BART Determination Modeling Analysis 

Tesoro Anacortes Refinery 

Anacortes, Washington 

Prepared for: 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company 

10200 West March’s Point Road 

Anacortes, Washington 98221 

February 2008 

Project No. 13076.000.0 
BART Determination Modeling Analysis 

Tesoro Anacortes Refinery 

Anacortes, Washington 

Prepared for: 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company 

10200 West March’s Point Road 

Anacortes, Washington 98221 

Prepared by: 

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 

3500 188th Street SW, Suite 600 

Lynnwood, Washington 98037 

(425) 921-4000 

February 2008 

Project No. 13076.000.0 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 

2.0 BART DETERMINATION ANALYSIS EMISSION RATES........................................2 

2.1 BASELINE EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS...............................................3 

2.2 BART EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS ....................................................5 

3.0 CALPUFF MODELING PROCEDURES ........................................................................6 

3.1 CALPUFF DOMAIN AND RECEPTORS.........................................................................6 

3.3 OZONE DATA ..............................................................................................................7 

3.4 CALPUFF EMISSION DATA........................................................................................7 

3.5 CALPOST POST-PROCESSING....................................................................................8 

4.0 BASELINE AND BART DETERMINATION MODELING RESULTS........................9 

Attachment: Compact Disk Containing CALPUFF Modeling Files 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(Continued) 

I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc ii 

TABLES 

Table 2-1 Baseline Emission Rates and Stack Parameters 

Table 2-2 BART Emission Rates and Stack Parameters 

Table 3-1 Baseline Case PM10 Speciation 

Table 3-2 BART Case PM10 Speciation 

Table 3-3 CALPUFF Emission Rates for Baseline Case 

Table 3-4 CALPUFF Emission Rates for BART Case 

Table 4-1 Number of Days with Predicted Change to the Haze Index Greater than 0.5 

Deciviews 

Table 4-2 Three-Year Predicted 98th Percentile Change to the Daily Haze Index 

Table 4-3 Predicted 98th Percentile Change to the Daily Haze Index by Year 

Table 4-4 Design Day Extinction Budgets for Baseline Case 

Table 4-5 Design Day Extinction Budgets for BART Case 

FIGURES 

Figure 3-1 CALMET and CALPUFF Modeling Domains 

Figure 3-2 CALPUFF Modeling Domain with Class I Receptors 

Figure 3-3 Ozone Stations near Domain 

Figure 4-1 Time Series of Maximum Daily Delta Haze Index for North Cascades National 

Park, Baseline versus and BART Cases 

Figure 4-2 Time Series of Maximum Daily Delta Haze Index for Olympic National Park, 

Baseline versus and BART Cases 

Figure 4-3 Baseline Case Maximum 24-hour Extinction for 2003-2005 

Figure 4-4 BART Case Maximum 24-hour Extinction for 2003-2005 

Figure 4-5 Baseline Case 24-hour Delta Haze Index for 12/08/2005 

Figure 4-6 BART Case 24-hour Delta Haze Index for 12/08/2005 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 1

BART DETERMINATION MODELING ANALYSIS 

Tesoro Anacortes Refinery 

Anacortes, Washington 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued Administrative Order No. 5076 

requiring that the Tesoro Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro) submit a Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) technical analysis. Under Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) rules and guidance, sources subject to BART must conduct modeling analyses to 

assess the relative merits of different control strategies to improve visibility in Class I areas.1

Geomatrix prepared this report to describe the two (Baseline and BART) regional air quality 

modeling simulations we conducted to support a BART determination analysis for Tesoro. 

The BART analysis evaluates potential technologies for control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM10 (particles less than 10 microns in diameter) emissions from 

BART-eligible units at Tesoro. Ecology identified 14 BART-eligible units at Tesoro. The 

eligible units are: 12 process heaters, a carbon monoxide (CO) boiler and a flare. The 

combustion units range in capacity from 16.5 to 322 MMBtu per hour. Eleven of the process 

heaters burn refinery fuel gas, while Process Heater F-103 burns both refinery fuel gas and fuel 

oil. The CO Boiler (F-304) has historically been utilized for energy recovery and serves, per 

Refinery MACT II, to assure the destruction of organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the 

Cat Cracker. Refinery fuel gas is also burned at F-304 as a supplemental fuel. Exhaust from 

F-304 is cleaned via flow through a flue gas scrubbing (FGS) system for removal of PM10 and 

SO2. Flare X-819 is one component of the refinery’s 3-flare system. In addition to these units, 

Tesoro’s review of applicable BART regulations and refinery history identified two cooling 

towers that need to be added to the Ecology list of eligible units for the BART analysis, resulting 

in a total of 16 BART-eligible units at the refinery. Not included in this count are eleven storage 

tanks built during the 15-year interval; their contribution to volatile organic compound emissions 

is less than 250 tons per year. 

 

1

 40 CFR Part 51. Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Determinations; Final Rule. pg 39129. July 6, 2005. Appendix Y, “Guideline for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology Determination” (BART Guidelines) details EPA’s requirements and guidance for states for conducting 

BART analyses. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 2

Geomatrix applied the CALPUFF modeling system to assess BART control strategies at Tesoro. 

The CALPUFF system is recommended by the BART Guidelines1 for such assessments. Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ), and Ecology developed a CALPUFF modeling protocol for BART exemption and 

BART determination analyses (“BART Modeling Protocol”).

2

 The BART Modeling Protocol is 

designed to be conservative and will likely overstate both the impacts of Tesoro NOx, SO2, and 

PM10 emissions on regional haze and the likely benefits of emission controls to improve 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The remainder of this report describes a BART determination modeling analysis for NOx, SO2, 

and PM10 emissions from Tesoro BART-eligible units following the BART Modeling Protocol. 

We will describe the modeling domain and identify any changes to the protocol used in our 

study. The report includes a discussion of the baseline emission rates used in simulations for the 

Tesoro units, how the various BART controls affected these emission rates, and the manner that 

sources were characterized in the simulations. The report concludes with a presentation of the 

dispersion model results. 

2.0 BART DETERMINATION ANALYSIS EMISSION RATES 

The BART determination analysis compares the benefits of additional NOx, SO2, and PM10

controls towards reducing regional haze in Class I areas against the results from a simulation of 

baseline conditions. Simulations of emissions from the 16 Tesoro units were performed for the 

following two cases: 

• Baseline – Maximum 24-hour NOx, SO2, and PM10 emissions during 2003-2005 

• BART – Same as the Baseline except NOx controls on several process heaters; reduced 

emissions of SO2 and PM10 from Process Heater F-103 assuming the unit burns only 

refinery fuel gas; and NOx controls on CO Boiler F-104 

The BART Modeling Protocol requires that the highest daily NOx, PM10, and SO2 emission rates 

during 2003-2005 be used for the Baseline case. The period for the baseline emissions matches 

the timeframe of the meteorological dataset (2003-2005) described in the BART Modeling 

 

2 Modeling Protocol for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Modeling 

System Pursuant to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Regulation. Final Version October 11, 2006. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 3

Protocol. The methods used to estimate emission rates for the Baseline and BART cases are 

described in the remainder of this section. 

2.1 BASELINE EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS

Tesoro provided Geomatrix with the emission rates and stack parameters used for the Baseline 

simulations. Table 2-1 shows the maximum calendar day NOx, SO2, and PM10 emission rates 

for each eligible unit used in the Baseline simulations. Emission rates for each unit and pollutant 

were calculated independently from daily emission estimates during 2003-2005. The daily 

summaries were ranked and the highest emission rate for each pollutant and unit selected for the 

simulations. Further details are provided below. 

Process heaters fired only with refinery fuel gas: NOx emission rates for the individual 

heaters were computed from daily fuel consumption rates for 2003-2005. Fuel use data were 

screened for credibility and any determined to be not-credible were excluded. The NOx 

emission rates for Process Heater F-104 were based upon the emission factor (0.013 lb/MMBtu) 

established through source testing for the ultra low NOx burners previously installed at the unit. 

All other NOx emission rates were based upon EPA emission factors (AP-42) and associated 

guidance (e.g., adjustment for refinery fuel gas heat content). 

SO2 emission rates for these process heaters were based on material balance computations using 

the daily fuel consumption rates and fuel gas quality (hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content). Fuel use 

and fuel quality data were screened for credibility and any determined to be not-credible were 

excluded. It was assumed that one percent of SO2 from the burning of refinery fuel gas was 

emitted as sulfuric acid mist and was not included in the BART SO2 emission rate total. 

Particulate matter (PM) emission rates from the individual heaters were based upon daily fuel 

consumption rates for 2003-2005. All PM emission rates were calculated with the EPA emission 

factor (AP-42, Table 1.4-2 - 7.6 lb/MMscf) for natural gas, adjusted for the refinery fuel gas heat 

content. All PM emissions from these sources were assumed to be PM10. 

Process Heater F-103: This unit burned both refinery fuel gas and refinery fuel oil during 

2003-2005. NOx emission rates for both gas and oil combustion were calculated using EPA 

emission factors (per AP-42). SO2 emissions were estimated from material balance calculations 

as discussed above using the sulfur content of the fuels. SO2 from fuel gas burning was based 

upon 1 percent of the burned sulfur being emitted in the form of sulfuric acid mist, with SO2
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 4

from fuel oil burning based upon a 3 percent fraction. Sulfuric acid mist from the two fuels was 

not included in the SO2 emission rate totals. 

PM emission rates for both refinery fuel gas and fuel oil combustion were based upon EPA 

emission factors (per AP-42) and associated guidance. For fuel gas burning, all PM was 

assumed to be PM10. For oil burning, 86 percent of the PM emitted was assumed to be PM10

(AP-42, Table 1.3-5 for "Industrial Boilers firing Residual Oil"). 

Cat Cracker CO Boiler F-304: F-304 is one of two boilers that have been utilized historically 

for energy recovery at Tesoro (for generation of steam through the combustion of CO from the 

Cat Cracker regenerator). The two CO Boilers are regarded as pollution control devises per 

Petroleum Refinery MACT II for the destruction of organic HAPs in the regenerator flue gas. In 

November 2005, a FGS system was installed for removal of PM and SO2 from the flue gases of 

both CO boilers. The F-304 stack no longer exists and the boiler exhausts thru the FGS stack 

(V-348). Even though the FGS was not installed until 2005, per Ecology and EPA guidance the 

Baseline emission data for F-304 assumes FGS control of PM and SO2 during the entire baseline 

years of 2003 - 2005. 

NOx emission rates were based upon numerous periodic NOx source tests conducted during the 

BART assessment years. Tesoro assumed the measurements from the most recent NOx source 

test remains representative of actual emissions until superseded by a subsequent source test 

result. 

SO2 emission rates were based upon: a) periodic SO2 source tests conducted during the BART 

period and b) FGS emissions limited by a SO2 concentration of 50.0 ppm (max 7-day average – 

the short term standard in the Cat Cracker permit). 

PM emission rates for CO Boiler F-304 were based upon: 

• Monthly Cat Cracker catalyst balances with system losses assumed to be uniform over 

the month 

• 57 percent of the Cat Cracker catalyst losses allocated to F-304, (the balance allocated to 

the other CO boiler per source test results) 

• F-304 catalyst emissions exiting the FGS (V-348) are controlled to the MACT II 

regulatory limit of 1.0 lb/1000 lb coke burned 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 5

• PM emissions were assumed to be 100 percent PM10

Flare X-819: NOx, SO2, and PM emission rates for Flare X-819 were based on the emission 

rates reported annually to Ecology for the Washington Emissions Data Summary (WEDS). 

Tesoro assumed 80 percent of the emissions reported for the refinery’s 3-flare system were 

emitted by Flare X-819. 

Cooling Towers No. 2 and No. 2A: PM emission rates for the cooling towers are based upon 

EPA’s AP-42 emissions factors and were taken from the annual WEDS reported for Tesoro’s 4-

tower system (Nos. 1, 2, 2A & 2b). The fractions emitted from Cooling Towers 2 and 2A were 

based on their respective portions of the total water circulation for all 4 towers. All cooling 

tower PM emissions were assumed to be PM10. 

Stack Parameters. Stack parameters for the Baseline simulations are shown in Table 2-1. These 

parameters were calculated for the same days with the highest 24-hour emissions for each 

pollutant using a combination of source test data, fuel use, and the combustion characteristics of 

the fuel. The maximum SO2, PM10, and NOx emission rates usually did not occur on the same 

days during 2003-2005. The flow rates and temperatures used in the simulations were calculated 

from the average of these parameters on the three pollutant specific days with the highest 

emission rates. 

2.2 BART EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS

Table 2-2 presents the SO2, PM10, and NOx emission rates and stack parameters used for 

simulations of the BART case. The BART case comprises the following changes: 

• Low-NOx burners on Process Heaters F-103, F-6650, and F-6651 

• Discontinuation of fuel oil burning at Process Heater F-103 

• Low-NOx burners and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) on F-304 

• Ultra Low-NOx burners on Process Heaters F-6652 and F-6653. 

Tesoro calculated emission rates for the BART case by applying control efficiencies to the 

maximum daily emission rates used for the Baseline simulation. The emission rates for Process 

Heater F-103 also reflect the assumption that this unit would no longer burn refinery fuel oil. 

For this unit, the entire data development was repeated with fuel gas rates and qualities applied 

to the substitution of fuel oil use on a day by day basis during 2003-2005. The commitment to 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 6

burn refinery fuel gas also affected the stack parameters estimated for this unit. The stack 

parameters for all other units are the same as in the Baseline case. 

3.0 CALPUFF MODELING PROCEDURES 

Geomatrix applied the CALPUFF modeling system to assess regional haze in Class I areas 

caused by the SO2, NOx, and PM10 emissions in the Baseline and BART cases described in the 

previous section. Features of the CALPUFF modeling system include the ability to consider: 

secondary aerosol formation; gaseous and particle deposition; wet and dry deposition processes; 

complex three-dimensional wind regimes; and the effects of humidity on regional visibility. 

Geomatrix used Version 6.112 of the CALPUFF modeling system for the simulations per the 

recommendations of the BART Modeling Protocol for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.3

 The 

simulations were performed using a 2003-2005 meteorological database prepared by Geomatrix 

for BART related analyses in the three states. With the exception of the ozone data discussed in 

Section 3.2, the CALPUFF modeling procedures follow the BART Modeling Protocol. 

3.1 CALPUFF DOMAIN AND RECEPTORS

Figure 3-1 displays the CALPUFF modeling domain within the larger CALMET domain used 

for BART simulations in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The CALPUFF computation domain 

was selected using a circle with a 300 kilometer (km) radius surrounding Tesoro. All Class I 

areas located inside of the circle are included in the BART exemption modeling. The CALPUFF 

computation domain includes a buffer of approximately 50 km from any Class I area touched by 

the 300-km circle. 

Figure 3-2 shows the CALPUFF domain and the Class I areas considered in the analysis. The 

eight Class I areas included in the visibility impact analysis include: Alpine Lakes Wilderness, 

Glacier Peak Wilderness, Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mt. Adams Wilderness, Mt. Rainier National 

Park, North Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Pasayten Wilderness. At 

Ecology’s request, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) was also 

included in the visibility impact analysis to provide information to interested parties. 

 

3

 Although a later version of the modeling system is now available, Ecology requests Version 6.112 be applied for 

consistency with previously submitted BART exemption analyses from other sources. This version of the CALPUFF 

modeling system is also compatible with a large meteorological database prepared on Ecology’s behalf by 

Geomatrix for BART simulations. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 7

Receptor locations and elevations for the Class I areas were obtained from a database available 

from the NPS.4 Receptor locations and elevations for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 

Area were provided by Ecology. In addition to the Class I area receptors, CALPUFF predictions 

were also obtained at each grid point within the 4-km mesh size computational domain. These 

receptors were used only for diagnostic purposes and to prepare some of the figures in this 

report. 

3.3 OZONE DATA 

The BART Modeling Protocol recommends a constant ozone background concentration of 

60 ppb for BART simulations. However, it has become common practice for both BART 

analyses and New Source Review assessments of Class I areas to use actual ozone observations 

within Washington, Oregon, and Idaho to characterize background ozone concentrations. ODEQ 

prepared such a database that is available for BART sources to use in their assessments. 

The ODEQ database does not contain Canadian monitoring data and the Tesoro domain extends 

into British Columbia. Geomatrix supplemented the ODEQ ozone database for 2003-2005 by 

adding data from seven monitoring stations in southern British Columbia. The ozone station 

locations near the study domain are shown in Figure 3-3. The database was submitted by 

Geomatrix and subsequently approved by Ecology for BART and New Source Review analyses.5 

3.4 CALPUFF EMISSION DATA

Section 2 of this report presented the highest daily NOx, PM10, and SO2 emission rates used for 

the simulations for the Baseline and BART determination cases. Prior to the simulations, PM10

emissions must be divided into one to six species, including: soot or elemental carbon (EC), fine 

soil particles (PMF), coarse particles (PMC), organic carbon (OC), 6 sulfate (SO4), and nitrate 

(NO3). These species have different scattering efficiencies that when combined with relative 

humidity adjustment factors and predicted aerosol concentrations are used to calculate visual 

extinction. 

 

4

 Receptor locations, elevations, and boundaries for each Class I area can be obtained from the NPS at: 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/index.cfm. 

5

 Email from Clint Bowman, Ecology to Ken Richmond, Geomatrix, Subj: Addition of BC Ozone Observations to 

Ozone.dat. December 20, 2007. 

6

 For the purposes of post-processing by CALPOST, the species OC is labeled SOA (secondary organic aerosol) in 

the CALPUFF input and output files. CALPOST actually looks for “SOA” when calculating extinction. We assume 

all OC emitted forms SOA. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 8

Geomatrix divided Baseline PM10 emissions from Tesoro according to the fractions listed in 

Table 3-1. The PM2.5/PM10 ratios and PM2.5 fractions were taken from a database provided by 

Ecology for use in BART modeling analyses. We understand the PM2.5 fractions in the database 

are based on profiles recommended by the EPA for the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model.7,8 CMAQ is the preferred regulatory model for PM2.5 and regional haze 

simulations. The CMAQ profile database is indexed by Source Classification Code (SCC). The 

SCC assigned to each BART unit at Tesoro is listed in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-2 shows the PM10 speciation profiles assumed for the BART case simulations. The 

profiles are the same as the Baseline case, except for Process Heater F-103. For the Baseline 

case, the profile reflects oil combustion because most of the PM10 emissions occur when the unit 

uses this fuel. The refinery fuel gas profile was selected for the BART case. 

A summary of the CALPUFF simulation emission rates for the Baseline and BART cases are 

shown in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4, respectively. The Ecology profile database divides PM10

emissions into PMC, PMF, EC, OC, ammonium nitrate, and ammonium sulfate. SO4 and NO3

emissions in the CALPUFF input files were calculated based on the respective ammonium 

sulfate and ammonium nitrate in the NPS profile after accounting for the change in molecular 

weight. 

3.5 CALPOST POST-PROCESSING

Geomatrix applied CALPOST to post-process the CALPUFF output files and calculate the 

change to the Haze Index (HI) predicted by aerosols emitted and formed from the Tesoro units. 

Background HIs for each Class I area were calculated using CALPOST Method 6 and the 

monthly average relative humidity adjustment factors and aerosol concentrations listed in 

Appendix B of the BART Modeling Protocol. The background extinction in the protocol 

represents the hypothetical “natural” background on the 20 percent best visibility days of the 

year. 

As recommended by the BART Guidelines, Geomatrix used the 98th percentile change to the 

daily Haze Index (ΔHI), in units of deciviews (dv), as a visibility metric to assess the 

 

7

 EPA website containing PM speciation by source categories: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/speciation. 

8

 NPS has developed PM10 speciation profiles for several of the major source categories and these are commonly 

used to divide PM10 emissions into species for BART analyses. However, the NPS profiles do not include process 

heaters, flares and the other BART units at the Tesoro Anacortes Refinery. The NPS speciation profiles can be 

found at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/ect/index.cfm. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 9

significance of results from the two emission cases. The 98th percentiles within each Class I area 

were estimated from the 8th highest ΔHI of each year and the 22nd highest in three-years. The 

time-series lists in the CALPOST output files that show the maximum daily ΔHI within each 

Class I area were sorted to obtain the required 98th percentiles. 

Geomatrix also summarized the simulations by comparing the number of days where the 

predicted ΔH exceeds 0.5 dv within each Class I area. This is the screening criterion for BART 

exemption. According to BART Guidelines, a ΔHI of less than 0.5 dv when compared to natural 

conditions does not cause or contribute to impairment of visibility. 

4.0 BASELINE AND BART DETERMINATION MODELING RESULTS 

Table 4-1 displays the number of days in three years predicted by the CALPUFF modeling 

system where the ΔHI significance criterion of 0.5 dv was exceeded for each area of interest and 

emission case. The number of days in three years exceeding the screening criterion range in the 

Baseline case from 103 days in North Cascades National Park to one day in the CRGNSA. In 

areas of interest, the mean number of days exceeding 0.5 dv is reduced by about 40 percent 

overall in the BART case simulation. 

Table 4-2 presents the three-year 98th percentile ΔHI predicted for each Class I area and emission 

case. This metric is related both to the frequency and magnitude of the predicted change to the 

haze index. The highest potential impacts to regional haze are predicted in Olympic National 

Park followed by the North Cascades National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness and Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness. The mean 98th percentile ΔHI for all areas of interest under the BART case is about 

80 percent of the prediction for Baseline emissions. For Olympic National Park, the 98th

percentile ΔHI predicted by the BART simulation is 73 percent of the same value predicted with 

Baseline emissions. 

The yearly 98th percentile ΔHIs for each of the three years are shown in Table 4-3. For the 

Baseline simulations the higher impacts are generally predicted in 2005 for the northern areas of 

interest, and in 2003 for the more distant southern areas. This same general trend is followed in 

the BART case simulations. The annual variability is higher for the more distant areas and for 

the Olympic National Park. Transport to these areas tends to occur under less prevalent flow 

regimes and the predicted impacts are more dependent on yearly differences in the meteorology. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 10

The highest predicted extinctions are predicted in the North Cascades and Olympic National 

Parks. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show time-series of the predicted maximum daily ΔHI in the 

North Cascades National Park and Olympic National Park, respectively. For both the Baseline 

and BART cases, the highest potential changes to the HI occur during the summer for North 

Cascades National Park, while the highest predictions in the Olympic National Park tend to 

occur during the winter months. Flow towards the Olympic National Park occurs less often than 

the prevailing westerly flow aloft, but is associated with cold temperatures during the winter 

months. The CALPUFF chemistry algorithms favor nitrate formation during such wintertime 

episodes and the highest changes to extinction are predicted in Olympic National Park under 

such conditions. 

Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 list the respective design-day extinction budgets for the Baseline and 

BART cases by Class I area and period.9 Typically in the Baseline simulations, about 60 percent 

of the extinction budgets on the design days are caused by sulfate aerosols. The nitrate 

contributions are also important for some of the design days, especially in the Olympic National 

Park. With the reduction in NOx emissions, the BART case results are less influenced by nitrate 

formation and overall sulfates contribute to over 70 percent of the design day budgets. The nonhygroscopic components of the PM10 emissions do not contribute significantly to the overall 

visibility impairment on the worst days in either the Baseline or BART cases. 

Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show the maximum 24-hour extinction coefficients predicted for the 

Baseline and BART cases, respectively.10 The highest predictions for both cases are associated 

with stagnation conditions and are generally confined to lowland areas. The figures depict flow 

from the north into Puget Sound, southerly flow towards the Straits of Georgia and occasionally 

up the lower Fraser River Valley. The Class I areas in western Washington are in mountainous 

areas and plumes from Tesoro tend to affect only the lower elevations near the boundaries. 

The overall day with the associated highest 98th percentile ΔHI is December 8, 2005 for both the 

Baseline and BART cases. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 display the ΔHI predictions using the 

background aerosol and humidity corrections factors for Olympic National Park. This day was 

characterized by light, but persistent winds from the east, transporting the Tesoro plumes out the 

Strait of Juan De Fuca for the entire 24-hour period. Temperatures were just above freezing 

 

9

 The “design days” are the dates with the corresponding 8th highest ΔHI of each year and the 22nd highest in threeyears within each Class I area 

10 The figures were prepared from the highest 24-hour predictions excluding background, using the monthly relative 

humidity correction factors for the Olympic National Park. 
I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anacortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 11

promoting the formation of nitrate aerosols. Note, the Tesoro plume touches the northern 

boundary of Olympic National Park and the predicted ΔHI is not representative of the whole 

Class I area. 

Geomatrix prepared the attached compact disk containing the modeling files for both the 

Baseline and BART cases. In addition to the CALPUFF and CALPOST files, spreadsheets are 

included that include the extinction budgets for the top 22 days in 2003-2005 and the top 8 days 

in each of the individual years. The files associated with the meteorological database have all 

ready been provided to regulatory agencies in the Pacific Northwest, including Ecology. 
TABLES 
TABLE 2-1 

BASELINE EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS 

Maximum 24-Hour 1

Emission Rates (lb/hr) Stack Parameters 2

Source Name SO2 NOx PM10

Ht. 

(ft) 

Diam. 

(ft) 

Temp.

(F) 

Flow 

(acfps) 

Process Heater F-103 (Oil+Ref Gas) 160.5 53.5 9.1 151.0 6.5 605.7 1381.0 

Process Heater F-104 39.8 0.8 0.4 150.0 3.0 530.0 285.2 

Process Heater F-654 11.7 1.3 0.1 130.0 3.0 681.7 184.5 

Process Heater F-6600 56.0 13.1 0.9 150.0 5.0 785.3 868.8 

Process Heater F-6601 77.5 8.0 0.6 150.0 3.1 538.3 528.2 

Process Heater F-6602 25.6 8.3 0.6 157.0 2.6 772.3 759.6 

Process Heater F-6650&51 332.0 101.3 2.8 150.0 7.0 520.0 2112.0 

Process Heater F-6652&53 86.1 19.2 1.5 150.0 7.0 526.0 1348.8 

Process Heater F-6654 32.2 4.0 0.3 150.0 2.6 533.0 272.7 

Process Heater F-6655 15.1 2.9 0.2 90.0 4.5 1001.7 586.7 

V-348 FGS (discharge for F-304) 24.9 242.7 14.1 199.0 11.5 155.0 4140.0 

Flare X-819 10.0 2.0 0.4 40.0 15.0 1200.0 423.0 

Cooling Tower #2 3 0.0 0.0 0.1 49.6 36.0 100.0 28800.0 

Cooling Tower #2A 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 41.8 31.1 100.0 17300.0 

Total 871.4 457.1 31.2 

1. Estimated maximum 24-hour emission rates during 2003-2005 for each pollutant. 

2. Average temperature and velocity on the days with the highest SO2, NOx, and PM10 emission rates. 

3. Equivalent diameter for four 18 foot cells 

4. Equivalent diameter for two 22 foot cells 
TABLE 2-2 

BART EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS 

Maximum 24-Hour 1

Emission Rates (lb/hr) Stack Parameters 2

Source Name SO2 NOx PM10

Ht. 

(ft) 

Diam. 

(ft) 

Temp.

(F) 

Flow 

(acfps) 

Process Heater F-103 (Ref Gas Only) 152.5 18.2 1.4 151.0 6.5 594.0 1484.7

Process Heater F-104 39.8 0.8 0.4 150.0 3.0 530.0 285.2

Process Heater F-654 11.7 1.3 0.1 130.0 3.0 681.7 184.5

Process Heater F-6600 56.0 13.1 0.9 150.0 5.0 785.3 868.8

Process Heater F-6601 77.5 8.0 0.6 150.0 3.1 538.3 528.2

Process Heater F-6602 25.6 8.3 0.6 157.0 2.6 772.3 759.6

Process Heater F-6650&51 332.0 28.3 2.8 150.0 7.0 520.0 2112.0

Process Heater F-6652&53 86.1 5.2 1.5 150.0 7.0 526.0 1348.8

Process Heater F-6654 32.2 4.0 0.3 150.0 2.6 533.0 272.7

Process Heater F-6655 15.1 2.9 0.2 90.0 4.5 1001.7 586.7

V-348 FGS (discharge for F-304) 24.9 148.0 14.1 199.0 11.5 155.0 4140.0

Flare X-819 10.0 2.0 0.4 40.0 15.0 1200.0 423.0

Cooling Tower #2 3 0.0 0.0 0.1 49.6 36.0 100.0 28800.0

Cooling Tower #2A 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 41.8 31.1 100.0 17300.0

Total 863.4 240.0 23.5 

1. SO2 and PM10 are the same as the Baseline except Process Heater F-103 burns refinery gas only. NOx 

emissions are reduced per the control efficiencies in the BART control technology assessment. 

2. Same as the Baseline except Process Heater F-103 fired by refinery gas only 

3. Equivalent diameter for four 18 foot cells 

4. Equivalent diameter for two 22 foot cells 
TABLE 3-1 

BASELINE CASE PM10 SPECIATION 

 PM2.5 Fraction 

Source Name SCC 1

PM2.5 to 

PM10 EC PMF NH4NO3 

2

 OC (NH4)2SO4 

3

Process Heater F-103 4 30600103 69.23% 8.69% 25.47% 0.05% 10.75% 55.04%

Process Heater F-104 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6600 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6601 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6602 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6650&51 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6652&53 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6655 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

V-348 FGS (F-304) 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Flare X-819 30600904 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Cooling Tower #2 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50%

Cooling Tower #2A 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50%

1. SCC Codes are as follows 

a. 30600103: Petroleum Industry Oil-Fired Process Heater 

b. 30600106: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Process Heater 

c. 30600904: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Flare 

d. 30600701: Petroleum Industry Cooling Tower 

2. Ammonium nitrate. Nitrate (NO3) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 

3. Ammonium sulfate. Sulfate (SO4) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 

4. F-103 is fired both by oil and process gas. The oil-fired profile was selected as the majority of the PM10 

emissions occur when the process heater is fired by this fuel. 
TABLE 3-2 

BART CASE PM10 SPECIATION 

 PM2.5 Fraction 

Source Name SCC 1

PM2.5 to 

PM10 EC PMF NH4NO3 

2

 OC (NH4)2SO4 

3

Process Heater F-103 4 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-104 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6600 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6601 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6602 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6650-51 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6652-53 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6655 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

V-348 FGS (F-304) 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Flare X-819 30600904 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Cooling Tower #2 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50%

Cooling Tower #2A 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50%

1. SCC Codes are as follows 

a. 30600106: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Process Heater 

b. 30600904: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Flare 

c. 30600701: Petroleum Industry Cooling Tower 

2. Ammonium nitrate. Nitrate (NO3) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 

3. Ammonium sulfate. Sulfate (SO4) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 

4. Process Heater F-103 is fired only by process gas 
TABLE 3-3 

CALPUFF EMISSION RATES FOR BASELINE CASE 

 Maximum 24-hour Emission Rates (lb/hr) 

Source SO2 SO4 NOx HNO3 NO3 EC 

SOA 

(OC) 1 PMC PMF 

F-103 160.50 2.52 53.50 0 0.00 0.55 0.68 1.60 2.80

F-104 39.80 0.13 0.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.01

F-654 11.70 0.03 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00

F-6600 56.00 0.30 13.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.01

F-6601 77.50 0.20 8.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01

F-6602 25.60 0.20 8.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01

F-6650-51 332.00 0.94 101.30 0 0.01 0.00 0.23 1.21 0.04

F-6652-53 86.10 0.50 19.20 0 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.65 0.02

F-6654 32.20 0.10 4.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.00

F-6655 15.10 0.07 2.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00

F-304 24.90 4.75 242.70 0 0.06 0.00 1.17 6.12 0.21

X-819 10.00 0.00 2.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00

Cool Twrs 2 0.00 0.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00

1. OC emissions were actually labeled secondary organic aerosols (SOA) in the CALPUFF input files to 

facilitate post-processing with CALPOST. This assumes all OC emitted forms SOA with the same 

molecular weight. 

2. Emissions from the two cooling towers have been combined. 
TABLE 3-4 

CALPUFF EMISSION RATES FOR BART CASE 

 Maximum 24-hour Emission Rates (lb/hr) 

Source SO2 SO4 NOx HNO3 NO3 EC 

SOA 

(OC) 1 PMC PMF 

F-103 152.50 0.48 18.19 0 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.62 0.02

F-104 39.80 0.13 0.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.01

F-654 11.70 0.03 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00

F-6600 56.00 0.30 13.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.01

F-6601 77.50 0.20 8.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01

F-6602 25.60 0.20 8.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01

F-6650-51 332.00 0.94 28.26 0 0.01 0.00 0.23 1.21 0.04

F-6652-53 86.10 0.50 5.16 0 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.65 0.02

F-6654 32.20 0.10 4.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.00

F-6655 15.10 0.07 2.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00

F-304 24.90 4.75 148.05 0 0.06 0.00 1.17 6.12 0.21

X-819 10.00 0.00 2.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00

Cool Twrs 2 0.00 0.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00

1. OC emissions were actually labeled secondary organic aerosols (SOA) in the CALPUFF input files to 

facilitate post-processing with CALPOST. This assumes all OC emitted forms SOA with the same 

molecular weight. 

2. Emissions from the two cooling towers have been combined. 
TABLE 4-1 

NUMBER OF DAYS WITH PREDICTED CHANGE TO THE HAZE INDEX 

GREATER THAN 0.5 DECIVIEWS 

 

Number of Days in 2003-2005 

 with Delta HI > 0.5 dv 

Area of Interest Period Baseline BART 

Reduction 

(%) 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2003-2005 76 41 46% 

Glacier Peak Wilderness 2003-2005 84 50 40% 

Goat Rocks Wilderness 2003-2005 7 5 29% 

Mt. Adams Wilderness 2003-2005 6 4 33% 

Mt. Rainier National Park 2003-2005 36 23 36% 

N. Cascades National Park 2003-2005 103 61 41% 

Olympic National Park 2003-2005 97 67 31% 

Pasayten Wilderness 2003-2005 20 8 60% 

CRGNSA 2003-2005 1 0 100% 

Min 1 0 100% 

Mean 48 29 40% 

Overall 

Max 103 67 35% 
TABLE 4-2 

THREE-YEAR PREDICTED 98TH PERCENTILE 

CHANGE TO THE DAILY HAZE INDEX 

 98th Percentile Delta HI (dv) 1

Area of Interest Period Baseline BART 

Reduction 

(%) 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2003-2005 0.810 0.640 21% 

Glacier Peak Wilderness 2003-2005 0.847 0.675 20% 

Goat Rocks Wilderness 2003-2005 0.281 0.234 17% 

Mt. Adams Wilderness 2003-2005 0.228 0.185 19% 

Mt. Rainier National Park 2003-2005 0.643 0.542 16% 

N. Cascades National Park 2003-2005 0.915 0.742 19% 

Olympic National Park 2003-2005 1.399 1.025 27% 

Pasayten Wilderness 2003-2005 0.497 0.385 23% 

CRGNSA 2003-2005 0.119 0.105 12% 

Min 0.119 0.105 12% 

Mean 0.638 0.504 21% 

Overall 

Max 1.399 1.025 27% 

1. Based on the 22nd highest on a Class I area basis 
TABLE 4-3 

PREDICTED 98TH PERCENTILE 

CHANGE TO THE DAILY HAZE INDEX BY YEAR 

 98th Percentile Delta HI (dv) 1

Area of Interest Year Baseline BART 

Reduction 

(%) 

2003 0.917 0.733 20% 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2004 0.894 0.661 26% 

2005 0.638 0.510 20% 

2003 0.754 0.582 23% 

Glacier Peak Wilderness 2004 0.839 0.676 19% 

2005 0.908 0.679 25% 

2003 0.293 0.239 18% 

Goat Rocks Wilderness 2004 0.284 0.236 17% 

2005 0.249 0.202 19% 

2003 0.255 0.197 23% 

Mt. Adams Wilderness 2004 0.231 0.204 12% 

2005 0.203 0.162 20% 

2003 0.712 0.582 18% 

Mt. Rainier National Park 2004 0.650 0.549 16% 

2005 0.487 0.387 21% 

2003 0.927 0.742 20% 

N. Cascades National Park 2004 0.814 0.641 21% 

2005 1.001 0.751 25% 

2003 1.286 1.016 21% 

Olympic National Park 2004 1.171 0.805 31% 

2005 1.722 1.248 28% 

2003 0.474 0.378 20% 

Pasayten Wilderness 2004 0.488 0.402 18% 

2005 0.497 0.388 22% 

2003 0.162 0.133 18% 

CRGNSA 2004 0.121 0.097 20% 

2005 0.073 0.064 12% 

Min 0.073 0.064 12% 

Overall Mean 0.631 0.491 22% 

Max 1.722 1.248 28% 

1. Based on the 8th highest on a Class I area basis 
TABLE 4-4 

DESIGN DAY EXTINCTION BUDGETS FOR BASELINE CASE

 98th Percentile Paired 

By Class I Area Contribution by Species (%) 

Area of 

Interest Year Delta HI (dv) Date (NH4)2SO4 NH4NO3 OC EC PMC PMF 

2003 0.917 10/4/2003 58.2 41.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.894 4/1/2004 51.2 48.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 

2005 0.638 8/18/2005 69.5 29.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.810 2/19/2005 48.4 50.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 

2003 0.754 5/25/2003 49.8 49.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 

2004 0.839 6/29/2004 61.1 37.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2005 0.908 9/16/2005 75.6 23.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 

Glacier Peak 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.847 7/26/2003 59.1 40.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 

2003 0.293 8/8/2003 63.6 35.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.284 6/28/2004 61.6 37.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 

2005 0.249 4/26/2005 67.1 32.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 

Goat Rocks 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.281 5/17/2004 71.8 27.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 

2003 0.255 5/7/2003 54.7 44.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.231 7/28/2004 77.0 22.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2005 0.203 7/25/2005 60.7 38.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

Mt. Adams 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.228 12/13/2005 53.0 46.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 

2003 0.712 8/31/2003 57.5 41.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2004 0.650 4/6/2004 66.2 33.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 

2005 0.487 4/26/2005 58.4 41.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 

Mt. Rainier 

National Park 

2003-2005 0.643 8/13/2004 71.8 27.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2003 0.927 1/14/2003 62.2 37.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.814 6/25/2004 72.0 27.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 

2005 1.001 6/10/2005 42.1 56.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.7 

N. Cascades 

National Park 

2003-2005 0.915 7/3/2004 54.5 44.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 

2003 1.286 1/8/2003 56.2 42.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.5 

2004 1.171 11/11/2004 33.5 65.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2005 1.722 12/8/2005 41.5 57.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 

Olympic 

National Park 

2003-2005 1.399 11/20/2005 33.0 66.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2003 0.474 2/9/2003 62.7 36.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 

2004 0.488 7/10/2004 54.9 43.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 

2005 0.497 6/26/2005 64.8 34.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 

Pasayten 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.497 6/26/2005 64.8 34.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 

2003 0.162 6/24/2003 66.6 32.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 

2004 0.121 12/1/2004 42.3 57.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 

2005 0.073 7/25/2005 60.8 37.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 

CRGNSA 

2003-2005 0.119 9/25/2005 54.5 44.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 

Min 0.073 33.0 22.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 

Mean 0.633 58.4 40.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 

Overall 

Max 1.722 77.0 66.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.7 
TABLE 4-5 

DESIGN DAY EXTINCTION BUDGETS FOR BART CASE

 98th Percentile Paired 

By Class I Area Contribution by Species (%) 

Area of 

Interest Year Delta HI (dv) Date (NH4)2SO4 NH4NO3 OC EC PMC PMF 

2003 0.733 7/22/2003 82.9 16.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 

2004 0.661 3/12/2004 56.4 42.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 

2005 0.510 8/2/2005 68.1 30.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 

Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.640 8/2/2003 77.0 22.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2003 0.582 7/6/2003 73.5 25.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2004 0.676 6/29/2004 74.7 24.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2005 0.679 12/13/2005 71.3 28.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Glacier Peak 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.675 7/26/2003 73.2 26.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2003 0.239 8/8/2003 76.6 22.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.236 4/4/2004 76.4 23.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

2005 0.202 5/24/2005 71.1 28.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Goat Rocks 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.234 7/22/2003 87.8 11.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2003 0.197 5/7/2003 69.4 30.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.204 7/28/2004 86.1 13.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2005 0.162 7/25/2005 74.4 24.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Mt. Adams 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.185 9/27/2005 68.4 31.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2003 0.582 10/27/2003 78.4 21.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

2004 0.549 8/13/2004 82.7 16.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 

2005 0.387 4/26/2005 72.7 26.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Mt. Rainier 

National Park 

2003-2005 0.542 4/6/2004 78.7 21.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

2003 0.742 6/23/2003 66.9 31.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 

2004 0.641 4/24/2004 63.3 35.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 

2005 0.751 4/26/2005 79.0 20.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 

N. Cascades 

National Park 

2003-2005 0.742 6/23/2003 66.9 31.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 

2003 1.016 1/8/2003 69.3 29.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 

2004 0.805 4/2/2004 54.1 45.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 

2005 1.248 12/8/2005 55.8 43.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 

Olympic 

National Park 

2003-2005 1.025 11/5/2004 66.1 33.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

2003 0.378 6/23/2003 65.7 33.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 

2004 0.402 8/16/2004 81.3 18.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 

2005 0.388 4/9/2005 61.6 37.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 

Pasayten 

Wilderness 

2003-2005 0.385 2/9/2003 76.0 23.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

2003 0.133 10/14/2003 67.6 31.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 

2004 0.097 7/28/2004 85.0 14.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 

2005 0.064 7/14/2005 88.4 10.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 

CRGNSA 

2003-2005 0.105 7/30/2003 91.1 7.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 

Min 0.064 54.1 7.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 

Mean 0.494 73.3 26.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Overall 

Max 1.248 91.1 45.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 
FIGURES 
Figure 

3-1

Project No. 

13076.000 CALMET AND CALPUFF MODELING DOMAINS 

Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

East - West LCC (km)

-900

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

North - South LCC (km)

Tesoro

300 km from Tesoro

CALPUFF

Computation Domain
Figure 

3-2

Project No. 

13076.00.0 CALPUFF MODELING DOMAIN WITH CLASS I RECEPTORS 

Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

East - West LCC (km)

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

North - South LCC (km)
Figure 

3-3

Project No. 

13076.000.0 OZONE STATIONS NEAR DOMAIN 

 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

East - West LCC (km)

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

North - South LCC (km)
TIME SERIES OF MAXIMUM DAILY DELTA HAZE INDEX FOR NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL 

BASELINE VERSUS BART CASES

Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washin

gton 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Delta HI (deciview)

1 180 365 1 180 366 1 180 

Julian Day 2003 Julian Day 2004 Julian Da
TIME SERIES OF MAXIMUM DAILY DELTA HAZE INDEX FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK 

BASELINE VERSUS BART CASES

Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washin

gton 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Delta HI (deciview)

1 180 365 1 180 366 1 180 

Julian Day 2003 Julian Day 2004 Julian Da
Figure 

4-3

Project No. 

13076.000 BASELINE CASE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EXTINCTION (1/MM) 2003-2005 

 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

East - West LCC (km)

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

North - South LCC (km)
Figure 

4-4

Project No. 

13076.000.0 BART CASE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EXTINCTION (1/MM) 2003-2005 

 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

East - West LCC (km)

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

North - South LCC (km)
Figure 

4-5

Project No. 

13076.000.0 BASELINE CASE 24-HOUR DELTA HI (DV) FOR 12/08/2005 

 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

East - West LCC (km)

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

North - South LCC (km)
Figure 

4-6

Project No. 

13076.000.0 BART CASE 24-HOUR DELTA HI (DV) FOR 12/08/2005 

 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling 

Anacortes, Washington 

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

East - West LCC (km)

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

North - South LCC (km)