## 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 identifie d 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 includ ed 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 wi ll be installed downstream of the existing hot-side ESPs and air heat ers, 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 PJ FF 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-l aden activated carbon and other PM. The PJFF outlet will be connected to the existing wet FGD system for SO 2 

# 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 particulat es (calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate). These are also k nown 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 out let particulate matter
emission concentration. In this BART dete rmination for particulate matter, the control
effectiveness defined for the PJFF installed at SJGS for consent decree requirements, takes into account the impacts of operating th e 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 theore tical basis as a dr y 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 mi st applications because it reduces opacity, sulfuric acid mist (H 2 

# SO 4 

# ), 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 si milar 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 t ypically 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 ba seline design for th is 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 thr ough the WESP for additiona l particulate matter removal. In addition to PM, condensible par ticulate 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 w ould be needed for the higher particulate loading. A larger quantity of collected particul ate matter from the WESP woul d also have to be removed from the collector plate wash water. Due to the increase in WESP cas ing size and retrofit complexity of the additional flue gas quenchi ng 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 F GD system, where impacts of the wet FGD operations, as described in Subsection 1.1.1 wi ll 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 s howing that the technol ogy is commercially
unavailable and/or there are insurmountable technical difficulties with applying the technology to the applicable unit. Other factor s 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 re st of the facility.

− Adverse community impacts. Additionally, a technology is technically inf easible if its level of emissions control does not achieve the required permit emissi ons 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 proce dure allows for the consideration of the less costly control technology, th erefore eliminating the need to evaluate higher cost technologies. For all the PM control technologies identif ied as available, a determination was made regarding the technical feasibility of th e technology at the SJGS site on the basis of the criteria highlighted above.

2.1.1 PJFF The PJFF is currently being installe d 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 th e fundamentals of the ESP technology. WESP have also been installed in flue ga s streams downstream of a Wet FGD for the removal of PM. Therefore, this t echnology is technically feasible.Technical Feasibility ofPNM San Juan Generating StationPM Control Technologies0808282-22.2 Technical Feasibility SummaryTable 2-1Technically Feasible PM Control Technology AlternativesPollutant Philosophy TechnologyTechnicallyFeasible andApplicable?Remarks/Reasons for Technical InfeasibilityPM Control Technologies: PJFF Yes In the process of being installed in response to theConsent Decree with existing wet FGD system inoperation.WESP Yes Technically feasible arrangement includesoperating the Consent Decree PJFF and existingwet 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 effec tiveness 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 cont rol technologies. Control eff ectiveness is expressed in a common metric based on the amount of pollu tant generated per unit of heat input (lb/MBtu). The evalua tion of the control effectiveness wa s 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 cont rol 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 technol ogy is also summarized in the Design Concept Definition tables in Appendix B

.Evaluation of Technically FeasiblePNM San Juan Generating StationPM Control Technology0808283-2Table 3-1Control Effectiveness for PM Control TechnologyAlternatives (Annual Average Emissions Rates)UnitSJGS 1 SJGS 2 SJGS 3 SJGS 4Design Basis HeatInput Data, MBtu/h3,707 3,688 5,758 5,649PM Emissions Caseslb/MBtulb/hton/yrlb/MBtulb/hton/yrlb/MBtulb/hton/yrlb/MBtulb/hton/yrPJFF(consent decree)0.015 55.6 207 0.015 55.3 207 0.015 86.4 321 0.015 84.7 315WESP0.010 37.1 138 0.010 36.9 137 0.010 57.6 214 0.010 56.5 210Notes:1.Emissions levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on an annualaverage 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 technol ogies 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. Th e cost-effectiveness is defined as the cost of control per amount of pollutant removed. The co st 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 s hown in Table 3-1. Both the consent decree
emissions level and the additiona l control technology alternative emissions level are documented
in Table 3-1 and in the Desi gn 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 calcula ted 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-ent rained 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 performe d 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.Cost-EffectivenessPNM San Juan Generating Stationof PM Control Technologies0808284-2Table 4-1Impact Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Results of PM Control TechnologiesTotal TotalEmission Expected Expected Expected Capital Annualized IncrementalPerformance Emission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost Energy Non-AirLevel Rate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness Impacts ImpactsAll Feasible Technologies (lb/MBtu) (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)SJGS Unit 1WESP (see note 8) 0.010 37.1 138 69 99,308 11,855 171,797 1,112 --PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 55.6 207 -- 67,072 10,427 -- 4,488 --SJGS Unit 2WESP (see note 8) 0.010 36.9 137 69 99,663 11,895 173,265 1,112 --PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 55.3 206 -- 69,840 10,764 -- 4,488 --SJGS Unit 3WESP (see note 8) 0.010 57.6 214 107 129,565 15,558 145,151 1,728 --PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 86.4 322 -- 72,696 12,454 -- 6,895 --SJGS Unit 4WESP (see note 8) 0.010 56.5 210 105 130,012 15,609 148,436 1,728 --PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 84.7 315 -- 73,328 12,527 -- 6,895 --Notes:1. All costs are in 2007$.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on85 percent unit capacity factor (referer to Appendix A Design Basis).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were basedon the consent decree upgrades control effectiveness as shown in Table 4-1.4. 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) a nd 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 decr ee 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 downs tream 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 impr ove PM emission level from the consent
decree level of 0.015 lb/MBtu to 0.010 lb/MBt u utilizing the WE SP 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 cons ider 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 consiste d of the technologies and unit operations associated with the consent degr ee. Second, model runs were conducted for the WESP PM control technology identified fo r each unit during the BART engineering analysis. In the June 18, 2008 meeting between th e Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Black & Veatch (B&V), a nd 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 an alysis is to evaluate visi bility 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 met hodology in greater detail.

5.1 Visibility Analysis Subsequent to the June 6, 2007 submittal, PNM further investigated additional
refinements to the BART CALPUFF air di spersion modeling analyses which included nitrate repartitioning and mo re 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 bein g 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 pr ovide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. Th e analyses were base d on a constant 1 ppb background ammonia concentration and no nitrate repartitioning. The NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the Selectiv e 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 pr ovide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analysis was based on refinements which included using the nitrat e repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. Again, the NO x 

# 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) imp acts at 16 Class I areas for the SCR NO x 

# control technology only. One of the analyses, believ ed to be the more representative of ammonia chemistry of the area, was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using the nitrate repart itioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses included nitrate repartitioning and a constant background am monia concentration as requested by the
NMED.

May 30, 2008 Two modeling analyses were performed to pr ovide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology only. Similar to the March 31, 2008 analyses, one of the analyses was based on the November 6, 2007 refineme nts which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and mont hly variable background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses incl uded nitrate repartitioning and a constant background ammonia concentration. It s hould 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 ar e modeled generically as SCR.

August 29, 2008 Four modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wi de and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the ROFA with Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA NO x 

# and WESP PM control t echnologies (the NO x 

# and PM analyses were submitted separately. Si milar 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 a nd monthly variable background ammonia
concentrations.

The modeling refinements contained in this submittal using nitrate repartitioning and the variable ammonia background as we ll 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 de tail in the previous four submittals. Furthermore, at the June 18, 2008 meeting NMED indicated that based on a current ammonia monitoring study conducte d 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 cons isting of representative background ammonia concentrations and nitrate repa rtitioning, CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed for three cases; pre-consent decree , consent decree (which represents SJGS’s BART baseline scenario), and WESP PM c ontrol technology scen arios. 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 applic ation were unchanged. For simplicity, the following results discuss the differences between the consent decree scenario and the WESP control technology scenarios. A dditionally, the updated NPS particulate speciation is contained in Appendix D, th e 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 m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same control technology is inst alled on all four units, are illu strated in Tables 1 through 4 of Appendix F. These tables summarize th e scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over th e 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 (consen t decree) scenario, with the exception of Mesa Verde, which shows a visibility improvement of 0.62 dv. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement 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 si xteen 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 base line case for the individual unit analyses described later. Additionally, the cost-eff ectiveness for the potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/decivi ew ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the visibility improvement cost effectivene ss summary in Table 4 for each control technology:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to additional WESP c ontrol technology alternative scenario.

• Pre-consent decree to additional WESP c ontrol technology alte rnative 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 e xpected visibility improvement above the consent decree scenario. The results indicate that adding additi onal WESP control technology beyond the consent decree does yield visibility improveme nt greater than 0.5 dv at the Mesa Verde Class I area. However, this visibility impr ovement is an isolated incident as no other Class I area’s visibility improvement is gr eater than 0.5 dv. The next highest visibility improvement is 0.14 dv. Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART a pplication document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visi bility 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 pl ant-wide summary of the 98 th 

# percentile visibility impact for the WESP modele d technology scenarios (i.e., Pr e-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, and WESP scenario), provides inform ation 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 98 th 

# percentile visibility imp act for each class I area.

5.2.2 Unit Specific Visi bility 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, a nd 17-20 of Appendix F, respectively. These
tables summarize the scenarios and the maximu m 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 ar eas. 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) improve ment 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 impr ovement 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 si xteen 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 sim ilar 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 addi ng 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 th e visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART application document, the cost-effectiveness for vi sibility 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 su mmary of the 98th percentile visibility impact for the three modeled technology sc enarios (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 contri bution of each pollutant associated with the 98th percentile visibility im pact for each class I area.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Conclusion

080828 6-1 

# 6.0 Conclusion

As noted in this document, PNM’s furthe r investigation of additional refinements to the June 2007 BART CALPUFF air disper sion modeling analyses to yield more realistic regional haze impacts was warrant ed. These analyses included nitrate repartitioning and more realistic amm onia background concen trations 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 conclusi on 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 mi nimal visibility improvements and would require significant capital expenditure and m odifications that will impact many areas of the plant including boiler draft systems and as h handling. The results from the analyses
further substantiate that th e addition of WESP PM contro l 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 disc ussed in this document do not merit the large capital expenditure required to inst all 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 th e minimal visibility improvement to the class I areas in the BART analysis, the reco mmended 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 ba ck-end of plant. Refer to Consent Decree environmental upgrade project plant arrangement. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Inlet ductwor k 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 modifi cation required for PJFF and ID fans.

Enclosures Requirements Enclosures included with PJFF casing required.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwor k for retrofit, demolition and relocation of existing site structures/equipment to locate PJFF casing and ductwork routing. Major Constructability Issues Accessibil ity 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 acti vities 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 ductwor k connection downstream of Wet FGD and outlet ductwork connecti on into stack breeching. Reagent Storage None.

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

Fan Modifications FGD booster fan modifications required to over come additional pressure drop.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications Aux el ectric system modification required for WE SP electrical systems and FGD booster fan modifications. Enclosures Requirements Enclosures included with WESP casing required.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwor k for retrofit, demolition and relocation of existing site structures/equipment to locate WESP casing and ductwork routing. Major Constructability Issues Accessibil ity 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 acti vities 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. H 2 O 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. H 2 O 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. H 2 O 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. H 2 O 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 WESPUnit 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 of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input3,707mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.020 0.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.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% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB70.837.1 18.5 0.6 18.5 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.8 27.0 SO4 3 6.8 SOA4Weighted Extinction 11.1 17.8 6.9 81.0 27.0 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues 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 Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 70.837.118.5 0.6 18.5 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.8 27.0 SO4 3 6.8 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Coarse 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 6.8100.0% 70.8Unit 1Unit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)18.517.80.727.06.8CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%) (um) (lb/hr)10 92% 100% 10-6 6.06 77% 84% 6-2.5 9.72.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 8.91.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 2.41 25% 27% 1.0-625 4.40.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 5.6CALPUFF Filterable FilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)8 10-6 16% 6.0 0.6 0.764.25 6-2.5 26% 9.7 0.6 1.22 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 8.9 1 1.12 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-1 7% 2.4 1 0.300.813 1.6-25 12% 4.4 1 0.560.6250.625-0 15% 5.6 1 0.6210 0.09 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100% 37.1 4.67Unit 1Unit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range6.09.78.92.44.45.610-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0Unit 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 of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input3,688mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.020 0.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.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% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB70.536.9 18.4 0.6 18.4 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.6 26.9 SO4 3 6.7 SOA4Weighted Extinction 11.1 17.8 6.8 80.6 26.9 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues 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 Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 70.536.918.4 0.6 18.4 17.8 1 0.7 10 33.6 26.9 SO4 3 6.7 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Coarse 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 6.7100.0% 70.5Unit 2Unit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)18.417.80.726.96.7CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%) (um) (lb/hr)10 92% 100% 10-6 6.06 77% 84% 6-2.5 9.62.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 8.81.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 2.41 25% 27% 1.0-625 4.40.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 5.6CALPUFF Filterable FilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)8 10-6 16% 6.0 0.6 0.764.25 6-2.5 26% 9.6 0.6 1.21 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 8.8 1 1.11 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-1 7% 2.4 1 0.300.813 1.6-25 12% 4.4 1 0.560.6250.625-0 15% 5.6 1 0.6210 0.09 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100% 36.9 4.65Unit 2Unit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range6.09.68.82.44.45.610-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0Unit 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 of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input5,758mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.020 0.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.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% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB110.057.6 28.8 0.6 28.8 27.7 1 1.1 10 52.4 41.9 SO4 3 10.5 SOA4Weighted Extinction 17.3 27.7 10.7 125.8 41.9 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues 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 Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 110.057.628.8 0.6 28.8 27.7 1 1.1 10 52.4 41.9 SO4 3 10.5 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Coarse 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 10.5100.0% 110.0Unit 3Unit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)28.827.71.141.910.5CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%) (um) (lb/hr)10 92% 100% 10-6 9.46 77% 84% 6-2.5 15.02.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 13.81.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 3.81 25% 27% 1.0-625 6.90.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 8.8CALPUFF Filterable FilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)8 10-6 16% 9.4 0.6 1.184.25 6-2.5 26% 15.0 0.6 1.89 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 13.8 1 1.74 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-1 7% 3.8 1 0.470.813 1.6-25 12% 6.9 1 0.870.6250.625-0 15% 8.8 1 0.9710 0.13 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100% 57.6 7.26Unit 3Unit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range9.415.013.83.86.98.810-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0Unit 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 of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input5,649mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.020 0.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.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% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB107.956.5 28.2 0.6 28.2 27.2 1 1.0 10 51.4 41.1 SO4 3 10.3 SOA4Weighted Extinction 16.9 27.2 10.5 123.4 41.1 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues 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 Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 10 47.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 107.956.528.2 0.6 28.2 27.2 1 1.0 10 51.4 41.1 SO4 3 10.3 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.01 0.00 1 0.0002 10 0.01 0.01 SO4 3 0.00 SOA4Coarse 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 10.3100.0% 107.9Unit 4Unit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)28.227.21.041.110.3CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%) (um) (lb/hr)10 92% 100% 10-6 9.26 77% 84% 6-2.5 14.72.5 53% 58% 2.5-1.25 13.51.25 31% 34% 1.25-1.0 3.71 25% 27% 1.0-625 6.80.625 14% 15% 0.625-0 8.6CALPUFF Filterable FilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr) Coef. (g/sec)8 10-6 16% 9.2 0.6 1.164.25 6-2.5 26% 14.7 0.6 1.86 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.25 24% 13.5 1 1.70 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-1 7% 3.7 1 0.460.813 1.6-25 12% 6.8 1 0.850.6250.625-0 15% 8.6 1 0.9510 0.13 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100% 56.5 7.12Unit 4Unit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range9.214.713.53.76.88.610-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix E

080828 E-1 

# Appendix E Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility ModelingPNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-2SJGS Unit 1, Heat Input (HHV) = 3,707 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(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/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)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 50.0 NA NAVisibility 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 40.5 NA NAWith 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 27.0 NA NANotes1. 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 SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal 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 1Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7PNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-3SJGS Unit 2, Heat Input (HHV) = 3,688 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(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/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)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 49.7 NA NAVisibility 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 40.3 NA NAWith 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 26.9 NA NANotes1. 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 SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal 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 2Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7PNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-4SJGS Unit 3, Heat Input (HHV) = 5,758 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(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/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)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 77.7 NA NAVisibility 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 62.9 NA NAWith 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 41.9 NA NANotes1. 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 SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal 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 3Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7PNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-5SJGS Unit 4, Heat Input (HHV) = 5,649 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(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/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)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 76.2 NA NAVisibility 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 61.7 NA NAWith 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 41.1 NA NANotes1. 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 SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal 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 4Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack 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 3.18PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F5 of F21Table 4SJGS Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches1.92 1.69 1.63 0.23 0.06 0.29 201,624,454 871,698,413 346,195,205Bandelier1.86 1.56 1.50 0.31 0.06 0.36 150,397,394 998,490,909 279,251,381Black Canyon1.40 1.15 1.12 0.26 0.03 0.28 181,066,667 1,961,321,429 357,204,947Canyonlands2.59 2.26 2.17 0.33 0.10 0.42 142,067,692 572,052,083 240,116,390Capitol Reef1.97 1.81 1.71 0.16 0.10 0.26 286,782,609 554,717,172 388,803,846Grand Canyon1.14 0.97 0.95 0.17 0.02 0.19 273,207,101 2,288,208,333 523,777,202Great Sand Dunes1.00 0.71 0.69 0.29 0.02 0.31 160,878,049 2,745,850,000 329,280,130La Garita1.30 0.94 0.90 0.36 0.04 0.40 128,255,556 1,277,139,535 250,841,191Maroon Bells0.78 0.56 0.54 0.22 0.02 0.24 211,798,165 2,496,227,273 421,204,167Mesa Verde4.85 3.80 3.18 1.06 0.62 1.68 43,682,119 88,862,460 60,351,642Pecos1.40 1.09 1.07 0.31 0.03 0.33 150,888,889 2,112,192,308 304,484,940Petrified Forest1.13 0.82 0.79 0.31 0.02 0.34 148,463,023 2,288,208,333 301,758,209San Pedro2.37 2.01 1.87 0.36 0.14 0.50 128,255,556 386,739,437 201,372,510West Elk1.15 0.91 0.88 0.24 0.03 0.27 194,000,000 1,615,205,882 371,650,735Weminuche1.85 1.48 1.39 0.37 0.09 0.46 124,452,830 631,229,885 220,718,341Wheeler Peak1.05 0.89 0.84 0.16 0.05 0.21 290,389,937 1,056,096,154 479,094,787Notes: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) Visibi lity 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 1.33PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F9 of F21Table 8Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches0.82 0.69 0.66 0.13 0.03 0.16 80,207,692 408,793,103 140,138,365Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.38 0.14 0.02 0.16 74,478,571 697,352,941 141,923,567Black Canyon0.38 0.29 0.28 0.09 0.01 0.10 115,855,556 846,785,714 214,250,000Canyonlands1.10 1.00 0.97 0.10 0.03 0.13 104,270,000 359,242,424 167,533,835Capitol Reef0.76 0.57 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.21 54,878,947 623,947,368 106,612,440Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.01 0.05 260,675,000 1,077,727,273 436,901,961Great Sand Dunes0.20 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.06 173,783,333 2,963,750,000 348,156,250La Garita0.29 0.21 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.09 130,337,500 1,317,222,222 250,359,551Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.05 260,675,000 1,693,571,429 474,085,106Mesa Verde1.79 1.40 1.33 0.39 0.07 0.46 26,735,897 174,338,235 48,650,655Pecos0.35 0.27 0.26 0.08 0.01 0.09 130,337,500 1,481,875,000 253,204,545Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.07 173,783,333 1,317,222,222 322,927,536San Pedro0.73 0.59 0.56 0.14 0.03 0.17 74,478,571 348,676,471 128,057,471West Elk0.28 0.22 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.07 173,783,333 1,317,222,222 322,927,536Weminuche0.54 0.43 0.41 0.11 0.02 0.13 94,790,909 623,947,368 172,728,682Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.07 173,783,333 1,481,875,000 327,676,471Notes: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) Visibi lity 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 1.33PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F13 of F21Table 12Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches0.83 0.69 0.66 0.14 0.03 0.17 76,885,714 371,718,750 131,738,372Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.38 0.14 0.02 0.16 76,885,714 626,052,632 142,509,434Black Canyon0.39 0.29 0.27 0.10 0.02 0.12 107,640,000 743,437,500 195,336,207Canyonlands1.07 0.99 0.96 0.08 0.03 0.11 134,550,000 440,555,556 211,766,355Capitol Reef0.78 0.57 0.55 0.21 0.02 0.23 51,257,143 540,681,818 97,668,103Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.01 0.05 269,100,000 991,250,000 435,750,000Great Sand Dunes0.21 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.07 153,771,429 2,973,750,000 306,202,703La Garita0.29 0.21 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.09 134,550,000 1,982,500,000 263,476,744Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.05 269,100,000 1,486,875,000 472,062,500Mesa Verde1.82 1.40 1.33 0.42 0.07 0.49 25,628,571 172,391,304 46,337,423Pecos0.36 0.27 0.26 0.09 0.01 0.10 119,600,000 1,321,666,667 228,878,788Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.07 179,400,000 1,189,500,000 323,700,000San Pedro0.73 0.58 0.55 0.15 0.03 0.18 71,760,000 440,555,556 128,016,949West Elk0.29 0.22 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.08 153,771,429 1,189,500,000 283,237,500Weminuche0.56 0.42 0.41 0.14 0.01 0.15 76,885,714 1,081,363,636 150,059,603Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.07 179,400,000 1,321,666,667 328,391,304Notes: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) Visibi lity 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 1.70PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F17 of F21Table 16Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches1.04 0.89 0.88 0.15 0.02 0.17 83,026,667 1,037,200,000 169,769,697Bandelier0.81 0.61 0.59 0.20 0.03 0.23 62,270,000 622,320,000 124,497,778Black Canyon0.59 0.46 0.45 0.13 0.02 0.15 95,800,000 1,037,200,000 193,186,207Canyonlands1.44 1.15 1.12 0.29 0.03 0.32 42,944,828 518,600,000 87,537,500Capitol Reef1.10 0.86 0.84 0.24 0.02 0.26 51,891,667 777,900,000 107,738,462Grand Canyon0.48 0.35 0.34 0.13 0.01 0.14 95,800,000 1,196,769,231 195,888,112Great Sand Dunes0.33 0.24 0.23 0.09 0.01 0.10 138,377,778 1,414,363,636 277,346,535La Garita0.44 0.33 0.31 0.11 0.02 0.13 113,218,182 818,842,105 217,147,287Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.06 249,080,000 1,555,800,000 466,866,667Mesa Verde2.18 1.90 1.70 0.28 0.21 0.49 44,478,571 75,892,683 57,756,701Pecos0.58 0.42 0.40 0.16 0.02 0.18 77,837,500 676,434,783 153,071,038Petrified Forest0.43 0.29 0.28 0.14 0.01 0.15 88,957,143 2,222,571,429 190,557,823San Pedro1.03 0.81 0.77 0.22 0.04 0.26 56,609,091 398,923,077 108,154,440West Elk0.42 0.35 0.33 0.07 0.02 0.09 177,914,286 972,375,000 325,720,930Weminuche0.82 0.64 0.59 0.18 0.05 0.23 69,188,889 324,125,000 122,859,649Wheeler Peak0.39 0.31 0.30 0.08 0.01 0.09 155,675,000 1,944,750,000 318,318,182Notes: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) Visibi lity 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 1.68PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F21 of F21Table 20Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches1.05 0.88 0.87 0.17 0.01 0.18 73,688,235 1,114,928,571 152,913,043Bandelier0.81 0.60 0.57 0.21 0.03 0.24 59,652,381 578,111,111 118,717,300Black Canyon0.59 0.44 0.43 0.15 0.01 0.16 83,513,333 1,419,000,000 174,757,764Canyonlands1.47 1.14 1.10 0.33 0.04 0.37 37,960,606 433,583,333 76,874,317Capitol Reef1.11 0.86 0.84 0.25 0.02 0.27 50,108,000 743,285,714 103,822,878Grand Canyon0.48 0.36 0.35 0.12 0.01 0.13 104,391,667 1,560,900,000 216,430,769Great Sand Dunes0.34 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.11 113,881,818 3,902,250,000 246,807,018La Garita0.45 0.32 0.30 0.13 0.02 0.15 96,361,538 867,166,667 190,108,108Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.06 250,540,000 1,951,125,000 485,103,448Mesa Verde2.18 1.89 1.68 0.29 0.21 0.50 43,196,552 75,405,797 56,611,670Pecos0.59 0.41 0.39 0.18 0.03 0.21 69,594,444 624,360,000 137,248,780Petrified Forest0.44 0.29 0.28 0.15 0.01 0.16 83,513,333 1,300,750,000 173,679,012San Pedro1.04 0.80 0.76 0.24 0.04 0.28 52,195,833 380,707,317 100,128,114West Elk0.43 0.33 0.32 0.10 0.01 0.11 125,270,000 1,560,900,000 255,781,818Weminuche0.81 0.63 0.59 0.18 0.04 0.22 69,594,444 354,750,000 125,607,143Wheeler Peak0.41 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.00 0.11 113,881,818 3,902,250,000 246,807,018Notes: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 $28,136PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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 100PNM 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