

0.010 lb/MBtu for front-half, filterable PM. The corresponding TCI for the WESP ranges 

from $99 million to $130 million per SJGS unit. 

The increment cost effectiveness to improve PM emission level from the consent 

decree level of 0.015 lb/MBtu to 0.010 lb/MBtu utilizing the WESP technology in 

addition to operating the consent decree PJFF and wet FGD system ranges from $145 to 

$173 million per additional ton of PM. 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts 

080828 5-1 

5.0 Visibility Impacts 

Visibility impact is the fifth step to consider in the engineering analysis required 

under the EPA BART guidelines. This step addresses the degree of improvement in 

visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of the ‘‘best control 

technology’’ for sources subject to BART. Visibility impact analysis is achieved through 

a two phase process. First, the model was run using the pre-BART conditions to 

establish a baseline. For this analysis, the baseline consisted of the technologies and unit 

operations associated with the consent degree. Second, model runs were conducted for 

the WESP PM control technology identified for each unit during the BART engineering 

analysis. 

In the June 18, 2008 meeting between the Public Service Company of New 

Mexico (PNM), Black & Veatch (B&V), and the New Mexico Environment Department 

– Air Quality Bureau (NMED), the NMED requested additional analyses be performed 

for the particulate control technology that could meet a lower limit than 0.015 lb/MBtu. 

The objective of this modeling analysis is to evaluate visibility impacts for the WESP 

control technology selected using the first four steps of the BART analysis (as discussed 

in the previous sections) for PNM’s SJGS Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. The following sections 

discuss the modeling methodology in greater detail. 

 

5.1 Visibility Analysis 

Subsequent to the June 6, 2007 submittal, PNM further investigated additional 

refinements to the BART CALPUFF air dispersion modeling analyses which included 

nitrate repartitioning and more realistic ammonia background concentrations based on 

monitored values at several western Class I areas. These additional modeling options are 

considered more realistic and therefore will again form the basis of this analysis. 

To date, PNM has previously submitted four BART modeling analyses in addition 

to the additional Nalco Mobotec analyses being submitted separately but coincident with 

this analysis. To clarify the contents of these analyses, as well as for this submittal, a 

summary of each has been provided: 

June 6, 2007

Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze 

(visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analyses were based on a constant 1 ppb 

background ammonia concentration and no nitrate repartitioning. The NOx control 

technologies analyzed were the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and SNCR/SCR 

Hybrid. 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts 

080828 5-2 

November 6, 2007

Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze 

(visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analysis was based on refinements which 

included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable 

background ammonia concentrations. Again, the NOx control technologies analyzed 

were the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid. 

March 31, 2008

Two main modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit 

specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the SCR NOx control 

technology only. One of the analyses, believed to be the more representative of 

ammonia chemistry of the area, was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements 

which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable 

background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses included nitrate 

repartitioning and a constant background ammonia concentration as requested by the 

NMED. 

May 30, 2008

Two modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific 

regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NOx control 

technology only. Similar to the March 31, 2008 analyses, one of the analyses was 

based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using the nitrate 

repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia 

concentrations. The other analyses included nitrate repartitioning and a constant 

background ammonia concentration. It should be noted that all vendors of SNCR 

(including Fuel Tech and Nalco Mobotec) have been modeled together as one 

technology called SNCR. This is the same approach that is used for modeling SCR 

control technology, where all vendors are modeled generically as SCR. 

August 29, 2008

Four modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific 

regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the ROFA with Rotamix, 

Rotamix, and ROFA NOx and WESP PM control technologies (the NOx and PM 

analyses were submitted separately. Similar to the May 30, 2008 analyses, these 

analyses were also based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts 

080828 5-3 

the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia 

concentrations. 

The modeling refinements contained in this submittal using nitrate repartitioning 

and the variable ammonia background as well as the previous November 2007, March 

2008, and May 30, 2008 submittals supersedes the original June 2007 BART modeling 

analyses as PNM believes these analyses are more representative of regional conditions 

in the modeling domain, as well as, allow for a more representative visibility analysis. 

Information pertinent to these two refinements has been included in detail in the previous 

four submittals. Furthermore, at the June 18, 2008 meeting NMED indicated that based 

on a current ammonia monitoring study conducted by Mark E. Sather of EPA Region VI, 

the previous analyses provided utilizing the variable ammonia were representative of the 

surrounding background. Therefore, no other analyses were performed using nitrate 

repartitioning and constant background ammonia. 

5.2 Visibility Summary

 Based on the refinements methodology consisting of representative background 

ammonia concentrations and nitrate repartitioning, CALPUFF visibility modeling was 

performed for three cases; pre-consent decree, consent decree (which represents SJGS’s 

BART baseline scenario), and WESP PM control technology scenarios. The modeling 

summarized in this report is for the SJGS on a plant-wide basis and for each of the four 

SJGS units on an individual unit basis. It is important to note that all other modeling 

options as described in the BART application were unchanged. For simplicity, the 

following results discuss the differences between the consent decree scenario and the 

WESP control technology scenarios. Additionally, the updated NPS particulate 

speciation is contained in Appendix D, the stack outlet conditions are contained in 

Appendix E, and the visibility modeling results are contained in Appendix F. 

5.2.1 SJGS Facility Visibility Summary with Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable 

Ammonia 

The results of the refined visibility modeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the 

same control technology is installed on all four units, are illustrated in Tables 1 through 4 

of Appendix F. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility 

(deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 

period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates a 

minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts 

080828 5-4 

areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario, with the exception of 

Mesa Verde, which shows a visibility improvement of 0.62 dv.

 The maximum visibility (deciview) improvement seen at any of the 16 Class I 

areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 4 for each scenario. 

The expected degree of visibility improvement for each control scenario for each unit (on 

a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility 

improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas. Again, it is important 

to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the 

SJGS’s baseline case, as well as the baseline case for the individual unit analyses 

described later. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness for the potential BART control 

technologies from the BART application were used to calculate visibility improvement 

cost-effectiveness in $/deciview ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the 

visibility improvement cost effectiveness summary in Table 4 for each control 

technology: 

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree. 

• Consent decree to additional WESP control technology alternative scenario. 

• Pre-consent decree to additional WESP control technology alternative scenario. 

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the 

WESP control technology scenario range from 0.02 dv to 0.62 dv of expected visibility 

improvement above the consent decree scenario. 

The results indicate that adding additional WESP control technology beyond the 

consent decree does yield visibility improvement greater than 0.5 dv at the Mesa Verde 

Class I area. However, this visibility improvement is an isolated incident as no other 

Class I area’s visibility improvement is greater than 0.5 dv. The next highest visibility 

improvement is 0.14 dv. 

Based on the visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated 

in the impact analysis stage of the BART application document, the cost-effectiveness for 

visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determined 

for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visibility improvement. The resulting cost for 

installation of WESP control technology for all four units ranges from $2,496 million/dv 

to $89 million/dv. 

Appendix F contains a SJGS plant-wide summary of the 98th percentile visibility 

impact for the WESP modeled technology scenarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent 

Decree, and WESP scenario), provides information on the number of days above 0.5 dv 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts 

080828 5-5 

threshold for specific scenarios, and indicates the contribution of each 

pollutant associated with the 98th percentile visibility impact for each class I area. 

5.2.2 Unit Specific Visibility Summary with Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable 

Ammonia 

The results of the refined visibility modeling for Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 

are illustrated in Tables 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, and 17-20 of Appendix F, respectively. These 

tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any 

of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen 

for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde represent the maximum 

visibility impact at any of the 16 Class I areas. In addition, this analysis indicates a 

minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I 

areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario. 

The maximum visibility (deciview) improvement seen at any of the 16 Class I 

areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 8, 12, 16, and 20. 

Again, the expected degree of visibility improvement for each control scenario for each 

unit was determined by the difference between the consent decree’s maximum visibility 

improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas and the specific WESP 

control technology scenario’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each 

of the sixteen Class areas. Furthermore, the same methodology previously described for 

the SJGS’s cost-effectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each unit. 

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the 

WESP control scenario for each unit are similar to that of the combined SJGS. The 

visibility improvements for each scenario are summarized below. 

WESP

• Unit 1 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.07 dv 

• Unit 2 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.07 dv 

• Unit 3 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.21 dv 

• Unit 4 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.21 dv 

The results again indicate that adding additional PM control technology beyond 

the consent decree consisting of WESPs does not yield visibility improvement greater 

than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. Based on the visibility improvement modeled and the 

total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART application 

document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per 

improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determined for each unit for each Class I area. The 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts 

080828 5-6 

resulting cost for installation of additional control technology for each unit is summarized 

below. 

WESP

• Unit 1 cost range is $2,964 million/dv to $174 million/dv. 

• Unit 2 cost range is $2,974 million/dv to $172 million/dv. 

• Unit 3 cost range is $2,222 million/dv to $76 million/dv. 

• Unit 4 cost range is $3,902 million/dv to $75 million/dv. 

Appendix F also includes a unit specific summary of the 98th percentile visibility 

impact for the three modeled technology scenarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent 

Decree, WESP scenarios), includes the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold for 

specific scenarios, and indicates the contribution of each pollutant associated with 

the 98th percentile visibility impact for each class I area. 
 

PNM San Juan Generating Station Conclusion 

080828 6-1 

6.0 Conclusion 

As noted in this document, PNM’s further investigation of additional refinements 

to the June 2007 BART CALPUFF air dispersion modeling analyses to yield more 

realistic regional haze impacts was warranted. These analyses included nitrate 

repartitioning and more realistic ammonia background concentrations based on 

monitored values at several western Class I areas, as well as, the additional ammonia 

study being conducted by EPA in New Mexico. The conclusion of this study re-iterates 

and further supports the overall findings of the original June 2007, as well as, the three 

aforementioned additional submittals, that installation of additional WESP PM control 

technology systems at the SJGS provide minimal visibility improvements and would 

require significant capital expenditure and modifications that will impact many areas of 

the plant including boiler draft systems and ash handling. The results from the analyses 

further substantiate that the addition of WESP PM control technology does not yield a 

benefit nor meet the intended goal of BART. Specifically, these analyses indicate: 

• The addition of WESP PM control technology on a plant-wide or individual unit 

basis shows less than a 0.5 dv improvement for all Class I areas including the four 

Class I areas located in New Mexico. (Plant wide showed a 0.62 dv improvement 

at Mesa Verde.) 

• The minimal visibility improvements discussed in this document do not merit the 

large capital expenditure required to install WESP PM control technology. Both 

the total annual costs evaluated and the cost-effectiveness ($/dv) are extremely 

prohibitive given the minimal improvements realized. 

Therefore, as previously noted, given the minimal visibility improvement to the 

class I areas in the BART analysis, the recommended PM BART control for SJGS is the 

PJFF. 
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix A 

080828 A-1 

Appendix A 

(Previously Submitted in June 6, 2007 BART Analysis) 
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix B 

080828 B-1 

Appendix B 

Design Concept Definitions 
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix B 

080828 B-2 

Design Concept Definition 

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 

Client Name PNM Process Technology Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (PJFF) 

Process Description PJFF for particulate matter removal upstream of Wet FGD system. This is the process technology applied to meet Consent Decree 

requirements. 

 Pollutant PM (Unit 1) PM (Unit 2) PM (Unit 3) PM (Unit 4) 

 Inlet Emissions 

 lb/MBtu 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 

 lb/h 65,144 64,810 101,187 99,271 

 Controlled Emissions 

 lb/MBtu 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 

 lb/h 55.6 55.3 86.4 84.7 

 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 1,571,717 1,563,662 2,441,313 2,395,099 

 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA 

 Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous 

 Capacity Factor 85.0% 

Consumables Reagent None. 

 Energy (kW) 4,488 4,488 6,895 6,895 

 Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. 

Byproduct Description None. 

 Other None. 

Location of Major Process Equipment PJFF casing located in back-end of plant. Refer to Consent Decree environmental upgrade 

project plant arrangement. 

Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Inlet ductwork connection downstream of de-energize hot-side ESP and outlet ductwork 

connection upstream of modified ID fan inlet. 

Reagent Storage None. 

Control System Modifications PJFF control system tie into plant control system. 

Fan Modifications ID fan modifications. 

Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications Minor aux electric system modification required for PJFF and ID fans. 

Enclosures Requirements Enclosures included with PJFF casing required. 

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwork for retrofit, demolition and relocation of existing site 

structures/equipment to locate PJFF casing and ductwork routing. 

Major Constructability Issues Accessibility to the back-end area of the plant. 

Significant Issues or Challenges None. 

Other Assumptions 

• No major impact on plant availability. 

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Retrofit project is completed/in progress as part of the Consent Decree environmental upgrade project.

State of Availability Available. 

State of Applicability Applicable. 

Technical Feasibility Currently installed or under construction. 
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix B 

080828 B-3 

 Design Concept Definition 

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 

Client Name PNM Process Technology Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 

Process Description Install a WESP downstream of Wet FGD for additional particulate matter collection. 

 Pollutant PM (Unit 1) PM (Unit 2) PM (Unit 3) PM (Unit 4) 

 Inlet Emissions 

 lb/MBtu 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 

 lb/h 55.6 55.3 86.4 84.7 

 Controlled Emissions 

 lb/MBtu 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 

 lb/h 37.1 36.9 57.6 56.5 

 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 1,323,494 1,316,710 2,055,753 2,016,837 

 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA 

 Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous 

 Capacity Factor 85.0% 

Consumables Make-up Water (gpm) 100 100 100 100 

 Energy (kW) 1,112 1,112 1,728 1,728 

 Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. 

Byproduct Description None. 

 Other None. 

Location of Major Process Equipment Conceptual layout of WESP at the back-end of plant, in the same general location as consent

decree PJFF. 

Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Inlet ductwork connection downstream of Wet FGD and outlet ductwork connection into stack 

breeching. 

Reagent Storage None. 

Control System Modifications New stand-alone control system, tie in to plant DCS control system. 

Fan Modifications FGD booster fan modifications required to overcome additional pressure drop. 

Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications Aux electric system modification required for WESP electrical systems and FGD booster fan 

modifications. 

Enclosures Requirements Enclosures included with WESP casing required. 

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwork for retrofit, demolition and relocation of existing site 

structures/equipment to locate WESP casing and ductwork routing. 

Major Constructability Issues Accessibility to the back-end area of the plant. 

Significant Issues or Challenges None. 

Other Assumptions 

• No major impact in plant availability. 

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Demolition and relocation of existing site structures/equipment are based on a conceptual layout approach. 

State of Availability Available. 

State of Applicability Applicable. 

Technical Feasibility Technically feasible. 
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-4 

Appendix C 

Cost Analysis Summary 
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-5 

Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $9,020,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork $812,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling system scope $1,155,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan modifications $3,434,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant modifications $3,938,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $18,359,000

Gross Receipt Tax $2,855,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $21,214,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $7,543,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork construction cost $10,958,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling construction cost $475,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan construction cost $1,283,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant construction cost $8,099,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $28,358,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $49,572,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,304,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Owner's cost $1,479,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Construction management $4,957,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $744,000 (DC) X 1.5%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $3,289,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $12,873,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $4,627,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $67,072,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,487,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,487,000

Variable annual costs

Bag replacement cost $296,000 2,957 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements

Cage replacement cost $74,000 1,478 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements

ID fan power $1,828,000 4,028 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H2O d.p.

Auxiliary power $209,000 460 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $2,407,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,894,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $6,533,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $6,533,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $10,427,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-6 

Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $8,658,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork $904,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling system scope $1,155,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan modifications $3,434,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant modifications $4,072,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $18,223,000

Gross Receipt Tax $2,977,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $21,200,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $7,412,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork construction cost $13,335,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling construction cost $472,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan construction cost $1,283,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant construction cost $8,139,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $30,641,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $51,841,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,238,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Owner's cost $1,541,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Construction management $5,184,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $778,000 (DC) X 1.5%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $3,340,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $13,181,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $4,818,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $69,840,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,555,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,555,000

Variable annual costs

Bag replacement cost $296,000 2,957 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements

Cage replacement cost $74,000 1,478 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements

ID fan power $1,828,000 4,028 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H2O d.p.

Auxiliary power $209,000 460 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $2,407,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,962,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $6,802,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $6,802,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $10,764,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-7 

Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $10,901,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork $1,364,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling system scope $977,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan modifications $2,871,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant modifications $4,733,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $20,846,000

Gross Receipt Tax $3,183,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $24,029,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $11,089,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork construction cost $9,007,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling construction cost $706,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan construction cost $1,403,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant construction cost $9,286,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $31,491,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $55,520,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,535,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Owner's cost $1,655,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Construction management $5,552,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $833,000 (DC) X 1.5%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $1,486,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $12,161,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $5,015,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $72,696,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,666,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,666,000

Variable annual costs

Bag replacement cost $462,000 4,620 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements

Cage replacement cost $116,000 2,310 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements

ID fan power $2,856,000 6,294 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H2O d.p.

Auxiliary power $273,000 601 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $3,707,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $5,373,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $7,081,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $7,081,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $12,454,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-8 

Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $12,572,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork $1,479,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling system scope $932,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan modifications $2,870,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant modifications $5,040,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $22,893,000

Gross Receipt Tax $3,212,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $26,105,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $10,937,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ductwork construction cost $7,946,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Ash handling construction cost $685,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Booster fan construction cost $1,406,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Balance of plant construction cost $8,856,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $29,830,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $55,935,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,645,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Owner's cost $1,670,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Construction management $5,594,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $839,000 (DC) X 1.5%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $1,486,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $12,334,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $5,059,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $73,328,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,678,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,678,000

Variable annual costs

Bag replacement cost $462,000 4,620 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements

Cage replacement cost $116,000 2,310 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements

ID fan power $2,856,000 6,294 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H2O d.p.

Auxiliary power $273,000 601 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $3,707,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $5,385,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $7,142,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $7,142,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $12,527,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-9 

Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 1 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $19,289,000 from B&V reference cost database

penthouse blower & heater, access provisions

Ductwork $812,000 from B&V reference cost database

Booster fans $2,400,000 from B&V reference cost database

Electrical system upgrades $2,318,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $24,819,000

Instrumentation and controls $1,539,000 (CC) X 6.2%

Freight $1,241,000 (CC) X 5.0%

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $27,599,000

Direct installation costs

Foundation & supports $8,280,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Handling & erection $8,280,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Electrical $4,140,000 (PEC) X 15.0%

Piping $828,000 (PEC) X 3.0%

Insulation $552,000 (PEC) X 2.0%

Painting $276,000 (PEC) X 1.0%

Demolition $8,280,000 (PEC) X 30.00%

Relocation $2,760,000 (PEC) X 10.00%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $33,396,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate

Buildings $0 N/A

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $61,995,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $4,340,000 (DC) X 7.0%

Owner's cost $3,100,000 (DC) X 5.0%

Construction management $6,200,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $1,240,000 (DC) X 2.0%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $12,399,000 (DC) X 20.0%

Total indirect costs (IC) $27,379,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $9,934,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $99,308,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance materials and labor $1,860,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level

Total fixed annual costs $1,960,000

Variable annual costs

Auxiliary power $113,000 248 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

ID fan power $392,000 864 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level

Total variable annual costs $520,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,480,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $9,375,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $9,375,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $11,855,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-10 

Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 2 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $19,289,000 from B&V reference cost database

penthouse blower & heater, access provisions

Ductwork $904,000 from B&V reference cost database

Booster fans $2,400,000 from B&V reference cost database

Electrical system upgrades $2,318,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $24,911,000

Instrumentation and controls $1,544,000 (CC) X 6.2%

Freight $1,246,000 (CC) X 5.0%

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $27,701,000

Direct installation costs

Foundation & supports $8,310,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Handling & erection $8,310,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Electrical $4,155,000 (PEC) X 15.0%

Piping $831,000 (PEC) X 3.0%

Insulation $554,000 (PEC) X 2.0%

Painting $277,000 (PEC) X 1.0%

Demolition $8,310,000 (PEC) X 30.00%

Relocation $2,770,000 (PEC) X 10.00%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $33,517,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate

Buildings $0 N/A

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $62,218,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $4,355,000 (DC) X 7.0%

Owner's cost $3,111,000 (DC) X 5.0%

Construction management $6,222,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $1,244,000 (DC) X 2.0%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $12,444,000 (DC) X 20.0%

Total indirect costs (IC) $27,476,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $9,969,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $99,663,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance materials and labor $1,867,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level

Total fixed annual costs $1,967,000

Variable annual costs

Auxiliary power $113,000 248 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

ID fan power $392,000 864 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level

Total variable annual costs $520,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,487,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $9,408,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $9,408,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $11,895,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-11 

Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 3 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $25,123,000 from B&V reference cost database

penthouse blower & heater, access provisions

Ductwork $1,364,000 from B&V reference cost database

Booster fans $3,600,000 from B&V reference cost database

Electrical system upgrades $2,427,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $32,514,000

Instrumentation and controls $2,016,000 (CC) X 6.2%

Freight $1,626,000 (CC) X 5.0%

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $36,156,000

Direct installation costs

Foundation & supports $10,847,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Handling & erection $10,847,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Electrical $5,423,000 (PEC) X 15.0%

Piping $1,085,000 (PEC) X 3.0%

Insulation $723,000 (PEC) X 2.0%

Painting $362,000 (PEC) X 1.0%

Demolition $10,847,000 (PEC) X 30.00%

Relocation $3,616,000 (PEC) X 10.00%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $43,750,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate

Buildings $0 N/A

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $80,906,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $5,663,000 (DC) X 7.0%

Owner's cost $4,045,000 (DC) X 5.0%

Construction management $8,091,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $1,618,000 (DC) X 2.0%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $16,181,000 (DC) X 20.0%

Total indirect costs (IC) $35,698,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $12,961,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $129,565,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance materials and labor $2,427,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level

Total fixed annual costs $2,527,000

Variable annual costs

Auxiliary power $175,000 386 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

ID fan power $610,000 1,342 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level

Total variable annual costs $800,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,327,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $12,231,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $12,231,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $15,558,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C 

080828 C-12 

Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 4 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST

Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $25,123,000 from B&V reference cost database

penthouse blower & heater, access provisions

Ductwork $1,479,000 from B&V reference cost database

Booster fans $3,600,000 from B&V reference cost database

Electrical system upgrades $2,427,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $32,629,000

Instrumentation and controls $2,023,000 (CC) X 6.2%

Freight $1,631,000 (CC) X 5.0%

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $36,283,000

Direct installation costs

Foundation & supports $10,885,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Handling & erection $10,885,000 (PEC) X 30.0%

Electrical $5,442,000 (PEC) X 15.0%

Piping $1,088,000 (PEC) X 3.0%

Insulation $726,000 (PEC) X 2.0%

Painting $363,000 (PEC) X 1.0%

Demolition $10,885,000 (PEC) X 30.00%

Relocation $3,628,000 (PEC) X 10.00%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $43,902,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate

Buildings $0 N/A

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $81,185,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $5,683,000 (DC) X 7.0%

Owner's cost $4,059,000 (DC) X 5.0%

Construction management $8,119,000 (DC) X 10.0%

Start-up and spare parts $1,624,000 (DC) X 2.0%

Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate

Contingencies $16,237,000 (DC) X 20.0%

Total indirect costs (IC) $35,822,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $13,005,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $130,012,000

ANNUAL COST

Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance materials and labor $2,436,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level

Total fixed annual costs $2,536,000

Variable annual costs

Auxiliary power $175,000 386 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

ID fan power $610,000 1,342 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level

Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level

Total variable annual costs $800,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,336,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $12,273,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life

Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $12,273,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $15,609,000
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix D 

080828 D-1 

Appendix D 

NPS Particulate Speciation for the WESP
Unit 1 Baseline (Consent Decree)

Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 9,692 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.77 % and an ash content of 21.29 % and a heat input 3,707 mmBtu/hr and f(RH) = 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 10 0.020 0.016 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.004 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-6.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) 

PC-DB 0.813 0.426 0.213 0.6 0.213 0.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) 

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 70.8 37.1 18.5 0.6 18.5 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.8 27.0 SO4 3 6.8 

Weighted Extinction 11.1 17.8 6.9 81.0 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Blac

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensib

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% 

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 70.8 37.1 18.5 0.6 18.5 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.8 27.0 SO4 3 6.8 

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Coarse 26.2% Coarse 18.5Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 17.8Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 0.7CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 27.0CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 6.8

100.0% 70.8

Unit 1
Unit 1

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile

26.2%

25.2%

1.0%

38.1%

9.5%
Unit 1

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)

18.5

17.8

0.7

27.0

6.8
PC with FGD + Fabric Filter

from AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size

(um) FF (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 92% 100% 10-6 6.0

6 77% 84% 6-2.5 9.7

2.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 8.9

1.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 2.4

1 25% 27% 1.0-625 4.4

0.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 5.6

CALPUFF Filterable Filterable

Particle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)

8 10-6 16% 6.0 0.6 0.76

4.25 6-2.5 26% 9.7 0.6 1.22 42% Coarse >/1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 8.9 1 1.12 58% Fine Soil <1.25 1.25-1 7% 2.4 1 0.30

0.813 1.6-25 12% 4.4 1 0.560.625 0.625-0 15% 5.6 1 0.62

10 0.09 3.7% of Fine is 

Totals 100% 37.1 4.67

Unit 1
Unit 1

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM

16%

26%

24%

7%

12%

15%
Unit 1

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size R

6.0

9.7

8.9

2.4

4.4

5.6
Unit 2 Baseline (Consent Decree)

Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 9,692 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.77 % and an ash content of 21.29 % and a heat input 3,688 mmBtu/hr and f(RH) = 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 10 0.020 0.016 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.004 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-6.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) 

PC-DB 0.813 0.426 0.213 0.6 0.213 0.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) 

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 70.5 36.9 18.4 0.6 18.4 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.6 26.9 SO4 3 6.7 

Weighted Extinction 11.1 17.8 6.8 80.6 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Blac

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensib

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% 

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 70.5 36.9 18.4 0.6 18.4 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.6 26.9 SO4 3 6.7 

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Coarse 26.2% Coarse 18.4Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 17.8Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 0.7CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 26.9CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 6.7

100.0% 70.5

Unit 2
Unit 2

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile

26.2%

25.2%

1.0%

38.1%

9.5%
Unit 2

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)

18.4

17.8

0.7

26.9

6.7
PC with FGD + Fabric Filter

from AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size

(um) FF (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 92% 100% 10-6 6.0

6 77% 84% 6-2.5 9.6

2.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 8.8

1.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 2.4

1 25% 27% 1.0-625 4.4

0.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 5.6

CALPUFF Filterable Filterable

Particle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)

8 10-6 16% 6.0 0.6 0.76

4.25 6-2.5 26% 9.6 0.6 1.21 42% Coarse >/1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 8.8 1 1.11 58% Fine Soil <1.25 1.25-1 7% 2.4 1 0.30

0.813 1.6-25 12% 4.4 1 0.560.625 0.625-0 15% 5.6 1 0.62

10 0.09 3.7% of Fine is 

Totals 100% 36.9 4.65

Unit 2
Unit 2

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM

16%

26%

24%

7%

12%

15%
Unit 2

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size R

6.0

9.6

8.8

2.4

4.4

5.6
Unit 3 Baseline (Consent Decree)

Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 9,692 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.77 % and an ash content of 21.29 % and a heat input 5,758 mmBtu/hr and f(RH) = 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 10 0.020 0.016 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.004 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-6.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) 

PC-DB 0.813 0.426 0.213 0.6 0.213 0.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) 

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 110.0 57.6 28.8 0.6 28.8 27.7 1 1.1 10 52.4 41.9 SO4 3 10.5 

Weighted Extinction 17.3 27.7 10.7 125.8 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Blac

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensib

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% 

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 110.0 57.6 28.8 0.6 28.8 27.7 1 1.1 10 52.4 41.9 SO4 3 10.5 

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Coarse 26.2% Coarse 28.8Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 27.7Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 1.1CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 41.9CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 10.5

100.0% 110.0

Unit 3
Unit 3

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile

26.2%

25.2%

1.0%

38.1%

9.5%
Unit 3

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)

28.8

27.7

1.1

41.9

10.5
PC with FGD + Fabric Filter

from AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size

(um) FF (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 92% 100% 10-6 9.4

6 77% 84% 6-2.5 15.0

2.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 13.8

1.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 3.8

1 25% 27% 1.0-625 6.9

0.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 8.8

CALPUFF Filterable Filterable

Particle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)

8 10-6 16% 9.4 0.6 1.18

4.25 6-2.5 26% 15.0 0.6 1.89 42% Coarse >/1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 13.8 1 1.74 58% Fine Soil <1.25 1.25-1 7% 3.8 1 0.47

0.813 1.6-25 12% 6.9 1 0.870.625 0.625-0 15% 8.8 1 0.97

10 0.13 3.7% of Fine is 

Totals 100% 57.6 7.26

Unit 3
Unit 3

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM

16%

26%

24%

7%

12%

15%
Unit 3

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size R

9.4

15.0

13.8

3.8

6.9

8.8
Unit 4 Baseline (Consent Decree)

Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of 9,692 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.77 % and an ash content of 21.29 % and a heat input 5,649 mmBtu/hr and f(RH) = 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 10 0.020 0.016 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.004 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Values from Table 1.1-6.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) 

PC-DB 0.813 0.426 0.213 0.6 0.213 0.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 

Controlled PM10 Emissions

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) 

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 107.9 56.5 28.2 0.6 28.2 27.2 1 1.0 10 51.4 41.1 SO4 3 10.3 

Weighted Extinction 16.9 27.2 10.5 123.4 

If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold values from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Blac

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensib

PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7% 80.0% SO4 3 20.0% 

(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.

96.3% 1 3.7% 10

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) 

PC-DB 107.9 56.5 28.2 0.6 28.2 27.2 1 1.0 10 51.4 41.1 SO4 3 10.3 

If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:

Controlled PM10 Emissions (Bold Value is Input by user.)

Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR 

Type (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) 

PC-DB 0.02 0.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 

Coarse 26.2% Coarse 28.2Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 27.2Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 1.0CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 41.1CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 10.3

100.0% 107.9

Unit 4
Unit 4

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile

26.2%

25.2%

1.0%

38.1%

9.5%
Unit 4

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)

28.2

27.2

1.0

41.1

10.3
PC with FGD + Fabric Filter

from AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputs filterable emission rate in lb/hr)

Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle Emissions

Size < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size

(um) FF (%) (um) (lb/hr)

10 92% 100% 10-6 9.2

6 77% 84% 6-2.5 14.7

2.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 13.5

1.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 3.7

1 25% 27% 1.0-625 6.8

0.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 8.6

CALPUFF Filterable Filterable

Particle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction Emissions

Size (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)

8 10-6 16% 9.2 0.6 1.16

4.25 6-2.5 26% 14.7 0.6 1.86 42% Coarse >/1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 13.5 1 1.70 58% Fine Soil <1.25 1.25-1 7% 3.7 1 0.46

0.813 1.6-25 12% 6.8 1 0.850.625 0.625-0 15% 8.6 1 0.95

10 0.13 3.7% of Fine is 

Totals 100% 56.5 7.12

Unit 4
Unit 4

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM

16%

26%

24%

7%

12%

15%
Unit 4

Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size R

9.2

14.7

13.5

3.7

6.8

8.6
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix E 

080828 E-1 

Appendix E 

Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling 
PNM San Juan Generating Station 

080828 

SJGS Unit 1, Heat Input (HHV) = 3,707 MBtu/hrStack Outlet Conditions Flow (acfm) Stack Velocity (ft/s) Temperature (°F) Pressure (in, wg) NOx (lb/MBtu) NOx (lb/hr) SO2 (lb/MBtu) SO2 (lb/hr) PM (lb/MBtu) PM (lb/hr) SO3 (lb/MB

Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,406,021 74 145.00 -0.20 0.43 1,592.0 0.24 877.8 0.050 185.4 0.013 Visibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,323,494 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 With additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 1,323,494 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.010 37.1 0.007 Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3 emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).

9. SO3 emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.

10. SO3 emissions for the additional NOx control technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2 to SO3 conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2 levels) and 0% SO3 removal in PJFF.

11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 1

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering Analysis

Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7
PNM San Juan Generating Station 

080828 

SJGS Unit 2, Heat Input (HHV) = 3,688 MBtu/hrStack Outlet Conditions Flow (acfm) Stack Velocity (ft/s) Temperature (°F) Pressure (in, wg) NOx (lb/MBtu) NOx (lb/hr) SO2 (lb/MBtu) SO2 (lb/hr) PM (lb/MBtu) PM (lb/hr) SO3 (lb/MB

Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,444,718 77 148.00 -0.16 0.45 1,649.3 0.23 844.0 0.050 184.4 0.013 Visibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 With additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.010 36.9 0.007 Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3 emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).

9. SO3 emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.

10. SO3 emissions for the additional NOx control technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2 to SO3 conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2 levels) and 0% SO3 removal in PJFF.

11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 2

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering Analysis

Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7
PNM San Juan Generating Station 

080828 

SJGS Unit 3, Heat Input (HHV) = 5,758 MBtu/hrStack Outlet Conditions Flow (acfm) Stack Velocity (ft/s) Temperature (°F) Pressure (in, wg) NOx (lb/MBtu) NOx (lb/hr) SO2 (lb/MBtu) SO2 (lb/hr) PM (lb/MBtu) PM (lb/hr) SO3 (lb/MB

Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,075,452 56 143.00 -0.22 0.42 2,405.5 0.28 1,591.1 0.050 287.9 0.013 Visibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 With additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.010 57.6 0.007 Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3 emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).

9. SO3 emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.

10. SO3 emissions for the additional NOx control technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2 to SO3 conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2 levels) and 0% SO3 removal in PJFF.

11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 3

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering Analysis

Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7
PNM San Juan Generating Station 

080828 

SJGS Unit 4, Heat Input (HHV) = 5,649 MBtu/hrStack Outlet Conditions Flow (acfm) Stack Velocity (ft/s) Temperature (°F) Pressure (in, wg) NOx (lb/MBtu) NOx (lb/hr) SO2 (lb/MBtu) SO2 (lb/hr) PM (lb/MBtu) PM (lb/hr) SO3 (lb/MB

Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,093,240 57 137.00 -0.21 0.42 2,399.6 0.29 1,662.4 0.050 282.5 0.013 Visibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 With additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.010 56.5 0.007 Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3 emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).

9. SO3 emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.

10. SO3 emissions for the additional NOx control technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2 to SO3 conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2 levels) and 0% SO3 removal in PJFF.

11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 4

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering Analysis

Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7
PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix F 

080828 F-1 

Appendix F 

Visibility Modeling Result Tables 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F1 of F21 

Appendix F 

Visibility Modeling Result Tables 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F2 of F21 

Table 1 

Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 

Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 

Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 

Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 

Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 

Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 

Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 

La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 

Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 

Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 

Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 

Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 

San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 

West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 

Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 

Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 

Overall 1.53 4.85 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F3 of F21 

Table 2 

Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 

Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 

Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 

Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 

Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 

Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 

Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 

La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 

Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 

Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 

Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 

Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 

San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 

West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 

Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 

Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 

Overall 1.24 3.80 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F4 of F21 

Table 3 

WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Facility 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 1.63 1.61 1.45 1.56 1.63 

Bandelier 1.01 1.50 1.12 1.21 1.50 

Black Canyon 0.92 1.12 1.04 1.03 1.12 

Canyonlands 2.17 1.69 1.60 1.82 2.17 

Capitol Reef 1.71 0.79 1.02 1.17 1.71 

Grand Canyon 0.95 0.74 0.54 0.74 0.95 

Great Sand Dunes 0.61 0.69 0.62 0.64 0.69 

La Garita 0.83 0.90 0.85 0.86 0.90 

Maroon Bells 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.52 0.54 

Mesa Verde 2.71 3.18 2.92 2.94 3.18 

Pecos 1.01 1.07 0.97 1.02 1.07 

Petrified Forest 0.79 0.58 0.51 0.63 0.79 

San Pedro 1.30 1.87 1.49 1.55 1.87 

West Elk 0.78 0.88 0.79 0.82 0.88 

Weminuche 1.10 1.39 1.30 1.26 1.39 

Wheeler Peak 0.73 0.83 0.84 0.80 0.84 

Overall 1.16 3.18 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F5 of F21 

Table 4

SJGS Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Re

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($

(98th Percentile, see Note 1)

Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for 

each Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)

Class 1 Area

Pre-Consent 

Decree Consent Decree WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Consent Decree

Consent Decree 

to WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to Consent 

Decree

Consent Decree 

WESP

Arches 1.92 1.69 1.63 0.23 0.06 0.29 201,624,454 871,698,413 Bandelier 1.86 1.56 1.50 0.31 0.06 0.36 150,397,394 998,490,909 Black Canyon 1.40 1.15 1.12 0.26 0.03 0.28 181,066,667 1,961,321,42Canyonlands 2.59 2.26 2.17 0.33 0.10 0.42 142,067,692 572,052,083 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.81 1.71 0.16 0.10 0.26 286,782,609 554,717,172 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.97 0.95 0.17 0.02 0.19 273,207,101 2,288,208,33Great Sand Dunes 1.00 0.71 0.69 0.29 0.02 0.31 160,878,049 2,745,850,00La Garita 1.30 0.94 0.90 0.36 0.04 0.40 128,255,556 1,277,139,53Maroon Bells 0.78 0.56 0.54 0.22 0.02 0.24 211,798,165 2,496,227,27Mesa Verde 4.85 3.80 3.18 1.06 0.62 1.68 43,682,119 88,862,460 Pecos 1.40 1.09 1.07 0.31 0.03 0.33 150,888,889 2,112,192,30Petrified Forest 1.13 0.82 0.79 0.31 0.02 0.34 148,463,023 2,288,208,33San Pedro 2.37 2.01 1.87 0.36 0.14 0.50 128,255,556 386,739,437 West Elk 1.15 0.91 0.88 0.24 0.03 0.27 194,000,000 1,615,205,88Weminuche 1.85 1.48 1.39 0.37 0.09 0.46 124,452,830 631,229,885 Wheeler Peak 1.05 0.89 0.84 0.16 0.05 0.21 290,389,937 1,056,096,15

Notes:

1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $46,172Consent Decree to WESP $54,917Pre-Consent Decree to WESP $101,089
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F6 of F21 

Table 5 

Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 

Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 

Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 

Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 

Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 

Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 

Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 

La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 

Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 

Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 

Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 

Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 

San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 

West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 

Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 

Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 

Overall 0.47 1.79 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F7 of F21 

Table 6 

Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 

Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 

Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 

Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 

Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 

Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 

Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 

La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 

Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 

Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 

Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 

Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 

San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 

West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 

Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 

Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 

Overall 0.37 1.40 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F8 of F21 

Table 7 

WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.66 0.52 0.49 0.56 0.66 

Bandelier 0.23 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.38 

Black Canyon 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 

Canyonlands 0.97 0.63 0.55 0.71 0.97 

Capitol Reef 0.55 0.17 0.22 0.32 0.55 

Grand Canyon 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.26 

Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 

La Garita 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 

Maroon Bells 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 

Mesa Verde 1.33 1.31 1.16 1.27 1.33 

Pecos 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.26 

Petrified Forest 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.18 

San Pedro 0.42 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.56 

West Elk 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 

Weminuche 0.28 0.41 0.31 0.33 0.41 

Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.19 

Overall 0.35 1.33 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F9 of F21 

Table 8

Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Resul

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($

(98th Percentile, see Note 1)

Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for 

each Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)

Class 1 Area

Pre-Consent 

Decree Consent Decree WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Consent Decree

Consent Decree 

to WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to Consent 

Decree

Consent Decree 

WESP

Arches 0.82 0.69 0.66 0.13 0.03 0.16 80,207,692 408,793,103 Bandelier 0.54 0.40 0.38 0.14 0.02 0.16 74,478,571 697,352,941 Black Canyon 0.38 0.29 0.28 0.09 0.01 0.10 115,855,556 846,785,714 Canyonlands 1.10 1.00 0.97 0.10 0.03 0.13 104,270,000 359,242,424 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.57 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.21 54,878,947 623,947,368 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.01 0.05 260,675,000 1,077,727,27Great Sand Dunes 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.06 173,783,333 2,963,750,00La Garita 0.29 0.21 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.09 130,337,500 1,317,222,22Maroon Bells 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.05 260,675,000 1,693,571,42Mesa Verde 1.79 1.40 1.33 0.39 0.07 0.46 26,735,897 174,338,235 Pecos 0.35 0.27 0.26 0.08 0.01 0.09 130,337,500 1,481,875,00Petrified Forest 0.25 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.07 173,783,333 1,317,222,22San Pedro 0.73 0.59 0.56 0.14 0.03 0.17 74,478,571 348,676,471 West Elk 0.28 0.22 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.07 173,783,333 1,317,222,22Weminuche 0.54 0.43 0.41 0.11 0.02 0.13 94,790,909 623,947,368 Wheeler Peak 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.07 173,783,333 1,481,875,00

Notes:

1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $10,427Consent Decree to WESP $11,855Pre-Consent Decree to WESP $22,282
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F10 of F21 

Table 9 

Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 

Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 

Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 

Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 

Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 

Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 

Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 

La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 

Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 

Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 

Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 

Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 

San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 

West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 

Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 

Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 

Overall 0.47 1.82 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F11 of F21 

Table 10 

Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 

Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 

Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 

Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 

Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 

Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 

Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 

La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 

Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 

Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 

Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 

Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 

San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 

West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 

Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 

Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 

Overall 0.37 1.40 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F12 of F21 

Table 11 

WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.66 0.51 0.49 0.55 0.66 

Bandelier 0.22 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.38 

Black Canyon 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 

Canyonlands 0.96 0.62 0.55 0.71 0.96 

Capitol Reef 0.55 0.17 0.22 0.31 0.55 

Grand Canyon 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.26 

Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 

La Garita 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 

Maroon Bells 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 

Mesa Verde 1.33 1.31 1.15 1.26 1.33 

Pecos 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.26 

Petrified Forest 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.18 

San Pedro 0.42 0.55 0.47 0.48 0.55 

West Elk 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 

Weminuche 0.27 0.41 0.31 0.33 0.41 

Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.19 

Overall 0.35 1.33 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F13 of F21 

Table 12

Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Resul

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($

(98th Percentile, see Note 1)

Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for 

each Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)

Class 1 Area

Pre-Consent 

Decree Consent Decree WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Consent Decree

Consent Decree 

to WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to Consent 

Decree

Consent Decree 

WESP

Arches 0.83 0.69 0.66 0.14 0.03 0.17 76,885,714 371,718,750 Bandelier 0.54 0.40 0.38 0.14 0.02 0.16 76,885,714 626,052,632 Black Canyon 0.39 0.29 0.27 0.10 0.02 0.12 107,640,000 743,437,500 Canyonlands 1.07 0.99 0.96 0.08 0.03 0.11 134,550,000 440,555,556 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.57 0.55 0.21 0.02 0.23 51,257,143 540,681,818 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.01 0.05 269,100,000 991,250,000 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.07 153,771,429 2,973,750,00La Garita 0.29 0.21 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.09 134,550,000 1,982,500,00Maroon Bells 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.05 269,100,000 1,486,875,00Mesa Verde 1.82 1.40 1.33 0.42 0.07 0.49 25,628,571 172,391,304 Pecos 0.36 0.27 0.26 0.09 0.01 0.10 119,600,000 1,321,666,66Petrified Forest 0.25 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.07 179,400,000 1,189,500,00San Pedro 0.73 0.58 0.55 0.15 0.03 0.18 71,760,000 440,555,556 West Elk 0.29 0.22 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.08 153,771,429 1,189,500,00Weminuche 0.56 0.42 0.41 0.14 0.01 0.15 76,885,714 1,081,363,63Wheeler Peak 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.07 179,400,000 1,321,666,66

Notes:

1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $10,764Consent Decree to WESP $11,895Pre-Consent Decree to WESP $22,659
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F14 of F21 

Table 13 

Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 

Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 

Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 

Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 

Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 

Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 

Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 

La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 

Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 

Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 

Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 

Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 

San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 

West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 

Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 

Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 

Overall 0.66 2.18 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F15 of F21 

Table 14 

Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 

Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 

Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 

Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 

Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 

Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 

Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 

La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 

Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 

Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 

Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 

Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 

San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 

West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 

Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 

Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 

Overall 0.52 1.90 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F16 of F21 

Table 15 

WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.88 0.62 0.62 0.70 0.88 

Bandelier 0.37 0.52 0.59 0.49 0.59 

Black Canyon 0.41 0.40 0.45 0.42 0.45 

Canyonlands 1.12 0.82 0.74 0.89 1.12 

Capitol Reef 0.84 0.24 0.33 0.47 0.84 

Grand Canyon 0.34 0.23 0.18 0.25 0.34 

Great Sand Dunes 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.23 

La Garita 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.31 

Maroon Bells 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 

Mesa Verde 1.39 1.70 1.57 1.55 1.70 

Pecos 0.33 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.40 

Petrified Forest 0.28 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.28 

San Pedro 0.67 0.77 0.68 0.71 0.77 

West Elk 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.33 

Weminuche 0.42 0.59 0.47 0.49 0.59 

Wheeler Peak 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.30 

Overall 0.49 1.70 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F17 of F21 

Table 16

Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Resul

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($

(98th Percentile, see Note 1)

Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for 

each Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)

Class 1 Area

Pre-Consent 

Decree Consent Decree WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Consent Decree

Consent Decree 

to WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to Consent 

Decree

Consent Decree 

WESP

Arches 1.04 0.89 0.88 0.15 0.02 0.17 83,026,667 1,037,200,00Bandelier 0.81 0.61 0.59 0.20 0.03 0.23 62,270,000 622,320,000 Black Canyon 0.59 0.46 0.45 0.13 0.02 0.15 95,800,000 1,037,200,00Canyonlands 1.44 1.15 1.12 0.29 0.03 0.32 42,944,828 518,600,000 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.86 0.84 0.24 0.02 0.26 51,891,667 777,900,000 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.35 0.34 0.13 0.01 0.14 95,800,000 1,196,769,23Great Sand Dunes 0.33 0.24 0.23 0.09 0.01 0.10 138,377,778 1,414,363,63La Garita 0.44 0.33 0.31 0.11 0.02 0.13 113,218,182 818,842,105 Maroon Bells 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.06 249,080,000 1,555,800,00Mesa Verde 2.18 1.90 1.70 0.28 0.21 0.49 44,478,571 75,892,683 Pecos 0.58 0.42 0.40 0.16 0.02 0.18 77,837,500 676,434,783 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.29 0.28 0.14 0.01 0.15 88,957,143 2,222,571,42San Pedro 1.03 0.81 0.77 0.22 0.04 0.26 56,609,091 398,923,077 West Elk 0.42 0.35 0.33 0.07 0.02 0.09 177,914,286 972,375,000 Weminuche 0.82 0.64 0.59 0.18 0.05 0.23 69,188,889 324,125,000 Wheeler Peak 0.39 0.31 0.30 0.08 0.01 0.09 155,675,000 1,944,750,00

Notes:

1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $12,454Consent Decree to WESP $15,558Pre-Consent Decree to WESP $28,012
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F18 of F21 

Table 17 

Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 

Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 

Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 

Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 

Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 

Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 

Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 

La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 

Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 

Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 

Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 

Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 

San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 

West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 

Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 

Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 

Overall 0.67 2.18 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F19 of F21 

Table 18 

Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 

Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 

Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 

Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 

Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 

Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 

Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 

La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 

Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 

Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 

Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 

Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 

San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 

West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 

Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 

Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 

Overall 0.51 1.89 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F20 of F21 

Table 19 

WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 

98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv) 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum 

Arches 0.87 0.61 0.59 0.69 0.87 

Bandelier 0.36 0.51 0.57 0.48 0.57 

Black Canyon 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.41 0.43 

Canyonlands 1.10 0.82 0.73 0.89 1.10 

Capitol Reef 0.84 0.24 0.32 0.47 0.84 

Grand Canyon 0.35 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.35 

Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.23 

La Garita 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.30 

Maroon Bells 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 

Mesa Verde 1.40 1.68 1.56 1.55 1.68 

Pecos 0.32 0.34 0.39 0.35 0.39 

Petrified Forest 0.28 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.28 

San Pedro 0.66 0.76 0.64 0.69 0.76 

West Elk 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 

Weminuche 0.41 0.59 0.46 0.49 0.59 

Wheeler Peak 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.30 

Overall 0.48 1.68 

 
PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F 

Page F21 of F21 

Table 20

Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Resul

Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($

(98th Percentile, see Note 1)

Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for 

each Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)

Class 1 Area

Pre-Consent 

Decree Consent Decree WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

Consent Decree

Consent Decree 

to WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to 

WESP

Pre-Consent 

Decree to Consent 

Decree

Consent Decree 

WESP

Arches 1.05 0.88 0.87 0.17 0.01 0.18 73,688,235 1,114,928,57Bandelier 0.81 0.60 0.57 0.21 0.03 0.24 59,652,381 578,111,111 Black Canyon 0.59 0.44 0.43 0.15 0.01 0.16 83,513,333 1,419,000,00Canyonlands 1.47 1.14 1.10 0.33 0.04 0.37 37,960,606 433,583,333 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.86 0.84 0.25 0.02 0.27 50,108,000 743,285,714 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.36 0.35 0.12 0.01 0.13 104,391,667 1,560,900,00Great Sand Dunes 0.34 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.11 113,881,818 3,902,250,00La Garita 0.45 0.32 0.30 0.13 0.02 0.15 96,361,538 867,166,667 Maroon Bells 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.06 250,540,000 1,951,125,00Mesa Verde 2.18 1.89 1.68 0.29 0.21 0.50 43,196,552 75,405,797 Pecos 0.59 0.41 0.39 0.18 0.03 0.21 69,594,444 624,360,000 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.29 0.28 0.15 0.01 0.16 83,513,333 1,300,750,00San Pedro 1.04 0.80 0.76 0.24 0.04 0.28 52,195,833 380,707,317 West Elk 0.43 0.33 0.32 0.10 0.01 0.11 125,270,000 1,560,900,00Weminuche 0.81 0.63 0.59 0.18 0.04 0.22 69,594,444 354,750,000 Wheeler Peak 0.41 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.00 0.11 113,881,818 3,902,250,00

Notes:

1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $12,527Consent Decree to WESP $15,609Pre-Consent Decree to WESP $28,136
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2001

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100

BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100

BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100

CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100

CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100

GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100

GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100

LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100

MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100

MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100

PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100

PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100

SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100

WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100

WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100

WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100

BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100

BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100

CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100

CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100

GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100

GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100

LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100

MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100

MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100

PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100

PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100

SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100

WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100

WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100

WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 45 1.63 62.82 32.85 1.87 0.48 0.54 1.45 100

BAND 47 1.01 27.51 70.57 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.67 100

BLCA 24 0.92 25.38 72.64 0.90 0.23 0.16 0.69 100

CANY 63 2.17 66.43 31.20 1.05 0.27 0.22 0.83 100

CARE 27 1.71 50.35 46.55 1.36 0.35 0.34 1.05 100

GRCA 12 0.95 35.80 62.76 0.64 0.16 0.13 0.51 100

GRSA 13 0.61 31.43 67.21 0.62 0.16 0.09 0.48 100

LAGA 19 0.83 58.25 38.59 1.43 0.37 0.25 1.11 100

MABE 9 0.53 63.52 33.00 1.56 0.40 0.29 1.24 100

MEVE 146 2.71 71.64 15.63 5.41 1.38 1.80 4.14 100

PECO 34 1.01 38.97 59.21 0.82 0.21 0.16 0.64 100

PEFO 14 0.79 25.59 72.59 0.81 0.21 0.17 0.63 100

SAPE 88 1.30 34.19 61.37 1.96 0.50 0.49 1.50 100

WEEL 18 0.78 36.47 62.42 0.48 0.12 0.13 0.37 100

WEMI 49 1.10 24.27 71.74 1.72 0.44 0.51 1.32 100

WHPE 25 0.73 49.56 48.24 1.01 0.26 0.14 0.80 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2002

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100

BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100

BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100

CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100

CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100

GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100

GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100

LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100

MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100

MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100

PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100

PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100

SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100

WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100

WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100

WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100

BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100

BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100

CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100

CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100

GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100

GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100

LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100

MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100

MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100

PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100

PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100

SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100

WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100

WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100

WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 29 1.61 46.70 51.30 0.88 0.22 0.21 0.69 100

BAND 55 1.50 40.32 57.22 1.09 0.28 0.24 0.85 100

BLCA 27 1.12 27.57 70.45 0.88 0.22 0.19 0.70 100

CANY 52 1.69 48.49 49.10 1.06 0.27 0.24 0.84 100

CARE 17 0.79 28.97 70.10 0.41 0.10 0.10 0.32 100

GRCA 9 0.74 43.17 55.84 0.44 0.11 0.08 0.36 100

GRSA 15 0.69 26.74 72.12 0.51 0.13 0.09 0.41 100

LAGA 35 0.90 19.19 78.22 1.18 0.30 0.20 0.91 100

MABE 11 0.54 24.53 71.85 1.68 0.43 0.18 1.34 100

MEVE 151 3.18 27.60 70.85 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100

PECO 34 1.07 40.71 58.27 0.46 0.12 0.09 0.36 100

PEFO 9 0.58 27.22 71.61 0.52 0.13 0.09 0.42 100

SAPE 97 1.87 30.41 65.41 1.85 0.47 0.45 1.41 100

WEEL 23 0.88 22.74 75.15 0.92 0.23 0.24 0.71 100

WEMI 74 1.39 51.69 43.31 2.16 0.55 0.65 1.65 100

WHPE 18 0.83 41.56 54.84 1.62 0.41 0.29 1.26 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2003

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100

BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100

BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100

CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100

CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100

GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100

GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100

LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100

MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100

MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100

PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100

PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100

SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100

WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100

WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100

WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100

BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100

BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100

CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100

CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100

GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100

GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100

LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100

MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100

MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100

PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100

PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100

SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100

WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100

WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100

WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 26 1.45 29.24 69.35 0.62 0.16 0.15 0.49 100

BAND 50 1.12 77.83 18.71 1.52 0.39 0.37 1.18 100

BLCA 21 1.04 26.30 72.43 0.57 0.14 0.11 0.45 100

CANY 46 1.60 67.06 29.60 1.46 0.37 0.34 1.16 100

CARE 22 1.02 50.54 47.97 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.53 100

GRCA 9 0.54 95.23 1.26 1.56 0.40 0.32 1.23 100

GRSA 13 0.62 25.64 73.23 0.52 0.13 0.06 0.41 100

LAGA 21 0.85 19.56 77.45 1.40 0.36 0.12 1.11 100

MABE 7 0.50 24.53 73.55 0.84 0.21 0.19 0.66 100

MEVE 145 2.92 78.37 3.17 7.90 2.01 2.49 6.04 100

PECO 44 0.97 28.35 69.19 1.11 0.28 0.22 0.85 100

PEFO 8 0.51 73.07 24.23 1.21 0.31 0.21 0.97 100

SAPE 93 1.49 30.00 65.46 1.96 0.50 0.58 1.50 100

WEEL 20 0.79 23.85 73.36 1.22 0.31 0.31 0.95 100

WEMI 59 1.30 34.09 64.30 0.69 0.18 0.20 0.53 100

WHPE 26 0.84 91.75 5.74 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.88 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2001

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100

BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100

BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100

CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100

CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100

GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100

GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100

LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100

MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100

MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100

PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100

PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100

SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100

WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100

WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100

WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100

BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100

BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100

CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100

CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100

GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100

GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100

LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100

MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100

MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100

PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100

PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100

SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100

WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100

WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100

WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 13 0.66 21.99 75.92 0.92 0.24 0.21 0.71 100

BAND 1 0.23 41.99 55.90 0.94 0.25 0.20 0.72 100

BLCA 2 0.28 21.30 77.10 0.70 0.18 0.18 0.54 100

CANY 20 0.97 35.55 62.86 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100

CARE 10 0.55 25.06 73.87 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.36 100

GRCA 3 0.26 29.07 69.74 0.53 0.14 0.11 0.42 100

GRSA 0 0.13 30.98 64.24 2.19 0.57 0.36 1.67 100

LAGA 0 0.19 27.29 71.34 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.48 100

MABE 0 0.13 16.66 80.54 1.25 0.33 0.28 0.95 100

MEVE 32 1.33 29.21 67.58 1.37 0.36 0.43 1.04 100

PECO 1 0.22 37.84 60.38 0.80 0.21 0.16 0.62 100

PEFO 2 0.18 23.42 74.91 0.75 0.20 0.16 0.58 100

SAPE 7 0.42 24.48 73.27 0.99 0.26 0.24 0.75 100

WEEL 0 0.21 31.38 66.78 0.83 0.22 0.15 0.64 100

WEMI 2 0.28 25.04 68.96 2.64 0.69 0.68 2.00 100

WHPE 2 0.18 26.68 72.08 0.57 0.15 0.09 0.44 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2002

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100

BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100

BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100

CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100

CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100

GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100

GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100

LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100

MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100

MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100

PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100

PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100

SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100

WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100

WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100

WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100

BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100

BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100

CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100

CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100

GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100

GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100

LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100

MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100

MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100

PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100

PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100

SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100

WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100

WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100

WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 32.86 65.72 0.62 0.16 0.15 0.49 100

BAND 4 0.38 29.10 69.40 0.66 0.17 0.15 0.51 100

BLCA 1 0.28 22.79 75.67 0.69 0.18 0.14 0.54 100

CANY 12 0.63 20.90 77.17 0.84 0.22 0.21 0.65 100

CARE 2 0.17 30.05 68.83 0.49 0.13 0.10 0.39 100

GRCA 1 0.16 42.66 56.37 0.43 0.11 0.08 0.35 100

GRSA 0 0.14 25.84 73.05 0.50 0.13 0.08 0.40 100

LAGA 0 0.17 32.85 63.61 1.54 0.39 0.42 1.19 100

MABE 0 0.11 23.93 72.54 1.64 0.43 0.17 1.30 100

MEVE 43 1.31 51.89 41.79 2.69 0.70 0.90 2.03 100

PECO 2 0.24 39.78 59.21 0.45 0.12 0.09 0.35 100

PEFO 0 0.12 26.98 71.85 0.52 0.14 0.09 0.42 100

SAPE 9 0.56 23.72 73.92 1.04 0.27 0.25 0.80 100

WEEL 0 0.19 21.65 76.06 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.76 100

WEMI 3 0.41 21.96 76.61 0.63 0.17 0.13 0.50 100

WHPE 0 0.16 30.26 68.80 0.42 0.11 0.08 0.33 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2003

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100

BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100

BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100

CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100

CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100

GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100

GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100

LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100

MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100

MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100

PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100

PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100

SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100

WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100

WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100

WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100

BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100

BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100

CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100

CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100

GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100

GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100

LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100

MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100

MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100

PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100

PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100

SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100

WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100

WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100

WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 7 0.49 49.52 49.25 0.55 0.14 0.12 0.43 100

BAND 3 0.35 20.72 76.99 1.01 0.26 0.25 0.76 100

BLCA 0 0.27 23.68 75.05 0.56 0.15 0.13 0.44 100

CANY 11 0.55 42.01 55.79 0.97 0.25 0.23 0.76 100

CARE 2 0.22 28.24 69.26 1.09 0.29 0.28 0.84 100

GRCA 0 0.12 51.18 46.39 1.08 0.28 0.22 0.85 100

GRSA 1 0.14 24.39 73.84 0.80 0.21 0.15 0.62 100

LAGA 0 0.20 33.19 65.12 0.75 0.20 0.18 0.57 100

MABE 0 0.10 30.29 67.35 1.10 0.29 0.13 0.84 100

MEVE 43 1.16 34.79 62.53 1.14 0.30 0.37 0.87 100

PECO 1 0.26 23.34 74.67 0.90 0.23 0.17 0.68 100

PEFO 0 0.11 29.95 68.31 0.78 0.21 0.12 0.63 100

SAPE 7 0.47 23.38 73.47 1.36 0.36 0.39 1.04 100

WEEL 0 0.20 34.71 64.16 0.50 0.13 0.11 0.39 100

WEMI 3 0.31 28.56 69.85 0.70 0.18 0.15 0.55 100

WHPE 0 0.19 19.02 78.46 1.12 0.29 0.24 0.86 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2001

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100

BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100

BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100

CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100

CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100

GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100

GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100

LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100

MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100

MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100

PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100

PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100

SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100

WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100

WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100

WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100

BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100

BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100

CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100

CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100

GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100

GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100

LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100

MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100

MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100

PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100

PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100

SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100

WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100

WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100

WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 13 0.66 21.98 75.94 0.91 0.24 0.21 0.71 100

BAND 1 0.22 42.00 55.91 0.93 0.25 0.20 0.72 100

BLCA 2 0.27 21.31 77.10 0.69 0.18 0.18 0.54 100

CANY 20 0.96 35.51 62.91 0.69 0.18 0.16 0.55 100

CARE 10 0.55 25.06 73.87 0.46 0.12 0.12 0.37 100

GRCA 3 0.26 29.07 69.74 0.52 0.14 0.11 0.42 100

GRSA 0 0.13 90.48 7.15 1.04 0.28 0.24 0.81 100

LAGA 0 0.19 27.29 71.34 0.61 0.16 0.11 0.48 100

MABE 0 0.13 16.68 80.54 1.22 0.33 0.28 0.95 100

MEVE 32 1.33 29.12 67.71 1.34 0.36 0.43 1.04 100

PECO 1 0.21 37.85 60.38 0.79 0.21 0.16 0.62 100

PEFO 2 0.18 23.43 74.91 0.73 0.20 0.16 0.58 100

SAPE 7 0.42 24.49 73.28 0.97 0.26 0.24 0.75 100

WEEL 0 0.21 31.39 66.78 0.81 0.22 0.15 0.64 100

WEMI 2 0.27 25.06 68.98 2.59 0.69 0.68 2.00 100

WHPE 2 0.18 26.69 72.08 0.56 0.15 0.09 0.44 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2002

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100

BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100

BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100

CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100

CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100

GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100

GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100

LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100

MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100

MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100

PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100

PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100

SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100

WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100

WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100

WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100

BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100

BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100

CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100

CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100

GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100

GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100

LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100

MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100

MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100

PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100

PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100

SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100

WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100

WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100

WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.51 32.86 65.72 0.61 0.16 0.15 0.49 100

BAND 4 0.38 29.10 69.41 0.65 0.17 0.15 0.51 100

BLCA 1 0.27 22.80 75.66 0.68 0.18 0.14 0.54 100

CANY 12 0.62 20.91 77.17 0.83 0.22 0.21 0.65 100

CARE 2 0.17 30.06 68.84 0.48 0.13 0.10 0.39 100

GRCA 1 0.16 42.67 56.37 0.42 0.11 0.08 0.35 100

GRSA 0 0.14 25.84 73.05 0.50 0.13 0.08 0.40 100

LAGA 0 0.20 23.14 74.92 0.84 0.22 0.23 0.65 100

MABE 0 0.11 23.95 72.54 1.61 0.43 0.17 1.30 100

MEVE 43 1.31 51.80 41.94 2.63 0.71 0.90 2.03 100

PECO 2 0.24 39.79 59.21 0.44 0.12 0.09 0.36 100

PEFO 0 0.12 26.99 71.85 0.51 0.14 0.09 0.42 100

SAPE 9 0.55 23.73 73.93 1.02 0.27 0.25 0.80 100

WEEL 0 0.19 21.66 76.07 0.98 0.26 0.26 0.76 100

WEMI 3 0.41 21.97 76.62 0.62 0.17 0.13 0.50 100

WHPE 0 0.16 30.27 68.80 0.41 0.11 0.08 0.33 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2003

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100

BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100

BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100

CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100

CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100

GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100

GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100

LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100

MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100

MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100

PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100

PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100

SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100

WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100

WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100

WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100

BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100

BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100

CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100

CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100

GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100

GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100

LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100

MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100

MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100

PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100

PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100

SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100

WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100

WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100

WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 7 0.49 49.51 49.26 0.54 0.14 0.12 0.43 100

BAND 3 0.35 20.73 77.00 0.99 0.26 0.25 0.77 100

BLCA 0 0.27 23.69 75.06 0.55 0.15 0.13 0.44 100

CANY 10 0.55 42.00 55.81 0.95 0.25 0.23 0.76 100

CARE 2 0.22 28.25 69.27 1.07 0.29 0.28 0.84 100

GRCA 0 0.12 51.19 46.39 1.06 0.28 0.22 0.85 100

GRSA 1 0.14 24.40 73.84 0.78 0.21 0.15 0.62 100

LAGA 0 0.20 33.20 65.12 0.73 0.20 0.18 0.57 100

MABE 0 0.10 30.31 67.35 1.08 0.29 0.13 0.84 100

MEVE 43 1.15 34.74 62.60 1.12 0.30 0.36 0.87 100

PECO 1 0.26 23.35 74.68 0.88 0.24 0.17 0.68 100

PEFO 0 0.10 29.96 68.32 0.77 0.21 0.12 0.63 100

SAPE 7 0.47 23.36 73.52 1.34 0.36 0.39 1.03 100

WEEL 0 0.20 34.72 64.16 0.49 0.13 0.11 0.39 100

WEMI 3 0.31 28.58 69.84 0.69 0.19 0.15 0.55 100

WHPE 0 0.19 19.03 78.47 1.10 0.29 0.24 0.87 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2001

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100

BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100

BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100

CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100

CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100

GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100

GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100

LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100

MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100

MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100

PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100

PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100

SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100

WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100

WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100

WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100

BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100

BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100

CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100

CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100

GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100

GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100

LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100

MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100

MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100

PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100

PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100

SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100

WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100

WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100

WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.88 32.73 66.01 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.45 100

BAND 3 0.37 81.21 15.56 1.44 0.35 0.32 1.12 100

BLCA 4 0.41 22.23 75.47 1.03 0.25 0.24 0.79 100

CANY 25 1.12 30.80 68.15 0.47 0.11 0.10 0.37 100

CARE 12 0.84 24.95 73.98 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.37 100

GRCA 5 0.34 25.77 73.13 0.48 0.12 0.11 0.38 100

GRSA 0 0.20 90.27 7.37 1.05 0.26 0.24 0.82 100

LAGA 1 0.28 27.05 71.55 0.63 0.16 0.11 0.50 100

MABE 0 0.19 31.00 67.14 0.84 0.21 0.15 0.66 100

MEVE 57 1.39 64.22 27.86 3.38 0.83 1.10 2.60 100

PECO 2 0.33 40.97 57.12 0.87 0.21 0.16 0.67 100

PEFO 2 0.28 86.23 12.11 0.74 0.18 0.15 0.59 100

SAPE 15 0.67 24.67 73.00 1.02 0.25 0.27 0.79 100

WEEL 4 0.29 31.39 66.47 0.97 0.24 0.17 0.76 100

WEMI 5 0.42 22.20 75.31 1.09 0.27 0.28 0.84 100

WHPE 2 0.27 25.88 72.91 0.55 0.14 0.09 0.43 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2002

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100

BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100

BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100

CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100

CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100

GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100

GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100

LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100

MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100

MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100

PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100

PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100

SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100

WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100

WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100

WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100

BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100

BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100

CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100

CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100

GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100

GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100

LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100

MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100

MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100

PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100

PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100

SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100

WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100

WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100

WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.62 28.98 69.76 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.44 100

BAND 10 0.52 50.03 45.88 1.85 0.46 0.34 1.44 100

BLCA 4 0.40 26.53 72.28 0.54 0.13 0.10 0.42 100

CANY 17 0.82 28.88 69.68 0.64 0.16 0.14 0.50 100

CARE 5 0.24 28.14 70.97 0.39 0.10 0.09 0.31 100

GRCA 2 0.23 41.56 57.49 0.42 0.10 0.08 0.35 100

GRSA 0 0.23 26.25 72.64 0.50 0.12 0.09 0.40 100

LAGA 1 0.31 19.05 78.41 1.16 0.29 0.20 0.89 100

MABE 0 0.18 26.46 72.13 0.63 0.15 0.12 0.50 100

MEVE 72 1.70 39.82 50.06 4.30 1.06 1.46 3.30 100

PECO 4 0.34 39.02 60.01 0.43 0.11 0.08 0.34 100

PEFO 3 0.18 27.04 71.81 0.52 0.13 0.09 0.42 100

SAPE 30 0.77 24.64 72.70 1.17 0.29 0.30 0.91 100

WEEL 4 0.31 24.93 73.89 0.53 0.13 0.09 0.42 100

WEMI 12 0.59 33.30 58.88 3.35 0.82 1.07 2.58 100

WHPE 0 0.30 43.48 55.67 0.38 0.09 0.08 0.30 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2003

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100

BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100

BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100

CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100

CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100

GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100

GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100

LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100

MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100

MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100

PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100

PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100

SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100

WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100

WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100

WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100

BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100

BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100

CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100

CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100

GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100

GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100

MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100

MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100

PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100

PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100

SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100

WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100

WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100

WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.62 24.83 71.54 1.57 0.39 0.46 1.21 100

BAND 8 0.59 20.02 77.64 1.03 0.25 0.27 0.79 100

BLCA 7 0.45 31.56 67.22 0.54 0.13 0.12 0.43 100

CANY 13 0.74 45.26 52.57 0.95 0.23 0.22 0.76 100

CARE 3 0.33 29.34 68.04 1.15 0.28 0.30 0.89 100

GRCA 0 0.18 51.56 46.01 1.08 0.27 0.22 0.86 100

GRSA 1 0.20 20.44 77.08 1.11 0.27 0.24 0.86 100

LAGA 3 0.31 35.26 63.25 0.67 0.17 0.12 0.54 100

MABE 0 0.17 20.01 78.27 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100

MEVE 55 1.57 37.08 55.36 3.22 0.79 1.07 2.47 100

PECO 5 0.40 31.09 66.50 1.06 0.26 0.27 0.82 100

PEFO 1 0.16 72.09 25.25 1.19 0.29 0.21 0.96 100

SAPE 16 0.68 22.31 74.18 1.52 0.38 0.44 1.17 100

WEEL 1 0.33 20.44 77.87 0.74 0.18 0.19 0.58 100

WEMI 5 0.47 19.12 77.02 1.74 0.43 0.33 1.37 100

WHPE 2 0.27 91.52 6.01 1.13 0.28 0.19 0.88 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2001

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100

BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100

BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100

CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100

CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100

GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100

GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100

LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100

MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100

MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100

PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100

PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100

SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100

WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100

WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100

WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100

BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100

BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100

CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100

CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100

GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100

GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100

LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100

MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100

MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100

PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100

PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100

SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100

WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100

WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100

WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 17 0.87 32.51 66.24 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.44 100

BAND 3 0.36 81.19 15.57 1.44 0.36 0.33 1.11 100

BLCA 3 0.40 22.20 75.50 1.03 0.26 0.23 0.78 100

CANY 25 1.10 30.87 68.08 0.47 0.12 0.10 0.37 100

CARE 12 0.84 24.97 73.95 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.37 100

GRCA 5 0.35 26.06 72.84 0.48 0.12 0.11 0.38 100

GRSA 0 0.19 90.27 7.36 1.05 0.26 0.24 0.81 100

LAGA 1 0.28 34.69 64.13 0.53 0.13 0.10 0.42 100

MABE 0 0.19 30.86 67.31 0.83 0.21 0.15 0.65 100

MEVE 56 1.40 63.25 28.94 3.34 0.83 1.08 2.55 100

PECO 2 0.32 40.94 57.14 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.67 100

PEFO 2 0.28 86.24 12.10 0.74 0.19 0.15 0.58 100

SAPE 14 0.66 24.58 73.10 1.02 0.26 0.27 0.78 100

WEEL 4 0.29 31.17 66.73 0.96 0.24 0.16 0.74 100

WEMI 5 0.41 29.56 68.46 0.85 0.21 0.28 0.65 100

WHPE 2 0.27 26.07 72.71 0.55 0.14 0.09 0.43 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2002

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100

BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100

BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100

CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100

CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100

GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100

GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100

LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100

MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100

MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100

PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100

PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100

SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100

WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100

WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100

WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100

BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100

BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100

CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100

CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100

GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100

GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100

LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100

MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100

MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100

PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100

PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100

SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100

WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100

WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100

WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.61 29.00 69.74 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.44 100

BAND 10 0.51 50.09 45.81 1.86 0.46 0.34 1.43 100

BLCA 4 0.40 17.31 80.97 0.75 0.19 0.21 0.58 100

CANY 16 0.82 28.80 69.77 0.64 0.16 0.14 0.50 100

CARE 5 0.24 28.13 70.98 0.39 0.10 0.09 0.31 100

GRCA 2 0.23 41.47 57.57 0.42 0.11 0.08 0.35 100

GRSA 0 0.23 24.30 73.50 1.00 0.25 0.19 0.77 100

LAGA 1 0.30 19.03 78.42 1.17 0.29 0.20 0.89 100

MABE 0 0.18 26.45 72.15 0.63 0.16 0.12 0.49 100

MEVE 72 1.68 24.68 72.78 1.11 0.28 0.31 0.85 100

PECO 4 0.34 28.38 69.85 0.81 0.20 0.12 0.63 100

PEFO 2 0.17 27.05 71.79 0.52 0.13 0.09 0.42 100

SAPE 29 0.76 24.57 72.78 1.16 0.29 0.30 0.90 100

WEEL 4 0.32 21.79 75.83 1.04 0.26 0.29 0.79 100

WEMI 11 0.59 33.16 59.04 3.35 0.84 1.07 2.55 100

WHPE 0 0.30 43.32 55.83 0.38 0.09 0.08 0.30 100
PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4

Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background

2003

Pre-Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100

BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100

BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100

CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100

CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100

GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100

GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100

LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100

MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100

MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100

PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100

PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100

SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100

WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100

WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100

WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100

BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100

BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100

CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100

CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100

GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100

GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100

LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100

MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100

MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100

PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100

PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100

SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100

WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100

WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100

WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

WESP

Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.59 24.69 71.73 1.56 0.39 0.45 1.19 100

BAND 8 0.57 19.99 77.67 1.03 0.26 0.27 0.79 100

BLCA 6 0.43 31.77 67.01 0.54 0.14 0.12 0.43 100

CANY 13 0.73 45.13 52.70 0.96 0.24 0.22 0.76 100

CARE 3 0.32 29.23 68.16 1.14 0.29 0.30 0.88 100

GRCA 0 0.17 51.66 45.91 1.08 0.27 0.22 0.86 100

GRSA 1 0.19 20.43 77.08 1.11 0.28 0.24 0.86 100

LAGA 1 0.30 17.42 79.84 1.27 0.32 0.11 1.04 100

MABE 0 0.17 21.31 77.54 0.50 0.13 0.13 0.39 100

MEVE 55 1.56 37.16 55.25 3.24 0.81 1.07 2.47 100

PECO 5 0.39 50.97 46.29 1.23 0.31 0.22 0.97 100

PEFO 1 0.16 72.11 25.23 1.20 0.30 0.21 0.96 100

SAPE 16 0.64 22.14 74.38 1.51 0.38 0.44 1.15 100

WEEL 1 0.32 21.56 77.25 0.52 0.13 0.13 0.41 100

WEMI 4 0.46 19.09 77.05 1.74 0.43 0.33 1.36 100

WHPE 2 0.26 40.37 58.46 0.54 0.13 0.08 0.42 100