### Appendix L.7: Pursue 

### Energy Corporation 

### -Thomasville Appendix L.7 

### contents: L.7.1 

### Appendix summary L.7.2 

### BART informationrequest letter L.7.3

### BART eligibility letter L.7.4 

### Modeling protocol L.7.5 

### EPA comments on modeling protocol L.7.6 

### BART applicability analysis L.7.7 

### BART exemption letter

### Appendix 

### L.7.1

Pursue Energy Corporation-Thomasville (2380-00036) BART Process Summary As a sulfur recovery plant, Pursue Energy meets the initial BART eligibility requirement of source category code. Pursue is 257 

## km from Breton National Wildlife Refbge, a Class 

## I area, and has a possible visibility impact. Therefore, on February 28,2002, Mississippi Department ofEnvironmental Quality (MDEQ) sent them a letterrequesting information to determine BART eligibility. Based on the information received from Pursue, oneunit was deemed BART eligible because it met the following criteria: operating orunder construction between Aug.7, 1962to Aug.7, 1977 having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for SO2, NO,, 

### orPM10. The following is the BART-eligible point source for Pursue. sulfur recovery unit (AA-001) o 

### installed in 1972

, 

### o 

### potential SO2 

### emissions of 50,309 tons per year. o 

### currently emissions are not controlled 

### As a result, Pursue Energy was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on this unit. Using the conservative default option ofdisabling puff splittin algorithms and the old 

# 9, IMPROVE equation, the modeling analysis demonstrated a 98t percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.170 dv for Breton. The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, Pursue is not BART subject.P

- 

### Appendix 

### L.7.2

STATE

## OF MISSlSSIPPI DAWDROW MllSXwE,GOMRNOR 

### MISSISS~PPI 

## DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

### awuEsH. CHISOM. Mscvrrvr Dn


## February

## 28,2002 Mr. Hugh Jones PursueEnergyCorporation 

# P.O. Box 730 Brandon, 

## MS 39043 

# COPY

Re: BARTInformationRequest 

## Dear Mr. Joms: 

## In July 1999, The Environmental Protection Agency 

## (EPA)issued regional ha^^ 

## regulations to improve visual 

## airquality, or visibility, in 

## specifiednationalparks 

## and wilderness areas 

## across the country. Theseregulationsrequire staks

## to

## establish goals forimprovingvisibility in 

## the areas 

## and 

## to submit state implementation plans @IPS) that contain enforceable mtsrmrts

## and control strategies forreducingvisibility-impairing pollution. Onecomponent of theseregulationsis to reduceemissionshm certain, 

## existing, large emission unitsby installingthebest availablemission controls. Thisrequirement, known 

## asthe

## Best Available RetrofitTechnology

## (BART)requirement,appliesto mission units that:

were

## built between

## August 7,1962 and August 7,1977; have the potential to 

## emit 2S0

## tons

## per year ormore ofammonia,

## nitrogenoxides, particulate matter lessthat 10microns (PMlo), 

## sulfur dioxide,orvolatileorganic compounds, eitherindividually or in combinationwith other suchunits; and fall into one of26

## listed sourcecategories, includmg steam electricplants and industrial boilers, and largeindustrial plants such 

## aspulp mills, 

## refineries, 

## and smelters. Seeattached

## list. The final implementationplan shouldbe 

## submittedtoEPAby December

## 31,2008,

## and must contain, amongotherthings, the 

## emission limits and 

## complianceschtdults for each BART subject source. The hrststep 

## in thisprocess isto identi@all BART subject sources.
- - .- 

## Mississippi and other southeastern statesand 

## tribeshave formed aRegionalPlanning Organization,known 

## asVISTAS,towork on the regional haze issue and the 

## required

### Appendix 

### L.7.2



## implementation plans. 

## It is ourgod to have all BART 

## subjectfacilities

## and thespacific emission

## units at

## the fkilities identifiedby 

## June 

## 2002. 

## An initial file

## reviewindicatesthat your facility ispotentiallysubjecttothe 

# BART requirementbecause 

## it falls intooneofthe 26sourcecakgorits, was

## builtpriorto August 

## 7,1977, and

## haspotential emissions greater than 

## 250tons

## per 

## year forat

## kast 

## oneofthe visibility-impairing pollutants. However, the information listed below is netdad

## to make adetermination. The initial 

## startupdate for facility. The initial startup date forindividualemissionunits. The datesofanymodificationorreconstructionforindividual units. 

## TheBART

## sourncategoryofthe emission

## units. A list ofemission

## units obtained 

## from ourfilesis enclosed. Please

## enterthe 

## daksof initial 

## start-upand any modification orreconstruction,review andmake any

## corrections to the listed sowecategory, and review and make any

## corrections to the

## potential emissions. This informationis also available

## in excel spreadskt formatwhich

## canbe completed and submittedclcctronically. - 

## Please 

## respondby April 19,2002. Ifthisinformationisnot received, the

## fecility

## and all emissionunits atthe facility will be

## considered subjecttothe BART

## requinments. However, the final

## determinationswill not

## be made

## until the 

## SIPdevelopment

## process.

- - 

## Thank you for

## yourhelp 

## with thisproject. Ifyou have anyquestions,please contactme at (601)%1-5 176or

## Deborah Bolewareat (601)961-5768. 

## Ifyou would likethe 

## electronic

## copyofthe emissionunit list,please smd 

## an e-mail to 

## deborah_bolewara@daq.state.ms.us and 

## clliott-bick~q.stakms.us.

Sincerci 

## y,

--. 

## ElliottBickerstafE,P.E. Chief, 

## Air SupportBranch-__1 

### . 

### Appendix L.7.3

STATE 

## OF MISSfSSIPPl DAVIDRONALD MVSC1ROM.OOMRNOR 

### MlSSlSSlPPl

## DEPARTMENT OF 

### ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL~~ CliNUSH.CPiISOLM. EXGCVnVEDlRECNX


## September

## 9,2002 Mr. Monty White Pursue 

## Energy Corporation 

## P.O. Box 

## 730 Brandon, MS 39043 

## Re: 

## BART Information 

## Response Pursue Energy Corporation 

## Rankin County, Mississippi 

# Dear Mr. White: This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your Marcb 19, 2002 

## response to our Best AvailableRetrofit Technology (BART) informationrequest. After reviewing

## tbe information you submitted, 

## it appears your facility is BART eligiblefor tbc 

## following 

# reasons: 1. 

## The facility 

## meets the 

## category requirementfor sulfurrecovery plants. 2. 

## Several

## units began operation during 

## the August 7, 1962 

## to August 7, 1977 

## date

## range. 3. The emissions 

## from 

## these

## units exued

## tbe 250

## tons 

## per year limit. On 

## May 24, 

## 2002, 

## the 

# D.C.circuit court vacated tbeBART provisions of the 

## Rc&onal 

# HazeRule (RHR). At 

## issue is the

## method of determining 

## the 

## cost 

## and benefitsof installingBART at 

## a particular

## source. The 

## RHR rap& this determination

## to be 

## made on a group or collectivebasis; however, it was 

## argued that the 

## CkanAir Act 

## requires this determination to be 

## made on a sourceby so- 

## basis. In a 2-1 

## decision, 

## a three-judge panel agrecd

## with the

## petitioners and vacated 

## tbe 

## BART provisions, requiring EPA to revise 

## tbeBARTrequirements to iacorporatt 

## a sourceby 

## source approach. EPA 

## has Ned apetition 

## seekingrehearing of the cast 

## by 

## the full 

## court. Depending on the outcomeof the appealsprocess, this ruling 

## may affcct what 

## controls a 

## BART applicable source will be 

## required to 

# install,but the 

## ruling did 

## not address

## and therefore will not impact the 

## methods 

## in determining

## the BART applicable sources. 

## We plan to proceed with identifyingthe 

## specificemissionunits at the 

## facility that 

## arc subjectto this requirement. 

## Pkwe 

## note that a BART applicable source is one that will be 

## consideredfor retrofit 

## ttchnology controls. It does 

## not necessarily

# mean thatr 

### Appendix 

### L.7.3



## additional

## controls will be FIX@WI 

## for the source. Those detmninationswill 

## be made 

## over the next 

## several

## years during the Regional

# Haze planning and 

## our State Implementation Plan developmentprocess. Attached

## are

## the 

# BART requirementtext and 

## the 

## applicabk definitions 

## from

## the Code 

## ofFederal Regulations. 

## Ifyou have questions or comments regarding 

## the

# BART requirementsor this 

## designation,please contact

## me at (601) 961-5176 

## or Deborah Boleware at (601) 961 -5768.



## Chief, Air 

## Support Brim w

### Appendix L.7.4

Prepared by:

A1 Freiberg Plant Engineer 

### PURSUE NERGY CORPORATION

P.O.Box 

### 730 Brandon, 

### MS 39043 (601)845-4206



### Preparedby:

Stacy Carr, P.E. Managillg Consultant Ryan Gesser ManagingConsultant MelissaHillman Consultant 

### TRINITY CONSULTANTS 2800 Veterans Blvd. Suite

### 214 Metairie, 

### LA 70002 (504) 828-5845 August 

### 11,2006 

### Project 061902.0024

### INTRODUCTION 

# ........................................................................................................1 3 

### OVERVIEW OF

### REGIONAL HAZE

### RULE AND

### BART REQUIREMENTS



## ..........................



## .................................................... 1.1.1 DETERMINATION OF

### BART-ELIGIBILITY 2 1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF

### CONTRIBUTION TOVISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AND

### BART APPLICABILITY



## ........................................................................................................... 3



## .......................................... SCHEDULE FOR 

### BARTIMPLEMENTATION PJ

### MISSISSIPPI 8



## ................................................................ ORGANIZATION OF

### MODELING PROTOCOL 9



# ............................................................. BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE 

## DESCRIPTION 

### 10 

### BART-ELIGIBLE EMISSION UNITS



## .......................................................................... 11



## ..................................... BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE MODEL EMISSIONS INVENTORY 12 

### MODELED STACK PARAMETERS AND

### EMISSIONS



## .................................................... 13



# .................................................... GEOPHYSICAL AND 

### METEOROLOGICAL DATA 

### 15



## ........................................ TERRAIN ELEVATIONS WITHIN 

### THE

### MODELING DOMAIN 

### 15 

### LAND USE AND

### COVER WITHIN 

### THE 

### MODELING DOMAIN



## ....................................... 16



## ............................................................................... METEOROLOGICAL DATABASE 

### 17 3.3.1 MM5 SIMULATIONS



## ................................................................................ 17



## ..................................................... 3.3.2 MEASUREMENTS AND

### OBSERVATIONS 17 

### AIRQUALITY DATABASE



## ....................................................................................... 19



## ................................................ 3.4.1 OZONE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS 19



## ........................................... 3.4.2 AMMONIA BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS 19 3.4.3 OTHER POLLUTANT BACKGROUND ANDBOUNDARY CONDITIONS



## .............20



## ............................................................. NATURAL CONDITIONS AT 

### CLASS 

## IAREAS 20 

### AIR QUALITY MODELING METHODOLOGY 

# .......................................................... 26



## .................................................................................... PLUME MODEL SELECTION 

### 26 4.1.1 MAJOR RELEVANT FEATURES OF

### CALMET


## ............................................. 26



## ............................................ 4.1.2 MAJOR RELEVANT FEATURES OF

### CALPUFF 29



## .................................................................... MODELING DOMAIN CONFIGURATION 31



## .............................................................. CALMETMETEOROLOGICAL MODELING 31



## ........................................ CALPUFFCOMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN AND

### RECEPTORS 

### 32



## .......................................................... CALPUFF MODELING OPTION SELECTIONS 32



## ............................ 4.5.1 REPRESENTATION OF

### EMISSION SOURCES IN

### CALPUFF 33 

### CALPOSTPROCESS~NG 

### OPTION SELECTIONS FOR 

### LIGHT EXTINCTION AND

### HAZE

5

# . QUALITY ASSURANCE METHODS 

# .......................................................................... 35 5.1 

### CALMETFIELDS



## ....................................................................................................35 Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 1 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### 5.2 

## CALPUFF,CALPOST, AND

### POSTUTIL RESULTS



## ...............................................36 

### 6. REFERENCES 

# .......................................................................................................... 38 

### APPENDIX A

# ............................ MDEQ 2005ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTING FORM (AERF) APPENDIX 

## B

# ........................... mEQ QUARTERLYA~AILY 

### S

# o2 EMISS~ONS REPORT FOR 

### THE 

### FOURTH QUARTER OF

### 2005

- -- 

### Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 11 

### BART Applicability ModelingProtocol 'Trinity Consultants

### Pursue Energy Corporation (Pursue) operates a Sour Gas Treating and Sulfur Recovery Plant in Thomasville, Mississippi. The Thomasville facilityis a major source of air emissions and operates under a Part 70 (TitleV) major source operating permit (2380-00036) issued by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The facility is considered eligible to be regulated under the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Air quality modeling will be used to determine whether the emissions from Pursue's BART-eligible sources causeorcontribute to visibility impairment at any federally protected Class 

### I area, and hence whether a BART determination is necessary. This modeling protocol is presented to describe the procedures, analytical techniques, and data resources Pursue proposes to use to make the BART applicability determination. Pursue's evaluation of BART-eligibility and the proposed modeling methods to determine applicability ofBART as described in thsprotocol are consistent with the following guidance documents: United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), "Regional Haze Regulations and Guideline for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations,"Federal Register Volume 70,Number 128, July 6,2005. U.S. EPA, Guidance.for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-5443-03-OM),September 2003. U.S. EPA, Guidance for EstimatingNatural Visibility Conditions under theRegional Haze Rule (EPA-454lB-03-005),October 2003. U.S. EPA, Interagency WorkgrouponAir QualityModeling (IFVAQM)Phase 2 Summary Report (EPA-454R-98-019), December 1998. U.S.EPA, Guideline onAir Quality Models, 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix

### W (Revised, November 9, 

### 2005). Visibility Improvement Stateand Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS),Protoco1,for theApplication ojthe CALPUFFModel for Anulvses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART),Raision 3,

### July 18,2006. VISTAS and U.S. EPA, "Q&A for Sourceby Source BART Rule" (Draft, Revision l), October 28.2005. The VISTAS BARTModeling Protocolas revisedon July 18, 2006, is incorporatedby reference for Pursue's sourcsspecificmodeling protocol. Pursue's BART applicability modeling analyses will generally conform to the guidelines set forth by VISTAS in effect as of the date the modeling is performed. The FTSTAS BARTModeling Protocol(76 page, PDF) is easily accessible at the VISTAS' website: 

### \v~vw.vistas-sesaim.or~iBARTiindex.ap for review or download Pursue submits this BART applicability modeling protocol to the MDEQ to provide the opportunity for review and comment in conjmction with review by the U.S. EPA and Federal Land Managers Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 1 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### (FLM) responsible for oversight of the federally protected Class 

### I areas potentially affected by Pursue's Thomasville BART-eligble operations. Pursue's BART applicability modeling analyses will generally conform to subsequent comments provided by MDEQ, U.S. EPA, and FLM regarding this source-specific modeling protocol. In additionto MDEQ's review and comment on this protocol, Pursue anticipates additional communication with MDEQ throughout the BART implementation process as details become available between the time this modeling protocol is submitted and Pursue's BART Applicability Analysis is submitted to ensurethat xfmed analyses are conducted using mutually agreeable data resources and processing options. 

## 1.1 

## OVERWEW OF

## REGIONAL HAZE

## RULE AND

## BART REQUIREMENTS The Regional Haze Rule requires that major sources of visibility-affecting pollutants belonging to one or more of 26 specific industrial source categories evaluate BART if the source was "in existence" (i.e.,built or reconstructed) before August 7, 1977 and began operation after August 7, 1962. Such sources are termed "BART-eligible sources." Major sources of visibility-affecting pollutants have the potentialto emit 250 tons per year (tpy) of one ormore of oxides ofnitrogen 

### (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOz),and particulate matter less than 10micrometers in aerodynamic diameter 

### (PMo). Sulfur Recovery Plants are one of the listed source categories. Hereafter, the "BART-elipble source" is taken to mean the collection of emission units at a facility in existence during the relevant time period within one ormore BART source categories that has potential emissions of one or more visibilityaffecting pollutants in excess of 250 tpy. The BART-eligible source may include multiple emission units, but need not include the entire facility.

The U.S. EPA BART guidelines deiinethe following three 

### steps for determining which sources at a facility areBARTeligible:
I. Identify the emission units in the BART source categories. 2. Identify the start-up dates of those units. 3. Compare potential emissions to the 250 tpy cutoff. Pursue's Thomasville facility has determined that eight emission units comprise the BART-eligible source because the units operate at a Sulfur Recovery Plant, were in 

### existenceon August 

### 7, 1977, and began operation after August 7, 1962. This collection of emission units has potential emissions exceeding 250 tpy for at least one pollutant. Accordingly, the BART-eligible emission units at Pursue's Thomasville Plant will be evaluatedto determine whether 

### a BART determinationis required or whether the facility canbe considered exempt from BART. Specific information about these emissionunits is provided in Section 2 of this modeling protocol As is documented there, only one emission point (AA-001, Sulfur Recovery Plant) has been determined to be a BARTeligible emission point.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 2 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### 1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO

### VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AND 

## BARTAPPLICABILITY In its role as technical analysis coordinator, VISTAS developed a common modeling protocol and data resources for use by state regulatory agencies and BARTeligible sources. The 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol was issued on December 22,2005, was revised most recently on July 18, 2006, andprescribes modeling techniques and data resources to conduct refmed analyses to assess whether a BARTeligible source is subject to BART. A BART-eligible source is determined to be subject to BART if the source causes or contributes to visibility impairment at a federally protected Class 

### I area. Causation is defined as a single -source impact of 1.0 deciviews (dv) or more; contribution is defined as a single-source impact of 0.5 dv or more (bothcausation and contribution are evaluated on a 24-hour average basis). The deciview is a metric used to represent normalized light extinction attributable to visibility-affecting pollutants. To determine whether a BARTeligible facility causes or contributes to visibility impairment, U.S. EPA guidance requires the use of an air quality model, specifically recommending the CALPUFF modeling system, to quantify the impacts attributable to a single BART-eligible source. Because contribution to visibility impairmentis sufficient cause to require a BART determination, 0.5 dv is the critical threshold for assessment of BART applicability. Regional haze is measured using the light extinction coefficient (b,), which is expressed in terms of the haze index expressedin dv. Thehaze index 

### (HI) is calculated as shown in the following equation.

The impact of a BART-eligible source is determined by comparing

### HI for estimated natural background conditions with the impact of the source and without the impact ofthe source. Thebackground extinction coefficient be,,. backgound 

### is affectedby various chemical species and the Rayleigh scattering phenomenon and can be calculatedas shown in the following equation.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 3 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### where,
b,,,, = 0.003 ~NH, )2 SO, I~(RH) 

## h,.ol =0.003 [NH,NO,] 

### f(RH) b, = 0.004 [OC] b,,,,= 0.001 [soil] h,,d,,e =0.0006 [coarse

## ass] b,, = 0.01[Elemental Carbon] b 

# , = Rayleigh Scattering f(RH) = relative humidity adjustment hctor [ ] =Concentrat ion in pdm 

## ' Values for the parameters listed above specific to the natural background conditions at the Class 

### I areas considered in this analysis are provided on an annual average basis in the U.S. EPA's 

### Guidance for

### Estimating Natural VisibilityConditions Under theRegional Haze ~trle.' More detailed information about the natural background conditions particular to the Class 

### I area potentially affected by Pursue's operations at the Thomasville Plant are provided in Section 

### 3.5 of this protocol. Particulate species that affect visibility are emitted fiom anthropogenic sources in various phases and include coarse particulate matter (PMC),fine particulate matter (PMF), secondary organic aerosols (SOA), and elemental carbon (EC), as well as precursors to fme particulate matter such as such as SO andNOx. The extinction coefficientdue to emissions of visibility-affecting pollutants from a single BARTeligible source b,,,,,,,,, is calculated using an air quality model. The extinction due to the BARTeligible source wdl 

### be calculated as shown in the following equation.

where, hsq =0.003 [(NH, 

## SO,]^(RH) b,,; =0.003 [NH,NO,]~(RH) h,,, = 0.0006[PMC] bPllF =0.001[PMF] b,,,"=0.004[S0,1] b, =O.Ol[EC] /(RH) =relativehumidityadjustmentfactor [ ] =Concentratonin pg/m'

I U.S. EPA, Guidancefor EstimatingNui~rr-a1 Visibili~ Conditions Underthe RegionalHrce Rule, Table 2-1, AttachmentA, September2003, EPA-454lB-03-005. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 4 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### Pursue proposes to begin the BART CALPUFF modeling with refined modeling techniques rather than the screening modeling techniques, as described in the 

### VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol to determine whether BART-eligible operations at the Thomasville Plant contribute to visibility impairment at any ofthese Class 

### I areas. The CALPUFF modeling system will 

### be used to compute the 24-hour averagevisibility impairment attributable to Pursue to assess whether the 0.5 dv contribution threshold is exceeded, and if so, the frequency, duration, and magnitude of any exceedance events. The 

### U.S. EPA BART guidelines prescribe that the 

### 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility impact computed in a modeling analysis that evaluates three years of meteorological data shouldbe compared to the contribution threshold. To assess whether BARTeligible operations contribute to visibility impairment,Pursue's refined applicability modeling analysis will quantify the eighth-highest 24-hour average visibility impact of each year modeled or 22"*-highestimpact over three years modeled to illustrate the dstribution (i.e., frequency, duration, and magnitude) ofpeak visibility impairment episodes attributable to the Thomasville Plant. CALPUFF is a refined air quality modeling system that is capable of simulating the dispersion, chemical transformation, and long-range transport ofmultiple visibilityaffecting pollutant emissions from a single source and is therefore preferred for BART applicability and determination analyses. The CALPUFF modeling system is described in technical detail in the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol; CALPUFF's use in refined analyses for BART applicability assessment of Pursue's Thomasville Plant is described in Sections3,4, and 

### 5 of this modeling protocol. The 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol specifies that all Class 

### I areas with300

### km (186

### miles) of a BART-eligible source must be initially evaluated to determine whether the source contributes to visibility impairment. Table 1-

### 1 summarizes the distances separating Pursue's Thomasville operations from all Class 

### I areas within the VISTAS region and adjacent states. Consistent with the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol,only those Class 

### I areas within 300 

### km are considered further in the BART applicability modeling analysis.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 5 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### TABLE 1-1. 

### DISTANCES (KILOMETERS) 

### SEPARATING CLASS 1



### AREAS AND

Class 

### I Area 

### Distance (km) Breton 

### (L\/hlS) 2.57 Cape Romain (SC) 972 Chassahowitzka (FL) 797 Cohutta (GA) 579 Dolly Sods (WV) 1.215 Everglades (FL) 1,094 Great Smoky Mountains 

### (NCITN) 667 Hercules Glade (M 0) 567 James River Face (VA) 1,127 Joyce KihnerISlickrock (NC) 657 Linville Gorge (NC) 846 Mammoth Cave 

### (KY) 653 Mingo (MO) 532 Okefenokee (GA) 721 Otter Creek (WV) 1,192 Shenandoah (VA) 1,201 Shining Rock (NC) 742 Sipsey (AL) 332 St. Marks (FL) 579 Swanquarter (NC) 1,300 Wolf Island (GA) 824 

### Figure 

### 1-1 illustrates the location ofthe Thomasville Plant, and Figure 1-2 illustrates the location of Pursue's Thomasville operations relative to the federally protected Class 

### I area that 

### is located within 

### 300

### km ofPursue's Thomasville operations :

I 

### Breton National Wildlife Refuge (BNWR),approximately

### 257 km (160miles) to the southwest ofthe facility along Mississippi's Coast The location of the Class 

### I area and receptor locations evaluated in the modeling analysis were determined by, and obtained from, the U.S. Fish & 

### Wildlife Service, which is the 

### FLM for this Class 

### I area.2

National Park Service compilation of Class I area receptors. http:llwww2.nature.nps.govlair/maps/receptorsl. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 6 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### FIGURE 1-1. LOCATION OF 

### PURSUE'S THOMASVILLE PLANT

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 7 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### FIGURE 

### 1-2. 

## LOCATION OF 

## PURSUE'S THOMASVILLE OPERATIONS RELATIVE TO 

### CLASS 1AREAS WITHIN

### 300 KM



# 1 Lambert Conformal Coordinate East @i)



### Pursue will initially utilize the 

### 4-km CALMET data providedby VISTAS and MDEQ to conductthe refined analyses, and may utilize higher resolution grids 

### (e.g., 2-km 

### or 

### 1-km) as needed



## 1.2 SCHEDULE FOR 

## BART 

# IMPLEMENTATION IN 

## MISSISSIPPI Each statewithin the VISTAS region has established its own schedule for BART implementation, which includes separate deadlines for BART applicability assessment and determination protocols and final reports. MDEQhas established the following milestones for BART implementation. BART Applicability Modeling Protocol dueAugust 3

### 1,2006~ BART Applicability Modeling Analysis due January 

### 31,2007 BART Determination Modeling, Engineering Analyses, and Permit Application due January 

### 31,2007(if required)



## ' Per correspondence between Al Freiberg (Pursue) and Deborah Boleware (MDEQ) onJuly 18,2006, the due date forthe BART Applicability and Determination Modeling Protocol is August 3 1,2006. The initial due date for the BART Applicability and Determination Modeling Protocol was August 1, 2006. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 8 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### The remainder of this modeling protocol is organized as follows.

I 

### Section 2 describes the BARTeligible emission units at the Thomasville Plant and the emission rates to be 

### modeled in the BART applicability analysis.

I 

### Section 

### 3 describes the procedural and technical guidance for conducting Class 

### I area analyses.

I 

### Section 4 describes the proposed approach for CALPUFF modeling, including the data resources and technical modeling optionsto beused in the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST analyses.



## , Thepresentation ofresults from, and quality assurance techniques for, BART applicability modeling analyses are described in Section 

### 5. The air quality modeling analysis methodology will generally conform to the 

### FTSTAS

### BARTModeling Protocol (Revision 3).



### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 9 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### This section of the modeling protocol describes the emission units at Pursue's Thomasville Plant. Emissions and exhaust characteristics of the resulting BART-eligible emission point 

### (AA-001) are quantified to demonstrate it will be represented in the modeling analysis. Table 

### 2- 

### 1lists all emission point numbers and descriptions at the Thomasville Plant, as listed in the Title 

### V Permit (2380-00036).

Description Emission Point AA-001

AA-002

AA-003

AA-004

AA-005

AA-006 Natural GasTreating and Dehydrating and Claus 3-stage Sulfur Recovery Unit with a Waste Gas Catalytic incinerator (Ref.No. MP-



# -

.

I



### : ( Stoker Corp.Type MH Boiler (Ref. No. FB-IIPower Boiler #I) 86 MMBTUH natural gas-tired Riley Stoker Corp. Type MH Boiler (Ref. No. FB-21Power Boiler #2)

John Zink Co. Model STF-U-24 Emergency Plant Flare with zontinuous pilot (Ref. No. FB3lPlant Flare)

Sulhr Storage and Loading Facilities -Ref.No. MP-2)

Tank Farm Flare with continuous pilot for sourweathering from inhibitor oil tanks (Ref.No. FB- +Tank Farm Flare)

4 15 HPCaterpillar G379 natural gasfired compressor engine No. I (Ref. No. 005) with Houston, lnc. Silencing Catalytic Converter - Model #DN/S4285C 

### BART Eligible Unit Analysis BART Eligible Emission Unit

Pursue feels these hvo boilers are not BART eligible because they bum sulfur free natural gas fuel and there are no SO2,NO,, VOC or NH3 -missions. Most of the energy consumed in the Facility is provided by waste heat recovered, in the form of steam, from the SulfurPlant Waste Heat Recovery System. These two boilers only supplement the steam provided by the waste heat system. The boilers only operate at about 20- 25% of their rated capacity. Based on the actual measured fuel usage, and the AP-42 PM emission factorfornatural gas hel,the PM emissions Ire less than I tpy for each boiler or less than 2 tpy for both combined. Pursue feels the Emergency Plant Flare is not a BART eligible emission mit because it is not a continuous emission source. Additionally, except iuring emergency orupset conditions there is nothing burning at this flare except a small unmeasured, sulfur free, natural gas fueled pilot ight. Finally, because the flare operates under emergency conditions mly, emissions are considered part of "start-up, shutdown, and nalfunction" operations; thus, these units arenot reauired for inclusion n modeling. ?ursuefeels that this equipment is not BART eligible because there are 10 emissionsunder normal conditions. This is nothing more than a 10,000 L-ton molten Sulfur Storage Tank, some loading pumps, and some loading arms to load molten sulfur into rail cars and trucks. Essentially,this was nothing more than a "Tank List" item that was misconstrued to be an emission point. Please also seethe text below regarding the tanks. Pursue feels that the Tank Farm Flare is not a BART eligible emission unit because it IS not a continuous source ofemissions. Except for a small amount of tank blanket gas that weathers off intermittently, and the precautionary buming ofthis blanket gas should it contain some H-,S during an upset ormalfunction, there is nothing buming at this flare except a small, unmeasured, sulfur free, natural gas fueled pilot light. Finally, because the flare operates under emergency conditions only, emissions are considered Dart of "start-uu. shutdown. and malfunction"
, , operations; thus, these units are not required for inclusion in modeling. This emissions unit does not meet the date criteria ofthe BART eligible source determination.



### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 10 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Emission Point AA-007

AA-008

AA-009

AA-010

AA-01 I

AA-I01 through AA-I60 

### Description 415 HP Caterpillar G379 natural gasfired compressor engine No. 2 (Ref. No. 006) with Houston. Inc. Silencing Catalytic Converter - Model #DN/S4285C 330 HP Ingersoll Rank SVG-6 natural gas-tired compressor engine No. 3 (Ref. No. 007)with Houston. Inc. Silencing Catalytic Converter - Model #DN/S-4285C 607 HP Waukesha 2895GSI natural gas-fired compressor engine No. 4 (Ref.No. 008) with Miratec Catalytic converter- Model#EO-501-104fl 607 HP Waukesha 2895GS1 natural ga~-fired compressor engine No. 5 (Ref.No. 009) with Miratec Catalytic Converter - Model #EO-50 1- 10-0I Parts Washer (Ref. No. SIJParts Washer - Maintenance Shop)

Various Tanks of Various Sizes and Contents 

### Year ~nstalled 1996

1996

1996

1996

1972 

### BART Eligible Unit Analysis
Thisemissions unit does not meet the date criteria ofthe BART eligible sourcedetermination.

This emissionsunit does not meet the date criteria of the BART eligible source determination.

This emissions unit does not meet the date criteria of the BART eligible sourcedetermination.

This emissionsunit does not meet the datecriteria ofthe BART eligible sourcedetermination.

Pursue feels the parts washer is not BART eligiblebecause it was removed several years ago and no longer exists. Additionally, it should not have been included in a Title V permit because it was so small that it would have been deemed an "insignificant activity" or "trivial activity" as defined in MDEQ Title V Permit Application Instructions. Pursue feels these tanks are not BART eligible because they do not emit any VOC or any other pollutant that migh; contribute to visibility impairment. The majority ofthese tanks contain Corrosion Inlubitor Oil or waste water. The Corrosion Inhibitor Oil is a mix ofheavy weight oil and some diesel. It is pumped down the sour gas wells and into the pipelines to form an oil coating on the steel piping to prevent corrosion. Additionally, these tanks are not emission points. The Title V Permit applicationrequires a "TANK LIST" showing all tanks over a certain capacity. Onthe soon to be renewed Title V permit, these tanks will not be shown as emission points. 3emailJuly 18,2006 and phone conversationonJuly 26,2006.



### Pursue reviewed the criteria for BARTeligibility (as demonstrated in Table 

### 2-1) and determined that one emission unit will be considered for CALPUFF modeling at 

### the Thomasville Plant. Table 

### 2-2 describes the following emissions unit that will be considered for CALPUFF modeling.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 11 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity ConsultantsSource Code/ BART Source Date Built or Allowable SO? Actual SO2 Emission Unitt Stack # Category

### * Modified Emissions (tpy) 

### ' Emissions (tpy) Sulfur Recovery Unit AA-001 15 1972 50,309.17** 7760 

### * Category 15denotes SulkRecovery Plants t Allowable emissions hm Annual Emissions Reporting Fonn dated June 20,2006. 

### ** Typically the Maximum Allowable Emissions and the Total Potential Emissions are the same. However, suchis not the case at Pursue's Thomasville Plant. The 50.309 tpy allowable emissions value shown is nothing morethan the SO2 emissions thatwould have resulted in 1972ifthe plant were opelated at the maximumthmughput capacityof 1465L-tonperday. The throughput of this facility is not a functionofthe design capacityofthe plant but is a functionofthe production capability ofthe 12 sour gas wells feeding the plant. Afier 34+ years, the productionhm these wells has significantly declined and is presently declining at abut 10% per year. Therefore the actual emissions and the potential emissions art:one and the same. 

### Pursue's fhomawille operations areBARTcligiblebecauseemissions

### exceed 250 tpy for SOZ, which 

### is considered a visibility-affecting pollutant. The Sulfur RecoveryUnit is considered the only BART-eligible emissionunit at Pursue's Thomasville Plant for modeling purposes.
As SOZ is the only remaining pollutant of concern,it is the only one fiu-ther discussedin the remainder of this protocol.

Whereas the BART eligibility determination relies on potential emissions of visbility-affecting pollutants,this BART applicability modeling analysis utilizes the maximum actual 24-hour average emission rate of SO?. The 

### VISTAS BARTModeling Protocolspecifies the following hierarchy of information resources to establish the maximum actual 24-hour average emission rate for BART applicability modeling over the prior three-to-five year period: 24-hour maximum value emissions observed using a Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) for the period 200

### 1 through 2003 24-hour maximum value emissions observed using a CEM for any representativeperiod

, 

### Facility stack test emissions

I 

### Potential to em9

, 

### Permit allowable emissions, if available

, 

### Emissions factors from U.S. EPA

### AP42 source profiles The 24-hour average actual maximum emission rate of the visibility-affecting 

### SO2pollutant from the SulfurRecovery Unit shown below was determined from the calculated and officially reported actual SOZ emission rate from the 2005 MDEQ Annual Emissions Reporting Form 

### (AERF). This report is the summary, or end result, from combining the daily, monthly, and quarterly calculated emissions data as required by provisions in the Title 

### V permit. There is no CEM, nor is one required. The 

## SQ emission limit is on a "lb 

### SO2emittedper lb of 

### Sprocessed" basis (0.084 lb 

### SO2 1

### lb. S).
The sulfur contentin the Acid Gas, Tall Gas, and Stack Gas is determinedby a chromatograph quarterly as required by the provisions in the Title V 

### Permit. By using a Carbon Balance Calculation, Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 12 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### the overall sulfur recovery efficiency is then determined. The amount of unrecovered sulfur and thus SO2emissions are determined by difference. For example, based on an average sulfur recovery efficiency of 97.5%, on a onepound basis, there would be 0.975 lb of recovered sulfur and 0.025 lb of unrecovered sulfur. The 0.025 lb of unrecovered sulfur when converted to equivalent lbs of 

### SO2 emissions would be 

### 0.050 lb of 

### SO2because the molecuiar weight 

### (64) of 

### SO2is twice themolecular weight (32) of sulfur itself. See attached 2005 AERF with supporting data in Appendix A and Quarterly~Daily SO2Emissions Report, Fourth Quarter 2005 in Appendix B. Pursue's facility is unusual in view of the fact that the throughput and 

### SO2emissions are declining at about 10% per year. The facility processes sour gas and recovers sulfur fiom 12 gas wells that have been on line for 

### 34+ years and th~s non-renewable resource will continue to decline. Therefore, Pursue feels that using the 2005 Actual SO2emission rate in the model shouldbe 

### more than satisfactory and the rate will be conservatively (I@+% or more) on the high side. Table 2-3 summarizesthese emission rates from each BARTeligibleemissions unk4

NOx 

### s02 

### Total 

### PNo Total 

### PM.5 H2so4 

### Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission Unit (lblhr) (Iblhr) (Iblhr) (Iblhr) (Ibihr)



### Actual stack parameters will be 

### input to the CALPUFF model to represent the point of visibilityaffecting pollutant emis~ions.~ The location of each point source will be represented consistently in the Lambat Conformal Coordinate (LCC) system used for the refined meteorological data analyses prepared by VISTAS. The exhaust discharges vertically without obstruction. Per VISTAS guidance, the effects of building downwash will not be considered in the BART applicability analyses because the transport distance from the facility to the Class I Area is greaterthan 50 km. Table 2-4 summarizes the stack parameters and Table 2-3 summarizes the modeled emission rates for BARTeligible emission units at Pursue's Thomasville Plant.



# 'Correspondence with A. Freiberg (Pursue) and E. Bickerstaff (MDEQ) on July 18,2006. MDEQ noted that because Pursue's SO2 emissions will continue to decrease approximately 10%per year, it is satisfactory to use the actual 1005 SO2emission rate as reported in the MDEQ Annual Emissions Reporting Form. Please note that the Sulfur Recover Unit operates 8760hours peryear. Email correspondence with A. Fre~berg (Pursue) and S. Carr (Trinity) on July 18,2006. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 13 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling ProtocolTABLE2-4.STACKP~METERSFORBART-ELIGIBLEEMISSIONUNITSStackStack Exhaust ExhaustLCCEastLCCNorth HeightDiameterTemperature VelocityErnissiorlLJnitStack#(km)(km)(feet) (feet)(OF)(feetisec)SulfurRecoveryUnitAA-001661.181-843.4113009.550014.7PursueEnergy'sThomasvillePhntBARTApplicability Modeling Protocol14Trinity Consultants

# 3. GEOPHYSICAL AND

## METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Section 3 of this BART applicability modeling protocol for Pursue's Thomasville Plant describes the geophysical and meteorological data that will be used in the refined analyses. The information in this Section 3 is largely adapted from the 

### VISTAS

### BARTModelingProtocoland sample model filesmade available on the VISTAS technical contractorweb~ite.~ CALMET requires geophysical data about the domain to characterize the terrain and land use parameters that potentially affect dispersion. Terrain features affect flows and create turbulence in the atmosphere and are potentially subjectedto higher concentrations of elevated puffs, and different land uses exhibit variable characteristics such as surface roughness, albedo, Bowen ratio, and leafarea index that also affect turbulence and dispersion. 

## 3.1 TERRAIN ELEVATIONS WITHIN 

### THE

## MODELING DOMAIN Refined analyses are necessary as part of the Pursue BART applicability analysis, where CALMET grid sizes of

### 4 

## km or less (e.g., 

### 2 km or 1

### km) willbe used to represent the modeling domain. As shown in Figure 3- 1,VISTAS has provided 2001 through 2003 CALMET files for five 4-km subregional domains, one of which (Domain

### 5)includes Pursue's Thomasville Plant and Class I areas within 300 

### km and will be utilized for this analysis.

' http://src.com/verio/downloadidownload.htm#VISTAS~VERSION. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 15 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### FIGURE 

### 3-1. 

## THE FIVE SUB-REGIONAL DOMAINS FOR4-KMCALMETMODELING (FIGURE 4-4OFTHE 

### VISTASBARTMODELING PROTOCOL)



## 3.2 LAND USE AND 

## COVER WITHIN 

### THE 

## MODELING DOMAIN For Pursue's BART applicability analysis, refmed analyses will include CALMET grid resolutions of 

### 4 

### km or less (e.g., 2 

### km or 1 km) whch willbe used to represent the modeling domain. VISTAS has provided 2001 through 2003 CALMET files for five 4km sub-regional domains, one of which (Domain

### 5)includes Pursue's Thomasville Plant and Class 

### I areas within 300

### km. Therevised 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol does not explicitly indicate that higher resolution Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) data wouldbe 

### used for a refined analysis; therefore the 200-meter Composite Theme Grid (CTG) format will provide adequate resolution for CALMET grid spacing down to 1

### km. Therefore,refined analyses performedby Pursuewill utilize the same CTG LULC data.

- - 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 16 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### CALMET is the meteorological preprocessor that compiles three-dimensional meteorological fields from mesoscalemodel (MM) output, raw observations of surface andupper 

### air conditions, precipitation measurements, and geophysical parameters into a single hourly, gndded data set for input to CALPUFF. The federal 

### Guideline on Air QualilyModels for CALPUFF processing provides the following recommendations for the meteorological data period at 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, Section 9.3.1.2(d) : 

### Less than$ve, butat least three,ymrs qf 

### meteorological data (neednot be consecutilye)may be used ifmesoscale meteorologicalfiel& are available, as chcussed in paragraph 9.3(c). These mesoscalemeteorological~fields should he used in conjunctionwith availablestandard [National WeatherSen+x] M'S or comparable meteorological observationswithin and near the modelingdomain.
For refmed analyses, Pursue will initiany utilize the appropriate 4-km refined CALMET grid provided by VISTAS for the 2001 through 2003 data period. Higher resolution analyses, for example with 2

### km or 

### 1

### km grid spacing, may also be prepared for this data period using the resources described m

### the following sections.



### MM data areused as "observed" or "first-guess" fields in CALMET due to itshighresolution representation of meteorological conditions on a uniform three-dimensional grid. For refined analyses at higher resolution grid spacing (i.e., 

### 2 

### km or 1

### km), 

### MM5 data will beprocessed in CALMETusing the samemodel control options as were used by the VISTAS technical contractor to prepare the 4km

### refined grid. 

### 3.3.2 MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 

### The finer grid 

### (4 km) CALMET simulations were run by the VISTAS technical contractor in hybrid mode, using MM5 data to define the initial guess fields andNWS meteorological observational data in the Step2 calculations. In this manner, actual observations of threedimensional meteorological conditions can be used in the model to smooth the coarse MM5 resolution to better represent areas in which terrain features and coastlines may have an important effect on meteorological conditions, but not be well resolved in the mesoscale model. Surface, upper air, precipitation, and offshore buoy observation points arereadily available foruse in CALMET. The following generally describes the use ofNWS observations in Step 2 of the CALMET analyses. Parameters affecting turbulent dispersion that are observed hourly at surface stations include wind speed and direction, temperature, cloud cover and ceiling, relative humidity, andprecipitation type. Surface data would be selected from the available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and repesentation of the domain. Raw observations were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), quality assured, and merged
Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 17 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### using the SMERGE pre-processor to create a single assimilated data file of surface observations for each year analyzed. Observations of meteorological conditions in the upper atmosphere provide a profile of turbulence from the surface through the depth ofthe boundary layer in which dispersion occurs. Upper air data are collected by balloons launched simultaneously across the observation network at0000 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (6o'clock PM in Mississippi) and 1200GMT (6o'clock 

### AM in Mississippi). Sensors observe pressure, wind speed and direction, and temperature (among other parameters) as the balloon rises through the atmosphere. The upper air observation network is less dense than surface observation points since upper air conditions vary less and are generally not as affected by local effects (e.g.,terrain or coastlines). Upper air data were extracted from the NCDC's available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain, and utilization from year to year may vary due to availability and data quality. The effects of wet deposition processes on ambient pollutant concentrations arean importantpart of the BART applicability analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to include observations of precipitationin the CALMET analysis. Precipitation data were collected from selected surface meteorological data stations included in the analysis, plus Cooperative Observation Network (COOP) stations nearer to or within the domain. Precipitation data were extracted from among theNCDC's available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and representation ofthe domain. Raw observations from 

### these stations were quality assured and merged using the PMERGE pre-processor to create a single assimilated data file ofprecipitation observations. Because parts of the modeling domain encompass the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the BWNR Class 

### I areais located along the Gulf of Mexico coast, meteorological data from coastal and offshorebuoys can be useful so that overwater meteorological processing algorithmsin CALMET can be 

### utilized. The critical differences in behavior of the inland and marineboundary layers, and atmospheric dispersion phenomena occurring within these distinct regimes, is well documented and recognizedto play a vital role in the dispersion of pollutants originating in, or destinedto affect, coastal areas. Key phenomena occumng in coastal environments that affect pollutant dispersion include landkea-breezes that cause recirculation of pollutant mass, temperature moderation that results in sharp gradients and mixing height discontinuitiesat the land-sea interface, and thermal internal boundary layers that could cause severe fumigation under certain conditions. The CALMET processor is equipped to assimilate overwater data obtained from coastal, near-shore, and offshore observation platforms. CALMET uses a profile method to simulate boundary layer effects by computing the friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, surface roughness, and mixing height over the water surface. The details of the formulation of marine dispersion algorithms areprovided in the documentation accompanying the CALPUFF modeling system.
To perform its simulation of the coastal environment, CALMET requires hourly observations of air temperature,air-sea temperature difference, wind speed and direction, relative humidity, overwater mixing height, a& the overwater temperature gradients above Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 18 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### and below the ovenvater mixing height. For practical applicationsofovenvaterboundary layer computations, these data canbe obtained from the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC). TheNDBC maintains an inventory of standard meteorological data observed by ships, buoys, and C-MAN stations in coastal, near-shore, and offshore locations. NDBC's data setsprovide direct wind and temperature measurements, and relative humidity can be inferred from pressure and dewpoint observations. Themixing height and temperature gradients and default values must be appliedby CALMET when simulating the coastal atmosphere.
In the sub-regional Domain 5 grid that will be utilized in Pursue's refined analysis, ovenvater data were provided in additionto the hourly surface meteorological observations, precipitation observations, and twice-daily upper air sounding data due to the location of the Thomasville Plant near the Gulfof Mexico coastline. For refined analyses at higher resolution grid spacing (i.e.,2 

### km or 

### 1 

### km),NWS surface, upper air, and precipitation data and NDBC buoy data will be 

### processed in CALMET using the samemodel control options and data resources aswere used by the VISTAS technical contractor to prepare the 4-km 

### refined grid.

The CALPUFF model is capable of simulating linear chemical transformation effects by using pseudo-first-order chemical reaction mechanisms for the conversions of SOzto SO4. In this study, chemical transformations involving two species (SOzand SO4)will be 

### modeled using the MESOPUFF I1 chemical transformation scheme. Ambient concentrationsofammonia and ozone concentrations asrepresented in 

### the model affect the MESOPUFF 

### I1chemical transformation simulation.

'fierefined analyses will utilize observed ozone data for 2001 through 2003 from non-urban CASTNet and AIRS stations compiled by the VISTAS technical contractor for the regional domain. Monthly average ozone background values will be computed based on daytime average ozone concentrations from the OZONE.DAT file (6am-6pm average ozone concentrations computed by month) for substitution should all observationsbe missing for a particular hour of the dataset.

In the refined analyses, a constant background value (0.5 ppb) for ammonia will be utilized. Therevised 

### VISTAS BARTModelingProtocolprescribes that postprocessing to repartition HNOl andNO3using the ammonia limiting method (ALM) in POSTUTIL be 

### used only with the 0.5 ppb background level.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 19 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### 3.4.3 OTHER 

## POLLUTANT BACKGROUND AND

## BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The initial 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol envisioned the use ofmodeled boundary conditions of ammonia and sulfates in the refined analysis of chemical transformations involving these species and nitrates. However, VISTAS' Technical Analysis Workgroup has since concluded that modeled background and boundary conditions should not be utilized for BART modeling purposes because "EPA and 

### FLM recommend that 

### ALM approach using 

### CMAQ concentration data (SOy,NOy,total

### NH3)be 

### reviewed by EPA Modeling Clearinghouse before being used in a regulatory application." Accordingly, such background data will not be utilized in Pursue's BART applicability modeling analyses.

For the purposes of BART analyses, the US. EPA has determined that it "did not intend to limit Statesto the use of the 20% best visibility days...States may use 20% best visibility days or annual average."' 

### The July 18,2006revision to the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol indicates that the annual average visibilitymay be considered as the reference natural background condition, and the initial screening analyses presented by the VISTAS contractorused only the annual average natural background conditions to assess visibility impacts attributable to Pursue's Thomasville Gas Plant. Accordingly, Pursue will conduct the refined analyses using the annual average natural background.
For the Class I area within 300 

### km ofthe Thomasville Plant and potentially affected by Pursue's operations,Table 3- 

### 1 summarizes the default natural background conditions 

### as tabulated in Appendix 

### B of 

### U.S. EPA's 

### Guidance-forEstimating Natural Visibility Conditions under theRegional Haze Rule. 

### TABLE 3-1. 

### NATURAL BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS FOR

### BNWR POTENT~ALLY 

### AFFECTED BY THE

### THOMASVILLE PLANT Annual Average Class 1 Area be* 

### (~m-') Haze Index (dv) Breton 21.57 

### * As tabulated in Appendix B of U.S. EPA's Curdunce for Esrimutin,qNutural VisibilipConditionstindertheRegionalHcce Rde(2003). 

### To represent natural conditions in the absence of anthropogenic sources of sulfates and nitrates, the monthly background extinction coefficient is expressed in terms of Rayleigh scattering and scattering due to soils (i.e., fineparticles) based on the annual average visibility days, and is calculated from the tabulated annual average balues and the following equations.



# 'U.S. EPA Memorandum from Mr. Joseph Paisie to Ms. Kay Prince, asAttachment A to a proposed settlement agreement between the Utility Air Regulatory Group and U.S. EPA, published at 71 Federal Register No. 84, pp. 25,838- 75.Y40. May 2, 2006. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 20 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### where

### HI is Haze Index expressedinunits of deciviews (dv). Therefore, total 

### hhack for the annual averagenatural background at Breton, including the Rayleigh scattering coefficient, is calculated as shown 

### in the following equation.

Alternatively, Table 

### 3-2 summarizes the default natural background conditions using average natural concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, and particulate species for areas in the Eastern 

### U.S. as

### tabulated in Table 

### 2-1 of

### U.S. EPA's 

### GuidancejorEstimating Natural Visibility Conditionsunder the Regional Haze Rule.

-- 

### Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 

### 21 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity ConsultantsDry Extinction West East Error Efficiency Component (pp/m3) (&m3) Factor 

## WW)
Ammonium sulfate 0.12 0.23 2 3 Ammonium nitrate 0.I 0.1 2 3 Organic carbon mass 0.47 1.4 2 4 Elemental carbon 0.02 0.02 2-3 10 Soil 0.5 0.5 1%-2 1 CoarseMass 3 3 14;-2 0.6


### The values presented in Table 

### 3-2 are more appropriate for the determination of natural background conditions, sinceth~s approach includes all vis ibility-affecting species and does not rely only on soil dust concentrations to define the natural background conditions. Ammonium sulfates and nitrates as well as organic and elemental carbon are appropriate to represent as part of the natural background due to emissionsfrom naturally occurring biogenic sources (e.g., vegetation and wildfire biomass burning). Accordingly, Pursue will compute the light extinction change relative to background conditions using both definitions of the annual average concentration representative ofthe natural background. As is described in Section

### 4 of this protocol, the effects ofrelative humidity to amplify the visibility impairment ofhygroscopic sulfates and nitrates will be characterized using "Method 6,"which computesAb,,, 

### using a 

### monthly average relative humidity adjustment particular to each Class 

### I area applied to background and modeled sulfate and nitrate. Table 

### 3-3 summarizes the monthly average humidity values that will be applied for Breton, 

### as tabulated 

### in Table 

### A-3 of

### U.S. EPA's 

### Guidance for 

### EstimatingNattrml Visibility Conditionsunder theRegional HazeRule. 

### TABLE 3-3. MONTHLY AVERAGEJRH) FOR 

### SELECTED CLASS

### 1AREAS*

Class I Area January February )March April May June July ,ingust September October November December Breton 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 

### * As tabulatedin I'ableA-3 of US. EPA's Guidance,forEstimating Natural VisibilitvConditions under the RegionalHceRde (2003).



### PursueEnergy's Thomasville Plant 

### 22 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Natural background conditions for Breton will be calculated using the data summarized in Tables 

### 31, 

### 3-2, and 

### 3-3, and the default IMPROVE light extinction formula, which is summarized in the following equation.

where.

13 = 0.003 [(NH,),so,~/(~ bW7=0.003[~H,~0,] f(~) b,, = 0.004[OC] b,,,,, = 0.001 [soil] b

### ,,,,,, =0.0006 [coarse

## ass] b,, = O.Ol[Elemental Carbon] b 

# , = Rayleigh Scattering f(RH) = relative humidity adjustment factor [ ] =Concentrat ion in pg/m 

# '
As noted in the revised 

### VISTAS

### BARTModeling Protocol, the U.S. EPA and the Regional Planning Organizations (including VISTAS) are evaluating whether refinements are warranted to the methods recommendedin U.S. EPA's guidance to calculate default estimates ofnatural background visibility. In addition, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)work group has recently approved an alternative to the default formula used to estimate extinction from particle concentration measurements.* Refinements in the revised IMPROVE formula include the following: Adding a sea salt term, including a growth factor due to relative humidity Adding a site-specific Rayleigh scattering term to the formula. Values have been calculated by IMPROVE for most Class I areas. For the purposes of calculating current, future, and natural background visibility at Class I areas as 

### part of its reasonable progress analyses, VISTAS intends to present regional air quality modeling results using both the current U.S. EPA recommended assumptions and the newly revised IMPROVE light extinction formula. Accordingly, in refined BART applicability analyses, Pursue will evaluate the results ofthe analysis using both the standard light extinction calculation (which excludes sea salt concentrations and uses the default 10

### Mm-' value of Rayleigh scattering), as well as applying the following corrections. Note that Pursue is not proposingto use the revised IMPROVE light extinction equation, rather only to utilize corrections to Rayleigh scattering and background sea salt concentrations that can be utilized in the existing CALPOST algorithms forrefined BART Applicability Modeling Analyses. The default Rayleigh scattering coefficient of 10

### Mm-' represents light scattering due to air molecules at a reference elevation condition of approximately 5,000 feet elevation. The 2005 IMPROVE work

"itchford, M., W. Malm, B. Schichtel, N. Kumar, D. Lowenthal, and J. Hand, 2005. RevisedlMPROVE llg~titlin~~for EstinlrrfingLight Extinctionji-om Particle Speciation Data. Report to IMPROVE Steering Committee, '.:ovember 2005.

-- 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 23 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### groupreport describes that Rayleigh scattering depends on the density ofthe air and thus varies with temperature andpressure, and accordingly tabulates Class I-area specific values of Rayleigh scattering corrected for these effects. A value of 11.4

### ~m-' is recommended for Breton.
The 2005 IMPROVE work group report describes that contributions of sea salt particles to light extinction at some coastal IMPROVE sites may be significant,but the current IMPROVE protocol for estimating light extinction does not include light scatteringby sea salt aerosols. Comparison of reconstructed light extinction to observed values shows that inclusion of elements from sea salt (e.g., sodium and chlorine) increased the accuracy of mass reconstruction at coastal IMPROVE sites.' Because the Class 

### I area within 300 

### km of Pursue's Thomasville Plant is located on the Gulf of Mexico coast, sea salt aerosols arereasonably expected to be a significant component of the natural background that affects visibility.
To quad@background sea salt aerosol concentrations between 2001 and 2003, Pursue reviewed measurements of sea salt components at BNWRcompiledby IMPROVE. The IMPROVE Network Aerosol (INA) monitoring program compiles 24-hour average concentration measurements taken every third day at the Class I area. Measurements of chloride ion or elemental chlorine arepreferred for estimating sea salt concentration in favor of sodium. However, although chloride and chlorine appear to have been measured during the period of interest, the measurements do not appear to be valid because the results arepredominantly zero or negative. Therefore, vaLes of sodium were utilized to calculate the sea salt aerosol concentration using the following approach. Monthly average sodium concentrations were calculated from available, valid measurements for each of the three years analyzed. Each monthly average sodium concentration was correctedto sea salt as NaCl by multiplyingby the molecular weight ratio of NaCl to Na (58.44122.99 =

### 2.54). Sea salt aerosols were assumed to behave as fme soils with a light extinction of I m2/gand the hygroscopic effects of sea salt growth on light extinction were includedby multiplyingby the monthly average 

### f(RH)value specific to the Class I area. Theresulting values represent monthly average light extinction attributableto sea salt aerosols, and will be added to the background Soil concentrations used to represent 20% best days and annual average concentrations in this analysis. Table 3-4 summarizes the monthly average values for BNWR.



## 'Lowenthal, D.H.; Kumar, N. "PM2?Mass and Light Extinction Reconstruction in IMPROVE." J.

### Air & Waste Alantqe. Assoc., 7003, 53, pp. 1 109-1 120. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 24 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling ProtocolMonth
January February March April May June July August September October November December



### Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 

### 25 Trinity Consultants 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### Section

### 4 of this BART applicability modeling protocol for Pursue's Thomasville Plant describes the air quality modeling methodology that will be used in the refined analyses. The information in this Section

### 4 is largely adapted from the 

### VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol and sample model files made available on the VISTAS technical contractor website." Section

### 2.2 ofthe 

### VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol summarizes recommendations for the air quality modeling analyses required to assess applicability of BARTby determining whether Pursue's Thomasville Plant contributes to visibility impairment at Class I areas within 300 

### lun which includes BNWR (257 

## kmdistant). The CALPUFF modeling system isrecommended as thepreferred modeling approach for use in the BART analyses.

CALPUFF and its meteorological model, CALMET, are designed to handle the complexities posed by the complex terrain, the large source-receptor distances, chemical transformation and deposition, and other issues related to Class I visibility impacts. The CALPUFF modeling system has been adoptedby the U.S. EPA as 

### a Guideline model for source-receptor distances greaterthan 50

## km, and for use on a case-by-case basis in complex flow situations for shorter distances. CALPUFF is recommended for Class 

### I impact assessments by Federal Land Managers Workshop (FLAG) and IWAQM. The final BART guidance recommends CALPUFF as "the best modeling application available for predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment." As a result of these recommendations,the 

### J71STASBARTModeling Protocol is based on the use of CALPUFF for its BART determinations. Specifically,VISTAS CALMET Version 5.7 and CALPUFF Version 5.754 will be used in the CALPUFF analyses for BART applicability assessment, or other appropriate versions as specified by VISTAS and VISTAS'S technical contractor." This,source-specific modeling protocol for Pursue's Thomasville Plant incorporates by reference the 

### VISTASBART Modeling Protocol. Thefollowing sections present a brief summary of major features of the CALMET and CALPUFF models. Further detailed information should be obtained from the 

### VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol and documentation referenced therein.



### 4.11 

## MAJOR RELEVANT 

## FEATURES OF 

### CALMET The CALMET meteorological model consists of a diagnostic wind field module and boundary layermicrometeorologdmodules for overwater and overland boundary layers. Over land surfaces, the energy balance method ofHoltslag and van Ulden (1983)is used to

" 4sof the dateof this modeling protocol, the technical contractor website maintains CALMETVersion 5.7741060414,CALPUFF Version 5.7541060202,POSTUTIL Version 1.52(060206), and CALPOST Version 5.6393 (060202). 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 26 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### compute hourly gndded fields of the sensible heat flux, surface friction velocity, MoninObukhov length, and convective velocity scale. Mixing heights are determined from the computed hourly surface heat fluxes and observed temperature soundings using a modified Carson (1973) method based on Maul (1980). The model also determines gndded fields of Pasquill-Gifford-Turner (PGT) stability class and hourly precipitation rates. The aerodynamic and thermal properties of water surfaces suggest that a different method is best suited for calculating the boundary layer parameters in the marine environment. 

### A profile technique, using air-sea temperature differences, is used in CALMET to compute the micro-meteorological parameters in the marine boundary layer. Theversion of CALMETbeing used by VISTAS contains improvements in the overwaterboundary layer parameterizations (Fairall et al., 2003) based on the Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE) and enhancements in the calculation of overwater mixed layer heights (Batchvarova and Gryning, 1991, 1994). Further details and the results of an evaluation ofthemodel containing these enhancements are described in Scire et al. (2005). An upwincflooking spatial averaging schemeis optionally applied to the mixing heights and three-dimensional temperature fields in order to account for important advective effects.
The diagnostic wind field module uses a twwtepapproach to the computation of the wind fields (Douglas and Kessler, 1988). In the first step, an initial-guesswind field is adjusted for kinematic effects of terrain, slope flows, and terrainbloclung effects to produce a Step 1wind field. Gridded MM.5 can be used to define the initial guess field. The second step consists of an objective analysis procedure to introduce observational data into the Step 1wind field to produce a final wind field. Development of the Step 1wind field begins with the initial guess field defined by the MM5 prognostic meteorological model. Normally, the CALMET computational domain is specified to be at finer grid resolution than the MM5 datasetused to initialize the initial guess field. For example, 36-hn MM5 data available for VISTAS modeling may be used to develop the initial guess field on a 12-krn or even a 1-km CALMET grid. The Step 1 algorithms in CALMET described below apply terrain ad-justmentsto the initial guess field on the fine-scale CALMET grid. Thus, the CALMETwinds are adjusted to respond to fme-scale terrain features not necessarily seen by the coarser scale MM5 model. The approach of Liu and Yocke (1980) is used to evaluate the effects of the kinematic terrain on the wind field. The initial guess field winds are used to compute a terrain-forced vertical velocity, subject to an exponential, stability-dependent decay function. The effects of terrain on the horizontal wind components are evaluated by applying a divergenceminimization scheme to the initial guess wind field. The divergence minimization scheme is applied iteratively until the three-dimensional divergence is less than a threshold value. The original slope flow algorithm in CALMET has been upgraded (Scire and Robe, 1997) based on the shooting flow algorithm of Mahrt (1982). This scheme includes both advective-gravity and equilibrium flow regimes. At night, the slope flow model parameterizes the flow down the sides of the valley walls into the floor of the valley, and

-- 

### Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 27 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### during the day, upslope flows are parameterized. Themagnitude of the slope flow depends on the local surface sensibleheat flux and local terrain gradients. The slope flow wind components are added to the wind field adjusted for kinematic effects.
The thermodynamic blocking effects ofterrain on the wind flow are parameterized in terms ofthe local Froude number (Allwine and Whiteman, 1985). If the Froude number at a particular grid point is less than a critical value and the wind has an uphill component, the wind direction is adjustedto be tangent to the terrain. The wind field resulting from the preceding adjustments of the initidguess wind is the Step 1wind field. The second step of the procedure may involve introduction of observational data into the Step 

### 1 wind field through an objective analysis procedure. An 

### inverse-distance squared interpolation schemeisused which weights observational data heavily in the vicinity of the observational station, while the Step I wind field dominates the interpolated wind field inregions with no observational data. The resulting wind field is subject to smoothing, an optional adjustment of vertical velocities based on the O'Brien (1970) method, and divergence minimization to produce a final Step 2 wind field. The introduction of observational data in the Step 2 calculation is an option. It is also possible to run the model in "no observations" (Nc~Obs) mode, which involves the use only ofMM5 gridded data for the initial guess field followed by fine-scale terrain adjustments by CALMET. In NvObs mode, observational data are not used 

### in the Step 2 calculations. The No-Obs mode is appropriate when the MM5 simuhtions adequately characterize the regional wind patterns and when local observations, especially surface observations, reflect local conditions on a scale smaller than that ofthe CALMET domain and hence their spatial representativeness may be limited. Such situations aremost likely to occur when the CALMET grid scale is relatively large i.e., coarser than the scale of variation of the true wind field, which is particularly likely to occur in complex terrain or along the seashore. As was described in Section 3.1.1 of the 

### VISTASBART

### Modeling Protocol, when the 

### 12- km 

### MM5 (2001 and 2002) data areused, the diagnostic CALMET terrain adjustments were turned off since the pd resolution of the MM5 data is the same as the CALMET grid and the terrain adjustments on the 12-km grid scale will alreadybe reflected in the MM5 dataset. In this case, the MM5 winds will be interpolated by CALMET to the CALMET layers and CALMET's boundary layer modules will compute mixing heights, turbulence parameters and other meteorological parametersthat arerequiredby CALPUFF. For 2003, the 36-km MM5 data were used as CALMET's initial guess field and then the CALMET diagnostic terrain adjustments (see Section 3.1.1 of the VISTAS BART

### Modeling Protocol) were applied to reflect terrain on the scale of the CALMET gnd (i.e., 12km). Refined analyses will utilize the MM5 data asthe fnst-guess wind field, apply the diagnostic algorithmsto create the Step 

### 1 winds, and use 

### NWS data for smoothingin Step 2.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 28 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### 4.1.2 

## MAJOR RELEVANT FEATURES OF

### CALPUFF By its puff-based formulation and through the use of three-dimensional meteorological data developed by the CALMET meteorological model, CALPUFF can simulate the effects of time- and space-varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport from sources in complex terrain. The major features and options of the CALPUFF model are summarized in Table 3-2 ofthe 

### VISTAS

### BARTModeling 

### Protocol. Some of the technical algorithms are briefly described as 

### follows.

, 

### Complex Terrain : 

### The effects of complex terrain on puff transport are derived from the CALMET winds. In addition, puff-terrain interactions at gridded and discrete receptor locations are simulated using one of two algorithms that modify the puff-height (either that of ISCST3 or a general "phme path coefficient" adjustment), or an algorithm that simulates enhanced vertical dispersion derived from the weakly-stratified flow and dispersion module of the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model (CTDMPLUS) (Perry et al., 1989). Thepuff-height adjustment algorithms rely on the receptor elevation (relative to the elevation at the source) and the height of the puff abovethe surface. The enhanced dispersion adjustment relies on the slope of the gridded terrain in the direction of transport during the time step.

, 

### Subgrid Scale Complex Terrain (CTSG) : 

### An optional module in CALPUFF, CTSG treats terrain features that are not resolved by the gndded terrain field, and isbased on the CTDMPLUS (Perry et al., 1989). Plume impingement on subgridscale hills is evaluatedat the CTSG subgroup of receptors using a dividing streamline height (Hd)to determine which pollutant material is deflected around the sides of a hill (below Hd)and which material is advected over the hill (above Hd). The local flow (near the feature) used to define Hdis taken from the gridded CALMET fields. As in CTDMPLUS, each feature is modeled in isolation with its own set of receptors.

, 

### Puff Sampling Functions: 

### A set of accurate and computationally efficient puff sampling routines is included in CALPUFF, which solve many of the computational difficulties encountered when applying a puff model to near-field releases. For near-field applications during rapidly -varying meteorological conditions, an elongated puff (slug) sampling hnction may be used. An integrated puff approach may be used during less demanding conditions. Both techniques reproduce continuous plume results under the appropriate steady state conditions.

, 

### Building Downwash: The Huber-Snyder and Schulrnan-Sciredownwash models areboth incorporated into CALPUFF. An option is provided to use either model for all stacks, or make the choice on a stack-by-stack and wind sector-by-wind sector basis. Both algorithms have been implemented in such a way as to allow the use of wind direction specific building dimensions. ThePRIME building downwash model (Schulman et al., 2000) is also included in CALPUFF as an option.

, 

### Dispersion Coefficients: Several options are provided in CALPUFF for the computation of dispersion coefficients, including the use ofturbulence measurements 

### (o,and ow), the use of similarity theory to estimate 

### o, and 

### ow from
Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 29 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### modeled surface heat and momentum fluxes, or the use of Pasquill-Gifford(PG) or McElroy-Pooler 

### (MP)dispersion coefficients, or dispersion equations based on the CTDM. Options are provided to apply an averaging time correction or surface roughness length adjustments to the PG coefficients. 

### In Version 5.8 of CALPUFF being used by VISTAS, an option is provided to use the AERMOD turbuIence profiles for determining dispersion rates, which is the most recent approachto dispersion in EPA-approved regulatory modeling. 

### In addition, turbulence advection is included. For additional details on these features, see Scire et al. (2005).

I 

### Ovenvater and Coastal Interaction Effects: Because the CALMET meteorological model contains both overwater and overland boundary layer algorithms, the effects of water bodies on plume transport, dispersion, and deposition can be 

### simulated with CALPUFF. Thepuff formulation of CALPUFFis designed to handle spatial changes in meteorological and dispersion conditions, including the abrupt changes that occur at the coastline of a major body of water. Dry Deposition: 

### A resistance model is provided in CALPUFF for the computation ofdry deposition rates of gases and particulate matter as a function of geophysical parameters, meteorological conditions, and pollutant species. For particles, source-specific mass distributions may be provided for use in the resistance model. Ofparticular interest for BART analyses is the ability to separately model the deposition of fine particulate matter (<

### 2.5 

### pn diameter) from coarse particulate matter (2.5-10

### pm diameter).

I 

### Wind Shear Effects: CALPUFF contains an optional puff splitting algorithm that allows vertical wind shear effects across individual puffs to be simulated. Differential rates of dispersion and transport amongthe "new" puffs generated from the original, well-mixed puff can substantially increase the effective rate of horizontal spread of the material. Puffs may also be split in the horizontal when the puff sizebecomes large relative to the grid size, to account for wind shear across the puffs. 

# - Wet Deposition:An 

### empirical scavenging coefficient approach is used in CALPUFF to compute the depletion and wet deposition fluxes due to precipitation scavenging. The scavenging coefficients are specified as a function of the pollutant and precipitation type (i.e., frozen vs. liquid precipitation).

I 

### Chemical Transformation: CALPUFF includes options for parameterizing chemical transformation effects using the five species scheme (SO2, 

### SO4, NOu, 

### HNa,andNO3)employed in the MESOPUFF I1 model or a set ofuser-specified, diurnally-varying transformation rates. The MESOPUFF I1 scheme is recommended by IWAQM. It produces secondary fine particulate matter (sulfate and nitrate) from emissions of SOP and NOyand thus allows analyses of visibility impacts. Ambient ozone concentrations are used in the parameterized chemical transformation module as a surrogate for OH radicals during daylight hours. Ambient ammonia concentrations are used together with a temperature and relative humidity-dependent equilibrium relationship to partition nitric acid and nitrate on an hour-by-hour and receptor-by-receptor basis.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 30 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Refined analyses arenecessary as part of the Pursue BART applicability analysis, where CALMET grid sizes of

### 4 

### km or less (e.g., 2 

### km or 

### 1km) willbe used to represent the modeling domain. 

### As shown in Figure 

### 3-1, VISTAS has provided 2001 through 2003 CALMET files for five 

### 4-km subregional domains, one ofwhich (Domain 

### 5)includes Pursue's Thomasville Plant and Class I areas within 300

### km. These sub-regional domains were designedto allow any Class I areas within the VISTAS area to be evaluated with a single meteorological database and consistent CALPUFF modeling options. The horizontal domain is comprised of grid cells, each containing a central grid point at which meteorological and computational parameters are calculatedat each time step. For the refined analysis, a grid spacing interval of

### 4 km was selected. A LCC projection system is used to describe the horizontal grid, with origin at 

### 40 degrees North latitude and 

### 97 degrees West longitude. Standard paranels for the projection were set at 33 degrees North and

### 45 degrees North. Table

### 4-1 summarizes the vertical gnd structure selected for this analysis, which comprises ten vertical layers. The cell face height of each layer indicates its vertical extent. The vertical domain is composed of terrain-following grid cells, the number and size of which are chosen so as to constrain the boundary layer in which dispersion and chemical transformations take place. The highest cell face was selectedto be 4,000 meters to constrain the default maximum mixing height of 3,000 meters. 

# I Cell Face Height

Vertical Grid Cell (meters)



## 4.3 CALMET

## METEOROLOGICAL MODELING Refined analyses were prepared using appropriate CALMET model settings as described by the VISTAS technical contractor for the

### 4 km sub-regional grid utilized. For refined analyses at higher resolution gnd spacing (i.e., 2 

### km or 

### 1km), NWS surface, upper air, and precipitation data and NDBC buoy data will be processed in CALMET using the same model control options and data resources as were used by the VISTAS technical contractor to prepare the 

### LCkm refined grid

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 31 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

## 4.4 

## CALPUFFCOMPUTATIONAL DOMAINAND

## RECEPTORS CALPUFF analyses to assess the visibility impacts attributableto Pursue's Thomasville Plant willbe 

### performed on a computational domain that is a subset of the VISTAS regional domain. The size of the domain will be 

### selected to encompass the Thomasville Plant and BNWR, and to extend at least 50 

### km beyond in all directions. The size ofthe domain allows for the possible recirculation ofpuffs beyond the facility and areas being evaluated. Class I receptors: Use FLM Class 

### I receptor list with receptor elevations provided (available fiom the NPS). Ambient impacts will be predicted at receptors specified by the FLM to represent the BNWR area as depicted in Figure 1-2of this protocol. l2 

## 4.5 

## CALPUFFMODELING OPTION SELECTIONS The CALPUFF analysis will be conducted generally in accordancewith the recommendations of IWAQM Phase 

### 2 SummaryReport andRecommendations jor MocklingLong Range Tmnsport Impacts, with the following exceptions andlor specifications of non-default values.

, 

### CALPUFF domain configured to include the source and all Class I areas with 300

### km of the source plus 50

### km buffer zone in each direction.

, 

### Chemical mechanism: MESOPUFF I1 module

, 

### Species modeled: SO2,SO4, NOx, HNO?,N& and particulate matter in size categories of <0.625 1m-1, 

### 0.625-1.0 pm, 1.0-1.25 ym, 1.25-2.5pm, 

### 2.56.0 ym and 610pm aerodynamic diameters. Please note that SO2is the primary pollutant for this BART CALPUFF analysis. Emission rates for modeling based on EPA BART guidance, i.e., maximum 24-hour actual emission rate with normal operations from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled (excluding days where start-up, shutdown or malfunctions occurred sometime during the day). Note that potential emissions are used to determineif a source is BART-eligible,but 24-hour average maximum emissions areused for modeling purposes (70 FR 39162). The pollutant considered is SO2. Thebasis for modeled emission rates was describedin Section 2 of this protocol.

I 

### Excluded from the modeling arepollutants with plant-wide emissions less than de minimis levels (40 tons per year for SO?and NOyand 15tons per year for PMo). De minimis levels are plant wide for each visibility-impairing pollutant, so individual units may be modeled even if they have emissions below de minimis if the plant total is greaterthan de minimis.

, 

### Class 

### I receptors: Use FLM Class 

### I receptor list with receptor elevations provided (available from the NPS). CALPUFF model options. Use IWAQM guidance, including Pasquill-Gifford (ISC-like) dispersion coefficients. 

# - Ozone dataset: use observed ozonedata for 2001 through 2003 from CASTNet and AIRS stations. Only non-urban ozone stations shouldbe 

### used in the OZONE.DAT file. Monthly average ozone (backup)background values are to be computed based on daytime average

' t I\ \\2 n'irure ntn eo\ <it1 nwxReteutmtrtdev htrn 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 32 Trinity Consultants BART Applicabdity Modeling Protocol

### ozone concentrations from the OZONE.DAT file (6am-6pm average ozone concentrations computed by month). Figure 3-2 illustrated the location of ozone stations.

I 

### Background ammonia concentration: In refined CALPUFF analyses, use constant (0.5 ppbj values for ammonia. Puff representation: integrated puff sampling methodology.

, 

### Building downwash: Per VISTAScomments, the effects of building downwash will not be considered in the BART applicability analyses. 

### 4.5.1 

### REPRESENTATION OF

### EMISSION SOURCES IN

### CALPUFF Sample model processing files provided by VISTAS and its technical contractor demonstrate modeling of a single point source using CALPUFF, POSTUTIL, and CALPOST to assess visibility change.13 The sample approach simulates actual emissions of each of three gaseous pollutants (SO?,SO4,andNOx) and unit emissions (e.g., 1 dsjof each of six generic particle categories distinguished and designated by size: PM800, PM425, PM187, PM112, PM081, and PM056, to represent PN16.10, PM2.5dr PM1.25.2.5, PM, .I X, 

### P& 625-1, and PM,-, 50.625r 

### respectively. Because the BART-eligible source does not emit PM, theunit emissions approach for modeling does not apply. Emissions from the gaseous pollutant, SO2, will be treated similarly as in the sample approach. 

## 4.6 CALPOST PROCESSING OPTION SELECTIONS FOR 

## LIGHT EXT~NCTION AND 

## HAZE IMPACT CALCULATIONS The following postprocessing techniques will be used to compute the 24-hour average visibility impacts at each Class 

### I area within 300 

### km of Pursue's Thomasville Plant.

, 

### Species considered in visibility analysis : 

### SO4,NO3,EC, SOA (i.e., condensable organic emissions), soil, coarse PM.

, 

### Visibility Method 6 

### will be used with Class 

### I area-specific, monthly average, relative humidity values as described in Section 3.5 ofthis protocol.

, 

### Natural background light extinction will be represented at the BNWR as described in Section 3.5 of this protocol.

, 

### Light extinction efficiencies: Use EPA (2003a) values. Pursue will evaluate the use of the 2005 IMPROVE algorithm for calculating light extinction, which the 

### VISTASBART Modelinp

### Protocol indicates may be used in addition to the default IMPROVE algorithm. Calculations would be performed outside CALPOST unless CALPOST is modified to accommodate the new algorithm.

, 

### Ammonia Limiting Method: 

### In refined analyses, an applicationof the ammonia limiting method with the default 0.5 ppb background ammonia concentrationwill be 

### used in POSTUTIL to repartition HNOl andNO?. Because Pursue is beginning with therefmed analysis, the initial run results will bebased on the 98'h percentile 24-hour average visibility impact compared to natural conditions over the three-year

"http:i/www.src.comive~o/download~sample~files,h~#EXAMPLE~BART 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 33 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Protocol

### modeling period for BNWR. To assess whether BARTeligible operations contributeto visibility impairment,Pursue's applicability modeling analysiswill evaluatethe eighth-highest 24-hour average visibility impact of each year or the 22"d-highest impact over the three years modeled

Pursue will prepare and submit a BART applicability analysis report describing the modeling procedures, dataresources, and results of the refined modeling used to assess whether the Thomasville Plant is subject to BART. The presentation of modeling results will generally conform to the expectations described in the 

### VISTASBARTModeling

### Protocol and described as 

### follows. The Results seition of the CALPUFF modeling report should contain the following information: 

### 1. Map of source location and Class 

### I areas within 300 

### km of the source 

### 2. For the VISTAS 

### 4-km CALPUFF refined modeling domain, a table listing all Class 

### I areas in the VISTAS domain and those in neighboring states and impacts at those Class 

### I areas within 300 

### km of the source 3. A discussion of the Class 

### I area with visibility impairment from the source on 9sth 

### percentile days 

### in each year grater than 0.5 dv 4. 

### A discussion of the number of days below the 

### 98'" percentile that the impact ofthe source exceed 0.5 dv, the number of receptors in the Class 

### I area where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv. and the maximum impact. 

### 5. Copies of all input files and input data in electronic format for the CALMET, CALPUFF, CALPOST, and POSTUTIL runs shouldbe archived and provided to the State.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 34 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Pursue will conductquality assurance of CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST analyses in a manner that generally conforms to the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol. A descriptionofthe quality assurance methods and products (e.g., test case simulations, graphic representations of model fields and performance) will beprovided in Pursue's BART Applicability Modeling Report. The following sections describe techniques that can be used to visualize and quality assure performance of each model component as described in the VISTAS 

### BARTModeling Protocol. 

## 5.1 CALMET

# FIELDS Section

### 4 of the 

### VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol describes the methods and procedures for use in conducting refined modelingto determine whether a particular source or group of sources is subject to BART controls. In the initial application, the regional CALPUFF-ready meteorological data files will be provided by VISTAS. The amount of effort for end-users performing QA of these pre-def-med meteorological fields will be reduced from what is required in developing source-specific meteorological fields, 

### as described below. Also, VISTAS is planning to provide five subregional CALMET meteorological datasets in a CALPUFF-ready format. The development of these CALMET datasets will be subject to a QA program aspart of their development, so the necessary quality assurance activity of end-users is again reduced from what would be required in the development of the dataset. It is not expected that the quality assurance steps in the development will be repeated in each application. TheVISTASprovidedregional and subregional meteorological fields will include a test case simulation for demonstrating that expected modeling results are obtained on the user's computerplatform. Pursue will execute this test case simulation to demonstrate that the expected results can be reproduced. The critical CALMET input parameters depend on the mode 

### in which the model is run (i.e., observations mode, hybrid mode, or no-observations mode), and the location and spatial representativeness of any observational data. In a site-specific protocol involving the development of a meteorological dataset, the elements of the QAprocess include preparation of wind rose (using observed, 

### MM5 and CALMET-derived data), including examination of the data as a function of season and time of day (e.g., 

### 4 am, 

### 10am, 

### 4pm wind roses), time series analyses, and presentation of 

### 2-D vector plots illustrating terrain effectslsea breeze circulation or other features ofthe flow expected to occur within the domain. For example, 

### 2-D vector plots produced during light wind speed stable conditions (e.g., early morning such as 

### 4 am) are good for assessing the performance of the CALMET model configuration and switches in reproducing terrain effects because these conditions are likely to maximize the terrain impacts in the model. Season wind roses at 

### 4 am, 10am and 

### 4 pm would be expectedto showthe development of sea breeze circulations that may be important for certain applications. Customization of the QA process for the individual site-specific domain based on the availabilityof data and the physical processes expected to be important at that location will be conducted as part of the site-specific QA plan development.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 35 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

## 5.2 

## CALPUFF,CALPOST, AND 

## POSTUTILRESULTS Most of the CALPUFF input variables contain default values. Appendix B of the IWAQM report contains a list of recommended CALPUFF switch settings. Except as modified in Chapter

### 4 of the 

### VISTAS BARTModelingProtmdsr 

### k-i

## a source-specific protocol, the IWAQM guidance should

### be used in setting up the CALPUFF simulations. The CALPUFF model obtains the switch settings from an ASCII "control file" with a default name called the CALPUFF.INP file. As is the case with the comparableCALMET file,it is essential that the control filebe reviewed manually as part of the CALPUFF

### QA analysis. To facilitate this process, as was the case with the CALMET GUI, the CALPUFF GUI retains all of the input descriptive information that is part ofthe standard CALPUFF.INP file structure. CALPOSTisrun separately for each Class I area in order to obtain the necessary visibility statistics for evaluating compliance with the BART finer gndmodeling thresholds. The inputs to CALPOST involve selection of the visibility method (Method 6 in the standard EPA BART guidance), entry of Class I area-specific data for computing background extinction and monthly relative humidity factors for hygroscopic aerosols. CALPOST contains a receptor screening that allow subsets of a receptor network modeling in CALPUFF to be selected for processing in a given CALPOST 

### run. This is how receptors within a single Class 

### I area are selected for processing from a CALPUFF output file that may contain receptors from several Class I areas. CALPOST contains options for creating plot files that will help in the confirmationthat the proper receptor subset is extracted.
The CALPOST output file contains a listing of the highest visibility impact each day of the model simulation over all receptors included in CALPOST analysis. Receptors will normallybe selected in each CALPOSTrun so that each CALPOST run represents the impacts at a single Class I area. For a finer grid simulation, the 

### 98"' percentile value 

### (8th highest day) is used for comparison against the BART threshold of 

### 0.5 deciviews. It is necessary to import the results ofthe CALPOST table into a sorting program such as a spreadsheetto rank the daily change in extinction values such as is presented in Table 

### 4-2 of the 

### WSTASBARTModelingProtocol. The CALPOST inputs that will be carefully checked as part of the CALPOST quality assurance include the following:

, 

### Visibility technique (Method 

### 6) Monthly Class I-specific relative humidity factors for Method 

### 6

, 

### Background light extinction values Inclusion of all appropriate species from modeled sources (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, organics), coarse and fine particulate matter, and elemental carbon.

, 

### Appropriate species names for coarse PM used Extinction efficiencies for each species

, 

### Appropriate Rayleigh scatteringterm (1

### 1.4 ~tn-' 

### for 

### BNWR, which is the Class I area specific value for finer grid modeling) Screento select appropriate Class I receptors for each CALPOST simulation.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 36 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### POSTUTIL allows the user to sum the contributions of sources from different CALPUFF simulations into a total concentration file. In addition, it contains optionsto scalethe concentrations from different modeled species (e.g., different particle sizes) into species-dependent sizedistributions for theparticulate matter. For example, PM is often simulated with unit emission rates for each particle size category and, in the POSTUTIL stage, the contributions of each size category based on the species being considered (e.g., elemental carbon, coarse particulate matter, etc.)arecombined to form the species concentrations for input into CALPOST. This process, although simple, requires a careful review ofthe weighting factors for each source. POSTUTIL also allows a repartitioning ofnitric acid and nitrate to account for the effects of ammonia limiting conditions.
If site-specific modeling is performed using different sources of data 

### or different techniques, the source-specific modeling protocol should provide justification for deviations from the VISTAS common protocol, and a QA plan specific for the application provided to address the quality assurance of the data used.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 

### 37 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### The following guidance documents, regulations, and technical publications were referenced in preparation of this BART Applicability Modeling Protocol for Pursue and the 

### VISTASBART Modeling Protocol. Allwine, K.J. and C.D. Whiteman, 1985: MELSAR: A MesoscaleAir Quality Model for Complex Terrain: Volume 1--Overview,Technical Description and User's Guide. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Batchvarova, E. and S.-E. Gryning, 1991: Applied model for the growth of the daytime mixed layer. 

### Bounduw-LuverMeteorol., 56,261-274. Batchvarova, 

### E. and S.-E. Gryning, 1994: 

### An applied model for the height of the daytime mixed layer and the entrainment zone.

### Boundmy-Luyer Meteorol,71,311-323. Benjamin, S.G, D. Devenyi, S.S. Weygandt, K.J. Brundage,J.M. Brown, G.A. Grell, D. 

### Kun, B.E. Schwartz,T.G. Smirnova, T.L. Smith, and G.S. Manikin, 2004: An Hourly Assimilation Forecast Cycle: the RUC, 

### Mon. Wea.Rev., 132,495-518. Carson, D.J., 1973:The development of a dry, inversion-capped, convectively unstable boundary layer. 

### Quart.

### J. Roy.Meteor. Soc.,99,450-467. Chang, J.C. P. Franzese, K. Chayantrakom and 

### S.R.Hanna, 2001: Evaluations of CALPUFF, HPAC and VLSTRACK with Two Mesoscale Field Datasets. 

### J.Applied Meteorology,42(4): 453-466. Department of the Interior, 2003: Letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior to the Director of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Douglas, S. and R. Kessler, 1988:User's Guide to the Diagnostic Wind Model. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California. Edgerton, 

### E., 2004: Natural Sources of PM2 and PN,,,, Observed in the SEARCH Network. Presented at the A&WMA Specialty Conference on Regional and Global Perspectives in Haze: Causes, Consequences and Controversies, Asheville,NC, October 2004. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003a: Guidance for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule; EPA-54lB-03-004, US.Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

### NC. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003b: Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule. EPA-454lB-03-005.US.Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Pursue Energy's ThomasvillePlant 38 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Environmental Protection Agency, 1998: Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts. Interagency Workgroup on 

### Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). EPA-454R-98-019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC. Escoffier-Czaja, C., and J. Scire. 2002: The Effects ofAmmonia Limitation onNitrate Aerosol Formation and Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas. Paper 55.13, 12"' AMS/A&WMA Conference on the Applications ofAir Pollution Meteorology, Norfolk, VA. May 2002. Fairall, C.W., E.F. Bradley, J.E. Hare, A.A. Grachev, and J.B. Edson, 2003: Bulk parameterization of air-sea fluxes: Updates and verification for the COARE algorithm. Journal ofClimate, 16,571-591. Fallon, S. and G. Bench, 2004: IMPROVE Special Study: Hi-Vol Sampling for Carbon-14 Analysis of PM 2.5 Aerosols. Draft Report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. FLAG, 2000. Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). Phase I Report. U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grell, G.A., J. Dudhia, and D.R. Stauffer, 1995: A Description of the Fifth GenerationPenn StateiNCAR MM5, NCAR TN-398-STR, NCAR Technical Note. Grosjean, D., and J. Seinfeld, 1989: Parameterization ofthe Formation Potential of Secondary Organic Aerosols. Atmos. Environ., 23, 1733-1747. Holtslag, A.A.M. and A.P. van Ulden, 1983: A simple schemefor daytime estimates of the surface fluxes from routine weather data.

### J. Clim.andAppl. 

### Meteor., 22,s17-529. Irwin, J.S., J.S. Scire and D.G. Strimaitis, 1996: A Comparison of CALPUFF Modeling Results with CAPTEX Field Data Results. In hr Pollution Modeling and Its Applications, 

### XI. Editedby S.E. Gryning and F.A. Schiermeir. Plenum Press, New York, NY. IWAQM, 1998:InteragencyWorkgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA-454lR-98-019. Liu, M.K. and M. A. Yocke, 1980: Siting of wind turbine generatorsin complex terrain.

### J.Energy,

### 4, 10:16. Mahrt, 

### L., 1982:Momentum Balance of Gravity Flows.

### J. I.4tmos. Sci., 39,2701-2711. Maul, P.R., 1980: Atmospheric transport of sulfur compound pollutants. Central Electricity Generating Bureau MID/SSD/8010026/R.Nottingham, England. Morris, R., C. Tang and G. Yanvood, 2003: Evaluation of the Sulfate and Nitrate Formation Mechanism in the CALPUFF Modeling System. Proceedings of the A&WMA Specialty Conference

- 

### Guideline on Air Quality Models: The Path Forward. Mystic, CT, 22-24 October 2003.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 39 

### BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Morrison, K., 

### Z-X Wu, J.S. Scire, J. Chenier and T. Jeffs-Schonewille, 2003: CALPUFF-Based Predictive and Reactive Emissions Control System. 96th A&WMA Annual Conference &

### Exhibition, 22-26 June 2003, San Diego, CA. O'Brien, J.J., 1970: A note on the vertical structure ofthe eddy exchange coefficient in the planetary boundary layer.

### J. nltmos.Sci., 

### 27, 1213-1215. Pitchford,M., W. Malm, 

### B. Schichtel, N. Kumar, D. Lowenthal, and J. Hand, 2005: Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle SpeciationData. Report to IMPROVE Steering Committee, November 2005 Perry, S.G., D.J. Bums, L.H. Adam,R.J. Paine, M.G. Dennis, M.T. Plants, D.G. Strimaitis, R.J. Yamartino, E.M. Insley, 1989:User's Guide to the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model Plus Algorithms for Unstable Situations (CTDMPLUS) Volume 1:

### Model Description and User Instructions.EPAl60018-89/041,U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Schulman, L.L., D.G. Strimatitis, and J.S. Scire, 2000: Development and Evaluation of the PRIME Plume Rise and BuildingDownwash Model,

### J.

### Air & 

### Waste

### Mana~e. Assoc., 50,378-390. Scire, J.S., F.W. Lurmann, A. Bass and S.R. Hanna, 1984: Development of the MESOPUFF I1 Dispersion Model. EPA-60013-84-057, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Scire, J.S. and F.R. Robe, 1997: Fine-Scale Application of the CALMETMeteorological Model to a Complex Terrain Site. Paper 97-A1313.Air & 

### Waste Management Association 90th Annual Meeting 22 

### Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8- 13June 1997. Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 2000a: A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts Scire, J.S., F.R Robe, M.E. Fernau, and R.J. Yamartino, 2000b: A User's Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 

### 5).Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. Scire, J.S., Z-X Wu, D.G. Strimaitis and G.E. Moore, 2001: The Southwest Wyoming Regional CALPUFFhr Quality Modeling Study - 

### Volume 

### I. Prepared for the Wyoming Dept of Environmental Quality. Available from Earth Tech, Inc., 196Baker Avenue, Concord, MA. Scire, J.S., Z.-X. Wu, 2003: Evaluation of the CALPUFF Model in Predcting Concentration, Visibility and deposition at Class 

### I Areas in Wyoming. Presented at the A&WMA Specialty Conference, Guideline on Air Quality Modeb: The Path Forward. Mystic, CT, 22-24 October 2003. Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis and F.R. Robe, 2005: Evaluation of enhancements to the CALPUFF model for offshore and coastal applications. Proceedings ofthe Tenth International Conference on Harmonisationwithin Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory Purposes. Sissi (Malia), Crete, Greece. 17-20 October 2005.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 40 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### Strimaitis,D.G.,J.S. Scire and J.C. Chang, 1998: Evaluation of the CALPUFFDispersion Model with Two Power Plant Data Sets. Tenth Joint Conference on the Applications ofAir Pollution Meteorology, Phoenix, Arizona. American Meteorologcal Society. 11

# -16 January 1998. 

### Tamer, R., 

### M. Zheng, 

### K. Lim, J. Schauer, and A. P. McNichol, 

### 2005. Contributions to the 

### Organic Aerosol Fraction in the Tennessee Valley: Seasonal and Urban-Rural Differences. Paper presented at the AAAR International Specialty Conference, PM: Supersite Program and Related Studies, Atlanta, 

### 7- 11February 

### 2005.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 41 BART Applicability Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants

### MDEQ

### 2005ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTING FoRM(AERF)

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BARTApplicability Modeling Protocol A-1 

### Trinity Consultants

### PURSUE 

## ENERGY CORPORATION P.O. BOX 730 

## BRANDON, 

## MS 39043 

### 601-845-2252

Certified Mail 

### No. 7004 1

### 1600001 19620253 Return Receipt
Mr. Wayne Anderson, Chief Title

## V Operating Permit Program, 

## AERF Mississippi Dept. ofEnvironmental Quality Office,ofPollution Control, Air Division 

### 101West Capitol 

### St. Jackson, MS 

### 39201 

### RE: Title 

### V Operating Permit Program -2005 Annual Emissions Reporting Fornl 

### (AERF) Pursue Energy Corporation --Thon~asville Plant 

### - Facility No. 2380-00036 Dear Mr. Anderson, Our Major hr Pollution Source Annual Emissions Reporting 

## Form for the 

## year 2005 is attached. The actual emission rates of sulf~~ conlpoul~ds were calculated 

### with material balance calculations based on gas and sulfur production rates, sulfur plant analysis, incinerator stack analysis, and sulf~ir ecovery efficiencies from our "Quarterly Emission Reports". Please be advised, that 

### we have some 

### (COS+CS2) Emissions that could be included 

### in 3 

### categories 

### - VOC*; TRS and 

### Total 

### HAPS(Voc). These are 

### essentially 

### TRS compounds that inadvertently also happen to be VOC's and 

### I-iRP's. On the 

### AERF Form they are included 

## ONLY as part of 

### the total 

## TRS, and shown 

## as "0" 

## in the 

## VOC and Total HAPS (Voc) columns, with a 

### *Note- indicatipg that the 

### actual value is 80.49 

### TPY, but that amount was included as pait of the 

### 102.72 

## TPY reported 

## for TKS. This was done to reduce confksion and to prevent being billed twice, if not 

### three times, for the same pollutant, as 

### has occur~ed froin time to time 

### in the past. The particulate matter 

## (PM) emissions were calculated by using 

### the 7.6 

## 1WMMCF En~ission Factor from AP-42, Section 1.4,

### Natural Gas Combustion and multiplying it by the total naturai gas used as 

### fuel in the Thomasville Plant during 2005. The

## NOX and 

## CO emission rates for compressors 

## #1 through #5 were determined from a bi-annual test conducted by 

### Danny Russell 

### with Environmental Monitoring Laboratories 

### in October 

### 2005, and applying the actual hours of 

## run time for each compressor during 

### 2005.

### If you 

## have any 

### questions or 

### need additional information, please 

### call Monty White: 

## Environmental Coordinator, at 

## 601-845-4205, or A1 Freiberg,Plant 

## Engineer, at 

## 601-845- 

## 4206.

Sincerely,

J



# YQ-bnf Gene lnabnet District Manager

Attachment

cc: 

### Charles Rigdon 

### David Clark Willie Johns Monty 

### White

## MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMEMTOF 

## ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

## MAJOR 

## AIR POLLUTIONSOURCE

## ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTING 

### FORM Air Division 

## 101West Capitol 

## Street Jackson, MS 

## 39201 Inaccordancewith Section 49-17-30, 

### MississippiCode of 1972

### Annotated, allsourceswhich choose to base their annual Title V 

### Fee on actual emissions shallsubmit, by July 1

### of each year, an inventory of emissions for the previous calendaryear. MDEQ 

### Facility ID #: 

### 2380 

### -00036 Facility Name: 

### Pursue 

### Energy Corporat~on 

### - Thomasville Gas Plant


### Address: PO Box 730 

### Brandon MS 39043 (Streetor PO Box) (city) (State) (Zip Code) 

### If actual emissions are reported, they must be the actual emissions that were emittedfrom the facility during calendaryear 2005. 

### The annual permitfee isdue on September 1st of each year.

Pollutant Annual Allowable Emission Rate (TPY)

Particulate Matter (PM) 10.76 

### so2 NOX CO 

### voc* TRS LEAD 

### FOR 

### INFO ONLY Actual Emission Rate (TPY) Reportedfor Calendar Year 2004



### 50,309.17 480.21 

### 257.81 142.60 5,447.38 

## o no GFCslHCFCs Other Total HAPS(Voc) 

### - Actual Annual (2005) 

### Emission Rate (TPY)

0.00 

### 0.00 5,440.00

* ReflectsTotal VOC from the facility includingVOCs that are HAPs.



### ttach calculations, monitoring data, measurements, etc. from which actual emission rates were determined. ctual emission rateswill not be accepted unless the methodof calculation isattached. Certification statement (oriqinal sianature required 

### for 

## form to 

### be accepted) Total HAPs (Non-Voc) 

# I 0.00



### I,

### the undersigned,am the responsibleofficial 

### or (for cokporationsonly) the duly authorized representativeof 

### the 

### facility 

### described

## on thisfee form. 

### I

### certify that the information reportedhereon and the supporting information attached hereto are completeand accuratet6the best of my knowledge. 

# %A 

# '&&=- June 20, 2006 Signature 

### Gene 

### Inabnet Date 

### District 

## Manager Typed or printed name Title

## Pursue Energy Corporation 

## THOMASVlLLE PLANT

# - Title 

## V Permit No. 

## 2380

# - 00036 NATURAL GAS 

### FUEL 

### USAGE

## FOR

## THE 

# YEAR 2005 

## And Calculation of 

### Particulate 

### Matter 

### (PM) 

### Emissionsfor Year 2005



## Fuel used 

## in 

## Boiler #?+ 

### Boiler 

## #2 + Incinerator + 

### Saies Gas Compressors



## 2005 Month Jan 

## Feb Mar AP~ May 

## Jun 

## Jul Aug 

## S~P 0

ct 

### Nov 

## Dec

Total 

## Fuel Used MMCF

50.345 1 

### 43.977 50.320 

### 50.194 52.1 35 

## 55.005 57.276 58.198 55.057 52.250 50.171 51.884 

### 626.812 

## MMCF PM Emission 

## Factor

# = 7.6 

## IbJMMCF From

## AP-42, Section 1.4, 

### Natural Gas Combustion 

### (Page 3.8) 

## March 1998 

## Edition /CALCULATION 

## OF "ACTUAL" 

### PM EMISSIONS 

## FOR 

## YEAR 2005 

# 1
626.81

## 2 MMCF X 7.6 

### IbIMMCF 

## = 4764 

### Ibstyear PM 4764 

### lbs/ 

### 2000 

### Ibslton 

## = 12.38 

## Tons per Year 

## (TPY) 

## PM1 

## Pursue Energy I 

## -_ _ Title Y Permit 

## No. 1380

# - 00036 -- 

### - - 

### - I T-- -

i 

### ! -

- 

# 1 _- 

## 1 2005 

### REPORT OF

### ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1 

# 7 -- 

# ---- _1-.- -- 

### Data and calculations below 

### used to determine -- 

## _ AnnuialTitlc V 

### permit 

### Fees

- I_ - -. - 

## _ _

## _ - . . 

## _ -. - - r------ -- .- - 

## By Al Freiberg

# - Plant Engineer, 

## phone 601-845-4206
I I I -
. ~ -- -- - -- - -T- - - 

### /
- -. i I I 

# --.i - - -- 

# .I

- .-

# 4.

. .- - 

### -1.

,--j -- -. -- I



## _ 

# -.r i - 1- - .- .- -

. -..

.- - - 

### ! ! 

## ,--- -- 4~ - -

### ' 

### I

-- - -- -Ip. I 

# --I- 

# 1-- --- 

### Based - 

## on Summation

_ - . 

## _

of

-



### 2005

. 

## _ -. - -. 

### Quarterly

. 

### Reports. I 1.- 

## -1 

# i Ged --

### on Quarterly Sulfur -



### Plant Performance Tests conducted by 

### Sulfur Experts. 

# r~ - - -- 

### -!

-- /_

.. 

### I 7-

## JOX Emissions: 

# I 1 I I
- - -~ 

## . ~- -----i- - 

### ..i

.. 

### 2 

### Based on Actual 

## NOX Emissions Tests conducted 

### by 

## Danny Russell



## _ _ . -_____. 

## on October 

## 3 and 

## 4, 2005. See attached Test 

## -__ .- 

## I

___ 

## _ - 

## _ -- - -- -2- L-

_ - 

### Emissions 

# ----- on 5 Compressors were

. 

### determined from logged actual run times 

### - -

. 

# -

-- 

# -

. - --- 

# -
.- ~ I I 

# l---~
- I I \ 

### -

.

.-

.. -- -- 

### --i__- -. 

# -,- !
- 

# -1--- ~.,L 

### i2005 

## ACTUAL HOURS

## : ------------ -- A- - - -- ~> -- -. .--! ' 

### 2ompressor #I, 

### NOX

-- 

## = ---



### 0.37 - -- 

### Ibslhr X 745 

### hrs/ 

### 2000 

### lb 

## = 0.14 Tonlyr 

## 7-- ! - --- -- .- - - .. _ 

### -_

. 

### >ompressor --- 

## #2, NOX 

## = 0.03 Ibslhr

## X 718 hrs 

## i 2000 Ib
.-



## = 0.01 Ton!yr

-.. .-- --I-- 

### :ompressor

. ---
. 

## #3, NOX 

## = 0.64 Ibslhr 

### X 222 hrs / 

### 2000 

## Ib= 0.07 Tonlyr

-- -~~ - - ----- - 

### - ------ - - 1 .- 

### ;ompressor

_. 

## #4, NOX 

## = 1.

### 17 Ibslhr 

### X 8034 hrs/ 

### 2000 Ib 

## = 4.70 Tonlyr

. . 

### -- -- 

## _- --- ._ .-. 

### I

.. 

### >ompressor

### #5, 

## NOX 

## = 0.95 IbsJhr

## X 8395 hrs 

### I 2000 Ib 

## = 3.99

### Ton/vr

I
.- 

### :O 

### Emissions: - 

### ---- i--- L - - 

### Based -. . 

### on Actual ~~'~rnissions

. - - .-

### -_ 

### Tests _.-_.__II_ 

### conducted by Danny Russell 

# A

__ _ - 

### on October 3 

### and 4, 

### 2005. See 

### attached Test 

### Results, 

## 1 I

. -- --
. .. _ 

### _I 

### -
_ -- 1. -

--.- - -- . . . 

### Emissions - 

### on 

## 5 Compressors _/.._ _.... 

### were determined _-_- 

### from logged actual run times 

# 1

-.. .

-. -- -.- - -
.- I ( -. -
. - I

- 1 --. . --- -- I ----- - .. -.-L - - - i-- --_ -- ---_ -. 

### >ompressor 

## #I, CO 

## = 0.54 lbslhr 

## X 745 hrs 

## 12000 Ib 

## = 0.20 Tontyr I I 

### - - - - -- - - - --- - 

## _ ... _-

## -_ :ompressor 

### #2, CO 

## = 0.24 lbsthr 

## X 718 hrs/ 

### 2000 

## Ib 

## = 0.09 Ton/yr I

- . 

## _ >ompressor

## #3, CO 

## = 0.85 Ibslhr 

## X 222 hrs / 

### 2000 

### Ib= 0.09

. 

### Tonlyr

- -- - 

# I :ompressor #4, 

### CO 

## = 1.01 Ibslhr 

### X 8034 hrs 12000 

## Ib 

## = 4.06 Tonlyr 

# !-

-------.- -- -- -... .- -- _ 

## _ -. 

### zmpGG#5, - -. -. 

# Cb= -1IXlbs/hfi-8395 hrs/ 

### 20001b

## = 7.30~onlyr i 

### Short TFfisC.* - - - . 

### Yr 

### 2005, Total 

### ~ead I I

_L~-- .-. L~- :.

. -. -- .

### -_ I
-- . - --- 

## ;EE 

## NEXT PAGE- 

### FOR VOC* 

# ,TRS and Total 

### HAPS(Voc) Emissions
-- I -
.-.- - . - -- - .- - -

### - - . 

## ! 

# ! t 

### I I I

### NOTE: 

### The --



### (COS 

# + CS2) Emissions are also 

### Reduced Sulfur Compounds and are also 

### includdin

# the 102.7~t~~alofthe~~~ ~ssion~sh~wnab~e - - - --

# T 

# 1 I 

## i 

# -1-
-- - 

### -- -- - ---- - 

### I --?--- 

### - -- L---__L- - _LA - --- - -- - --1-

___. i- --L --

--A 

## CAUTION: Since 

### the (COS+CS2) Emissions are part of 

### 3 Emission Categories

# - - -- -

## -?---*-- - ---I- - - 

### --- 

### VOC 

## TRS, and Total HAPS(Voc), care must 

### be taken in 

### calculation 

## I -2-

1_ -
I_ 

### --

--I__ 

### --_

-- - 

### of the* Annual Title V 

### permit

## fee, least 

## these emissions 

### inadvertantly
-- -

--- 

# bet-edior GkeHnoitGee t&lesinstzad-of 

### jusonce.-r 

# ,- --- --

# -
- - - --- - - I 1 I -L-- - _- - --- 

### 2- 

### --- 1 1 

## THEREF-OR~THEY~RE ONLY 

### SHOWN AS 

## TRS Emissions and NOT 

### - 

# I---- 1 ---- 

# - - - 

### or Total 

### HAPS

### (Voc). I

### mEQ QUARTERLY/DAILY

### S

# o2 EMISSIONS REPORT FOR THE 

## FOURTH QUARTER OF

### 2005

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability ModelingProtocol 

### B-1 Trinity Consultants

### I'URSW, 

### EhTRGI'CORPORATION P.O. 

### BOX 730 

### IIRA

### NDON,

### MS 39043 601-835-2252

### PURSUE 

### THOMASVILLE
SULFUR PLANT RECOVERY BY CARBON BALANCE DATE 1015105 ACID GAS FEED TAIL GAS CARBON SULFUR MOL % COMPONIMOL % CARBON SULFUR



### co N2 C02 COS H2S CS2 SO2 C1 C2

CONVERSION EFFICIENCY = 100X (1-((Ci/Si)i(Co/So)) = 

### 97%



# NET RECCVERY 97.54 4'c 

# I
NOTE: NEW CATALYST WAS INSTALLED INALL 3 CONVERTERS AND PLACED IN SERVICE JUNE 22,2001 DAYS IN SERVICE TO DATE, JULY 20,2005 = 

# 17PURSUE ENERGY CORF'ORATION

~~ I

. . --*. - - - THOMASVILLE PLANT

# - TITLE V PERMIT NO. 2380-00036 

### /

- ~- 

# --C

~-~

~ 

# -----

-- 1 i 1

- 

## 1 - - L- 

## 4

-- EMISSIONS FOR OCTOBER 2005 - - POUNDS
- - SO2 TOTAL SULFUR
- - EMISSIONS S02+CS2 +COS H2S
----- --- 

# -I

- - --- - -- DATE PROCESSED LBS SO21i-B LBS SO2 L B LBSiHR LBSlHR LBSlHR 

# - I

A-I'PURSUE ENERGY CORPORATION

~ ~...

~ ~ ~ /THOMASVILLE PLANT -TITLE V PERMIT NO. 2380-00036 I
-- -- - ... -. - -- - . --
.. . . . -- ---
. . .- __t_. 

## -_- I 

### i I - &-- - -- - - --- ----- I I EMISSIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2005 

## 1

- 

# -- 

# I

A-I DATE POUMDS

... SULFUR -~

.. PROCESSED I I i SO2

~ EMlSSlONS

- - --- - LBS S02lLB TOTAL S02+CS2+COS -- LBS S02iLB I I ICS2 LBSIHR H2S

.-.-. - .. LBSIHi? COS LBSIHRI I - - PURSUE ENERGY CORPORATION 1 -- -- -- - - -- -- I _7_ -

- jTHOMASVlLLE -- -- PLANT --



### - TITLE V PERMIT NO 2380-00036 

# ---

I -? - 

### -- -

### Appendix L.7.5



## U.S. EPA Region 

## 4 Comments on the 

## BART Modeling Protocols for: Pursue Energy Corporation, Thomasville Gas Plant and Mississippi Phosphates Corporation, Pascagoula Facility General Comments: 1. 

### The modeling protocols for both Pursue Energy and Mississippi Phosphates were prepared by Trinity Consultants and contain similar content. Both protocols state that the procedures for conducting the modeling will generally follow the VISTAS Bart Modeling Protocol, dated July 18, 2006. EPA Region 4 supports the proposal to follow the procedures contained in the VISTAS protocol. (Note that a more recent revision to the VISTAS protocol, Revision 3.2, dated August 31, 2006, is available and should be referenced). Overall, the modeling procedures described in both protocols are acceptable to EPA Region 

### 4. However, the "Specific Comments" section below contains a few comments which should be addressed prior to the modeling being conducted. 2. Both the Pursue Energy and Mississippi Phosphates modeling protocols indicate that a 0.5 deciview (dv) threshold will be used for determining ifthe BART eligible emission sources contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. The Mississippi Department ofEnvironmental Quality should decide on the appropriateness ofthe 0.5 dv threshold for excluding sources from the need to further evaluate BART controls. Mississippi will be required to provide an explanation for selection ofthe contribution threshold, whether it is 0.5 dv or some other threshold, in the Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA. As described in the BART Guidelines contained in 40 CFR Part 

### 5 1,Appendix Y. the number of emission sources affecting the Class 1

### areas at issue, the magnitude ofthe sources' impacts, and the location ofthe sources should be considered when establishing this threshold. (See 70 FR 39161-39162, July 6, 2005.) EPA will evaluate the thresholds selected by Mississippi for reasonableness based on these considerations. 3. Both the Pursue Energy and Mississippi Phosphates modeling protocols discuss using parts ofthe new IMPROVE equation for evaluating visibility impacts at Class 

## I areas. Use of the new IMPROVE equation for post processing CALPUFF results is an option being considered by the VISTAS States. Implementing the new IMPROVE equation for the BART modeling is essentially a modification of CALPOST, which provides the calculations ofthe light extinction from the CALPUFF output. Therefore, ajustification for using the new IMPROVE equation is needed, either in the modeling protocol or in a separate submittal from the State or as documentation in the SIP. The Justification should include: 

### A rationale for why the new IMPROVE equation is needed for the application; 

### An evaluation ofthe new vs. old equations performance when compared to measured/monitored values (e.g., 

### as provided in "Revised IMPROVE

### Appendix L.7.5

Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data" found on http:l,1

### i~ta.cira.coIostate.edulIh1PROVF, Publi~ati~~~~s, GrayLit/O 10 

### Revised1 'tlPROVFeqIRevisedl

### hlPROVEAlrrorith1113.ctoc ); 

### and A 

### detailed description ofthe procedures used in the modified-post processing methodology (e.g., spreadsheet or other post-processing calculations) Additional discussion regarding the use ofparts ofthe new IMPROVE equations versus the entire new equation is presented in the "Specific Comments" section below. 4. 

### One ofthe most important factors in any modeling exercise is to ensure that the source parameters (e.g., emission rates, stack parameters) are correct. EPA Region 4 recommends that Mississippi carefully compares these parameters with existing permits and databases to ensure that appropriate values are being used for the Pursue Energy and Mississippi Phosphates BART modeling. Specific Comments: 

### Pursue Energy Corporation, Thomasville Gas Plant 1. 

### Table 2-4, Page 14: Related to General Comment #3 above. Table 

### 2-4 ofthe Pursue Energy Protocol indicates that the Sulfur Recovery Unit has a stack height of 300 feet. This is greater than the de minimis Good Engineering Practice (GEP) height of 

### 65 meters (213 feet). The stack heights used in regulatory air dispersion modeling must not be greater than the GEP stack height as determined in accordance with Chapter 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. 

### Modeling with stack heights that exceed the GEP stack height constitutes a prohibitive dispersion technique. The protocol should provide a detailed justification that the stack height listed in the table does not exceed GEP for this source. 2. 

### Section3.1, Page 15: The protocol indicates that the VISTAS 4-km CALMET sub-regional Domain 5 will be used for modeling the Pursue Energy source. The map in Figure 3.1 ofthe protocol indicates that Domain 

### 1 should be used instead of Domain 5, as Domain 5 does not include the Pursue Energy Thomasville Plant. The remaining reverences to Domain 5 in the protocol should be changes to reference Domain 

### 1. 3. Section 3.5, Page 23: The protocol indicates that Pursue Energy will evaluate the results ofthe analysis using both the standard light extinction calculation as well as applying corrections to add Class 

## I area-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficients and background sea salt concentrations. EPA Region 4 does not recommend choosing parts ofthe new IMPROVE equation and applying them to the existing IMPROVE equation. We recommend that eitherthe entire existing IMPROVE equation or the entire new IMPROVE equation be used. When the IMPROVE committee adopted the new equation in December 2005, the

### Appendix L

c ined impacts of all the revisions to the existing equation were evaluated (see tl- :port titled "Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction fr 

### Particle Speciation Data" available on the IMPROVE website at: 

### 11 \ 

### ista.cira.colnstate.edu/i1nprc~~~e/P~1b1ications/GravLit:0 1'1 

### RevisedlhlPRO 

### - \ 

## ;lRevisedlhlPROVEAlgorithm~~.doc ). 

### They did not recommend making - 

### p 

### meal changes to the existing equation. Also, consensus on a procedure to

ill %:merit 

### the new IMPROVE equation with the existing CALPUFFICALPOST it1 21 

### has not been achieved. A 

### methodology has been proposed by VISTAS, but 

### E I 

### Region 4 

### has raised concerns aboutthe proposed approach. If Pursue 

## E: zy decides to use the entire new IMPROVE equation, we recommend that the 

### PI :dures for implementing it with CALPUFFICALPOST be submitted to the S 

## ., EPA Region 4, 

### and the FLMs prior to the modeling being conducted. The it {nationshould include a detailed discussion ofthe procedure and any st 

### arelspreadsheets used to implement the procedure. Finally. consistency si id be maintained when applying the new versus existing IMPROVE ec :ions when calculating natural background, current, and future visibility iili 

### cts at Class 1areas. For example, ifthe new IMPROVE equation is used to ca ilatethe natural background visibility impact for a Class I area for the BART 

### mc Jing, the new IMPROVE equation should also be used to calculate the 

### B,' 

## T source's impact current and future impact on visibility. 

### 4. So $on 

### 3.5, Page 24: The protocol indicates sodium concentrations will be used to timate background seas salt concentrations at Breton National Wildlife Rc ge. As acknowledged in the protocol, concentrations of chloride ion or elt ental chlorine are preferred for estimating sea salt concentrations. The new lki 

### ROVE algorithm as reviewed and discussed for implementation by the 

### I AOVE committee recommends chloride ion concentration (not elemental chi ine concentration) to calculate background sea salt concentration. As dik ssed in the protocol, at most sitesthe chloride ion concentration will be near zet 

### tor even negative due to subtraction of blank values) because there isn't any sea 11tat most sites. The problem with using sodium for sea salt appears to be that he data, especially for the last few years (since the monitoring at IMPROVE site-, was changed from PIXE to 

## XRF analysis for elements) is nearly all below detection levels and is therefore highly uncertain. Additional discussion of this issue is contained in report titled "Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data" available on the IMPROVE website at: /~tt~:,i\ 

### ista.cira.colostate.edu/impro~e/P~~blicatiot~s/Gra~ Lit/O 19 

### Re\ isedlMPR0 

## VF,eq/Revisedlh~lPROVE~4Igorithmi.doc


# . Therefore, EPA Region 4 

### is following the recommendations ofthe IMPROVE committee and recommends the use of chloride ion for estimating background sea salt concentrations. Additional justification regarding use of sodium versus chloride ion concentration would be needed for considering its use. Specific calculations ofthe background sea salt concentration using both sodium (asprovided in Table 

### 3-4 ofthe protocol) and chloride ion concentration would need to be provided for comparison.

### Appendix L.7.5



### Mississippi Phosphates Corporation, Pascagoula Facility 1. 

### Section3.1, Page 24: The protocol indicates that the VISTAS 

## 4-km CALMET sub-regional Domain 

### 5 will be used for modeling the Mississippi Phosphates sources. The map in Figure 3-2 ofthe protocol indicates that Domain 1 

### or Domain 

### 2 should be used instead of Domain 5, as Domain 5 does not include the Mississippi Phosphates facility. The remaining reverences to Domain 5 in the protocol should be changed to reference Domain 1 

### or 2. 2. 

### Section3.5, Page 34: The protocol indicates that Mississippi Phosphates will evaluate the results ofthe analysis using both the standard light extinction calculation as well as applying corrections to add Class 

### 1area-specific Rayleigh scattering coefficients and background sea salt concentrations. EPA Region 4 

### does not recommend choosing parts ofthe new IMPROVE equation and applying them to the existing IMPROVE equation. We recommend that either the entire existing IMPROVE equation or the entire new IMPROVE equation be used. When the IMPROVE committee adopted the new equation in December 2005, the combined impacts of all the revisions to the existing equation were evaluated (see the report titled "Revised lMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data" available on the IMPROVE website at: http:,! 

### vista.cira.colostate.ed~t/i~~lprote~Publication\~(~ra~ Lit1010 

### RevisedlMPRO VEccQRe\1sedIhlPROVEAlnoritl1i113.doc). 

### They did not recommend making piecemeal changesto the existing equation. Also, consensus on a procedure to implement the new IMPROVE equation with the existing CALPUFFICALPOST model has not been achieved. A methodology has been proposed by VISTAS, but EPA Region 4 

### has voiced concerns about the proposed approach. IfMississippi Phosphates decides to use the entire new IMPROVE equation, we recommend that the procedures for implementing it with CALPUFFICALPOST be submitted to the State, EPA Region 

### 4, and the FLMs prior to the modeling being conducted. The information should include a detailed discussion ofthe procedure and any software/spreadsheets used to implement the procedure. Finally, consistency should be maintained when applying the new versus existing IMPROVE equations when calculating natural background, current, and future visibility impacts at Class 

## I areas. For example, ifthe new IMPROVE equation is used to calculate the natural background visibility impact for a Class 

## I area for the BART modeling, the new IMPROVE equation should also be used to calculate the BART source's impact current and future impact on visibility. 

### 3. Section 3.5, Page 24: The protocol indicates sodium concentrations will be used to estimate background seas salt concentrations at Breton National Wildlife Refuge. As acknowledged in the protocol, concentrations of chloride ion or elemental chlorine are preferred for estimating sea salt concentrations. The new IMPROVE algorithm as reviewed and discussed for implementation by the IMPROVE committee recommends chloride ion concentration (not elemental chlorine concentration) to calculate background sea salt concentration. As

### Appendix L.7.5

discussed in the protocol, at most sites the chloride ion concentration will be near zero (or even negative due to subtraction ofblank values) because there isn't any sea salt at most sites. Theproblem with using sodium for sea salt appears to be that the data, especially for the last few years (since the monitoring at IMPROVE sites was changed from PIXE to XRF analysis for elements) is nearly all below detection levels and is therefore highly uncertain. Additional discussion ofthis issue is contained in report titled "Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data" available on the IMPROVE website at: ~1ttp:l:vista.~ira.coiostate.c~1~1, 

### improxelPubiication~lC;ra\ Lit/O 19 

### KovisedIMPKO VEeq,

## KevisedlMPROVEAIgorithm3.doc

. Therefore, EPA Region 4 is following the recommendations of the IMPROVE committee and recommends the use of chloride ion for estimating background sea salt concentrations. Additional justification regarding use of sodium versus chloride ion concentration would be needed for considering its use. Specific calculations ofthe background sea salt concentration using both sodium (as provided in Table 3-4 ofthe protocol) and chloride ion concentration would need to be provided for comparison. 4. Section 

### 4.5, Page 

### 44: The protocol discusses using pdf dispersion options in refined CALPUFF modeling to evaluate near-field impacts at Cape Romain. As Cape Romain is located in South Carolina, this sentence appears to be an error. If Mississippi Phosphates meant to refer to Breton Island in this sentence, EPA Region 4 

### has concerns with the use ofthe AERMOD-like pdf dispersion option in CALPUFF and does not recommend its use for the BART modeling. The pdf dispersion option in CALPUFF has not been fully evaluated and is not recommended for regulatory applications of CALPUFF. This issue is discussed further in a Model Clearinghouse memo titled "Dispersion Coefficents for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF," dated March 16, 2006. available on EPA's SCRAM website at:

### AppendixL.7.6

Prepared by:



### A1 Freiberg Plant Engineer PURSUE NERGY CORPORATION 

### P.O. Box 730 Brandon, MS 39043 (601) 845-4206

Preparedby:



### Stacy Can,

### P.E. Managing Consultant Ryan Gesser = 

### ManagingConsultant Melissa Hillman Consultant TRINITY CONSULTANTS 

### 2800 Veterans Blvd. Suite214 Metairie, 

### LA 70002 (504) 828-5845 November 22,2006 Project

### 061902.0032

### INTRODUCTION 

# ........................................................................................................ 1 OVERVIEW OF

### REGIONAL HAZE RULE AND

### BARTREQUIREMENTS



## .........................2



## .................................................. 1.1.1 DETERMINATION F

### BART.ELIGIBILITY 2 1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF

### CONTRIBUTION TOVISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AND

### BART



## ........................................................................................................... APPLICABILITY 

### 2



## ................................................... 1.1.3 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED CLASS 

### I AREAS 4



## ............................................................ 1.1.4 CALPUFF MODELING ANALYSES 7



## ................................. ORGAN~ZATION OF

### BART APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS REPORT 

### 7 

## BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE 

## DESCRIPTION 

# ............................................................... 9 BART-ELIGIBLE EMISSION UNITS



## ............................................................................ 9



## ....................................... BART-ELIGIBLE

### SOURCE MODEL EMISSIONS INVENTORY 9 MODELED STACK PARAMETERS AND

### EMISSIONS



## .................................................... 11 

### AIR QUALITY 

## MODELING ANALYSES 

# ................................................................... 12 AIR QUALITY MODELING SYSTEM



## .......................................................................... 12 

### SCREENING AND

### REF~NED ANALYSIS 

### TECHNIQUES



## ................................................. 12



## ............................................................ 3.2.1 VISIBILITY ASSESSMENT METRIC 13



## ..................................... 3.2.2 METEOROLOGICAL AND 

### COMPUTATTONAL GRIDS 13 3.2.3 MODEL PROCESSING AND

### POSTPROCESSING METHODS



## ............................. 13



## .......................................................... CALMET METEOROLOGICAL PROCESSING 14



## .................................................. 3.3.1 CALMET METEOROLOGICAL DOMAINS 14 3.3.2 MM5 SIMULATIONS



## ................................................................................ 16 3.3.3 GEOPHYS~CAL DATA



## ............................................................................... 16



## ............................................ 3.3.4 4-KM REFMED GRID CALMET PROCESSING 16 3.3.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF

### CALMETANALYSES



## ....................................... 17 

### CALPUFF MODEL PROCESSING



## ............................................................................. 17 3.4.1 MODELED EMISSIONS AND

### CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATIONS



## ....................... 17



## ...................................................... 3.4.2 CALPUFF DISPERSION ALGORITHMS 18 3.4.3 BUILDING DOWNWASH



## ........................................................................... 19 3.4.4 CALPUFFMODELING DOMAINS AND

### CLASS 1AREA RECEPTORS



## ............. 19 3.4.5 BACKGROUND OZONE AND ~MONIA 

### CONCENTRATIONS



## ......................... 23



## ........................................................................... 3.4.6 PUFF REPRESENTATION 25 3.4.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF

### CALPUFFANALYSES



## ...................................... 25 

### CALPOSTPOSTPROCESSING AND

### NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS FOR



## ....................................................... LIGHT EXTINCTION AD

### HAZE INDEX CALCULATIONS 26



## ........................................................................ 3.5.1 POSTUTIL PROCESSING 

### 26



## ................. 3.5.2 CLASS 1 AREA-SPECIFIC NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 26 3.5.3 VISIBILI~ IMPACT CALCULATION



## ...........................................................28 3.5.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF

### POSTPROCESS~NG ANALYSES



## ............................ 29

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant I 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### APPENDIX A 

### Sample 

### CALPUFF/POSTUTIL/CALPOSTInput Files APPENDIX 

### B 

### Electronic Media File Index

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 11 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Pursue Energy Corporation (Pursue) operates a Sour Gas Treating and Sulfur Recovery Plant in Thomasville, Mississippi. The Thomasvillefacility is a major source of air emissions and operates under a Part 70 (Title V) major source operating permit (2380-00036) issuedby the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The facilityis considered eligible to be 

### regulated under the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. This BART Applicability Analysis report summarizes Pursue's determination that the Thomasville Plant is not subject to BART because the air quality modeling analyses described in this report demonstrate that the facility does not contribute to visibility impairment at any federally protected Class I areas. Pursue submitted an initialsource-specific BART Applicability Modeling Protocol on August 14,2006, and subsequently received comments fiom MDEQ on September 20,2006. MDEQ's comments were reviewed and generally adhered to as described in this BART Applicability Analysis Report. In addition to these comments on the source-specific modeling protocol for the Thomasville Plant, Pursue's evaluation of BART-eligibility and the modeling methods used to determine applicability of BART as described in this report are consistent with the following guidance documents: 

# - U.S. EPA, "Regional Haze Regulations and Guideline for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations,"Federal RegisterVolume 70, Number 128, July 6,2005. U.S. EPA, Guidunce.for Trucking Progress under the Regional HazeRule (EPA-454lB-03-004), September 2003. U.S. EPA, Guictance jor Estimating Natural VisibilipConditions under theRegionul Haze Rule (EPA-454B-03-005), October 2003. 

# - U.S. EPA, Interagency WorkgrouponAir QtlalityModeling (IWAQM)Phase 2S~~mmury Report (EPA-454iR-98-019),December 1998. U.S. EPA, GuidelineonAir QztulipModels,40 CFR Part 5

### 1,Appendix W (Revised, November 9,2005). VISTAS, Protoco1,fortheApplication of the CALPUFFModel.forAnalyses of Best Available RetroJit Technolog?,(BART),Ratision 

### 3.2,August 31, 2006. VISTAS and U.S. EPA, "Q&A for Sourceby Source BART Rule" (Draft), October 28,2005. 

# - MDEQ, electronic communication to BART-eligible sources, September 20, 2006. The VISTASBARTModeling Protocolas revised on August 31,2006is incorporated by reference for Pursues's source-specific modeling analyses. The VETASBART Modeling Protocoland related information (generallymade available at the VISTAS BART website') established common technical approaches for quantifying emissions from BART-eligible emission units and conducting refined modeling analyses using the CALPUFFmodeling system and common data resources. Pursue's analyses generally adhere to the recommendations made in the VISTASBARTModelingProtocol as


# ' http://vistas-sesarm.orglBART/index.asp 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 1 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Analysis

### described in this report and adapted per 

### MDEQ guidance to the source-specific analysis of visibility impacts attributable to the Thomasville Plant. 

## 1.1 

## OWRWEW OF

## REGIONAL NAZE

## RULE AYD 

## BART 

## REQUIREMENTS The Regional Haze Rule requires that major sources ofvisibility-affecting pollutants belonging to one or more of 26 specific industrial source categories evaluate BART ifthe source was "in existence" (i.e.,built or reconstructed) before August 7, 1977 and began operation after August 7, 1962. Such sources aretermed "BART-eligible sources." Major sources ofvisibility-affecting pollutants have the potential to emit 250 tons per 

### year (tpy) of one or more of oxides of nitrogen 

### (NOy),sulfur dioxide (SO?),and particulate matter less than 10micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PMO).Hereafter, the "BART-eligible source" is taken to mean the collection of emission units at a facility in existence during the relevant time period within one or more BART source categones that has potential emissions of one or more visibility-affecting pollutants in excess of 250 tpy. The BART-eligible source may include multiple emission units,but need not include the entire facility.

TheU.S. EPA BART guidelines define the following three steps for determining which sources at a facility are BARTeligible: 1. 

### Identify the emissionunits in the BART source categories. 2. Identify the start-up dates of those units. 

### 3. Compare potential emissions to the 250 tpy cutoff. Sulfur Recovery Plants are one of the listed source categories. Pursue's Tho~nasville facility has determined that eight emission units comprise the BARTeligible source because the units operate at a Sulfur Recovery Plant, were in existence on August 7, 1977, andbegan operation after August 7, 1962. This collection of emission units has potential emissions exceeding 250 tpy for at least one pollutant. Accordingly, the BARTeligible emission units at Pursue's Thomasville Plant will be evaluated to determine whether the facility is considered exempt from BART. Specific information about these emission units is provided in Section 2 of this BART Applicability Analysis Report. 

### 1.1.2 ASSESSMENT 

### OF 

### CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY 

## IMPAIRMENT AND 

### BARTAPPLICABILITY 

### In its role as technical analysis coordinator, VISTAS developed a common modeling protocol and data resources for use by state regulatory agencies and BARTeligible sources. The final 

### VISTAS BARTModeling

### Protocol was issued on December 22,2005, was revised most recentlyon August 

### 31,2006,and prescribes modeling techniques and data resources to conduct screening and refined analyses to assess whether a BARTeligible source is subject to BART.
A 

### BART-eligible source is determined to be subject to BART if the source causes or ~ontributes to visibility impairment at a federally protected Class 

### I area. Causation is defmed as a single -source impact of 1.0deciviews (dv) or more and contribution is defined Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 2 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### as a single-sourceimpact of 

### 0.5 dv or more, each evaluated on a 24-hour average basis. The deciview is a metric used to represent normalized light extinction attributable to visibility-affecting pollutants. To determine whether a BART-eligible facility causes or contributes to visibility impairment, U.S. EPA guidance requires the use of an air quality model, specifically recommending the CALPUFFmodeling system, to quantify the impacts attributable to a single BARTeligble source. Because contribution to visibility impairment is sufficient cause to require a BART determination,

### 0.5 dv is the critical threshold for assessment of BART applicability. Regional haze is quantified using the light extinction coefficient (b,,), 

### which is expressed in terms of the haze index expressed in dv. Thehaze index 

### (HI)is calculated as shown in the following equation.

The impact of a BART-eligible source is.determined by comparing the 

### HI attributable to a source relative to estimated natural background conditions. Thebackground extinction coefficient be,, 

### is affected by various chemical species and the Rayleigh scattering phenomenon and can be calculated as shown in the following equation.

where,

h5, =

### 3[(~ 

# &o, 

# HRff) denotes theammonium sulfateconcentraion 

### I&, =

### 3[~ 

### ,NO, 

### If(Rff) [NH,NO,] denotes the ammoniumnitrate concentraion ho, =

# 4~1 [Ocldenotestheconcentraion of organic carbon b,,,,= ~[soil 

## ] [soil]denotes theconcentraion of fine soils b

### ,,,, 

### ,, =

### 0.6[~oarse 

## ass] [~oarse~ass]denotes theconcentraion of coarsedusts hiip =

### ~O[EC] 

### [EC]denotes theconcentraion of elemental carbon b,,, =

### Rayleigh 

### Scattering 

### Mm-~ bydefault) 

### Rayleigh Scatteringis scattering due toair molecules f

### (RH)=

### Relative Humidity Function 

## [ ]=

### Concentration 

### in pg/m 

## ' Values for the parameters listed above specific to the natural background conditions at the Class 

### I areas considered in this analysis areprovided on an annual average basis in the U.S. EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze 

### More detailed information about the natural background conditions particular to Class 

### I areas potentially affected by Pursues's Thomasville Plant are provided in 

### Section

### 3.5 ofthis report.


# 'U.S. EPA, Gldunce for EstimatingNoturd Visibility Conditions Underthe Regional Haze Rule,Table 2-1, .AttachmentA, September 2003. EPA454lB-03-005. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 3 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Particulate species that affect visibility are emitted from anthropogenic sources and include coarse particulate matter (PMC),fine particulate matter (PMF),and elemental carbon 

### (EC), as well as precursors to secondary organic aerosols (SOA) and fine particulate matter such as SO2and

### NOy. The extinction coefficient due to emissions of visibility-affecting pollutants from 

### a singleBART-eligible source b,,,,,,, 

### is calculated using an air quality model. The extinction due to the BART-eligiblesource will be calculated as shown in the following equation.

where,

hs, =

### 3KNH 4

# l2 SO,

# Ifiw [(NH 

### ,): SO, ]denotesthe ammoniumsulfateconcentration h,,? =

### 3[q NO, 

# If'w [NH,NO, ]denotestheammonium nitrate concentration bm

# =4[soAl [~o~ldenotes theconcentration of secondaryorganic aerosols b,~ =

# l[pMFl [PMF]denotestheconcentration of fine PM b,, = 

### O.~[PMC] 

# denotestheconcentration of coarsePM 

### 15, = 

### ~O[EC] [~cldenotesthe concentrationof elementalcarbon 

### J'(RH)= 

### RelativeHumidity Function 

## [ ]=Concentration in pg/ 

### m'



### Pursue used refined modeling techtuques as described in the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol to determine whether BART-eligible operations at the Thomasville Plant contribute to visibility impairment at any Class 

### I areas. The 

### VETASBARTModeling Protocol specifiesthat all Class 

### I areas within 300 

### km of a BART-eligible source must be evaluated to determine whether the source contributes to visibility impairment. Table 

### 1-1 summarizes the distances separating Pursue's Thomasville Plant from all Class 

### I areas within the VISTAS region 

### and adjacent states. Consistent with the 

### VISTASBART Modeling Protocol,only those Class 

### I areas within 300 

### km were considered in the BART applicability modeling analysis.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 4 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### TABLE 1-1. 

### DISTANCES (KILOMETERS) SEPARATING 

### CLASS 

### 1AREAS AND



### Class I 

### Area Distance (km) Bretcttt I1,.4/5'iS) Cape Romain (SC) Chassahowitzka (FL) Cohutta (GA) Dolly Sods(WV) Everglades 

### (FL) Great Smoky Mountains (NCITN) Hercules Glade (MO) James River Face (VA) Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock (NC) Linville Gorge (NC) Mammoth Cave 

### (KY) Mingo (MO) Okefenokee (GA) Otter Creek (WV) Shenandoah (VA) Shining Rock (NC) Sipsey (AL) St. Marks (FL) Swanquarter (NC) Wolf Island (GA)


### Figure 

### 1-1 illustrates the location ofthe Thomasville Plant, and Figure 

### 1-2 illustrates the location ofthe Thomasville Plant relative to the federally protected Class 

### I area that is located within 

### 300 km ofPursue's Thomasville Plant. Only one area was 

### evaluated in the BART ApplicabilityAnalyses.

, 

### Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

### (BNWR),approximately 

### 257 km 

### (1

### 60 miles) to the southwest ofthe facility along Mississippi's Coast

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 5 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 6 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### CLASS 

## IAREAS WITHIN

### 300 KM



### As recommended by the U.S. EPA 

### BART guidelines and 

### FTSTRS BARTModeling Protocol, the CALPUFFmodeling system was used to compute the 24-hour average visibilityimpairment attributable to Pursue's Thomasville Plant to assess whether the 

### 0.5 dv contribution threshold is exceeded, and if so, the frequency, duration, and magnitude of any exceedance events. CALPUFF is a refmed air quality modeling system that is capable of simulating the dispersion, chemical transformation, and long-range transport of multiple visibility-affecting pollutant emissions &oma single source and is therefore preferred for BART applicability and determination analyses. The CALPUFF modeling system is described in technical detail in the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol as revised and its use in refmed analyses for BART applicability assessment ofPursue's Thomasville Plant 

### is described in Sections 3, 

### 4, and 

### 5 ofthe source-specific modeling protocol. 

## 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF

## BARTAPPLICABILITY ANALYSIS REPORT The remainder of this 

### BART Applicability Analysis report is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the BARTeligible emission units at the Thomasville Plant and the emission rates modeled in the BART Applicability Analysis. 

# - Section 3 describes the procedural and technical guidance for conducting Class 

### I area malyses using the CALPUFF modeling system, including the data resources, technical Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 7 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### modeling options, and quality assurance methods used in the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST analyses. Section

### 4 describes the results ofthe refined modeling analyses. Section 

### 5presents 

### a summaryofthe BART Applicability Analysis and the conclusion that

- 

### the Thomasville Plant 

### is not subject to BART. Supplemental information isprovided in several appendices to this report. Appendix

### A contains sample model and postprocessing input and output files used for Pursue's analysis of the Thomasville Plant. Electronic copies of model input and output tiles are provided on electronic media accompanying this BART Applicability Analysis Report, a file index for whch is presented in Appendix B.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 8 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### This section ofthe BART Applicability Analysis Report describes the emission units that comprise the BARTeligble source atPursue's Thomasville Plant. Emissions and exhaust characteristics of each emission unit are quantified to demonstrate how each unit was represented in the modeling analysis.

Pursue reviewed the criteria for BARTeligibilityand determined that one emissionunit will be considered for CALPUFF modeling at the Thomasville Plant. Table 2- 1 describes the following emissions unit that was considered for CALPUFF modeling.

Source Code/ BART Source Date Built or Allowable SO2 Actual SOZ Emission Unie Stack # Category* Modified Emissions (tpy) + Emissions (tpy) Sulfur Recovery Unit AA-001 15 1972 50.309.17** 7760 

### * Category 15 denotes Sulfur Recovery Plants i Allowable emissions from Annual Emissions ReportingForm datedJune 20,2006. 

### ** Typically the Maximum Allowable Emissions and the Total Potential Emissions are the same. However, such is not the case at Pursue's Thomasville Plant. The 50,309tpy allowable emissions value $own isnothing more than the SO?emissions that would have resulted in 1972 if the plant were operated at themaximumthroughput capacityof 1465L-ton per day. The throughput ofthis facility is not a function ofthe design capacity ofthe plant but is a hnctionoffhe production capability ofthe 12 sotu.gas wells fedingthe plant. After 34+ years, the production koin these wells has significantly declined and is presently declining at about 10% per year. 'Thereforethe actual emissions andthe potential emissions are one and the same. 

### Pursue's Thomasville operations are BARTeligible because emissions exceed 250 tpy for SO?, which is considered a visibility-affecting pollutant. The Sulfur RecoveryUnit is considered the only BART-eligbleemissionunit at Pursue's Thomasville Plant for modeling purposes.
As 

### SO?is the only remainingpollutant of concern, it is the only one further discussed in the remainder of this analysis.

Whereas the BART eligibility determination relies on potential emissions of visibility-affecting pollutants, the BART applicability modeling analysis utilizes the maximum actual 24-hour average emission rate of 

### SOz. The 

### VISTAS

### BARTModeling

### Protocolspecifies the following hierarchy of information resources to establish the maximum actual 24-hour average emission rate for BART applicability modeling over the prior three-to-five year period:

, 

### 24-hour maximum emissions observed using a Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) for the period 200 1

### through 2003

, 

### 24-hour maximum emissions observed using a CEM for any representative period Facility stack test emissions Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 9 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Potential to emit Permit allowable emissions Emissions factors from 

### U.S. EPAAP-42 source profiles The 24-hour average actual maximum emission rate of the visibility-affecting SOzpollutant from the Sulfur Recovery Unit shown below was determinedfrom the calculated and officially reported actual SO?emission rate from the 

### 2005 MDEQ Annual Emissions Reporting Form 

### (AERF). This report is the summary from combining the daily, monthly, and quarterly calculated emissions data as required by 

### provisions in the Title V permit. Table 

### 2-2 summarizes these emission rates from the BARTeligibleemissionsunit.j

NOx SO2 Total 

### PMo Total 

### PM.s HzSO4 Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission Unit (Iblhr) (Iblh

### r) (Iblhr) (Iblhr) (Iblhr) 1 

# I Sulfur Recovery Unit -- 1.772 -- -- -- 

# I

'Correspondence with A. Freiberg (Pursue) and E. Bickerstaff (MDEQ) on July 18,2006. MDEQ noted that because Pursue's SO?emissions will continue to decrease approximately 10% per year, it is satisfactory to use the actual 2005 SO2emission rate as reported in the MDEQ Annual Emissions Reporting Form. Please note that the Sulfur Recovery Unit ooerates 8760 hoursoervear. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 10 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Actual stack parameters were input to the CALPUFF model to represent the point of visibilityaffecting pollutant emissions. 

### The location of each point source was 

### represented consistently in the Lambert Conformal Coordinate (LCC)system used for the refined meteorological data analyses prepared by VISTAS. Each exhaust discharges vertically without obstruction. Since the nearest Class 

### I area is located more than 50

### km from the facility, effects of building downwash were not considered. Table 2-3 summarizes the currently available stack parameters and Table 2-2 summarizes the modeled emission rates for BARTeligible emission units at Pursue's Thomasville Plant. Note that the Sulfur Recovery Unit stackis greater than the Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height of 65 meters (213.25feet); therefore, the stackwas modeled at the GEP height.' TABLE 2-3. STACK 

### PARAMETERS FOR 

### BART-ELIGIBLE 

### EMISSION UNITS
LCC LCC Stack Stack Exhaust Exhaust East North Height Diameter Temperature Velocity Emission Unit Stack # (km) (km) (feet) (feet) (OF) (feetlsec) Sulfur Recovery Unit AA-001 661.181 -843.411 300 9.5 

### 500 14.7



# 'Per comments provided by E. Bickerstaff (MDEQ) to C. Herbert (Trinity) on September 20,2006. GEP stack height was used in the CALPUFF modeling per 40 CFR 5 1. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 11 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Section 3 of this BART Applicability Analysis report for Pursue's Thomasville Plant describes the modeling methods, data resources, and technical options used to conductretlned analyses to assess visibility impacts. Air quality modeling was conducted generally following the methods described in the VISTAS BARTModeling Protocolas revised with exceptions as described in this section.

CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady-state Lagrangianpuff model, which can simulate the effects of time- and space-varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation, and removal. The modeling system is designed to handle the complexities posed by the complex terrain, the large source-receptor distances, chemical transformation and deposition, and other issues related to Class 

### I visibility impacts. A complete description of the model formulation and capabilitiesis provided in the User's Guides for the CALPUFF modeling system and the VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol. The CALPUFF modeling systemhas been adopted by the U.S. EPA as a recommended regulatory guidelinemodelfor source-receptor distances greaterthan 50km, and for use on a case-by-case basis in complex flow situatwns for shorter distances. CALPUFF isrecommended for Class 

### I area impact assessments by the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Models (IWAQM). The U.S. EPA's BART guidance recommends CALPUFF as "the best modeling application available for predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment." As a result ofthese recommendations, the FTSTAS BARTModeling Protocolwas based on the use of CALPUFF and was used by Pursue for the source-specific analysis of visibility impacts attributable to the Thomasville Plant. Specifically, CALMET Version 5.72641060414, CALPUFF Version 5.7561060725,POSTUTIL Version 1.521060412, and CALPOST Version 5.63931060202were designated as the "VISTAS Recommended Version for BART Modeling" by the VISTAS Technical Contractor and were used in the CALPUFF BART Applicability Analyses for Pursue's Thomasville plant.' 

## 3.2 SCREENING AND

## REFINED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES The VISTAS BARTModeling Protocoldistinguishesbetween screening and refmed applications of the CALPUFF model for the purposes of BART Applicability Analyses. As the names ofthese techniques imply, screening analyses are intended to provide a conservative estimate of visibility impacts using computationally efficient techniques. The refined analyses utilize less conservative and more representative data and modeling methods to compute visibility impacts following U.S. EPA's BART guidelines. Screening analyses may be 

### used to determine that a facility is not subject to BART using a conservative assessment, or to focus the scope of refined analysesby demonstrating



### 'http://src.comiverio/download/download.h#VlSTAS VERSION 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 12 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### that visibility impairment is not likely to occur at more distant Class I areas. For this modeling analyses, only the refined option was utilized.



### 3.2.1 VISIBILITY ASSESSMENT 

### METRJC 

### The U.S. EPA BART guidelines prescribe that the 981hpercentile, 24-hour average visibility impact computed in a modeling analysis that evaluates three years of meteorological data should be compared to the contribution threshold of 

### 0.5 dv to assess BART applicability. The 

### VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol describes the impact threshold as the "98th percentile (8th-highest annual) 24-hour average predicted impact at the Class 

### I area...thepredicted impact at the Class 

### I area on any day is taken to be the highest 24-hr average impact at any receptor in the Class I area on that day. (Notethat the receptor where the highest impact occurs can change from day to day.)"
The default VISTAS CALPOST processing of modeled visibility impacts outputs a summary table of this result, ranking the highest 24-hour average impacts for the year at each Class 

### I area, from which the gth-highest impact can be readily discerned. The VISTAS refined approach may also consider the 22"d-highest24-hour average visibility impact over the three years modeled if this result is more conservative.
Pursue utilized the default conservative 98lhpercentile calculations to quantify visibility impacts in refmed modeling analyses to illustrate the distribution (i.e., frequency, duration, and magnitude) ofpeak visibility impairment episodes attributable to the Thomasville Plant for comparison against the 

### 0.5 dv contribution threshold. 

### 3.2.2 

## METEOROLOGICAL AND 

### COMPUTATIONAL GRIDS The 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocolprescribes that refined analyses be conducted on a 

### 4-km meteorological and computational grid. Theresolution of the computational analysis dictates the extent to which geophysical (i.e., terrain and land use) and meteorological conditions arerepresented 

### in the CALMET meteorological model, hence the advection, dispersion, and chemical transformationof visibility-affecting pollutants in the CALPUFF meteorological model. The VISTAS Technical Contractor conducted meteorological modeling using the refined 

### 4-km grids to provide common data resources to eligible sources conducting BART Applicability Analyses, which were used by Pursue to assess visibility impacts attributable to the Thomasville Plant. The following section ofthis report describes the CALMET meteorological modeling in greater detail. 

### 3.2.3 

## MODEL PROCESSING AND 

## POSTPROCESS~NG METHODS 

### The IWAQM 

### Phase 2Report prescribes recommended default model processing options to be used in CALPUFF analyses, which arein most cases considered regulatory default options under U.S. EPA's 

### GuidelineonAir Quality Models. IWAQM default model options as described in the following section ofthis report were prescribed for use in the refied analyses.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 13 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### In the postprocessing of CALPUFF-computed concentrations of visibility-affecting pollutants, the POSTUTIL postprocessing utility canbe used to apply the ammonia limiting method (ALM)by re-partitioning the distribution of HN03and

### NQ concentrations at the Class

### I areaas a function ofthe temperature and relative humidity during each hour. 

### ALM re-partitioning using the default ammoniabackground level of0.5 ppb was conducted in refined analyses as described by the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol. 

## 3.3 CALMET

## METEOROLOGICAL PROCESSLNG CALMET is the meteorological preprocessor that compiles three-dimensional meteorological fields from mesoscale model (MM)output, raw observations of surface and upper air conditions, precipitation measurements, and geophysical parameters into a single hourly, gridded data set for input to CALPUFF. The 

### CALMET User'sGuide and 

### USTASBARTModelingProtocol provide a detailed description of the model's formulation and capabilities. The federal 

### Guideline for CALPUFF processing provides the following recommendations for the meteorological data period at Section 9.3.1.2:


### Less thanjive,but at least three, years ofmeteorologicaldata (neednot be consecutitre)mayhe used 

## if mesoscalemeteorological.fieldsare available, us discussed in paragraph 9.3(c). These rnesoscalemeteorologica1,fieldsshould be used in conjunction with availuble standard (National WeatherSendce] NWS or comparable rneteorologicaI obsewations within and near the modeling domain. The 

### VISTAS BARTModeling Protocolprescribes the years 200

### 1 through 2003 for BART Applicability Analyses. The primary basis for this data analysis period was the availability of quality assured MM5 data for the entire VISTAS area. For its BART Applicability Analyses, Pursue utilized 4-km CALMET data prepared by the VISTAS Technical Contractor using the following data resources and CALMET modeling techniques. 

### 3.3.1 

### CALMETMETEOROLOGICAL

### DOMMNS The 4-km refined CALMET meteorological data set was prepared for the domains depicted in Figures 3- 1. Pursue's BART Applicability Analyses utilized the Refined Sub-regional Domain 

### 1 for the 

### 4kmrefined analyses. The CALPUFF computational domains were selected as a subset ofthese domains as described in the following section of this report.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 14 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

## FIGURE 3-1. 4-Kii SCB-REGIONAL REFINED ANALYSIS 

### CALMET

## DOMAINS

SubregionalDomain 

### 1,which Pursue utilized for its refined analyses, contains all of Mississippi and the eastern part of Louisiana, where the BARTeligible source and potentially affected Class 

### I area are located. The LCC projection system is used to describe the horizontal grid, with origin at 40 degrees North latitude and 

### 97 degrees West longitude. Standard parallels for the projection were set at 33 degrees North and 45 degrees North. Table 3-1 summarizes the vertical grid structure selected for this analysis, which comprises ten vertical layers. The cell face height of each layer indicates its vertical extent. The vertical domain is composed of terrain-following grid cells, the number and size of which are chosen so as 

### to constrain the boundary layer in which dispersion and chemical transformations take place. The hghest cell face was selected to be 4,000 meters to constrain the default maximum mixing height of 3,000 meters. 

# I Cell Face Height

Vertical Grid Cell (meters)



### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 15 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### 3.3.2 

### MM5SIMULATIONS MM data are used as "observed or "first-guess" fields 

### in CALMET due to itshighresolution representation of meteorological conditions on a uniform three-dimensional grid. For refined analyses at higher resolution grid spacing (i.e., 

### 2 kmor 

### 1 km),MMS 

### data will be processed in CALMETusing the same model control options as were used by the VISTAS technical contractor to prepare the 

### 4kmrefmed grid.

According to the VISTAS BART

### Modeling Protocol, higher resolution 

### 3 arc-second DEM data were used to simulate terrain elevations in the 4kmrefined data set. Land use and land cover (LULC)within the modeling domain was assimilated by the VISTAS technical contractor into a single geophysical data file for processing by CALMET using Composite Theme Grid (CTG) data archived by the USGS at a resolution of 

### 200 meters. CALMET was used to calculate the fractional land use types within each cell of the CALMET grid. LULC in each grid cell was used by CALMET to compute the micrometeorological parameters (i.e., surface roughness, Bowen ratio, albedo, soil heat flux) that affect turbulent dispersion in the boundary layer. According to the VISTAS BART

### Modeling Protocol, 200-meter CTG LULC data were utilized for the 4-km refmed analyses. 

### 3.3.4 4-KM 

## REFINED GRID 

### CALMET PROCESSING The finer grid (4 

### km) CALMET simulations were run by the VISTAS Technical Contractor in hybrid mode, using MMS data to define the initial guess fields, diagnostic terrain adjustments to create the Step 1 

### wind fields, and National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological observational data in the Step 2 smoothing calculations. In this manner, actual observations of three-dimensional meteorological conditions were used in the model to smooth the coarseMMS resolution to better represent areas in which terrain features and coastlines may have an important effect on meteorological conditions,but not be well resolved in the mesoscale model. Surface, upper air, precipitation, and offshore buoy observation points are readily available for use in CALMET. The following generally describes the use ofNWS observations in Step 

### 2 of the CALMET analyses. Parameters affecting turbulent dispersion that are observed hourly at surface stations include wind speed and direction, temperature, cloud cover and ceiling, relative humidity, andprecipitation type. Surface data were selected from the available data inventoryto optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain. Raw observations were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC),quality assured, and merged using the SMERGE pre-processor to create a single assimilated data fileof surface observations for each year analyzed. Observations of meteorological conditions in the upper atmosphere provide a profile of turbulencefrom the surface through the depth of the boundary layer in which dispersion Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 16 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### occurs. In general, twice-daily upper air data are collected by balloons launched simultaneously across the observation network at 0000 Greenwich MeanTime (GMT)and 1200 GMT, which correspondto 6:OOpm and 6:00am, respectively in the Central Time Zone, including Mississippi In CALMET analyses, the VISTAS Technical Contractor used Eastern StandardTime Zone (GMT-5) as the base time zone for all analyses,

### in which twice daily upper observations correspond to 7:OOpm and 7:00am, respectively. Pursue presumes the meteorological data provided by VISTAS were prepared using appropriate representations of meteorological observations from different time zones within the modeling domains. Sensors observe pressure, wind speed and direction, and temperature (among otherparameters) as the balloon rises through the atmosphere. The upper air observation network is less dense than surface observation points sinceupper air conditions vary less and are generally not as 

### affected by local effects (e.g., terrain or coastlines). Upper air data were extracted from theNCDC's available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain, and utilization from year to year may vary due to availability and data quality.
The effects of wet deposition processes on ambient pollutant concentrations are an important part of the BART Applicability Analysis. Therefore, it was necessary to include observations of precipitation in the CALMET analysis. Precipitation data were collected from selected surface meteorological data stations included in the analysis, plus Cooperative Observation Network (COOP) stations nearer to or within the domain. Precipitation data were extracted from amongthe NCDC's available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain. Raw observations from these stations were quality assured and merged using the PMERGE pre-processor to create a single assimilated data file of precipitation observations. 

### 3.3.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF 

### CALMET ANALYSES Pursue's BART Applicability Analyses were conducted using 

### 4-km refined CALMET data prepared by the VISTAS Technical Contractor. The VISTASBARTModeling Protocol describes quality assurance techniques used by the contractor to validate the model's performance. 

## 3.4 CALPUFF

## MODEL PROCESSING CALPUFF analyses to assess the visibility impacts attributable to Pursue's Thomasville Plant were conducted generally in accordance with the recommendations of IWAQM Phase 

### 2 Summy Reporl and Recommendationsfor MoclelingLong Range TrunsportImpacts,Appendix B which provides recommended default CALPUFFparameters. Appendix A of this BART Applicability Analysis report contains sample

### 4kmrefined CALPUFF input files that can be compared to the IWAQM recommendations to demonstrate that default options were used, including the following important model options. 

### 3.4.1 

### MODELED EMISSIONS AND

### CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATIONS Section 

### 2 of this BART Applicability Analysis report described the BART-eligible emissionunit operated at Pursue's Thomasville Plant and the visibility-affecting pollutant Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 17 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### considered in the CALPUFF analysis. Emission rates were provided by Pursue forprimary emissions of SOz. In addition to species emitted directly from the Thomasville Plant, secondary formation of HNOI, NQ, and SO4was simulated using theMESOPUFF-I1 chemical transformation algorithms, which are considered the default for regulatory CALPUFF modeling. Background levels of ozone and ammonia, which drive the simulated chemical transformation of emitted pollutants into visibility affecting species, were input to the model as described in subsequent sections ofthis report. Pursue operates one BART-eligible emissionunit at the Thomasville Plant evaluatedin this BART Applicability Analysis, as 

### described in Section 2 of this report as having one distinct emission release point. Sample model processing files provided by the VISTAS Technical Contractor demonstrate modeling of a single point source using CALPUFF, POSTUTIL, and CALPOST to assess visibility change.6 The sample approach simulates actual emissions of each of three gaseous pollutants (SO?,SO4,and NOy)andunit emissions (e.g., 

### 1 g/s) of each of six genericparticle categories distinguished and designated by size: PM800, PM425, PM187, PM112, PM081, and PM056, to represent PMw, PM~.s~, PMI25-2.5,PMI-Ix, PMo ~1. 

### and PMo.5-0.625, respectively. Because the BART-eligible source does not emit PM, the unit emissions approach for modeling does not apply. Emissions fiom the gaseous pollutant, SOz, will be treated similarly as in the sample approach. Implementation of the explicit modeling approach required minor changes to the parameter declaration file and re-compilation ofthe CALPUFF model executable file. Note that this approach does not require changes to the FORTRAN model code, only the parameter declaration limits. Explicit modeling of the 14PM types and sizes plus the SO2, SO4, NOx, HN03, and NO?species results in a total of 19 modeled species, which is within the default parameter limit of 20 species modeled (MXSPEC). However, the parameter for particle species deposited (MXPDEP) was increased &om 9 to 

### 20 to accommodate the greater number (16, including SO4and NQ) of particle species simulated 

### in the model. Please note that all PM and N0,emission rates were set to zero in the model runs.


### CALPUFFDISPERSION ALGORITHMS As specifiedin the March 16,2006US.EPA memorandum7 and the most recentrevision to the 

### VISTASBARTModeling Protocol, the use of Pasquill-Gifford (ISC-lke)dispersion coefficients was enabled as 

### the default option in the refined CALPUFF analyses.



# 'U.S. EPA Memorandum "Dispersion Coefficients forRegulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF" from Mr. Dennis Atkinson and Mr. TylerFox (AirQuality Modeling Group)to Ms. Kay Prince (Regulatory Planning Branch) dated March 16. 2006. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 18 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Because the Thomasville Plant is located more than 

### 50 

### km from any Class I area, the effects of building downwash were not considered in the BART ApplicabilityAnalyses. 

### 3.4.4 

### CALPUFFMODELING DOMAINS AND 

### CLASS 

## IAREA RECEPTORS CALPUFF modeling for

### 4kmrefined analyses was performed on computational domains that aresubsets of the SubregonalDomain 1. The size of each computationaldomain was selected to encompass the Thomasville Plant and the Class 

### I areas being analyzed,and to extend at least 

### 50km beyond in all directions. The size of the domain allows for the possible recirculation of puffs beyond the facility and areas being evaluated. Computational domains use the samevertical grid structure as described in the CALMET model formulation in Section 

### 3.3 of this report. Figures 

### 3-2 through 

### 34 illustrate the locations of, and terrain elevations and land use within, the 44x1

### computational domain used in Pursue's BART Applicability Analyses. The ground level receptors at which concentrations ofvisibility-affecting pollutants and visibility impacts were calculated at the one Class I area within 

### 300 

### km were obtained from the National Park Serviceas depicted in Figures 

### 3-5'. Figure 

### 3-6 displays the locations of the CASTNet and AIRS stations utilized for ozone data.



## ' !;tin:, ;~~~~~~2.n~rure.rivs.~'0~~~~11-~11~a~s~Rece~~tors:rndeu,l~tm 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 19 Trinity Consultants BART Applicability Modeling Analysis

### FIGURE 3-2. 4-KM 

### REFINED ANALYSIS 

### COMPUTATIONAL DOMALN

550 6m 650 

### 700 750 

## sm 850 

### 900 

### Lambat 

### Conformal Coordinate

### East 

## (km)

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 20 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

## FIGURE 3-3. TERRA~N 

### ELEVATIONS WlTHIN THE

### 4-KM 

### COMPUTATIONAL 

## DOMAIN

550 600 650 700 750 900 S50 900 

### Lambert Conformal Coordinate 

### East 

## (km)

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 21 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### FIGURE 

### 3-4. 

## LAND USE AND 

### COVER WITHIN 

### THE

### 4-KM 

### COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN

10 to 19 1Jrban 20 to 29 AgidturdLand 30 to 39 Range Land 40 to 49 ForestedLand 50 to 55 Inland(Nearshore Waters 55 to 59 Open Waters fd Wetlands 70 to 79 BarrenLand to 29 Tundra



### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 22 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

## FIGURE 3-5. LOCATION AND 

### ELEVATION OF

### RECEPTORS AT 

### BRETON

/II/I,I

Lambat Conformal CoordinateEa& (km)


### 3.4.5 

## BACKGROUND OZONEAND 

### AMMONIA 

### CONCENTRATIONS The CALPUFF model is capable of simulating linear chemical transformation effects by using pseudo-first-order chemical reaction mechanisms for the conversions of SO2to SO4. In this study, chemical transformations involving two species (SO2 and SO4) were modeled using the MESOPUFF I1 chemical transformation scheme. Ambient concentrations of ammonia and ozone concentrationsas 

### represented in 

### the model dnve the MESOPUFF 

### I1 chemical transformation simulation.
The refmed analyses utilized observed ozone data for 2001 through 2003

# om non-urban CASTNet and AIRS stations compiledby the VISTAS TechcalContractor for the regional domain. Pursue extracted data from ozone observation stations in and near the modeling domains, as illustrated in Figure 

### 3-6.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 23 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### FIGURE 3-6. OZONE

## DATA STATIONS

### UTILIZED IN 

## PURSUE'S BARTAPPLICAB~LITY ANALYSES



### Lambert 

### Conformal Coordinate East 

## (km)
Monthly average ozonebackground values were computed based on daytime average ozone concentrations from the 0ZONE.DAT file (6am-6pm average ozone concentrations computed by month) of each year for substitution should all observations be missing for a particular hour of the dataset. Table 

### 3-2 summarizes the monthly average ozone values computed for this substitution.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 24 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### 2001 Substitute 2002 Substitute 2003 Substitute Month Ozone Values (ppb) Ozone Values (ppb) Ozone Values (ppb) January 26.06 23.59 26.76 February 27.50 32.08 28.24 March 37.44 34.48 32.74 April 40.34 37.05 44.50 May 44.89 40.3 1 38.19 June 33.94 37.07 31.91 July 38.46 36.82 28.81 August 33.10 36.83 3 1.60 September 35.21 31.36 38.38 October 33.53 25.37 38.52 November 35.26 25.52 79.78 December 24.98 24.73 25.13



### In the refmed analyses, a constant ammonia background value of

### 0.5 ppb was input to the CALPUFF model Theinitial VISTAS

### BARTModeling Protocol envisionedthe use of modeled boundary conditions of ammonia and sulfatesin the refined analysis of chemical transformations involving these species and nitrates. However, VISTASTechnical Analysis Workgroup has since concluded that modeled background and boundary conditions should not be utilized for BART modeling purposes because "EPA and FLM recommend that ALM approach using CMAQ concentration data (SOx,NOx,total 

### NH3) be 

### reviewed by EPA Modeling Clearinghouse before being used in a regulatory application." Accordingly, suchbackground data werenot utilizedin Pursue's BART applicability modeling analyses. As 

### described in the following section of this report, the refined analyses utilized the POSTUTIL postprocessing tool to re-partition the HNO, and NO1equilibrium distributions using only a constant 

### 0.5 ppb ammonia background level

As recommended by the 

### VISTASBARTModelingF'rotocol, the default integrated puff sampling methodology was enabled for the refined CALPUFF analyses. In the refined analyses, the default setting to disable puff splitting algorithms was retained. 

### 3.4.7 

### QUALITY ASSURANCE OF 

### CALPUFF ANALYSES 

### Sample CALPUFF input files for the refined analyses are presented 

### in Appendix 

### A ofthis report and copies of all input and output tiles are included on the electronic media enclosed with this report. Comparison of the CALPUFF model inputs indicates that default values, as prescribed by IWAQM (Appendix B) and in the b7STASBART

### Modeling Protocol,were used with the exception of the source-specific model options described 

### in this report. Source parameters input for the BARTeligible emissions unit were verified with the informationpresented in Section 

### 2 of this report. The location and elevations of Class 

### I Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 25 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### area receptors as illustrated in Figures 

### 3-5 of this report were verified by comparisonto NPS maps. 

## 3.5 

## CALPOSTPOSTPROCESS~G AND

## NATURA~ BACKGROUND CONDITIONS FOR 

## LIGHT EXTINCTION AND HAZE

## INDEX

## CALCULATIONS Using the concentrations of visibility-affecting pollutants computed by CALPUFF, two postprocessors, POSTUTIL and CALPOST, were used to compute light extinction attributableto Pursue's Thomasville Plant and the relevant metrics for the BART Applicability Analysis determination. The computation of light extinction attributable to the natural background and source was generally described in Section 1.1.2 of this report. 

### POSTUTILPROCESSING The first postprocessing step involves running POSTUTIL to calculate the concentrations of visibility-affecting species SO4, 

### NQ, and SOA, 

### as described 

### in Section 3.4.1 of this report. In refined analyses, POSTUTIL is 

### run a second time to apply the 

### ALM to re-partition the distribution of HNOl andNO3concentrations at each Class 

### I area as a finction of the temperature, relative humidity, and free ammonia during each hour. 

### ALM re-partitioning using the default ammonia background level of0.5 ppb was 

### conducted in the refined analyses. 

### CLASS Ik~h-SPEC JFIC

### NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITJONS The visibility goal of the Clean Air Act is both the remedying of existing visibility impairment and prevention of future visibility impairment. In itsBART

### Implenzentation G~ridunce, US.EPA affirms that it interprets the goal to mean return atmospheric conditions to "natural visibility conditions." For the purposes of BART analyses, the US. EPA has determinedthat it "did not intend to limit Statesto the use of the 20% best visibilitydays...States may use 20% best visibility days or annual average" to assess BART applicability. TheAugust 31,2006revision to the VISTAS BARTModeling 

### Protocol indicates that three options are available at the discretion of the state including Option (1) 

### a single annual average natural background condition for each Class 

### I area; Option 

### (2), a single value representing the average haze index on the 20% estimatedbest visibility days at each Class I area; or, Option (3)monthly average natural background conditions computed from estimated components of visibility-affecting pollutants and monthly average relative humidity values specific to each Class 

### I area. The Option 

### (I) annual average natural background condition appears to be the preferred approach since analyses conductedby the VISTAS Technical Contractor for certain sources in the region used thsmethod exclusively.

W.S. EPA Memorandum from Mr. Joseph Paisie to Ms. Kay Prince, asAttachment A to a proposed settlement agreement between the Utility Air Regulatory Group and US.EPA, published at 71 Federal Reg~ster No. 84,pp. 25,838- 3.840. May 2, 2006. 

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 26 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### For the Class

### I area within 300 

### km of the Thomasville Plant and potentially affected by Pursue's operations, Table 

### 3-3 summarizes the default natural background conditions as tabulated in Appendix 

## B of U.S. EPA's 

### Guidance,fbr Estimating Natztral Visibility Conditions under the Regional HuzeRule that wereused to calculate natural background conditions. 

### TABLE 

### 3-3. NATURAL BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS FOR 

### CLASS 

### IAREAS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BYTHE 

### THOMASVILLE PLANT Annual Average Class 

### I Area 

### be* (~m-') Haze Index (dv) Breton 11.57 7.69 

### I i 

### * As tabulated in Appendix B 0CU.S. EPA's GuidanceforEs~imat~ng ~Varurol Visibilihi Conditions under /heReglono1Haze Rule (2003). 

### Torepresent natural conditions in the absence of anthropogenic sources of sulfates and nitrates using Option (I), the monthly background extinction coefficient is expressed in terms of Rayleigh scattering and scattering due to soils (i.e., fme particles) based on the annual average haze index, and is calculated using the following equations.

where

### HI is Haze Index expressed in units of deciviews (dv). Therefore,total bhack for the annual average natural background at Breton, including the default Rayleigh scattering coefficient is calculated as shown in the following equations.

The Option 

### (3) approach of calculating the default natural background conditions using average natural concentrationsof sulfate, nitrate, and particulate species for areas 

### in the EasternU.S. as tabulated in Table 

### 2-1 ofU.S. EPA's 

### Guidance,for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the RegionalHuzeRule was reviewedbut not used in thls analysis because the natural background conditions are essentially equivalent to the VISTAS annual average background approach such that the alternative analysis was not warranted. The effects of relative humidity to amplify the visibility impairment of hygroscopic sulfates and nitrates were characterized using CALPOST "Method 

### 6," which computes Ab,, 

### using a 

### monthlyaverage relative humidity adjustment particular to each Class 

### I area applied to background and modeled sulfate and nitrate. Table 

### 3-4 summarizesthe monthly averagehumidity values that were applied for the Class 

### I area consideredin thsanalysis, as tabulated in Table A-3 of U.S. EPA's 

### Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions rmdertheRqionulHuze Rule. Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 27 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### TABLE 

### 3-4. MONTHLY AVERACEARH) FOR

### BRETON

ClassIArea January February March April May June July August September October November December Breton 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 

# I * As tabulated in TableA-3of US.EPA's GuidancefbrEstnnat~ng Nattrral Visihrii~ Conditions under the Re,gionulHu:e Rule (2003). 

### Natural background conditions for the Class 

### 1area were calculated using three visibility processing options, the data summarized in Tables 3-1,3-2, 3-3, and 3-4, and the default IMPROVE light extinction formula, which is summarized in the following equation.

where. 

## 4% =~[(NH, )L 

### SO,

### Zf.(Rff) 

# denotes theammonium sulfateconcentralion h~~ =

### ~[NH,NO, If(RH) [NH,NO,] denotes the amrnoniumnitrate concentraton

~OC =

# ~[oc] [~~Idenotes theconcentraton of organic carbon h,,,,, = 

# I [soil]denotes the concentraion of fine soils b,,,,.,, =

### 0.6[~oarse 

## ass] [~oarse~ass]denotes theconcentraion of coarsedusts 

## 4,,> =

### lob 

# 1 [EC]denotestheconcentraton of elemental carbon h,,, =

### Rayleigh scattering ~~-1 

### bydefault) Rayleigh Scatteringis scattering duetoair molecules f 

### (RH) =

### Relative Humidity Function 

## [ ]=

### Concentration in 

### pg/m 

## '

CALPOST is run 

### for the Class 

### I area to obtain the necessary visibility statistics for evaluating compliance with the BART visibility impairment thresholds. The inputs to CALPOST involve selection of the visibility method (i.e.,Method 6) and entry ofClass 

### I area-specific data for computing background extinction and monthly relative humidity factors for hygroscopic aerosols as describedin Section 3.5.2. Refined analyses were analyzed by tabulating the 981hpercentile 24-hour average visibility impact

### tor each year and Class 

### I area. Option (1) was used to quantify visibility impacts relativeto annual average natural background conditions. As described in Section 3.2.1, the default interpretation of the 98''' percentile (81h-highestday regardless of variability at each receptor)was evaluated for each year.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 28 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 'Trinity Consultants

### Quality assurance of postprocessing analyses was conducted by verifying the sequence of postprocessing (i.e., POSTUTIL, including ALM for refined analyses, followedby CALPOST) and that appropriatedata files arereferenced throughout the calculation sequence. The CALPOST inputs that were checked include the following:

I 

### Visibility technique (Method 

### 6)

I 

### Monthly Class I-specific relative humidity factors for Method 

### 6



### , Background light extinction values calculatedas appropriate using annual average natural background Option (1)

I 

### Inclusion of all appropriate species from modeled sources (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, organics)

I 

### Extinction efficiencies for each species Appropriate Rayleigh scatteringterm (10 ~m-' for default modeling analyses) 

# - Screen to select appropriate Class 

### I receptors for each CALPOST simulation.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 29 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### The refined analyses were conducted using the emissions data represented in Section 2 ofthsreport, the refined CALMET and CALPUFF methods described in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of this report, and the postprocessing methods described in Section 

### 3.5. The following sections describe the analyses conducted using the conservative default option to disable puff splitting algorithms. 

## 4.1 

## REFINED ANALYSIS 

## IMPACTSWITHOUT

## PUFF

## SPLITTING Table 

### 4-1 summarizes the top eight modeled 24-hour average visibility impacts of each data analysis year at Breton attributableto Pursue's Thomasville Plant using refined modeling methods and the default CALPUFF option to disable puff splitting. This table summarizes the results calculated using Option 

### (I) described in Section 3.5 for representing annual average natural background conditions. The 98th percentile impact is represented conservatively as the 8'-high 24-hour average impact among the three years of analysis as taken from the standard CALPOST output. The total number of days exceeding the 1.0dv causation and 0.5 dv contribution thresholds are also summarized.

Natural Background Ranked Ranked Ranked Maximum 

### sth-~igh Adv Method 2001Adv 2002Adv 2003Adv (Total Days > 1.0 dv, > 0.5 dv)

Annual Average



### As an alternative representation of the 98th 

### percentile, Table 4-2 summarizes a ranking of the top 25 daily average impacts over the three-year period 

### modeled to quantifythe 22"d-highimpact over three years.

Pursue Energy's Tho~nasville Plant 30 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### TABLE 4-2. 

### RANKED 24-HOUR AVERAGE VISIBILITY IMPACTS AT 

### BRETON OVER 

### 2001 THROUGH

### 2003 DATA ANALYS~S PERIOD

Overall Rank Annual Rank Adv 1 2003 #1 0.371 2 2001 #1 0.365 3 2003 #2 0.298 4 2002 #1 0.288 5 2003 #3 0.274 6 2002 #2 0.272 7 2002 #3 0.250 8 2003 #4 0.235 9 2002#4 0.234 10 2002 #5 0.223 11 2003 #5 0.219 12 2003 #6 0.192 13 2003 #7 0.175 14 2002 #6 0.174 15 2001 #2 0.172 16 2001 #3 0.172 17 2003 #8 0.170 18 2003 #9 0.169 19 2002

### #7 0.168 20 2003 #10 0.166 2 1 2003 #11 0.166 2 2 2003 #12 0.159 23 2003 #13 0.157 24 2002 #8 0.154 25 2003 #14 0.145



### Theresultspresented in Tables 

### 4- 1 and 4-2 indicate that visibility impairment at Breton attributableto Pursue's Thomasville Plant is 

### below the 

### 0.5 dv contribution threshold.

Refmed CALPUFF modeling analyses were conducted withoutpuff splittingalgorithms enabled to compute 24-hour average visibility impacts at Breton. Default methods for calculating the 98Lh 

### percentile were used atreceptors representing Breton for three years of analysis. Table 

### 4-3 summarizes the computed impacts in comparison to the 

### 0.5 dv contribution threshold.

Refined CALPUFF Maximum 8"'-~igh Adv 2znd-~igh Adv Processing 

### of 

### 3 Years over

### 3 Years Without Puff Splitting 0.170 0.159



### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 31 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### When the results 

### ofrefined CALPUFF analyses are evaluated using the default methods, the 

### 9gth percentile impact is found to be less than the 

### 0.5 dv contribution threshold. Therefore, Pursue's Thomasville Plant should not be considered subjectto 

### BART.

Pursue Energy's Tho~nasville Plant 

### 32 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Using analysis methods prescribed by the 

### U.S. EPA, VISTAS, and MDEQ, Pursue conducted BART Applicability Analyses of emissions of visibility-affecting pollutants from BART-eligible emission units at the Thomasville Plant. Theresults of this analysis indicate thatPursue is not subjectto BART because the BARTeligible source does not contribute to visibility impairment at any Class 

### I areas, as demonstratedby refmed modeling analyses and traditional postprocessing analyses that quantified the 98'"ercentile 24-hour average visibility impact 

### as being less than the 

### 0.5dv contribution threshold relative to annual average natural background conditions.

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### 33 BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### SAMPLE CALPUFF, POSTUTIL, AND 

### CALPOSTINPUT 

## FLES

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### REM PURSUE ENERGY THOMASVILLE MISSISSIPPI REM BART APPLICABILITY 4 

### KM ANALYSIS WITH ALM REM MDHIRAG 09.27.06
REM RUN 2001 CALL CALPUFFL.EXE PURSUEMSO1.INP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PUKSUEMSUTO1Al.LNP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUTO1Bl.INP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUTO1Cl.INP COPY APPENDO1.INP APPEND.INP CALL APPEND. EXE APPEND. INP COPY APPEND.LST APPENDO1.LST DEL APPEND.INP DEL APPEND.LST CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUTO1.INP CALL CALPOSTL.EXE PURSUEMSVANBRO1.INP



### REM RUN 2002 CALL CALPUFFL.EXE PURSUEMS02.INP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT02Al.INP CALL POSTUT1LL.EXE PURSUEMSUT02Bl.INP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT02Cl.INP COPY APPEND02.INP APPEMD.INP CALL APPEND.EXE APPEND.INP COPY APPEND.LST APPEND02.LST DEL APPEND. IMP DEL APPEND.LST (CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT02.INP CALL 

### CALPOSTL.EXE PURSUEMSVAMBRO2.INP

REM RUN 2003 CALL CALPUFFL.EXE PURSUEMS03.INP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT03Al.INP CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT03Bl.INP CP-LL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT03Cl.INP COPY APPEND03.INP APPEND.INP CALL APPEND.EXE APPEND.INP COPY APPEND.LST APPEND03.LST DEL APPEND.INP DEL APPEND.LST CALL POSTUTILL.EXE PURSUEMSUT03.INP CALL CALPOSTL.EXE PURSUEMSVANBR03.INP

PAUSE

## CALPUFF BATCH PROCESSING FILE 4-KM 

## REFINED ANALYSES

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

## SAMPLE CALPUFF INPUT FILE PURSUEMS02.INP 4-KM REFINED ANALYSISYEAR 

## 2002

Pursue Energy's 

### ThomasvillePlant BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity ConsultantsCtks Flles ----------- 33C:IE. LAT ',TI.

LAT 'HEM. T1.D.T H-O- .DAT KILL. [#.AT illLLPCT .L1.4T TASTLN. mr FL~L<BDi. DAT P,C

31.r)AT CCPFJG. t'\T : P2fiFL':. DhT itq.:.'B.X. L'AT L7>,;. LjATT'ie iollowlnq IF.JJET.DhT fllenimes dre processed 111 sequence lf tBIETD>.T>I

1 ?GTDRT=T:\'JISTFS\D~G,INl-.'ii0? ,IBT.!0!:12-UCS31-41 .DAT
1 bIETr?.XT=T:\','1~TI;'\D~~.JN1-~.~~0~'~I.~IET~0!:~~-DC1I41-~ .DM
1 ??ETL~AT=T:\VIST~S\DCtmN1-L002~,IET1?0?-~I~l1-j3.DP.T ! 'ICTDATZT: V;IC?X\D~Y1PIl-2OO2~lET2O02-~Ml-~4 .KT I :.ITTDP,'1'=r :\,VIST>;\DC&IP.IiJJ -1001~&ET200~-[UMl-~Il. DhT ! IC.TMT:T:\VI.~T.~~;\D~jMUlI.I~-LOI~~'i~ETT~3O~.-t~N~-~h.iii~.T
1 IETDF.I=T: ,VIS'~P~~,DCI~W~I1-~~JO~iMF,T:!~I)~-~I~!~Il-~li.3A.T

1 lETLtAT=T: \VI~T~.S',DCMATI.I1-2OOL',M%T~~O2-D1~~1l-i. DAT
1 lE1'I~kT=T:\,i'IJThS\~N1-.'ij~2'~PETLO02-D341-OCI.~~AT ! lBT3AT=T: V~I?TPS\~~~~~It~l-2Cll~2'SET2~~~~-tOMl-lO .DAT ! IETDA=T:\~II:T.~~'~'\D~~uII~I-~~~c~~~,~T:oo~-DoI~- .[>AT

I I1ETDAT=T:',i'I~T>S\D~1AIlI1-~OL~~'~~ET2C'02-IY~l4l-I2.D.4T

IETWJIJ = 0 - Fun perlori expllcltlj deflnrd below IE?FXN = I - Pun ail perlods ln met. tlle

L?l,,j.th if run (hours) I 1RI.G) -- No default ! IRLG = 57Ffj!

F11~ to stop rlun after XTlJP ~hase (ITEST) Detault: 2 ! ITE-T = 2 ' (llsed to allow checi-lnq >f 'ha model Inputs, riles, 62tc.r I:E.>T = 1 - :Tips prcqram after JETUP phase ITECT = 1 - c'onrlnues wlth execlitlon nf proqrm +fter SETL'P2 = vlrite a restart tile ~ilirlllq ilin 2 = V-ad d restart rlie at beqlnnlnii of run ind wrlt? i restart flle ,Jurlng run

Ib~teorolmjlc3i L~~T_s Format IPETR*) L'efault: i ' >IETEI.I = 1

>feteoroloqc;l Prctlle Ddtn Format IMEPFFP) usea only for METFPI = 1, 2, ?I L'efault: 1 ! L%PPFF?4 = 1

Trclnsir~onal plume rise modeled? IlTP-VIS) It: !MTP>JIS- 1 !

I = r:u ~l.r., rinil rl!ie only) 

# - ;es 11.e.~ tr~:is~t~onil rlse rorrquted)Stick tlp dormwash! (MTIP) Default: 1 0 = no r~.a., no stack tlp domwash) 1 = ?es il.e., ,use stack tlp dowlwdsn)
:lethod rised to ;mulate bu~ld~ny ruomii;h? II~DW I L~eiault:1 1 .= 7'2,- method -' = PRIME methici
Jertlcal wlnd :shear modeled above stxk top? WSHFAP) D',rault: 0 CI = no (~.e., -vartlcal :ncd shear not modeled) ? = yes ll.e., vertlcai wind shehr modeled)
Puff spl~ttlng allowed:' IMSPLIT! i,efault: 5 n = no (~.e., putts not split) 1 = yes i;.e., pn~tfs are split)

A?uhous phase trxirisfomatlon flag il"lAKHEW ,l.isd only 1: MCHFJI = 1, or I) T~Fault:0

1 -- acpeous pnase transfonnatlon riot ntodeled 1 = trinsformatlon rates adll~sted fnr 3queous phase redctlons

r;ri.,ltat~onal srttlinq :plume tllt8 modeled ? !kffILT) >itauli: 0
J = no l = jes (puff -enter rails at the qravltatlonal ~cttilnq .~elsclt;itor 1 partlcle specles)
Postrlctlons: - :.IL,P.Y = I

- :CEEC = ? (must be partlcle specles as tiell

1 = riisperslon eoefficlents computed trsm measured values ,,,iturbulence, smna '1, slam w 2 = -ilspirslon coefflclents Crcm mternslly calculated ;l,pa v, iiw,a r.aw uslnq mlcrometeoroloq~cal~arlablea "I+, ,.r, L, st,-. 1
) = El; dIsDirslon coefticlerlts for KUPAL areas (ionputed uslnj4 = ;me -3s 3 except Pi; costf1:lento ~omputed uslng iile IESOEUFF' I1 eqns. 5 = iTDM 31mas used for stable and neutral conditioili. For unstihle condltxns, slamas are computed is ;n IGIIP = 3, lescrlbed hove. tmISG = 5 assumes that measured values are read jlma-v/s~q.a-theta, slrlira-bi measurements !used? (lITIIPBTU\') "Jsed only lt l"K)ISF = 1 or I) [,,fault: 3 ! I4'KlP&'.W = 3 

### '

I = tu;e sqrm-v or sligma-theta measurements from FF(OFILE.DAT to ri'vute sqna-y V~slld for XETM = 1, :, 3, 4, 5) 1 = use sima-w measurment? irrn PROFILE.DAT to r.i;mpute sima-z

'illd for I4ETR.I = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) ;-- ~i~e both sqm-(\ittheta) and ~lunta-*I frcm EPOFILE .Pi.T to :omput? s: mla-;i ind ;lm-::
I ;qlld for ICTEN = 1, 1, 3, 4, 51 4 = use s~cma-rhetameasurements from PLL,PET.DAT to comnpllte slqna-y !?slid only :~tETFW

# - 3)

F'artlal plrmre Fenetrat:on of rlc+.,at ed ln'ierslnn'? : iTr?RTL)

1 = CC, 1 = ,LC;p~ovxde? In PflOFILE.DhT rxtsrlued records? .NT

IW 1 = no (computed from !neasureu:iietault qradxer~tsl l = yes

,-IIII-GLL~ TIBL module used Lor shore llne? Default: 0 

### ' ICGTIHL = O ! !IS;TIYL)

0 = no I=.,. ,Tea

Analyses of foqglng and Izlng iwxts aue to tmsslons from irravs ot n.--,:h3nlcaliy-tori.sd coolmu rowers cn be performed ,using rJ.I,PrlFF In conju;ctlon 4th a cooling tower emlsslons procenyor l!:TEI?ISS) 311d~ts assoclatud postprocessors. Hourly emissions of water v,ipor and t-enqeratilre from exh cooilng tower (reli 3re ,omput& for the current cell confiq~ration and &lent oil~ltlons by I~TFXJSS. CALEUFF lilodels the ilsperslrm uf tht?se gus;lon.? and pro.;ldes cloud u.forn'arlon In a sp~clallzei format fir further aalysls. Output to FCr;.LjXr 1s provlded In elther 'pidme mode' or 'receptor mode' format. '-onilqure tor FrX SGPlrdel output! Lleiault: n ! WTCC = 0 ! ,MFCG) i no 1 i yes - report results In FLmG Mode format ',@ I = , .i - ;q%rf r~-sults In PEI-EETOP ?!ocie formatINPIIT GROUP: 3a, i% -- ::pecles 11st

'The iollc~w~nz snecies are modeled:

The foll,,wlnq njmes are us& for I'pecles-l;roups 1 t~hlch results f,r certain specles ire r:ornnlnea (added) prlor to out~ut. The

.P.UP r.dle wlll he uied as En- :pecles name in outurit flles. Use th~s fedtilre to mdel spezlilc particle-slre Astrlbutlm; t:,' tredtlnq eacn size-ranoe as a separate specles. :rkr must be consistenr 'w~t:h 3,~) above.IIlrUT (:POUP: 4 -- Map pro]^'-tion ,and Grld ioiltrol parameters

Prolrctlon for ill [:I,Y) :

1;TM : ilnl-:rrsal Transverse Mercaror TTH : Smgentlal Transx'erse Mercat3r I.CC : Liinbert Ccnfo~mal Conlc

7 t.



### - : Polar ;tereouraphlc Ell : Equdtsrlal 1"lercator Nfi : Ldbert .klmuthal Eqlal Area

1;TM -one 11 t:o 66) llJ:ed only lf FN?P-WrM)

I ITJTI4ZN) 110 Default ! IUT!%N = 0 !

lf ~kw= Tnl, LCC, PS, EM, or LAW) !!o riefau~t ! FIAT0 = :ON No Default ! PI,ONII -- 57W I
ldentlfles central Itrlle N/G) merldim of pm:ection szlected for tconvenlenoe ~Jentlfles central (true N/S, mrrldlan of proloction rnlected for convenience ldentlfles central mrld PI/" merldlan of projectlm selected for ron.renlen:e ldentlflrs ,central menilan of pro]ectlon 1s REPLWED by (#.ON'Ewator) lrientli~es longrtu3e of tangent-polnt of mppln? plane lientltles ldtltude of tanqent-polnt of mapplng plane ?I-~tchlnq parallelis) of l3tltude (declrnal deqrees) for projection (IJird inly li FW.+ LC'C or FS) V<.LqTl) !la Default I 'XISiTl = ?3N ! 

### ,:.WT2) IIo Default ! :<LAT2 = 4:N !

Ilote: Latitudes and 1-rmltudes stioulci be posltlve, ?nd include a

, . .ettrr M,3,E, or W ~ndlcdtlnq north cr south l~tltude, u1d -dst or !rest lmil~tade. For example, 35.'9 !J Lbtltude = 35. 911 L1i.i E Lonqltude = 119.7E

raturn-realon2trli.J. 1,lsnj mappllnq prali~~cts cur~ntl] ri~.illii31e119%the nlcdel of the E3~tt. hlc.im is the Wrld tb2oiietic :;;stem 1W4 (W;S-H4i. Othor locll n~uJe?s ma;, be lit aie, ird thelr 3electlan in CFLiET will inxe lts output -c,ns:stent with 11~11 mappin? product?. The list f :'afur3~(11cnS.mth 2~fii~bl traiisrosmat~cn parameters 1s pr0.1ided 1jj the LJar1;nal Imaqery ind ,.lapping Agency INIPW)

### .

~~ ~~- ~ ~- ~-
~ --- -
~ ~

110 dofalilt ' iR = I16 ! !lo default ' ti = 1 ! tic defmlt ! !.lZ = 10 1slmp1lr.u grld 1s it qrld pcint (IESiNP, ,IEC."MP! of the MET. arid. Thr .;;ili.~llng qrid must he ~dentlcal t,o or i subset of the coIr@utatlondl qrld. Tt may be a nested arld lnslae the conrput?.tlonal arld. :he qrld spailnq of the sanpllng grld 1s LGRIDtaWlESHDN.

:< mriex of LL corner I IBSHP) NO default ! IBSR~P = 1 !

(IBCOMP<= IUCAS4P <= IEC!34P)

t ILE DEFWLT 'J.PLrJE

Nsss flux across spec~f~ed boundarlns 5 r selected spesles reported hourly?

I :tlFLX) ktault: 0 ! 1I.IE'LX = 6 !

,I = no 1 = jr,s I FIIr-LBDY.DAT 3rd L.FS:,FilX.DAT il lenmes dre speclfled In input Gr%:up01
:4iss balance for each species riposted hourly? ItIBXI tefault: !I !IMEKL= 0 

### '

= no 1 = 

### .. es (IL4:iSm.MT fllnname 1s ipei.1ile.i In Input (Group 0)?rmt soncantratlons (I'ZFRT) Default: 0 

### ' Z'1FPT = O ! Prlrit 3rj fluxes (IDIRT) ljefault: 0 I ICPRT = 0 ! ?rmt wet fluyes (IWFP~TI Defdult: 0 ! LWPRT = 0 ! (0 = ID not prlnt, 1 = Prmt)

Yesslues trxtln7 ~roqress of r:m .xlrten to the sxreen ?

8 IIGSG) i'efault: 1 ' IMErG = -

i, = 99 1 = lei ladvectlon step, plff ID] 2 = yes j'f'xf'iJJ~mH, # old puffs, # amlttea puffs)

;C'EC:ES (or GFOUF for corblned species) LIST FOR OUTPUT OPTIONS

PRINTEC? X!ED 011 CIS'? PRINTED? %.ED 9N DISK? SAVED ON DIT?

........................ ........................ --------------- I, r,, Ir 9 ' $1, 1, 0, I, '3 ! '!, -, ", 1, fi ! 0, 1, 1.' , A, 0 !
il, 1, 1, -, ,) 4 i , i, I, I), $2 ' I-), 0, 0, I), n 1 'i, ;I , 1,' , \I, I) ' (' , L1 , 0, '!, (1 I 1.1 , 1' , Jr ('8 0 

### '
11 //I !Ir 1-1 , ? I r!, 'i, 0, 13 , 1) I

'1 1 3, J, ,. , '1 ! !I, 0, '1, '1, r, I 'J, I)( 13, 'II I> ! 0, IJr l', J , !I I '!, (1, 0, 0 ! 0, 'I, '1, n, U !
1.1 , i, '1 , 0, 1 1

Ilrinber of puffs to track

I IIPFDEB) kfaul:: 1 ' IIPKjEB = 10 1
'net. pF:rlod to start outpur :IN11 '-fault: 1 ! !PI1 = lii IINPIIT IGROIJP: 53, 6b, il 6c -- Suborid scale cnmplex t,errsln lnputs

HILL 1r.formatlon

I'IMFLEX TEPBAI tI PECEPTOR :PIFORIP.TICnNIIOTE: LAT.4 for tic11 h~ll ind CTX rtceptcr ire tre3ted as iseparate ~1:puts~uhr~r~~up ~ind tn~refore n~usrend ..rlthsn lrplt qroup termmator:::PUT r;KOUP: 11 -- Chemistry Parameters ---------------1 = read Iwilrly ozone concentrations from :!>e )%O!lE.DAT data file I4onthly wone concentrations '11-ed only ~f :KHm = 1, 3, br 4 ,did 1109 = 0 or 1107 = 1 ~nii .ill hourly 173 data mss1rtg) iO

XOii ;n ppn i~za1~1 t: l:+qi!,

. . ' EX03 = -3.55, 32.0t, ?4.4q, 37.05, 30.31, 37.07, ih.'2, 36.83, 31.36, 25.37, 25.52, 24.73 ! Mmt~hiy ,m1onla concentrations flsrd only if !\~CHCM= 1, or 3) bSisTJH31 ln ppb Default: 12+1'3. 

### ' JCMJHJ = 0.50, 0.50, i1.50, 0.50, 3.3, O.iCi, 0.50, 0.50, ii.50, 0.55, 0.50, i).:li !
IIi7httlme GOloss rate (RNITE1) ~n percentlhour i'eianlt : j..J I INliTEl = 0 ,:

..,--, nu. ciats input option ,l?HL02i Urfault: 1 ! IH-C.2 = 1 ! III.;,~ only IE 14AKHEPI = 1) 1 = u,e d monthly background H10? value I : r-eaa hourly HIi12 sorlcrntratlons trom t5e 112'32.L'Ar iata flle.:witch for rlsliix Heffter eiqatlon for slqma 7 13 ibove (0= tlot use Heffter; 1 = us" Heffter ,t,LHFTSZ) L~erault:0 ;i.&lllt,; .class used t.0 determine plume ~gromh rite;; f,>rpuffs above the boundary l iyer (,rSUFj :'?fault: 5

':art~cal dlspersron iconstant for neutral/ imstable ctndltlor~s(k2 In Cqn. -.7-4)

5 ITIW ) Lleiault : I!.i

;~te ~:har3cter1~3tlon par;meters ror slnqle-pomt L4et data flies --------- (needed tor IETR3 = L, 3,4,5)

Fouohness Ienotti im) for modellng dornaln 'ZOItJ, refault: 0.25 ! ZOIN = ._5 

### '

Ele-iat~lon above sea level im) ELE3II:JI Deiault : 0.0 ! ELEgIPI = .0 !Anemometer neiqht (m) (Used only if MCTM = 2,3) WEMHT) Lwfault: lu

rcrm nF lateral turbulance data in L'F0FILE.PA.T flle Ilr;,d only if WTFN = 4,: or MTlirBVW = i or 3) (I:ilXLV) iefault: 1

11 = re?d s1:m.d-theta 1 = resd s~yma-v

Mlnlmum slqma y tor 3 new pufflslriq (nu

.;'i?"mILiJ) C*fiult: :.0 ' IMIVCTM = 9 !L,ef,ult: I?. 5 ! PI" = .5 !

Leta.Jlt wlnd Tpeod ciisses -- ;1,Fper bounds im/sl ire entered: tne r,th cldii hss no upper lmt 4GCAT (5) ) Default : rsc PIJ~ : 1.14, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 1u.a (lo.n+l

DeZdult potentlal tsmperdture qradlent for stale classes E, F' ~JeqK/m) FTGO (21 ) i'efauit: n.1~:0, ii.035 ! ETGO = 11.8120, 0.035 ;-ifaulr plume path I-oerflc~ents for iacn -t,&lllty 2133s l~sed when optmn for pirtlal plun~e helaht terr~m adjustment LS s216ct-ed -- CKTADJ=3) @12C(6)) itablllt Cidss : A B C D E F Default PPC : .50, .SO, .'O, .50, 25, .i5

--- --- --- --- --- ---
I PPC = 0.50, 3.50, 0.50, 0.50, 0.35, 0.35 ! .'luq-to-p~itrransltlon crlterlon factor i~lai to slqna-y/lirigth of slug -- l ah-- FJ Default: 10. ! ;LIPF = 1.0 ! F~ff-spllttlng ccntrol .Jarlables ------------------------

llrinher oi pliffs that result Tier;, tme a purf 1, spllt - nspllr-2 medns thdt 1 puff spllts ;nto 2

, ::TPLIT! Cefault: 3 I IISPLIT = 3 ! Tlve(s1 of a day ,when ,?pllt puffs are eilglble to ie spllt orlce dyalil; this 1s t-yplcally set once prnay, around sunset before nocturnal shear de-~elops. 21 values: O is ml3nl?ht 100:011) and 23 1s 11 PM (23:001 ildo mt re-spht l=elqmle f~r re-spll t lFEiPLIT!L41) itiault: Hour 17 = 1 ! lPELFLIT 

# - 0,0,0,0,0,i:,i,0,I),O,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,!~,O,0,0,0,O !HORIZONT.AL SPLIT

:Turber of puff2 that result every tune ,I putf 1.5 spht - nspllth=: mealis that 1 puff split.? mtn 5

8 Il.:PLITH) Z'sfault: 5

:Iinlmm concentratLon q,m 3) of each species ~r, pn:f oefore lt rmy be spllt Enter irra) of CISPEC x,;ililes; lf i smqle value 1s -~iterrd, ~t ml1 be ,us& for ALL specles (IIISPLITHI Lltiaillt : 1.'lE-ii7

Fr3,:tlnnal con-:erqence srlterion tor numerical ;LUG

= unp1ir:q intejrat 1011 Default : I.Oe-!s4 F~acti;.nal con'ler7encc crlterli n for nlmerlcal ,XEA rrllrce 11itagr;itlon iEf'cX&l) l'efault: l.{L-O6

:edrt:h Iad~us ih) about 3 recepror for sampling nearest BC puff. K puffs Are typ-ali~ am~rted w;th 3 spaclna of one arld cell lwqth, so the search radius should be Jreater than D,PIDOI. (I. :>L<PF;C j >+fault: 10. ! PSWPEC = I5.O !

IIIPrIT GROUFI?: 133, i3b, 13c, 13d -- iomt sour;.. parametersIlnlts used tor polnc sourze -rru.;aons 1~eio.i ' IE'TrJ) Default: l ! IPT1.7 = 1 1

# - 4,'s kg/hr

3 - , - Ih/hr 4 = tansiyr i = iclour Unrt * mt*3/s (lol. flux of odour compound)
Ij = O%ur Unlt * m**3/mln 7 ; netrlc tons/yr

ldtd :or f%:h source are treated is a separate input ?ubqrOup .;,.l therefore must end w~th 3n ;r,put 'jro~up ternnitor.
1s a 12-character ndme for a source 1110 default)
La ari array holdlng the source data llsted by the colimm headlnqs 1:o uefsulti 1s in array holchng +he mltlal siyma-y and sl'w-: (rnl IPefsult: o., 0.) 13 tie plitforni nelaht (m) fsr sr,urces influenced by an Isolated ;truct,lre that nas n slqnlficant open area between the nlriace ,nd the bulk of the structure, such as an jrfshore 011 plattom. The Base Elevat~on is that of the surface iqround or oceani, irin the Stack lielqht 1s the relea.3e helght aDo-~e the base (not ii;.o-:e the plattormi. Bulldlnn helghts sntrr;.d In "Aqroup lic mst be those z.f the Dulldlngs on the platform, raedsurtd frcln the platform deck. ZPLTR.1 1s used only wlth PBti=i 1ICC ~lz:in-,&shmethod) for sources wlth bullriLna dormwash. kf%lt: 10.l~~ 1s -I :-ertxal nomentum I~LLY factor (0.or 1.il) usi,d to represent thi efiect of ram-cips .r other phplzal confl~dr~+lons that rr-Ouce monIerrturn rise issoc~ated wltn the xtuil exit .~elsclty.1, 0. = Ilo b,11ldlns iao!nir.iash modeled, 1. = dcy.mwash modelea MXE: must he entered is a PEu number Il.e., ulth declrnil polnt)

.an eemlsslon rate mldt be entered for every-pollutant modeled. Enter enllssLon rite of zero for aecsndary pollutants that dre :ujaeled, but not emltted. iJr1:ts ;re speclfled by IFTU '2.g. 1 for g/s).

I.';e thla illboroilp to ~Jescrl!ietemporal 'larlatloils In the enilzslon r3tes ilL7en lr, llb. F3itor.s entered rvultlpiy the rates 11, lib. -1:ip ;,xrcei flare th3t nave sonst-ant aussions. For more elaborate ..irlatron ln source parameters, ,.lie PTW.F3.IlP.T and IJPT > 11.
Tunes the t;p? of varlatlon, and LS source-speclf~c: %fault: 43 "xstint L'iuLnil ;.~~le 1C4 scailnq fxtors: houri 1-71) Ilorlthl;, cycle (12 scallnq Iactors: months 1-12') Pour i Season I4 qrollps Q€ :3 housl] siallnq factors, r~hore flrst group :i bEC-JAN-I.'Eb) :perd i, Stab. 16qroups of 6 scaling idctors, where flrst Group 1s Stablllt] 'lass 4, ind tne ;peed cldsses have ilpper bolmds Ws) deflned In Group id Temperature :I2 5~311113 factors, ;mere temwrsrure ,.I---

ibars hlve 'lpper bounds IC) oi: 'I, 5, 10, 15, :Id, Z5, 343, 35, 40, i:, 50, iOt)IMPW rGR'JUP0: 14d, l4h, 14r, lld -- .Vea source parmeters

Iblmher of polyron irea sources wlth parameters speclfled below
!Jr.lts usej for irea source rmlsslons below 1 

# - q!n,++:/5

- i.g 'mi+3/hr j .= :b/m* ':;hr 4 = rnlislm-*l/;.r 5 = rWour Unit '

Ljita ;or each source dre treated as a separate Input subgroup ,~ni therefore mist end tilth an mput group ternundtor. h
.an rrmssion rate must be 2ntered for *?verypollutant modeled. Enter emlsslon rate of zer? for seccndary pollutants that are modeled, out nor emltted. IJrlits are specifled b:I I.=U ,t.g. 1 Cnr a/m**Z/s).The thls su0qroup to iiescrme temporal varlatlons in the ernisslm rites qven ln Lib. Fxtors enterd mnltlpl:, the rates ln :4b. 5klp xilrces here that ha.~e constant ernlsslons. For rnor? ?laborate "9rlarlon ln source parameters, use WSN!XB.IIAT and NFK2 i 0.

Pita tor each species are treated as a separate mput subgroup ind therefore must end wlth an Input grcup termlnaior.

i:JPLTT 170UPO: 15a, l'b, Ilr- -- Llne source parmeters

Ilmber of buoyant line zources ~41thvariable lccatim and enisslon :,irameters lt.12112) !lo default ! lLIl2 = 0 

### 'each llne IICNSEL) L'efault: 7 ! PKNSEG = 7 !
The follcwinq lr>riiblt.s are rewired cnl:, LL NLIITES > 10. Th?y are liied in the buoyant llne source plume Else calculdtions.

Ilo default ! !<L = 

### .'J ! (in meters)

.~:~erage Luildinq telght (HBL) :lo default ! HBI, = .O 

### ' (ln meters)

:.veraqe buoyancy parsmeter (FPRIMEL) Iv'o default ! FPMIIEL = .0 ! in n~**3/s*+?)

IlrlCYPIJT LINE SOOP,CE: CONCT.WT DATA

a .:our,-e Peg. .r: Beo. Y End. X Eiid. Y Kelaaie Ease Enusslon ,lo. ~'ourdlnate Ccordlnats 'Joordlnate Coordlnste Htlrlht Elwation Kdtes (rm) 1km) Ilm) i kml lm) Iml

.I;)st9 for e3ch sovrce are treated is a separate lnput xbqroup ii,d therefore must e~nd with an Input group temnator.

L> .h crnlsslun rare must oe enrered tor e~mr-/ pllutint rnoaeled. Sinter emission r3te of zero for secondary pollutants that are moleled, but riot emltted. linits xespeclfled by ILNTLT 8e.u. 1 ror j/s).

'1.e th~; s~ibqrmp to tiescribe temprsl varidtions ln the emlsslon ;ares alven In 1%. Factors enrered multiply the rates in 1Sb. ;kip soilr?es here that have constant t.ml3slon.i.


### -. L~.~J~PY

, detemnes the txlpe of varlstinn, and 1s source-speclflr:: i :-&-f ) Pefault: 13 ,I = -s.stmt

, = Diurnal cycle (24 s:dllr!g factors: hours 1-24)

- Pbnthly cycle (I? siilinq fdctors: months 1-12)

. - , -. FImr 5 Zeason 14 qroups of 23 hourl-I scalinq factors, rwt,.ere first group 1s I'EC-.T?J-FEBI 4 = .'pee3 'i .St&. (b ~jro~ips cf 6 scjlinq factors, :<here :irsr iirocp 13 St3blllt'f lllais A,--------


### , ht3 for 0.ich .pe~les are treated as a separate Input subqroup 3rd rherefore nust end w;th an ir~ptit qroup term1ndtc.r.

IIlPrlT ~GPOUP9: lea, lcb, 1Cc -- 'lolirn~esource parameters

I: INL , 0, ?LL psrameter dat-i tor



### -- I~,c? sr,ur,-es are redd from the IIJLF3.RRE.UAT Ellel;) )

hr:~ tlrr ,arb source dre treated as a separate lngul slburou~ ina theretore mst end with an 1r:ptit (ILOIIP remndtor.

:.n zmsslm late milst be enterd tor .:vc-r:, pullutint mo~ieleri.Enter Semlsslon rate of rero for ~econdary pollutants that ire modeled, but nijt ernltted. Unrts ire specified by IVLU e.q. 1 for o/s\.

iJ;e thls xbqroup to denrlhe temporal vsrlatlons ~rt the mussion rates qlven In Inb. Factors entered multlply the rates in lob. .:r:ip sources here that h&ve constant emlislons. For more el-borate ';-irldtlon ln source parameters, use \'OXI4ARB.DAT ma NVLL 2, 0.

I'IXi' ,deternines the type of wirlatlon, and it. source-speclfi':: iVAPf) L'efault: il 1 = ionstant i = L.liurnal cycle (2 1 scallnq factors: Soilrs 1-34 1 1:nthly cycle (12 scallnz rictors: rncnths L-12)

> = lio~r i .Teason (4 groups or 14 hourly rcallnq fa-cors, ,itinre flrst qroup 1s LIEC-JkN-FERi 4 = .'peed i .'tab. (6 groups of 6 scsllnq factors, ;*ere 'list qroup 1s Xabil~ty Class A, 3rd thn speed classes have upper hoards (m/s) detlned In 1;roilp 12
L - , - Temprature (12 sc.illrlq factors, :mere temperature .l~sses have llpper bounds (C) of: 0, F, 10, 15, 2'1, .:5, 30, 15, 40, 45, to, 50+i

3Lita tor eat:h rpeclrs ars treafea as a separate lnplit 3lbqroup aim IhGreiore nclsf end with nil uiput group terrnnstor.

:round fielqht b Elsvatlon .%eve 6rour.d :m, '81)
--------- ------------ 'I, t1.3L', 

### ' !END! 3, ?.on, ! !END! '1, O,Po, ! lElN3! (1, 0.,36, ! !END! il, 1130, ! !ZIlP! 0, \J.dO, ! 4ElID! I! , ,.#.',O, 1 !:ID! 1, '!.dG, ! lEllDt'4 !X= 10 ' :<= 11 1 '% = 1: ! :<= 13 IY= 13 'X= 15 !X= It! X17 I i". = '; ' y= -. 14 

### , :: = 0 1 x = 11 ! x= I>= -- . .. ~. ..j x= 14 !X= : r, I ,y = L" ! X = 3 t x:= 

### ' s; = -. -4 ! .<= ?,l ! :! = 31!X=
-- 3, ! y=

.. ij I :<=

7

# ., ! = 25 ! .\ = 16 I :< = -7 1 >;% 39 

### ' :,. = '9 I i. = .,L, t y= 'ZMD! 

### ' EW! 

### ' Elin'
IEIID! !EIID! 

### ' ::!ID 1 !EIJO ! IEND!

,r!lD f ' EIID!

IEClD! !END! !Elm! !EC!D!

1 r!m! !END!
IEClC ! 

### ' END ! ' tNt1!
1 END! !Elm ! IFCID ! 'UID! 

### ' EllD

### '

IEND

### ' ' Et!D' 'EIILI! !END1 'Ern! 'FIID! 'EIID! !FIID !

3r'lri for exh receptor are treated as s sepsrate irplt subqroup in3 therefore must end with in Input tgr.iup temlnator.
bP-ceptor hrlshr dove araund 1s optional. If no -~iiue 1s entered, rile receptor 1s place3 Jn the qrmr~a.

## SAMPLE POSTUTIL INPUT FILE STEP 1 

## RE-PARTITIONING PURSUEMSUT02Al.INP PURSUEMSUT02Bl.INP PURSUEMSUT02Cl.INP 4-KM REFINED ANALYSIS YEAR 

## 2002

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity ConsultantsPURSUE ENERGY THOmSVILLE MISSISSIPPI BART APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 2002- 4 KM REFINED BRETON ANALYSES
---------------- Run title (3 lines)

..........................................
POSTUTIL MODEL CONTROL FILE

INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names

Subgroup (Oa)

Flle Default File Name
---- ----------------- List File POSTUTIL.LST \PURSUEMSUT02Al.lst !

Data Flle MODEL. DAT \PURSTJEMSUTO'Al. con !

Input Files ! UTLLST =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM
! UTLDAT =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM

A time-varying file of "background" concentrations can be included when the amonla-llmiting method IALM) for setting the HNO3/NO3 concentration partitLon is accomplished in 1 step. This optlon 1s selected by settmg MNITFATE=3 in Input Group 1. Species requ~red in the "background" concentration file are: S04, MO3, HMO3 and TNH3 (total NH3 = NH3gaseous 

### + NH3partlculate). File Default File PJame
---- ----------------- ECKG File ECKGALM.DAT 

### * BCKGALM =BCKGALM.DAT 

### *

A number of CALPUFF data files may be processed in this application. The files may represent individual CALPUFF simulations that were made for a spec~fic set of species and/or sources. Specify the total number of CALPUFF runs you wish to combine, and provide the filename for each In subgroup Ob.
Number of CALPUFF data flles (MFILES) Default: 1 ! EIFILES = 1 !

Meteorological data files are needed for the HNO3/NO3 partition optlon. Three types of meteorological data files can be used: METEM= 0 - CALMET.DATMETEN= 1 - 1-D file with RH, Temp and Rhoair timeserles METEN= 2 - 2-D files with either Rh, Temp or Rhoair in each (3 2-D files are needed) 'The default is to use CALMET.DAT files.
Default: 0 !METEM -0 !
Multiple meteorological data files may be used in sequence to span the processing perlod. Specify the number of time-period files (NMET) that you need to use, and provide a filename for each in subgroup Ob.

- NMET is 0 ~f no meteorological flles are provided

- BMET is 1 if METFM=1 (multiple file feature is not available)

- NMET 1s 1 or more if METFM=O or 2 (multiple CALMET files or 2DMET files)
Number of meteorological data file tlme-periods (NMET) Default: O ! PIMET = 4 !

All filenames will be converted to lower case if LCFILES = T Otherwise, if LCFILES = F, filenames wlll be converted to UPPER CASE
Convert filenames to lower case? Default: T ! LCFILES = T ! T = lower case F = UPPER CASE

PIMET CALMET Data Files (METFM=O) : Input Flle Default File Name

---------- ----------------- 1 MET.DAT ! IITLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAINl-1002\MET2002-DOM1-01.DAT ! !END! 

# - MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\~iISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\MET2002-DOM1-02.DAT ! !END! 3 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\PIET2002-DOM1-03.DAT ! !END! 4 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAINl-2002\MET2O02-DOMl-O4.DAT ! !END!

NMET 1-D Data Files (METFM=l) :

1 MET-1 D


### .DAT 

### * t4ETlD = MET-ID. DAT * *ENDtIIMET 2-D Data Files of Each Type (METFM=2):

* M2DRHU = RELHUM.DAT 

### * +END* * M2DTMP = TEMP. DAT 

### * *EPID*

+ MZDRHO = RHOAIR.DAT
+ *END*

NFILES CALPUFF Data Flles: Input Flle Default File Name
1 CALPUFF.DAT ! MODDAT =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\~KN\PURSUEMS~~.CO~ ! !END!

Note: provlde NMET lines of the form * UTLMET = name 

### * *END*

or 

### * METlD = name 

### * *END+

or * M2DRHU = name 

### * +END* (and)
+ M2DTMP = name + +ENDt (and) 

### * M2DRHO = name 

### * *END*
and MFILES lines of the form 

### * MODDAT = name 

### * *END*
where the 

### * should be replaced with an exclarnatlon polnt, the speclal delimiter character.

INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General run control parameters
Startlng date: Year (ISYR) -- fio default Month (ISMO) -- No default Day (ISDY) -- No default Hour (ISHR) -- Plo default
Number of periods to process (NPER) -- No default
Number of specles to process from CALPUFF runs (NSPECINP) -- No default
Number of species to write to output flle (NSPECOUT) -- No default
Nmber of specles to compute from those modeled (must be no greater than NSPECOUT) (NSPECCMP) -- No default ! ISYR = 2002 ! ! ISMO =I ! ! ISDY = 1 ! ! ISHR = 1 !

! NPER = 2880 !

! NSPECINP = 19 !

! PISPECOUT = 19 !

! NSPECCMP = 0 !When multlple files are used, a species name may appear In more than one flle. Data for this species will be summed (appropriate ~f the CALPUFF runs use different source groups). If this summlng 1s not appropriate, remove duplicate specles from the file(s)

## . Stop run if duplicate species names are found? (MDUPLCT j Default: 

### O ! MDUPLCT = 0 ! 0 = no (l.e.,duplicate species are summed) 1 = yes (i.e., run is halted)
Data for each species in a CALPUFF data file may also be scaled as they are read. This can be done to alter the emission rate of all sources that were modeled in a particular CALPUFF application. The scaling factor for each species is entered in Subgroup (Zd), for each fil- for which scaling is requested.
Nurber of CALPUFF data files that will be scaled (must be no greater than NFILES) (NSCALED) Cefault: 0 ! NSCALED = 0 !
Pmmonia-Limiting Method Optlon to recompute the HN03/N03 concentration partltlon prior to performing other actlons is controlled by MNITRATE. Thls optlon wlll NOT alter any deposition fluxes contalned In the CXLPUFF file(s). Three partltion selections are provided. The first two are typically used in sequence (POSTUTIL is run more than once). The first selection (MNITRATE=l)computes the partition for the TOTAL (all sources) concentration fields (SO4,N03, HIJO3; NH3)

### , and the second (MNITRATE=Z) uses this partltion (from the previous application of POSTUTIL) to compute the partltlon for individual source groups. The thlrd selection lMNITRATE=3) can be used instead in a single POSTUTIL application if a file of background concentratlons is provided (BCKGALM In Input Group 0). Required information for MNITRATE=l includes: specles N03, HN03, and SO4 NH3 concentration (s j met. data flle for RH and T Required information for MNITRATE=2 includes: species NO3 and HN03 for a source group specles N03ALL and HN03ALL for all source groups, properly partltloned 'equired information for MNITRATE=3 includes: species N03, HN03, and SO4 for a source group specles N03, HN03, SO4 and TMH3 from the background BCKGPLM file If TNH3 is not In the background BCKGAiM file, monthly TNH3 concentrations are used (BCKTNH3) TtlH3= total NH3 = WH3gaseous+NH3part1culate Recompute the HN03IN03 partltlon for concentratlons? (MNITRATE) Default: 0 I ITNITRATE = 1 I 0 = no 1 = yes, for all sources cornblned
9 

# - = yes, for a source group 3 = yes, ALM appllcatlon In one stepSOURCE OF PMONIA:
?monla may be available as a modeled species in the CALPUFF files, and ;t nay or may not be appropriate to use lt for repartitlcnmq NO3/HNO3 (ln option LQJITPATE-1 or MNITP&TE=3). Its use is contolled by MH3TYP. When NH3 1s listed as a processed specles in Subgroup (2ai, as one of the NSPECINP ASPECI entrles, and the rlght option is chosen for NH3TYP, the NH3 modeled values from the CALEUFF concentration files will be used In the chemlcal equllibrlum calculation.
NH3TYP also controls when monthly background ammonla values are used. Both gaseous (NH3) and total (TNH3=NH3gaseous+NH3particulate)ammonia can be provided monthly as BCKNHS/ECKTNH3.
What is the input source of Pmonia?

(CIH3TYPj No Default 0 = No background wlll be used. ONLY NH3 or TNH3 from the concentration files listed In Subgroup (2a&2bj as a processed specles wlll be used. (f:annot be used with MNITRATE=3)
1 = NH3 Monthly averaged background (BCKNH3) listed below wlll be added to NH3 from concentratlon files listed in Subgroup (3aj
2 = MH3 from background concentratlon file ECKGALM wlll be added to NH3 from concentratlon files llsted in Subgroup (2a&2b) (ONLY possible for MNITRATE=3)
3 = NH3 Monthly averaged background (ECKNH3) listed below will be used alone.
4 = NH3 from background concentration file BCKGALM wlll be used alone (ONLY possible for MMITRATE=3)

Default monthly (12 values) background ammonia concentration (ppb) used for HN03/N03 partltlon (need to choose one or the other):

Gaseous NH3 (BCKNH3 j Default: -999Total TNH3 (BCKTNH3) Default: -999 

### * BChTNH3 = l., I., I., 1.1, 1.4, 1.3, 1.3, 1.2, 4*1. 

### *
If a single value is entered, this 1s used for all 12 months. Month 1 is JANUARY, Month 12 is DECEMBER.
!END !

INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Species Processing Information

- -------------

The following NSPECINP species will be processed:
! ASPECI = 502 ! ! END ! ! ASPECI = SO4 ! ! END ! ! ASPECT = MOX ! !END !

ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = !END ! !END ! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END ! !END! ! END ! !END! !END! !END ! ASPECI = EC187 ! ! EIID ! ASPECI = EC112 ! ! END ! ASPECI = ECORl ! ! END ! ASPECI = EC056 ! !END

Subgroup (2b)

The following NSPECOUT specles will be written:

! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = !END! !END ! ! END ! !END! !END ! ! END ! !END! !END ! ! END !! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! &.SPEC0 = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! END ! !END ! ! END ! !END ! ! ENC ! ! END ! !END ! !END ! !END ! !END !

Subgroup (2c)

The following PISPECCMP species will be computed by scaling and summlng one or more of the processed input species. Identify the name(s) of the computed specles and provide the scaling factors for each of the PISPECINP input specles (NSPECCMP groups of NSPECINP+l lines each):

Subgroup (2d)

Each species in NSCALED CALPUFF data files may be scaled before being processed (e.g., to change the emlssion rate for all sources modeled in the run that produced a data file). For each file, identlfy the file name and then provlde the nameis) of the scaled specles and the corresponding scaling factors (A,B where x' = Ax+B).



### * MODDAT =NOFILES.DAT 

### * + 502 = 1.1, 

### * SO4 = 1.5, 

### * HN03 = 0.8,
t NO3 = 0.1, +ENDtPURSUE ENERGY THOMASVILLE MISSISSIPPI BART APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 2002- 4 E;M REFINED BRETON ANALYSES
---------------- Run title (3 lines)

.......................................... POSTUTIL MODEL CONTROL FILE

............................................................................... INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names

Subgroup (Oa)
Output Files

File Default File Name

---- ----------------- List File POSTUTIL.LST \PURSUEMSUTO?Bl.lst !

Data File MODEL. DAT \PURSUEMSUT02Bl.con ! ! UTLLST =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM
! UTLDAT =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM

Input Files

A tlme-varying file of "background" concentrations can be included when the ammonia-limiting method (ALM) for settlng the HN03/M03 concentration partition is accomplished in 1 step. This option is selected by setting MNITRATE=3 in Input Group 1. Species required in the "background" concentration file are: 504, N03, HN03 and TNH3 (totalNH3 = MH3gaseous 

### + MH3particulate).
Flle Default File Name
---- ----------------- ECKG File BCKGALM.DAT * BCKGALM =BCKGALM.DAT t

A number of CALPUFF data files may be processed in this application. The files may represent individual CALPUFF simulations that were made for a speclfic set of species and/or sources. Speclfy the total number of CALPUFF runs you wish to comblne, and provide the filename for each ;n subgroup Ob.
Plumber of CALPUFF data files (NFILES) Default: 1 ! NFILES = 1 !
Meteorological data files are needed for the HMO?/NO3 partition option. Three types of meteorological data files can be used: METFM= 0 - CALMET.DATMETFM= 1 - 1-D file wlth RH, Temp and Rhoair tlmeserles METFM= 2 - 2-D files with either Rh, Temp or Rhoair in each !3 2-D flles are needed) The default is to use C.4LMET.DP.T files.
Default: 0 ! METETI =G !
Multiple meteorologlcal data flles may be used in sequence to span the processing period. Specify the number of time-perlod files (NMET) that you need to use, and provlde a filename for each In subgroup Ob.

- NMET is 0 lf no meteorological files are provlded

- lIMET 1s 1 if METF'M=l (multiple file feature is not ava~lable)

- PIMET is 1 or more ~f METFM=O or 2 (multipleCALMET files or 3DMET files) tIw7iber of meteorologlcal data file tlme-periods INMETI Default: 0 ! NMET = 4 !

All filenames will be converted to lower case lf LCFILES = T Otherwise, lf LCFILES = F, filenames wlll be converted to UPPER CASE
Convert filenames to lower case? Default: T ! LCFILZS = T ! T = lower case F = UPPER CP.SE

NOTE: file/path names can be up to 70 characters ln length

Subgroup [Obi

lJMET CALMET Data Flles (METFM=O) : Input File Default File Name

---------- ----------------- 1 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\MET"002-DOM1-05.DAT ! !END! 2 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAINl-2002\MET2002-DOMl-06.DAT ! !END! 3 YET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-200'\MET'002-DOMl-O7.DP.T ! !END! 4 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\MET20O2-DOM1-08.DAT ! !EllD!

lIMET 1-D Data Files (METFM=l) :NMET 2-D Data Files of Each Type (METFM=2):



### * M2DRHU = RELHUM.DAT + 'END*

MClDTMP = TEMP. DAT *END* 

### * M2DRHO = RHOAIR.DAT * *END*

IJFILES CALPUFF Data Files: Input File Default File Name

---------- ----------------- 1 CALPLIFF.DAT ! MODDAT =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM\PURSUEMS02.con ! !END !

Note: provlde NMET lmes of the form + UTLMET = name * *END*

or 

### * METlD = name * *END+

or + M2DRHU = name 

### * +END* (and)

+ MZDTMP = name 

### * 'END* (and) 

### * M2DRHO = name 

### * *END* and NFILES lines of the form 

### * MODDAT = name 

### * 'END*
where the

+ should be replaced with an exclamation pomt, the special delimiter character.

INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General run control parameters
Starting date: Year (ISYR) -- No default Month (ISMO) -- No default Day (ISDY) -- No default Hour (ISHR) -- No default
!lumber of perlods to process (NPER) -- No default
Xumber of specles to process from CALPUFF runs (NSPECINP) -- No default
Number of species to wrlte to output file INSPECOUT) -- No default
N~mber of species to compute from those modeled (must be no greater than NSPECOUT) (NSPECCMP) -- No default ! ISYR = 2002 ! ! ISM0 =5 ! ! ISDY = 1 ! ! ISHR =1 !

! NPER = 2952 !

! NSPECINP = 19 !

! NSPECOUT = 19 !

! MSPECCMP = 0 !When multiple files are used, a species name may appear In more than one flle. Data for thls species will be summed (appropriate ~f the CALPUFF runs use different source groups). If this summlng 1s not appropriate, remove duplicate species from the flle(s). Stop run if duplicate specles names are found? (MDUPLCT) Default: 0 ! MDUPLCT = 0 ! 0 = no (i.e., duplicate species are summed) 1 = yes (i.e., run is halted)
Data for each species In a CALPUFF data file may also be scaled as they are read. Thls can be done to alter the emlsslon rate of all sources that were modeled in a particular CALPUFF application. The scallng factor for each species 1s entered in Subgroup (2d), for each file for which scaling is requested.
Number of CALPUFF data files that wlll be scaled (must be no greater than NFILES) (NSCALED) Default: 0 ! NSCALED = 0 !
Ammonla-Limitlng Method Optlon to recompute the HN03/N03 concentratlon partitlon prlor to performing other actions is controlled by MNITRATE. This option wlll MGT alter any deposition fluxes contamed In the CALPUFF flleis). Three partition selections are provided. The first two are typically used In sequence (POSTUTIL is run more than once). The first selection fMNITRATE=l) computes the partitlon for the TOTAL (all sources) concentration fields (S04, N03, HN03; NH3), and the second (MNITRATE=Z) uses this partltlon (from the previous appllcatlon of POSTUTIL) to compute the partition for mdividual source groups. The third selection (MNITRATE=3)can be used instead in a single POSTUTIL application if a file of background concentrations is provlded (BCKGALM in Input Group 0). Required information for NNITRATE=l includes: species N03, HN03, and SO4 lIH3 concentratlonis) met. data file for RH and T Required information for MNITRATE=Z ~ncludes: specles NO3 and HN03 for a source group specles N03ALL and HN03ALL for all source groups, properly partitioned Required information for MNITRATE=3 includes: species N03, HM03, and SO4 for a source group species N03, HN03, SO4 and TNH3 from the background BCKGALM file If TNH3 is not in the background BCKGALM file, monthly TNH3 concentrations are used (BCKTNH3) TPIH3= total NH3 = NH3gaseous+NH3partlculate Recompute the HN03/N03 partition for concentrations? !MNITRATE) Default: 0 ! MNITRATE = 1 ! 0 = no 1 = yes, for all sources combined
9 = yes, for a source group 3 = yes, ALM appllcatlon In one stepTotal TNH3 (ECKTNH3) Default: -999 *BCKTNH3=1., l., I., 1.1, 1.4, 1.3, 1.3, 1.2, 4"l. 

### *
If a single value is entered, thls 1s used for all 12 months. Month 1 is JANUARY. Month 12 is DECEMBER.
! END !

INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Specles Processing Informatlon

Subgroup (2a)

The following NSPECINP specles wlll be processed:
! ASEECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! 'SPEC1 = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = SO2 SO4 MOX HNO3

NO3 POCO81 POCO56 PIC081 PIC056 PMC800 PMC425 PMF187 PMF112 PMFO81 PMF056

EC187 EC112 EC081 EC056 ! !END ! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END ! ! !END! ! !END ! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END ! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END! ! !END!

Subgroup (2b)

The following MSPECOUT specles will be wrltten:

! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! PSPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! !END! ! !END! ! !END ! ! !END! ! !END! ! 'END! ! !END ! ! !END! ! !END !! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = !END! !END ! !END ! ! END ! ! END ! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END!

The following NSPECCMP species wlll be computed by scaling and summlng one or more of the processed lnput specles. Identify the name(s) of the computed species and provide the scallng factors for each of the NSPECIINP input specles (NSPECCMP groups of NSPECINP+l lines each):

Each specles ln NSCALED CALPUFF data files may be scaled before being processed (e.g., to change the emlsslon rate for all sources modeled 1n the run that produced a data file). For each file, identify the file name and then provlde the nameis) of the scaled specles and the corresponding scaling factors (A,B where x' = Px+B).



### ' MODDAT =NOFILES.DAT

+ r SO? = 1.1, sari = 1.5,

+ HNO3 = 0.8, + NO3 = 0.1, +END*PURSUE ENERGY THOMASVILLE MISSISSIPPI BART P.PPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 2002 - 4 KM REFINED BRETON ANALYSES

---------------- Run title (3 lines)

..........................................

INPUT GROUP: 0 - Input and Output File Names

Subgroup (Oaj
Output Files

File Default File Name
Llst Flle \PURSUEMSUTO?Cl

Data Flle \PURSUEMSUTO?Cl

Input Files POSTUTIL.LST 1st ! MODEL. DAT con ! ! UTLLST =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM
! UTLDAT =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM

A time-varylng file of "background" concentrations can be Included when the ammonia-lirnlting method (ALM) for settlng the HW03/1\103 concentration partition 1s accomplished in 1 step. 'Thls optlon is selected by setting MNITRATE=3 in Input Group 1. Species requlred in the "background" concentration file are: S04, N03, HNO3 and TNH3 (totalNH3 = NH3gaseous 

### + NH3partlculate). File Default File Name
---- ----------------- BCKG File BCKGALM.DAT 

### * BCKGALM =BCKGALM. DAT 

### *

A number of CALPUFF data files may be processed ln this application. The files may represent Individual CALPUFF slmulatlons that were made for a speclfic set of specles and/or sources. Specify the total number of CALPUFF runs you wlsh to combine, and provlde the fllename for each in subgroup Ob.
Number of CALPUFF data files (MFILESj Default: 1 ! NFILES = 1 !

Meteorological data files are needed for the HN03/NO3 part~tionoptlon. Three types of meteorological data flles can be used: METFM= 0 - CALMET.DATMETEN= 1 - 1-D flle with RH, Temp and Rhoair tirr.eserles METFM= 2 - 2-0 files wlth either Rh, Temp or Rhoair in each (3 2-D files are needed) The default 1s to use CALMET.DAT files.
Default: 0 ! METFN 

### =O !
Multiple meteorological data files may be used in sequence to span the processing perlod. Speclfy the number of tlme-period files (NMET) that you need to use, and provlde a filename for each in subgroup Ob.

- NMET is 0 if no meteorological files are provided

- NMET 1s 1 if METFM=l (multiple file feature is not available)

- NMET is 1 or more if METFM=O or 2 (multipleCALMET flles or 2DMET flles)
Number of meteorological data file tlme-periods (NMET) Default: 0 ! NMET = 4 !

All filenames wlll be converted to lower case if LCFILES = T Otherwise, if LCFILES = F, filenames will be converted to UPPER CASE
Convert filenames to lower case? Default: T ! LCFILES = T ! T = lower case F = UPPER CASE

NOTE: file/path names can be up to 70 characters in length

Subgroup Ob)

tlMET (:,%MET Data Flles (METFM=O) : Input File Default File Name
---------- ----------------- 1 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\MET2002-DOM1-09.DAT ! !END! 7 

### - D1ET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\~4ET2002-DOM1-10.DAT ! !END! 3 TvIET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIN1-2002\MET2002-DOMl-ll.DAT ! !END! 4 MET.DAT ! UTLMET=T:\VISTAS\DOMAIM1-2002\MET2002-DOMl-12.DAT ! !END!
NMET 1-D Data Files (METFM=l) : Input File Default File Name
---------- ----------------- 1 MET-ID. DAT 

### * METlD = MET-1D.DAT * *END*NMET 2-D Data Files of Each Type (METFM=2) : Input Flle Default Flle Name
---------- ----------------- 1 RHLJMD

## . DAT 

### * M2DRHTJ = ?.ELHUM. DAT 

### * +E?JD* 1


# .. TEMP. DAT

+ MLWl'MP = TEMP. DAT 

### * *END* 1 RHOAIR.DAT 

### * M2DRHO = RHOAIR.DAT 

### * 'END*

NFILES CALPUFF Data Flles: Input File Default File Name
---------- ----------------- 1 CALPUFF.DAT ! IvIODDAT =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KN\PURSUEMS02.con ! !END !

1Tote: provlde NMET lines of the form * UTLMET = name 

### * +END*

or * METlD = name 

### * *END*

or 

### * M'DRHU = name 

### * *END* (and) ' M2DTMP = name 

### * *END* (and) 

### * M2DRHO = name 

### * *END* and NFILES lines of the form 

### * MODDAT = name 

### * *END+
where the * should be replaced wlth an exclamation point, the special delimiter character.

INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General run control parameters
Startlng date: Year (ISYR) -- No default Month (ISMO) -- Nodefault Day (ISDY) -- 1\10 default Hour (ISHR) -- No default
Nilmber of perlods to process (NPER) -- No default
Number of specles to process from CALPUFF runs !MSPECINP) -- No default
Number of specles to wrlte to output flle (1lSPECOUT) -- No default
Ilmber of specles to compute from those modeled (must be no greater than NSPECOUT) (NSPECCMP) -- No default ! ISYR = 2002 ! ! ISMO =9 ! ! ISDY = 1 ! ! ISHR =1 !

! NPER = 2928 !

! NSPECINP = 19 !

! IISPECOUT = 19 !

! NSPECCMP = 0 !

When multiple files are used, a specles name may appear in more thanone file. Data for thls specles wrll be summed (appropriate if the (3ALPUFF runs use different source groups). If this summing is not approprrate, remove duplicate specles from the fileis). Stop r1.m ~f duplicate specles names are found? (MDUPLCT) Default: 0 ! MDUPLCT = 0 ! 0 = no (i.e., duplicate species are summed) 1 = yes (i.e., run 1s halted)
Data for each species in a CALPUFF data file may also be scaled as they are read. This can be done to alter the emission rate of all sources that were modeled ln a particular CALPUFF applicatlon. The scallng factor for each species is entered in Subgroup (Zd), for each file for which scaling 1s requested.
Number of CALPUFF data files that wlll be scaled

(must be no greater than NFILES) (NSCALED) Default: 0 ! NSCALED = 0 !

Ammonia-Limlting Method Option to recompute the HN03/N03 concentration partition prior to performing other actlons is controlled by PINITRATE. This optlon will NOT alter any deposition fluxes contained In the CALPUFF file(s). Three partition selectlons are provided. The first two are typically used in sequence (POSTUTIL 1s run more than once). The first selection (PNITRATE=l)computes the partition for the TOTAL (all sources) concentration fields (S04,N03, HN03; NH3), and the second (MNITRATE=Z) uses this partitlon (from the prevlous applicatlon of POSTUTIL) to compute the partitlon for ~ndivldualsource groups. The third selectron (MNITRATE=3j can be used instead in a slngle POSTUTIL appllcatlon rf a file of background concentrations 1s provided (BCKGALM in Input Group 0). Required information for MNITRATE=l includes: species N03, HN03, and SO4 NH3 concentration (s ) met. data file for RH and 'I Required Information for MNITRATE=2 includes: specles NO3 and HN03 for a source group species N03ALL and HN03ALL for all source groups, properly partitioned Required information for PQJITRATE=3 includes: specles N03, HN03, and SO4 for a source group species N03, HN03, SO4 and TNH3 from the background BCKGALM file If TNH3 is not ln the background ECKGALM file, monthly TNH3 concentrations are used iBCKTNH3) TPJH3= total NH3 = NH3gaseous+NH3particulate Recompute the HN03/N03 partition for concentrations? (NNITRATE) Default: 0 ! MNITPATE = 1 ! 0 = no 1 = yes, for all sources combined
3 = 

### - yes, for a source group 3 = yes, ALM application In one stepTotal TMH3 (ECKTMH3) Default: -999 +BCKTNH3=1., I., I., 1.1, 1.4, 1.3, 1.3, 1.2, 4*1. 

### *
If a single value 1s entered, this 1s used for all 12 months. Month 1 is JPJIUARY, Month 12 is DECEMBER.
! END !

INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Species Processing Information
--------------

------------- Subgroup ('a)
-------------

The following NSPECINP species will be processed:
! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI 

# - ! ASPECI = SO2 ! SO4 ! NOX ! HNO3 !

1103 ! POCO81 ! POCO56 ! PIC081 ! PIC056 ! PMC8OO ! PMC425 ! PMF187 ! PMFl12 ! PMFO81 ! PMF056 !

EC187 ! EC112 ! EC081 ! EC056 ! ! END ! ! END ! !END! !END! !END ! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END ! ! END ! !END ! ! EIJD ! ! EPJD ! ! END !

Subgroup (2b)

The following NSPECOUT species will be written:

! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASFECO = ! ASPECO = SO? ! SO4 ! NOX ! HN03 !

fJ03 ! Pocoal ! POCO56 ! PIC081 ! PIC056 ! PMC8OO ! !EPJD ! !END ! ! END ! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END! !END !! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = !END! !END! !END ! !END! !END ! !END! ! END ! ! END ! ! END !

------------- Subgroup (2c)
-------------

The following MSPECCMP species will be computed by scaling and summing one or more of the processed input species. Identify the name(s) of the computed species and provlde the scaling factors for each of the NSPECINP input species (NSPECCMP groups of NSPECINP+l lines each):

Subgroup (2d)
-------------

Each specles In NSCALED CALPUFF data files may be scaled before be-ing processed (e.g., to change the emlsslon rate for all sources modeled 111 the run that produced a data file). For each file, Identify the flle name and then provlde the name(s) of the scaled species and the corresponding scallng factors (A,Bwhere x' = k&+B).



### * MODDAT =NOFILES.DAT 

### * * SO2 = 1.1, 

### * SO4 = 1.5, 

### * HN03 = 0.8, i NO3 = 0.1, *END*

## SAMPLE POSTUTIL INPUT FILE STEP 2 POSTUTIL PURSUEMSUT02.INP 

## 4-KM REFINED ANALYSISYEAR 2002

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

### Trinity ConsultantsPURSUE ENERGY THOMASVILLE MISSISSIPPI BART APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 2002 - 4 KM REFINED BRETON ANALYSES
---------------- Run title (3 lines)

.......................

INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names

Subgroup (Oa)
Output Files

File Default Flle Name List File POSTUTIL.LST

't PURSUEMSUTOZALM.1st !

Data Flle MODEL. DAT '\PURSUEMSUT02ALM. con !

Input Files ! UTLLST =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM
! UTLDAT =O:\BART\PUF.SUEMS\4KM

4 time-varylng file of "background" c~ncentrations can be included when the ammonia-llmitlng method (ALM) for setting the HN03/NO3 concentration partition is accomplished in 1 step. This option 1s selected by settlng MNITRATE=3 in Input Group 1. Species requlred in the "background" concentration file are: S04, N03, HNO3 and TNH3 (total MH3 = NH3gaseous 

### + NH3particulate).
Flle Default File Name
---- ----------------- BCKG Flle BCKGALM.DAT BCKGALM =BCKGALM.DAT i

A number of CALPUFF data files may be processed in this application. The files may represent individual CALPUFF simulations that were made for a speclfic set of species and/or sources. Speclfy the total number of CALPUFF runs you wlsh to combine, and provide the filename for each in subgroup Ob. [lumber of CALPUFF data flles (NFILES) Default: 1 I NFILES = 1 !

Meteorological data flles are needed for the HNO3/NO3 partition optlon. Three types of meteorological data files can be used: METFM= 0 - CALMET.DATMETFM= 1 - 1-D file with RH, Temp and Rhoair tuneseries METEM= 2 - 2-D files wlth either Rh, Temp or Rhoarr in each (3 2-D flles are needed) The default is to use CALMET.DAT files.
Default: O ! METFM =O !
Multlple meteorological data files may be used rn sequence to span the processing period. Specify the number of tlme-period files (NMET) that you need to use, and provide a filename for each in subgroup Ob.

- NMET is 0 if no meteorological files are provided

- NMET is 1 if METFM=l (multiple file feature 1s not available)

- NMET is 1 or more if METE'M=O or 2 (multiple CKLMET files or 2DMET files)
Number of meteorological data file tlme-periods (NMET) Default: O ! PIMET = 0 !

All filenames wlll be converted to lower case lf LCFILES = T Otherwise, if LCFILES = F, filenames wlll be converted to UPPER CASE
Convert filenames to lower case? Cefault: T ! LCFILES = T ! T = lower case F = UPPER CASE

MOTE: frle/path names can be up to 70 characters In length

Subgroup (Ob)

NMET CALMET Data Files (METFM=O) : Input File Default File Name
---------- ----------------- 1 MET. DAT

+ UTLMET =CALMET. PAT 

### * *END*

PIMET 1-D Data Files (METFMZ1):

NMET 2-D Data Flles of Each Type (METFM=2) :

+ M2DRHU = RELHUM. DAT 

### * *END* 

### * M2DTMP = TEMP. DAT * *ENDf1 RHOAIR. DAT

kJFILES CALPUFF Data Files: Input File Default File Mame

1 MODDAT =O:\BPL?T\FURSUEMS\4IIPI

Note: provide NMET lines of the form 

### * UTLMET = name 

### * *END*

or 

### * METlD = name 

### * *END*

or 

### * M2DRHU = name 

### * *END* (and)

+ MZDTMP = name 

### * 'END* ;and) 

### * M2DP.HO = name 

### * *END*
and NFILES lines of the form 

### * MODDAT = name 

### * *END*
where the 

### * should be replaced with an exclamation polnt, the speclal delimiter character.

INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General run control parameters
Starting date: .

### . Year (ISYR) -- No default ! ISYR = 2002 ! Month (ISMO) -- No default ! ISM0 = 1 ! Day (ISDY) -- No default ! ISDY = 1 ! Hour (ISHR) -- No default ! ISHR = 1 !
Number of periods to process (NPER) -- No default ! NPER = 8760 !
Number of specles to process from CALPUFF runs (NSPECINP) -- No default ! NSPECINP = 19 !
Plumber of specles to wrlte to output file (NSPECOUT) -- No default ! NSPECOUT = 5 !
Number of specles to compute from those modeled (must be no greater than NSPECOUT) (IJSPECCMP) -- No default ! NSPECCMP = 4 !

When multlple files are used, a species name may appear in more than one file. Data for thls species wlll be summed (appropriate if the CALPUFF runs use different source groups). If this summing is not appropriate, remove duplicate specles from the fileis). Stop run if duplicate specles names 3re found? (MDUPLCT) Default: 0 ! I4DUPLCT = 0 !0 = no (i.e., duplicate species are summed) 1 = yes (i.e., run 1s halted)
Data for each specles in a CALPUFF data file may also be scaled as they are read. This can be done to alter the emission rate of all sources that were modeled in a particular CALPUFF application. The scaling factor for each species 1s entered In Subgroup (Zd), for each file for which scaling 1s requested.
N~vnberof CALPUFF data files that will be scaled (must be no greater than NFILES) (NSCALED) Default: 0 ! NSCALED = 0 !
Ammonia-Limiting Method Option to recompute the HN03/N03 concentration partltion prior to performing other actlons is controlled by MNITRATE. Thls option wlll NOT alter any deposition fluxes contalned In the CALPUFF flle(s). Three partltlon selections are provided. The flrst two are typically used In sequence (POSTUTIL is run more than once). The first selection (MIUTRATE=l)computes the partition for the TOTAL (all sources) concentration flelds (SO4,N03, HN03; NH3)

### , and the second (MNITRATE=Z) uses this partition (from the prevlous applicatlon of POSTUTIL) to compute the partition for individual source groups. The third selection fMNITRATE=3) can be used instead in a slngle POSTUTIL applicatlon if a flle of background concentrations is provided (BCKGALM in Input Group 0). Pequlred information for MNITWTE=l includes: specles N03, HN03, and SO4 NH3 concentration (s) met. data flle for PH and T P.equired information for MNITRATE=2 includes: species NO3 and HNO3 for a source group specles N03ALL and HN03ALL for all source groups, properly partltloned Requlred lnformatlon for PINITRATE=3 ~ncludes: specles PJ03, HN03, and SO4 for a source group specles MO3, HN03, SO4 and TNH3 from the background BCKGALM flle If TNH3 1s not In the background ECKGALM flle, monthly TNH3 concentratlons are used (BCKTNH3) TNH3= total NH3 = NH3gaseous+NH3partlculate P.ecompute (MMITRATE) 0 = no 1 = yes 2 = yes 3 = yes he HNO3/N03 partltion for concentrations? Default: 0 ! PINITRATE = 0 ! for all sources combined for a source group ALM application In one step

SOURCE OF AMMONIA: iimmonia may be available as a modeled species in the CALPUFF files, and it may or may not be appropria~eto use lt for repartitionmg NO3/HN03 (inoption MNITRATE=l or MNITPATE=3). Its use 1s contolled by NH3TYP. When NH3 is listed as a processed specles in Subgroup (?a),as one of!END !

INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Species Processing Information
--------------

Subgroup (=a)
-------------

The following MSPECINP species will be processed:
! ASPECI = ! ASPECI =

ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI = ! ASPECI =

Subgroup (2b) 502 ! !END ! SO4 ! !END! END ! END ! END ! END ! END ! END ! END ! ! END ! ! END ! !END ! !END! !END! !END! !END ! EC112 ! 'END! ECO81 I !END! EC056 ! !END !

The following NSPECOUT species will be written:
! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = ! ASPECO = HN03 ! ! ASPECO = 1.103 ! ! ASPECO = EC ! ! ASPECO = SOIL ! ! ASPECO = SOA ! ! ASPECO = FMC ! END ! END ! END ! END ! END ! END !
Subgroup (2c)

The followmg NSPECCMP specles will be computed by scaling and summing one or more of the processed input specles. Identify the nameis) of the computed specles and provide the scalmg factors for each of theMSPECINP input specles (NSPECCMP groups of NSPECINP+l lines each):
! CSPECCMP = ! EC187 = ! E!1112 = ! EC081 = ! EC056 = !END !
! CSPECCMP = ! PMF187 = ! PMF112 = ! PMF08l = ! PMF056 = ! PIC081 = ! PIC056 = !EtlD !
! CSPECCMP = ! POCO81 = ! POCO56 = !END!
! CSPECCMP = ! PMCGOO = ! 2MC425 = !END! EC 1.0000 ?.0000 i.

00130 1.0000

SOIL 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

S

OA 1.0000 1.0000

PMC 1.0000 1.0000

Subgroup (2d)

Each species Ln MSCALED CALPUFF data flles may be scaled before belng processed (e.g., to change the emission rate for all sources modeled In the run that produced a data file). For each file, ldentify the file name and then provlde the name(s) of the scaled species and the corresponding scaling factors (A,B where x' = Ax+B).



### * I4ODDAT =NOFILES. PAT *
i so2 = 1.1, 0.0 

### * SO4 = 1.5, 0.0

+ * IN03 = 0.8, 0.0 

### * * IJO3 = 0.1, 0.0 

### * *END*

## SAMPLE CALPOST INPUT FILE PURSUEMSVANBR02.INP 

## 4-KM REFINED ANALYSISYEAR 2002 BRETON ANNUAL AVERAGE NATURAL BACKGROUND

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity ConsultantsPURSUE ENERGY THOMASVILLE MISSISSIPPI BkRT APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 2002 - 4 KM REFINED BRETON ANALYSES
---------------- Run title (3 lines)

-----------------we----------------------- CALPOST MODEL CONTROL FILE

INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output Flle Names
Input Files
----------- File Default File Name

---- ----------------- Conc/Dep Flux File MODEL. DAT ! MODDAT =O :?BART\PURSUEMS\4E24 '\PURSUEMSUT02ALM.con ! Relative Humidity Flle VISB.DAT 

### * VISDAT = 

### * Background Data File BACK. DAT

+ BACKDAT = 

### * Transmissometer or VSRN 

## .DAT 

### * VSRDAT = 

### * Mephelometer Data Flle or DATSAV Weather Data File or Prognostic Weather Flle Output Files

File Default File Name
---- ----------------- Llst File CALPOST


### .LST ! PSTLST =O:\BART\PURSUEMS\4KM \PURSUEMSVmER02. 1st ! Pathname for Timeserles Files (blank)

+ TSPATH = * (actlvatewith exclamatlon points only lf providing MON-BLANK character string)
Pathname for Plot Files (blank) 

### * PLPATH = 

### * (activatewlth exclamatlon points only if provldlng PION-BLANK character strlng)
TJser Character Strlng (U) to augment default filenames (actlvate wlth exclamation polnts only if provldlng NON-BLANK character string) Timeseries TSERIES-ASPEC-ttHR-CONCCTSUNAM. DAT P~ak Value EEAhVAL-ASPEC-ttHR-CONC-TSUNAM.DAT

Top Nth Rank Plot RWK(ALL)-ASPEC-ttHR-CONC-TUNAM.DAT or RANK(ii)-ASPEC-ttHR-COMC-TUNAM.GRDExceedance Plot EXCEED-ASPEC-ttHR-CONC-XUNFS.I.DAT or EXCEED-ASPEC-ttHR-CONC-XUNAM.GRD

'Jisibility Plot DAILY-VISIB-VUNAM. DAT 

### * VUMAM = 

### * (Daily Peak Summary)
Auxiliary Output Files

F~le Default File Name
---- ----------------- Vislbllity Change DELVIS.DAT \PURSUEMSWBR02. del ! ! DVISDAT =O:?BART\PURSUEMS\4IiM

All file names will be converted to lower case if LCFILES = T Otherwise, if LCFILES = F, file names wlll be converted to UPPER CASE T = lower case ! LCFILES = T ! F = [JPPER CASE MOTE: (1) file/path names can be up to 132 characters In length NOTE: (2) Filenames for ALL PLOT and TIMESERIES FILES are constructed using a template that lncludes a pathname, user-supplied character(s), and context-specific strings, where ;.SPEC = Specles Name

CONC = CONC Or WFLX Or DFLX Or TFLX tt = Averaging Period (e.g. 03) ii = Rank (e.g. 021 hh = Hour(ending) In LST szzzz = Base time zone shlft from UTC (EST is -0500)

yyyy = YeariLST)

mm = Month (LST) dd = day of month (LST) are determined internally based on selections made below. If a path or user-supplied character(s) are supplied, each must contaln at least 1 non-blank character.
!END !

INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General run control parameters
-------------- Option to run all periods found in the met. file (s) (METRUN) Default: 0 ! METRIJPJ = 1 !
METFUN = 0 - Run perlod explicitly defined below 13ETRUN = 1 - Run all perlods in CALPUFF data file(s)Starting date: Tear (IS-fR) -- IJo default (used only if Month (ISMO) -- No default METRUN = 0) Day IISDY) -- No default Hour (ISHR) -- No default
Number of hours to process (NHRS) -- No default Process every hour of data?(NREP) -- Default: 1

(1 = every hour processed, 2 = every 2nd hour processed, 5 = every 5th hour processed, etc.) Specles & Concentration/Depositlon Information
Species to process (ASPEC) -- No default !ASPEC = VISIB for vlsibillty processing) Layer/deposition code IILAYER) -- Default: 1 ' 1

### ' for CALPUFF concentrations, '-1' for dry deposition fluxes, '-2' for wet depositlon fluxes, '-3' for wet+dry depositlon fluxes. Scaling factors of the form: -- Defaults: Sinew) = X(o1d) 

### * A 

### + B A = 0.0 (NOT applied lf A = E = 0.0) B = 0.0
Add Hourly Background Concentratlons/Fluxes? (LBACK) -- Default: F Source information ! ISYR = 2001 ! ISMO = 0 ! ISDY = 0 ! ISHR = 0
! NH~S= 8750
! MREP = 1 !

! ASPEC = VISIB

! LBACK = F !

Cptlon to process source contrlbutlons: 0 = Process only total reported contributions i = Sum all individual source contr~butions and process 2 = Rlun In TRACEBACK mode to identify source contributions at a SINGLE receptor (MSOURCE)-- Default: O ! MSOURCE Receptor information

Gridded receptors processed? (LG) -- Default: F ! LG = F Discrete receptors processed? ILD) -- Default: F ! LD = T CTSG Complex terram receptors processed? !LCT) -- Default: F ! LCT = F --Report results by DISCRETE receptor RING? (only used when LD = Ti 1LDRING) -- Default: F ! LDRING
--Select range of DISCRETE receptors (only used when LD = T):

Select ALL DISCRETE receptors by settlng NDRECP flag to -1; QRSelect SPECIFIC DISCRETE receptors by entering a flay (0,l) for each 0 = discrete receptor not processed 1 = discrete receptor processed using repeated value notatlon to select blocks of receptors: 13*1, 15'0, IF1 Flag for all recept-orsafter the last one dssigned is set to 3 (NDRECP) -- Default: -1 ! NDRECP = 40*1 !

--Select range of GRIDDED receptors (only used when LG = T):
X index of LL corner (IBGRID) -- Default: -1 ! IBGRID = -1 ! 1-1OR 1 <= IBGRID <= MX)
Y lndex of LL corner (JBGRID) -- Default: -1 ! JBGRID = -1 ! (-1 OR 1 <= JEGRID <= NY)
X index of UR corner (IEGRID) -- Default: -1 ! IEGRID = -1 ! (-1 OR 1 <= IEGRID <= NX)

Y mdex of UR corner (JEGRID) -- Default: -1 ! JEGRID = -1 ! (-1 OR 1 <= JEGRID <= NY)
Note: Entire grld is processed if IBGRID=JBGRID=IEGRID=JEGRID=-I
--Speclfic gridded receptors can also be excluded from CALPOST

processing by filllng a processmg grld array with 0s and 1s. If the processing flag for receptor lndex (1,j) is 1 (ON),that receptor will be processed if it lies within the range delineated by IBGRID, JEGRID,IEGRID,JEGRIDand if LG=T. If it is 0 (OFF), it will not be processed ln the run. By default, all array values are set to 1 (ON).
Number of gridded receptor rows provlded in Subgroup (la) to Identify speclflc grldded receptors to process (EIGONOFF) -- Default: 0 ! NGONOFF = 0 !

Subgroup (la) -- Specific gridded receptors included/excluded
Specific grldded receptors are excluded from CALPOST processlng by filling a processlng grid array wlth 0s and Is. A total of MGONOFF lines are read here. Each line corresponds to one 'row' In the sampling grld, starting with the NORTHERNMOST row that contains receptors that you wish to exclude, and finishing with row 1 to the SOUTH (no mtervenlng rows may be skipped). Within a row, each receptor posltion is asslgned either a 0 or 1, starting with the westernmost receptor. 0 = grldded receptor not processed 1 = gridded receptor processed 'epeated value notation may be used to select blocks of receptors:Because all values are initially set to 1, any receptors north of the first row entered, or east of the last value provided in a row, remaln ON. (NGXRECP) -- Default: 1

INPIJT GROUP: 2 -- V' lsibility Parameters (ASPEC = VISIB)
-------------- Identify the Base Time Zone for the CALPUFF simulation (BTZONE) -- No default ! BTZONE = 5.0 ! Particle growth curve f(RH) for hygroscopic specles (MFRH) --Default: 2 ! MFRH = 2 !
1 = IWAQM (1998) f(RH) curve (originally used wlth MVISBK=l)

9 = 

### - FLAG (2000) f(RH) tabulation 3 = EPA (2003) f(RH) tabulation Maximum relative humidity 

### (3 used in particle growth curve (RHW.) -- Defaulr: 98 ! RHMAX = 98.0 ! Modeled specles to be lncluded in

Include SULFATE? (LVSO4 Include NITRATE? (LVIJO3 Include ORGANIC CARBON? (LVOC) Include COARSE PARTICLES? (LVPMC Include FIPJE PARTICLES? (LVPMF Include ELEMENTAL CARBON? (LVEC) computing t-he light extinction

-- Default: T ! LVSO4 = T !

-- Default: T ! LVNO3 = T !

-- Default: T ! LVOC =m I !

-- Default: T ! LVPMC = T !

-- Default: T ! LVPMF = T !

-- Default: T ! LVEC = T ! And, when ranking for TOP-N, TOP-50, and Exceedance tables,

Include BACKGROUND? (L7BK) -- Default: T ! LVBK = T ! Specles name used for particulates in MODEL.DAT file COARSE (SPECPMC) -- Default: PMC ! SPECPMC = PMC ! FINE (SPECPMF) -- Default: PMF ! SPECPMF = SOIL ! Extinction Efficiency (l/Mm per ug/m*+3) MODELED particulate species: PM COARSE (EEPMC) -- Default: 0.6 ! EEPMC = 0.6 ! PM FINE (EEPMF) -- Default: 1.0 ! EEPMF = 1.0 ! BACKGROUND particulate specles: PM COARSE (EEPMCBK) -- Default: 0.6 ! EEPMCBK = 0.6 ! Jther specles: X.IMOMIUM SULFATE (EESO4) -- Default: 3.0 ! EESO4 = 3.0 ! R4MONIUM NITRATE (EENO3) -- Default: 3.0 ! EENO3 = 3.0 ! ORGANIC CARBON (EEOC) -- Default: 4 .0 ! EEOC = 4.0 ! SOIL (EESO1L)--Default: 1.0 ! EESOIL = 1.0 ! ELEMENTAL CARBON (EEEC) -- Default: 10. ! EEEC = 10.0 ! Background Extinction ComputationMethod used for the 24h-average of percent change of llght extlnction: Hourly ratio of source light extinction / background light extinction is averaged? (INER) -- Default: F ! TAVER = F !

Method used for background light extinction (MVISBK) -- Default: 3 ! MVISBK = 6 !
1 = Supply single light extinction and hygroscopic fraction

- Hourly F(RH) adjustment applled to hygroscopic background 2nd modeled sulfate and nitrate 3 = Compute extlnctlon from speclated PM measurements (A)

- Hourly F(RH) adjustment applied to observed and modeled sulfate

and nitr3te

- F(RH) factor is capped at F(RII!W<) 3 = Compute estlnctlon from speclated PM measurements (5)

- Hourly FIRH) adjustment applled to observed and modeled sulfate

and nitrate

- Receptor-hour excluded lf RH>RHMFX

- Receptor-day excluded if fewer than 6 valid receptor-hours 4 = Read hourly transmissometer background extlnctlon measurements

- Hourly F(RH) adlustment appiled to modeled sulfate and nitrate

- Hour excluded if measurement invalld (missmg, lnterference,

or large RH)

- Receptor-hour excluded if RH>RHt.W(

- Receptor-day excluded lf fewer than 6 valid receptor-hours 5 = Read hourly nephelometer background extinction measurements

- Rayleiyh extinction value (BEXTRAY)added to measurement

- Hourly F(RH) adjustment applied to modeled sulfate and nitrate

- Hour excluded if measurement invalid (missmy, lnterference,

or large RH)

- Receptor-hour excluded lf RH>RHMAX

- Receptor-day excluded if fewer than 6 valid receptor-hours 6 = Compute extlnction from speciated PM measurements

- FLAG monthly EH adjustment factor applied to observed and

modeled sulfate and nitrate 7 = Use observed weather or prognostlc weather mformation for background extinction during weather events; otherwise, use Method 2

- Hourly F(RH) adjustment applled to modeled sulfate and nitrate

- F(RH) factor is capped at F(RHMAX)

- During observed weather events, compute Bext from visual range ~f uslng an observed weather data file, or

- During prognostlc weather events, use Bext from the prognostic

weather file

- Use Method 2 for hours without a weather event
Additional inputs used for MVISBK = 1:

Background light extinction (l/Mm) (BEXTBK) -- No default ! BEXTBK = 0.0 ! Percentage of particles affected by relative humidity (RHFRAC) -- No default ! RHFRAC = 0.0 !Extlnctlon coefficients for hygroscopic species (modeled and background) are computed uslng a monthly RH adjustment factor in place of an hourly RH factor (VISB.DAT file is NOT needed). Enter the 12 monthly factors here (RHFRC). Month 1 is January. (RHFAC) -- :NO default ! RHFAC = 3.7, 3.5, 3.7, 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, 4.3, 4.3, 1.2, 3.7, 3.7, 3.7 ! Additional Inputs used for MVISEK = 7:

The weather data file (DATSAV abbrevlated space-delimited) that 1s identified as VSRN.DAT may contam data for more than one statlon. Identlfy the stations that are needed In the order In which they wlll be used to obtain valid weather and vlsual range. The first statlon that contams valid data for an hour wlll be used. Enter up to MXWSTA (set In PARAMS file) integer statlon IDS of up to 6 diglts each as varlable IDWSTA, and enter the corresponding time zone for each, as variable TZONE (= UTC-LST).

A prognostic weather data file with Bext for weather events may be used In place of the observed weather file. Identlfy this as the VSPJJ.DAT flle and use a station ID of IDWSTA = 999999, and TZONE = 0.
NOTE: TZONE identifies the tune zone used in the dataset. The DATSAV abbrevlated space-aelimited data usually are prepared w~th UTC time rather than local time, so TZOEJE is typically set to zero. 1IDWSTA) -- No default ! IDWSTA = 999999 !

(TZONE) -- No default ! TZOWE = 0.0 ! Additional inputs used for MVISBK = 2,3,6,7:

............................................ Background extlnctlon coefficients are computed from monthly CONCENTRATIONS of ammonium sulfate (BKSO41, ammonium nitrate (BKNO3), coarse particulates (BKPMC),organic carbon (BKOC),soil (EKSOIL),and elemental carbon (BEC). Month 1 1s January. (ugim**3) (BKS04) -- No default ! BKSO4 = 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 (BI(CJ03) -- FJo default ! EI.303 = 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 (BKPMC) -- No default ! BKPMC = 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 (EKOC) -- No default ! BKOC = 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0 .00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 (BKSOIL) -- No default ! EKYOIL= 11.58, 11.58, 11.58, 11 11.58, 11.58, 11.58, 11 11.58, 11.58, 11.53, 11.(EKEC) -- No default ! BKEC = 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0 .00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00! Additional inputs used for PPJISBK = 2,3,5,6,7:



### ..............................................

Extinction due to Rayleigh scattering is added (l/Mm) (BEXTRAY)-- Default: 10.0 ! EEXTRAY = 10.0 !

INPUT GROUP: 3 -- Output options

-------------- Documentation

Documentation records contained in the header of the CALPTJFF output file may be wrltten to the list file. Prmt documentation Image? (LDOC) -- Default: F ! LDOC = F ! Output Units Units for All Output (IPRTU) -- Default: 1 ! IPRTU = 3 ! for for Concentration Deposition 1 = gim**3 g/m**3/s ? = mq/mt*3 mg/m**?/s 3 = 11g/m**3 ug/m**Z/s 4 = ng/m*

### * 3 ngim**2/s 5 = Odour Units Visibility: extinction expressed in l/Mega-meters (IPRTU is ignored)
&.veraging time ( s
1-hr averages
3-hr averages reported

ILlHR) -- Default: T ! LlIIR = F ! (L3HR) -- Default: T ! L3HR = F !

-I - -4 hr averages (L24HR) -- Default: T ! LZ4HR = T ! Run-length averages (LRUNL) -- Default: T ! LRUNL = F ! [Jser-specified averaging time in hours - results for an averaging tlme of MAVG hours are reported for MAVG greater than 0: (NAVG) -- Default: 0 ! NAVG= 0 !

T;.pes of tabulations reported1) Visibility: daily visibility tabulations are always reported for the selected receptors when ASPEC = VISIB. In addition, any of the other tabulations listed below may be chosen to characterize the light extlnctlon coetficlcnts. [List file or Plot/Analysls Flle]

3) Top 50 table for each averaging tlme selected [List file only] (LT50) -- Default: T ! LT50 = F 3) Top 'N' table for each averaglng tlme selected [List file or Plot flle] (LTOPN) -- Default: F ! LTOPN =T

-- Number of 'Top-N'values at each receptor selected (NTOPmust be <= 4) (NTOP) -- Default: 4 ! MTOP = 1

-- Speclfic ranks of 'Top-N' values reported (PITOP values must be entered) (ITOP(4) array) -- Default: ! ITOP = 1 1,2,3,4

4) Threshold exceedance counts for each receptor and each averagmg tlme selected [List flle or Plot file] (LEXCD) -- Default: F ! LEXCD = F !

-- Identlfy the threshold for each averaging time by assigning a non-negatlve value (output unlts)


### .

-- Default: -1.0 Threshold for 1-hr averages (THRESHl) ! THRESH1 = -1.0 ! Threshold for 3-hr averages (THRESH3) ! THRESH3 = -1.0 ! Threshold for 24-hr averages (THRESH24) ! THRESH24 = -1.0 ! Threshold for NAVG-hr averages (THRESHN) ! THRESHN = -1.0 !

-- Counts for the shortest averaglng perlod selected can be tallied dally, and receptors that e:<perlence more than NCOUNT counts over any NDAY period wlll be reported. Thls t7ype of exceedance violation output 1s triggered only if NDAY > 0. Accumulation period(Days) (NDAY) --Default: 0 ! PIDAY= 0 ! tiumber of exceedances allowed (MCOUNT) -- Default: 1 ! NCOUNT = 1 !

5) Selected day table(s)
Echo Option -- Many records are wrltten each averaging perlod selected and output is grouped by day [List file or Plot file](LECHO) -- Default: F ! LECHO = F !
Tlmeserles Optlon -- Averages at all selected receptors for each selected averagmg perlod are wrltten to tlmeserles flles Each f~le contalns one averaging perlod, and all receptors are wrltten to a slngle record each averaging tlme. [

### TSERIESASPEC-ttHR-CONC-TSUNPN .DAT flles] (LTIME) -- Default: F LTIME = F 1 Peak Value Option -- Averages at all selected receptors for each selected averaging period are screened and the peak value each perlod is wrltten to tlmeseries files. Each file contains one averaging perlod. [PEAKVALASPEC-ttHR-CONC-TSUPIAM.DAT files] (LPEAK) -- Default: F ! LPEAK = F !

-- Days selected for output (IECHO(366) ) -- Default: 366*0 ! IECHO = 366*0 ! (366 values must be entered)
Plot output options

Plot files can be created for the Top-N, Exceedance, and Echo tables selected above. Two formats for these files are available, DATA and GRID. In the DATA format, results at all receptors are llsted along with the receptor location [x, y,vall,val2,

## . ..]


### . In the GRID format, results at only gridded receptors are wrltten, using a compact representatlon. The gridded values are written In rows (xvaries), starting with the most southern row of the grlcl. The GRID format is given the .GRD extension, and includes headers compatible with the SURFERIR) plottlng software.
A plotting and analysis file can also be created for the dally peak vlsibility summary output, in DATA format only.
Generate Plot file output In addition to writing tables to Llst file? (LPLT) -- Default: F ! LPLT = F !
Use GRID format rather than DATA format, when available? (LGRD) -- Default: F ! LGRD = F !

Auxiliary Output Files (for subsequent analyses)

A separate output file may be requested that contains the change In vlsibility at each selected receptor when ASPEC = VISIB. This flle can be processed to construct visibility measures that are not available in CALPOST. Output file with the vlslbility change at each receptor?(MDVIS) -- Default: 0 ! MDVIS = 1 !
0 = Do Not create file 1 = Create flle of DAILY 124 hour) Delta-Declview
7: 

# - Crcate file of DAILY (24 hour) Extinctlon Change (%) 3 = Create tile of HOURLY Delta-Declvlew 4 = Create file of HOURLY Extinctlon Change (8)
Additional Debug Output

Output selected information to List file

for debugging? (LDEBUG) -- Default: F ! LDEBUG = F ! Output hourly extinction information to REPORT.HRV?

(Visibility Method 7) (LVEXTHR) -- Default: F ! LVE;XTHR = F !

### Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### L3ART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

### Trinity Consultants

### Electronic media enclosed with this report contain the input and output files fiom all CALPUFF, POSTUTIL, and CALPOST processing for the refined analyses. Each analysis is contained within its own appropriately name compressed file, which includes model executable files and batch files to manage the runstream. A consistent file naming convention is used throughout, with the following general structure. All filenames contain the PURSUEMSroot to denote Pursue - 

### Mississippi Note that the refined meteorological data files are not provided due to file size. Note also that path names 

### in input tiles will need to be modified to represent the user's directory structure when replicating these analyses. 

### CALPUFF Runstream Files PURSUEMSyy.fff 1.y=

### 01,02,and 

### 03 denotes data analysis years 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively 

## ff= inp 

### denotes input files 

# .m= 1stdenotes CALPUFF output summary files .fff =

### con denotes CALPUFF output concentration files 

### OzoneData Files 0ZONEXw.dut 

### vv= 01,02,and 

### 03 denotes data analysis years 2001,2002, and 2003, respectively -. 

### Refined Analysis POSTUTIL Processing Files Note that in refined analyses, for which the ammonia limiting method was run, POSTUTIL is run in two separate steps, the first of which calculatesthe HN03iN03re-partitioning, the second of which groups PM species for analysis in CALPOST. The first step (Sl)is run in three, 4monthblocks (A, 

### B, C) due to an ~nherent limitationin the number of meteorological periods that can be processed. Therefore, the APPEND utility must be run to concatenate the output files comprising these three blocks of data. CALPOST is subsequently run using this appended file. PURSUEMSUTwb.

## fl J:Y =

### 01,02,and 

### 03 denotes data analysis years 2001,2002, and 2003, respectively O =

### A,

### B,and 

### C denoting 4-month blocks January-April, May-August, September-December, respectively 

### jf= inp denotes input files 

## if= 1stdenotes POSTUTIL output summary tiles jfl= 

### condenotes POSTUTIL output concentration files APPENDw.fff yy =

### 01,02,and 

### 03 denotes data analysisyears 2001,2002, and 2003, respectively 

## ,/fl= inp 

### denotes input files 

## &f= 1stdenotes POSTUTIL output summary files EXAMPLE,wSl .con =

### POSTUTIL-ALM Step 

### 1 concentration file for year-vy.
Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

### BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### PURSUEMSUTw.

## fl yy =

### 01,02,and 03 denotes data analysis years 2001,2002, and 2003, respectively 

# ,fr= inp denotes input files ,ff=

### 1st denotes POSTUTIL output summary files 

# fl=con denotes POSTUTIL output concentration files 

### CALPOST Runstream Files PURSUEMSmmmaayy.fff yy =

### 01,02,and 03 denotes data analysis years 2001,2002, and 2003, respectively 

# fl=inp denotes input files jfS= 1st

### denotes CALPOST output summary files f_%l"= deldenotes CALPOST auxiliary "DELVIS.DATW visibility change output files

mmm denotes the following natural background conditions: VAN =

### Annual Average using VISTAS approach of representing the natural background as SOIL concentration (Option 1)

cra denotes the Class 

### I areas considered in the analyses: BR =

### Breton Wilderness Area

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant BART Applicability Modeling Analysis Trinity Consultants

### Appendix 

### L.7.7



## STATE

## OF MISSISSIPPl ~B~

GOVERNOll 

### MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT

## OF ENVIRONMENTAL

### QUALITY TRUWD.F~E~E~~M~R



### October 8,2007 Monty White Pursue Energy Corporation P.O. 

## BOX 730 Brandon, MS 39043 Subject: Exemptionfrom Best 

### Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

### Determination Requirements Thomasville,(2380)

### I21-00036 

### Rankin,Mississippi Dear Mr. White: Dueto the Pursue Energy

# - Thomasville facility being BART eligible, you were required to perform and submit exemption modeling analysis for your eligible units. We have received the exemption modeling performed by Trinity Consultants. The modeling finds a visibility impact of 0.17 deciviews (dv)which is below the 0.5 dv subjectivity threshold. Based on these results, we are proposing that the BART eligible units be exempt from furtherdetermination requirements. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will include documentation ofthe proposed exemptions in our Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

### submittal. The SIP is reviewed and commented on by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other parties with Pursue Energy

# - Thomasville's exemption contingent on EPA's approval. If

### you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Elliott Bickerstaff (601-96

### 1-5176)or Deborah Boleware (60

### 1-961-5768)of my staff. Sincerely,

Maya 

## ad, P.E.,BCEE * 

### Chief, Air 

### Division

OFFICE 

### OF POLLLJTION

### CONTROL PosrOmleBOX

### 10385 \ACKS~N, 

### MISSISSIPPI 39289-0385 Tw(601) 961-5171 

### Fa (601) 354-6612 -.doq.natrnu.ur