Appendix L.7: Pursue Energy Corporation - Thomasville 

Appendix L.7 contents: 

L.7.1 Appendix summary 

L.7.2 BART information request 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 of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting 

information to determine BART eligibility. Based on the information received from 

Pursue, one unit was deemed BART eligible because it met the following criteria: 

operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962 to Aug.7, 1977 

having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for 

SO2, NO,, or PM10. 

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 of disabling 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 

DAWD ROW MllSXwE, GOMRNOR 

MISSISS~PPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

awuEs H. CHISOM. Mscvrrvr Dn 

February 28,2002 

Mr. Hugh Jones 

Pursue Energy Corporation 

P.O. Box 730 

Brandon, MS 39043 

COPY 

Re: BART Information Request 

Dear Mr. Joms: 

In July 1999, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regional ha^^ 

regulations to improve visual air quality, or visibility, in specified national parks and 

wilderness areas across the country. These regulations require staks to establish goals 

for improving visibility in the areas and to submit state implementation plans @IPS) 

that contain enforceable mtsrmrts and control strategies for reducing visibility-impairing 

pollution. 

One component of these regulations is to reduce emissions hm certain, existing, large 

emission units by installing the best available mission controls. This requirement, 

known as the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement, applies to 

mission units that: 

were built between August 7,1962 and August 7,1977; 

have the potential to emit 2S0 tons per year or more of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter less that 10 microns (PMlo), sulfur dioxide, or volatile organic 

compounds, either individually or in combination with other such units; and 

fall into one of 26 listed source categories, includmg steam electric plants and 

industrial boilers, and large industrial plants such as pulp mills, refineries, and 

smelters. See attached list. 

The final implementation plan should be submitted to EPA by December 3 1,2008, and 

must contain, among other things, the emission limits and compliance schtdults for each 

BART subject source. The hrst step in this process is to identi@ all BART subject 

sources. - - .- 

Mississippi and other southeastern states and tribes have formed a Regional Planning 

Organization, known as VISTAS, to work on the regional haze issue and the required 
Appendix L.7.2 

implementation plans. It is our god to have all BART subject facilities and the spacific 

emission units at the fkilities identified by June 2002. 

An initial file review indicates that your facility is potentially subject to the BART 

requirement because it falls into one of the 26 source cakgorits, was built prior to August 

7,1977, and has potential emissions greater than 250 tons per year for at kast one of the 

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

make a determination. 

The initial startup date for facility. 

The initial startup date for individual emission units. 

The dates of any modification or reconstruction for individual units. 

The BART sourn category of the emission units. 

A list of emission units obtained from our files is enclosed. Please enter the daks of 

initial start-up and any modification or reconstruction, review and make any corrections 

to the listed sowe category, and review and make any corrections to the potential 

emissions. This information is also available in excel spreadskt format which can be 

completed and submitted clcctronically. - 

Please respond by April 19,2002. If this information is not received, the fecility and all 

emission units at the facility will be considered subject to the BART requinments. 

However, the final determinations will not be made until the SIP development process. - - 

Thank you for your help with this project. If you have any questions, please contact me 

at (601)%1-5 176 or Deborah Boleware at (601)961-5768. If you would like the 

electronic copy of the emission unit list, please smd an e-mail to 

deborah_bolewara@daq.state.ms.us and clliott-bick~q.stakms.us. 

Sincerci y, 

--. 

Elliott BickerstafE, P.E. 

Chief, Air Support Branch 
-__1 . Appendix L.7.3 

STATE OF MISSfSSIPPl 

DAVID RONALD MVSC1ROM.OOMRNOR 

MlSSlSSlPPl DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL~~ 

CliNUS H. CPiISOLM. EXGCVnVE DlRECNX 

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 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) information request. After reviewing tbe 

information you submitted, it appears your facility is BART eligible for tbc following 

reasons: 

1. The facility meets the category requirement for sulfur recovery 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 tbe BART provisions of the Rc&onal 

Haze Rule (RHR). At issue is the method of determining the cost and benefits of 

installing BART at a particular source. The RHR rap& this determination to be 

made on a group or collective basis; however, it was argued that the Ckan Air Act 

requires this determination to be made on a source by so- basis. In a 2-1 decision, a 

three-judge panel agrecd with the petitioners and vacated tbe BART provisions, 

requiring EPA to revise tbe BART requirements to iacorporatt a source by source 

approach. EPA has Ned a petition seeking rehearing of the cast by the full court. 

Depending on the outcome of the appeals process, 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 identifying the specific emission units at the facility that arc 

subject to this requirement. Pkwe note that a BART applicable source is one that will 

be considered for retrofit ttchnology controls. It does not necessarily mean that 
r 

Appendix L.7.3 

additional controls will be FIX@WI for the source. Those detmninations will be made 

over the next several years during the Regional Haze planning and our State 

Implementation Plan development process. 

Attached are the BART requirement text and the applicabk definitions from the Code 

of Federal Regulations. If you have questions or comments regarding the BART 

requirements or 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 

Prepared by: 

Stacy Carr, P.E. Managillg Consultant 

Ryan Gesser Managing Consultant 

Melissa Hillman Consultant 

TRINITY CONSULTANTS 

2800 Veterans Blvd. 

Suite 214 

Metairie, LA 70002 

(504) 828-5845 

August 1 1,2006 

Project 061902.0024 
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 

OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL HAZE RULE AND BART REQUIREMENTS 3 .......................... 

1.1.1 DETERMINATION OF BART-ELIGIBILITY .................................................... 2 

1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TOVISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AND BART 

APPLICABILITY ........................................................................................................... 3 

SCHEDULE FOR BART IMPLEMENTATION 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 

AIR QUALITY 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 ATCLASS I AREAS ............................................................. 20 

AIR QUALITY MODELING METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 26 

PLUME MODEL S ELECTION .................................................................................... 26 

4.1.1 MAJOR RELEVANT FEATURES OF CALMET ............................................. 26 

4.1.2 MAJOR RELEVANT FEATURES OF CALPUFF ............................................ 29 

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

CALMET METEOROLOGICAL MODELING .............................................................. 31 

CALPUFF COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN AND RECEPTORS ........................................ 32 

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

4.5.1 REPRESENTATION OF EMISSION SOURCES IN CALPUFF ............................ 33 

CALPOST P ROCESS~NG OPTION S ELECTIONS 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 2005 ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTING FORM (AERF) 

APPENDIX B ........................... mEQ QUARTERLYA~AILY S o2EMISS~ONS REPORT FOR THE 

FOURTH QUARTER OF 2005 

- -- 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 11 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

'Trinity Consultants 
Pursue Energy Corporation (Pursue) operates a Sour Gas Treating and Sulfur Recovery Plant in 

Thomasville, Mississippi. The Thomasville facility is a major source of air emissions and operates 

under a Part 70 (Title V) 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 cause or contribute 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 of BART as described in ths protocol 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 Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze 

Rule (EPA-454lB-03-005), October 2003. 

U.S. EPA, Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IFVAQM) Phase 2 Summary 

Report (EPA-454R-98-019), December 1998. 

U.S. EPA, Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix W (Revised, 

November 9, 2005). 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), Protoco1,for 

the Application ojthe CALPUFF Model for Anulvses of Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART), Raision 3, July 18, 2006. 

VISTAS and U.S. EPA, "Q&A for Source by Source BART Rule" (Draft, Revision l), 

October 28.2005. 

The VISTAS BART Modeling Protocolas revised on July 18, 2006, is incorporated by reference for 

Pursue's sourcsspecific modeling 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 BART Modeling 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 Thomasville Plant 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 addition to 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 ensure that 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 

potential to emit 250 tons per year (tpy) of one or more of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide 

(SOz), and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers 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 or more 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 deiine the following three steps for determining which 

sources at a facility are BARTeligible: 

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 

existence on 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 

evaluated to determine whether a BART determination is required or whether the facility 

can be considered exempt from BART. Specific information about these emission units is 

provided in Section 2 of this modeling protocol As is documented there, only one 

emission point (AA-00 1, Sulfur Recovery Plant) has been determined to be a BARTeligible emission point. 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 2 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AND 

BART APPLICABILITY 

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 VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol was issued on December 22,2005, was 

revised most recently on July 18, 2006, and prescribes 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 (both causation 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 impairment is 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 expressed in dv. The haze 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 of the 

source. The background extinction coefficient be,,. backgound is affected by various chemical 

species and the Rayleigh scattering phenomenon and can be calculated as 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 Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

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 and NOx. The extinction coefficient due 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) = relativehumidity adjustmentfactor 

[ ] = Concentratonin pg/m' 

I U.S. EPA, Guidance for Estimating Nui~rr-a1 Visibili~ Conditions Under the Regional Hrce Rule, Table 2-1, 

Attachment A, September 2003, 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 

BART Modeling Protocol to determine whether BART-eligible operations at the 

Thomasville Plant contribute to visibility impairment at any of these Class I areas. The 

CALPUFF modeling system will be used to compute the 24-hour average visibility 

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 

should be 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"*-highest impact over three years modeled to illustrate the dstribution (i.e., 

frequency, duration, and magnitude) of peak 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 of multiple 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 VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol; CALPUFF's use in refined 

analyses for BART applicability assessment of Pursue's Thomasville Plant is described in 

Sections 3,4, and 5 of this modeling protocol. 

The VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol specifies that all Class I areas with 300 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 VISTAS BART Modeling 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) 65 7 

Linville Gorge (NC) 846 

Mammoth Cave (KY) 653 

Mingo (MO) 532 

Okefenokee (GA) 72 1 

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 of the 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 of Pursue's Thomasville operations : 

I Breton National Wildlife Refuge (BNWR), approximately 257 km (160 miles) to 

the southwest of the 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 1 AREAS WITHIN 300 KM 

1 Lambert Conformal Coordinate East @i) 

Pursue will initially utilize the 4-km CALMET data provided by VISTAS and MDEQ to 

conduct the 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 state within 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. MDEQ has established the following milestones for BART implementation. 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol due August 3 1,2006~ 

BART Applicability Modeling Analysis due January 3 1,2007 

BART Determination Modeling, Engineering Analyses, and Permit Application due 

January 3 1,2007 (if required) 

' Per correspondence between Al Freiberg (Pursue) and Deborah Boleware (MDEQ) on July 18,2006, the due 

date for the 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 options to be used in the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST analyses. 

, The presentation of results 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- 1 lists all emission 

point numbers and descriptions at the Thomasville Plant, as listed in the Title V Permit (2380-00036). 

Emission Description 

Point 

AA-001 

AA-002 

AA-003 

AA-004 

AA-005 

AA-006 

Natural Gas Treating 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 sour weathering from 

inhibitor oil tanks (Ref. No. FB- 

+Tank Farm Flare) 

4 15 HP Caterpillar 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 Sulfur Plant 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 factor for natural 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 or upset 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 are not reauired for inclusion 

n modeling. 

?ursue feels that this equipment is not BART eligible because there are 

10 emissions under 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 see the 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 of emissions. Except for a 

small amount of tank blanket gas that weathers off intermittently, and the 

precautionary buming of this blanket gas should it contain some H-,S 

during an upset or malfunction, 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 of the 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-50 1- 104fl 

607 HP Waukesha 2895GS1 natural 

ga~-fired compressor engine No. 5 

(Ref. No. 009) with Miratec Catalytic 

Converter - Model #EO-50 1 - 10-0 I 

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 

This emissions unit 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 

source determination. 

This emissions unit 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 

source determination. 

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 of these tanks contain Corrosion Inlubitor Oil 

or waste water. The Corrosion Inhibitor Oil is a mix of heavy 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 

application requires a "TANK LIST" showing all tanks over a certain 

capacity. On the soon to be renewed Title V permit, these tanks will not 

be shown as emission points. 

3 email July 18,2006 and phone conversation on July 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 Consultants 
Source 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 15 denotes Sulk Recovery 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, such is not the case at 

Pursue's Thomasville Plant. The 50.309 tpy allowable emissions value shown is nothing more than the SO2 emissions that would 

have resulted in 1972 if the plant were opelated at the maximum thmughput capacity of 1465 L-ton per day. The throughput of 

this facility is not a function of the design capacity of the plant but is a function of the production capability of the 12 sour gas 

wells feeding the plant. Afier 34+ years, the production hm 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 are BARTcligible because emissions exceed 250 tpy for SOZ, 

which is considered a visibility-affecting pollutant. The Sulfur Recovery Unit is considered the only 

BART-eligible emission unit at Pursue's Thomasville Plant for modeling purposes. 

As SOZ is the only remaining pollutant of concern, it is the only one fiu-ther discussed in 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 BART Modeling 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 representative period 

, 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 SO2 pollutant from the 

Sulfur Recovery 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 SO2 emitted per lb of S processed" basis (0.084 lb SO2 1 lb. S). 

The sulfur content in the Acid Gas, Tall Gas, and Stack Gas is determined by 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 

SO2 emissions are determined by difference. For example, based on an average sulfur recovery 

efficiency of 97.5%, on a one pound 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 SO2 because the molecuiar weight (64) of SO2 is twice the molecular 

weight (32) of sulfur itself. See attached 2005 AERF with supporting data in Appendix A and 

Quarterly~Daily SO2 Emissions Report, Fourth Quarter 2005 in Appendix B. 

Pursue's facility is unusual in view of the fact that the throughput and SO2 emissions 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 SO2 emission rate in the model should be more than 

satisfactory and the rate will be conservatively (I@+% or more) on the high side. 

Table 2-3 summarizes these emission rates from each BARTeligible emissions unk4 

NOx s 02 Total PNo Total PM.5 H2so4 

Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions 

Emission Unit (lblhr) (Iblhr) (Iblhr) (Iblh r) (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 greater than 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 SO2 emission rate as reported in the MDEQ Annual Emissions Reporting Form. Please note that the Sulfur Recover 

Unit operates 8760 hours per year. 

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 Protocol 
TABLE 2-4. STACK P~METERS FOR BART-ELIGIBLE EMISSION UNITS 

Stack Stack Exhaus

LCC East LCC North Height Diameter Temperat

Ernissiorl LJnit Stack # (km) (km) (feet) (feet) (OF) 

Sulfur Recovery Unit AA-001 661.181 -843.4 1 1 300 9.5 500 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Phnt BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

14 
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 BART Modeling Protocoland sample model files made 

available on the VISTAS technical contractor web~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 subjected to 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) will be 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-KM CALMET MODELING 

(FIGURE 4-4 OF THE VISTAS BARTMODELING 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 will be 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. The revised 

VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol does not explicitly indicate that higher resolution Land Use and 

Land Cover (LULC) data would be 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 performed by Pursue will 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 mesoscale model (MM) output, raw observations of surface and upper air conditions, 

precipitation measurements, and geophysical parameters into a single hourly, gndded data set for 

input to CALPUFF. The federal Guideline on Air Qualily Models for CALPUFF processing provides 

the following recommendations for the meteorological data period at 40 CFR 5 1, Appendix W, 

Section 9.3.1.2(d) : 

Less than$ve, but at least three, ymrs qf meteorological data (need not be 

consecutilye) may be used ifmesoscale meteorologicalfiel& are available, as 

chcussed in paragraph 9.3(c). These mesoscale meteorological~fields should he used 

in conjunction with available standard [National Weather Sen+x] M'S or 

comparable meteorological observations within and near the modeling domain. 

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 are used as "observed" or "first-guess" fields in CALMET due to its highresolution 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 be processed in CALMET using the same model 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 and NWS meteorological 

observational data in the Step 2 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 are readily 

available for use in CALMET. The following generally describes the use of NWS 

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, 

and precipitation 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 of the boundary layer in which dispersion 

occurs. Upper air data are collected by balloons launched simultaneously across the 

observation network at 0000 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (6 o'clock PM in Mississippi) 

and 1200 GMT (6 o'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 are an 

important part of the BART applicability analysis. Therefore, it is 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 among the 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. 

Because parts of the modeling domain encompass the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico 

and the BWNR Class I area is located along the Gulf of Mexico coast, meteorological data 

from coastal and offshore buoys can be useful so that overwater meteorological processing 

algorithms in CALMET can be utilized. The critical differences in behavior of the inland 

and marine boundary layers, and atmospheric dispersion phenomena occurring within these 

distinct regimes, is well documented and recognized to play a vital role in the dispersion of 

pollutants originating in, or destined to 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 discontinuities at 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 are provided 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 Thomasville Plant 18 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
and below the ovenvater mixing height. For practical applications of ovenvater boundary 

layer computations, these data can be obtained from the National Data Buoy Center 

(NDBC). The NDBC 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 sets provide direct wind and temperature measurements, and relative humidity can be 

inferred from pressure and dewpoint observations. The mixing height and temperature 

gradients and default values must be applied by 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 addition to the hourly surface meteorological 

observations, precipitation observations, and twice-daily upper air sounding data due to the 

location of the Thomasville Plant near the Gulf of 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 same model control options and data resources as were 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 SOz to SO4. In this study, 

chemical transformations involving two species (SOz and SO4) will be modeled using the 

MESOPUFF I1 chemical transformation scheme. Ambient concentrations of ammonia and ozone 

concentrations as represented in the model affect the MESOPUFF I1 chemical transformation 

simulation. 

'fie refined 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 observations be missing for a particular hour of the dataset. 

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

utilized. The revised VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol prescribes that postprocessing to 

repartition HNOl and NO3 using the ammonia limiting method (ALM) in POSTUTIL be 

used only with the 0.5 ppb background level. 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 19 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
3.4.3 OTHER POLLUTANT BACKGROUND AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 

The initial VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol envisioned the use of modeled 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 

States to the use of the 20% best visibility days.. .States may use 20% best visibility days or annual 

average."' The July 18,2006 revision to the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol indicates that the 

annual average visibility may be considered as the reference natural background condition, and the 

initial screening analyses presented by the VISTAS contractor used 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 of the 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-for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional 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,q Nutural Visibilip Conditions tinder the Regional Hcce 

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., fine particles) 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, as Attachment 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 expressed in units of deciviews (dv). Therefore, total hhack for the annual 

average natural 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 Guidancejor Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional 

Haze Rule. 

-- 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 21 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
Dry 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 1 0 

Soil 0.5 0.5 1%-2 1 

Coarse Mass 3 3 14;-2 0.6 

The values presented in Table 3-2 are more appropriate for the determination of natural background 

conditions, since th~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 emissions from 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 of the natural 

background. 

As is described in Section 4 of this protocol, the effects of relative humidity to amplify the visibility 

impairment of hygroscopic sulfates and nitrates will be characterized using "Method 6," which 

computes Ab,,, 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 

Estimating Nattrml Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule. 

TABLE 3-3. MONTHLY AVERAGEJRH) FOR SELECTED CLASS 1 AREAS* 

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 tabulated in I'able A-3 of US. EPA's Guidance,for Estimating Natural Visibilitv Conditions under the Regional Hce Rde (2003). 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 22 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
Natural background conditions for Breton will be calculated using the data summarized in Tables 3 1, 

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 BART Modeling Protocol, the U.S. EPA and the Regional Planning 

Organizations (including VISTAS) are evaluating whether refinements are warranted to the methods 

recommended in U.S. EPA's guidance to calculate default estimates of natural 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 of the 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 proposing to 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 for refined 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 Estinlrrfing Light Extinction ji-om Particle Speciation Data. Report to IMPROVE Steering Committee, 

'.:ovember 2005. -- 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 23 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
group report describes that Rayleigh scattering depends on the density of the air and thus varies with 

temperature and pressure, 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 scattering by 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 are reasonably 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 BNWR compiled by 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 are preferred 

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 are predominantly 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 corrected to sea salt as 

NaCl by multiplying by 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/g and the hygroscopic 

effects of sea salt growth on light extinction were included by multiplying by the monthly average 

f(RH) value specific to the Class I area. The resulting values represent monthly average light 

extinction attributable to 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 Protocol 
Month 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 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 BART Modeling Protocol and sample model files made 

available on the VISTAS technical contractor website." 

Section 2.2 of the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol summarizes recommendations for the air quality 

modeling analyses required to assess applicability of BART by determining whether Pursue's 

Thomasville Plant contributes to visibility impairment at Class I areas within 300 lun which includes 

BNWR (257 km distant). The CALPUFF modeling system is recommended as the preferred 

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 

adopted by the U.S. EPA as a Guideline model for source-receptor distances greater than 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 J71STAS BART Modeling 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 

VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol. The following 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 layer micrometeorologd modules for overwater and overland boundary layers. 

Over land surfaces, the energy balance method of Holtslag and van Ulden (1983) is used to 

" 4s of the date of this modeling protocol, the technical contractor website maintains CALMET Version 

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. The version of 

CALMET being used by VISTAS contains improvements in the overwater boundary 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 of the model containing these enhancements are described in Scire et al. (2005). 

An upwincflooking spatial averaging scheme is 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 twwtep approach to the computation of the wind 

fields (Douglas and Kessler, 1988). In the first step, an initial-guess wind field is adjusted 

for kinematic effects of terrain, slope flows, and terrain bloclung effects to produce a 

Step 1 wind 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 1 wind field to produce a final wind field. 

Development of the Step 1 wind 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 dataset used 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-justments to the initial guess field 

on the fine-scale CALMET grid. Thus, the CALMET winds 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 Thomasville Plant 27 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
during the day, upslope flows are parameterized. The magnitude of the slope flow depends 

on the local surface sensible heat flux and local terrain gradients. The slope flow wind 

components are added to the wind field adjusted for kinematic effects. 

The thermodynamic blocking effects of terrain on the wind flow are parameterized in terms 

of the 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 adjusted to be tangent to the terrain. 

The wind field resulting from the preceding adjustments of the initidguess wind is the 

Step 1 wind 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 scheme is used which weights observational data 

heavily in the vicinity of the observational station, while the Step I wind field dominates 

the interpolated wind field in regions with no observational data. The resulting wind field 

is subject to smoothing, an optional adjustment of vertical velocities based on the O'Brien 

(1 970) 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 of MM5 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 of the CALMET domain 

and hence their spatial representativeness may be limited. Such situations are most 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 VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol, when the 12- 

km MM5 (2001 and 2002) data are used, 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 already be 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 parameters that are required by 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., 12 km). Refined 

analyses will utilize the MM5 data as the fnst-guess wind field, apply the diagnostic 

algorithms to create the Step 1 winds, and use NWS data for smoothing in Step 2. 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 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 of the VISTAS BART Modeling 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). The puff-height adjustment 

algorithms rely on the receptor elevation (relative to the elevation at the source) 

and the height of the puff above the 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 

is based on the CTDMPLUS (Perry et al., 1989). Plume impingement on subgridscale hills is evaluated at 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 Hd is 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-Scire downwash models 

are both 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. The PRIME 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 of turbulence 

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 approach to 

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. The puff formulation of CALPUFF is 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 

of dry 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. 

Of particular 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 among the "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 size becomes 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 (SO 2, SO4, NOu, 

HNa, and NO3) employed in the MESOPUFF I1 model or a set of user-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 NOy and 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 Thomasville Plant 30 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
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) will be 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. These sub-regional domains were designed to 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 calculated at 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 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) 

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 1 km), 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 3 1 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
4.4 CALPUFF COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN AND RECEPTORS 

CALPUFF analyses to assess the visibility impacts attributable to Pursue's Thomasville Plant will be 

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 of the domain allows for the possible recirculation of puffs 

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 1-2 of this protocol. l2 

4.5 CALPUFF MODELING OPTION SELECTIONS 

The CALPUFF analysis will be conducted generally in accordance with the recommendations of 

IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations jor Mockling Long 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, 1.25-2.5 pm, 2.56.0 ym and 610 pm aerodynamic 

diameters. Please note that SO2 is 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 determine if a source is 

BART-eligible, but 24-hour average maximum emissions are used for modeling purposes 

(70 FR 39 162). The pollutant considered is SO2. The basis for modeled emission rates was 

described in Section 2 of this protocol. 

I Excluded from the modeling are pollutants with plant-wide emissions less than de minimis 

levels (40 tons per year for SO? and NOy and 15 tons 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 greater than 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 ozone data for 2001 through 2003 from CASTNet and AIRS 

stations. Only non-urban ozone stations should be 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 nwx Reteutm trtdev 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 VISTAS comments, 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, and NOx) and unit emissions (e.g., 1 dsj of 

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, the unit 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 of this 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 VISTAS BART 

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 application of the ammonia limiting 

method with the default 0.5 ppb background ammonia concentration will be used in 

POSTUTIL to repartition HNOl and NO?. 

Because Pursue is beginning with the refmed analysis, the initial run results will be based 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 contribute to visibility 

impairment, Pursue's applicability modeling analysis will evaluate the 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, data resources, 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 VISTAS BART Modeling 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 of the 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 should be archived and provided to the State. 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 34 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
Pursue will conduct quality assurance of CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST analyses in a manner 

that generally conforms to the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol. A description of the quality 

assurance methods and products (e.g., test case simulations, graphic representations of model fields 

and performance) will be provided 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 BART Modeling Protocol. 

5.1 CALMET FIELDS 

Section 4 of the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol describes the methods and procedures for use in 

conducting refined modeling to 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 as part 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. The VISTASprovided regional and subregional meteorological 

fields will include a test case simulation for demonstrating that expected modeling results are 

obtained on the user's computer platform. 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 QA process 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, 10 am, 4 pm wind roses), time series analyses, and presentation of 

2-D vector plots illustrating terrain effectslsea breeze circulation or other features of the 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, 10 am 

and 4 pm would be expected to show the 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 availability of 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 POSTUTIL RESULTS 

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 BART Modeling Protmdsr 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 

comparable CALMET file, it is essential that the control file be 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 of the standard 

CALPUFF.INP file structure. 

CALPOST is run separately for each Class I area in order to obtain the necessary visibility statistics 

for evaluating compliance with the BART finer gnd modeling 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 confirmation that 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 normally be selected in 

each CALPOST run 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 of the CALPOST table into a 

sorting program such as a spreadsheet to rank the daily change in extinction values such as is 

presented in Table 4-2 of the WSTAS BART Modeling Protocol. 

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 scattering term (1 1.4 ~tn-' for BNWR, which is the Class I area 

specific value for finer grid modeling) 

Screen to 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 options to scale the concentrations from 

different modeled species (e.g., different particle sizes) into species-dependent size distributions for 

the particulate 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.) are combined to form 

the species concentrations for input into CALPOST. This process, although simple, requires a careful 

review of the weighting factors for each source. POSTUTIL also allows a repartitioning of nitric 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 Thomasville Plant 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 VISTAS BART 

Modeling Protocol. 

Allwine, K.J. and C.D. Whiteman, 1985: MELSAR: A Mesoscale Air 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-Luver Meteorol., 56,26 1-274. 

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., 132,495-5 18. 

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 Thomasville Plant 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 of Ammonia Limitation on Nitrate Aerosol 

Formation and Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas. Paper 55.13, 12"' AMS/A&WMA Conference on 

the Applications of Air 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 of Climate, 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 Generation Penn 

StateiNCAR MM5, NCAR TN-398-STR, NCAR Technical Note. 

Grosjean, D., and J. Seinfeld, 1989: Parameterization of the Formation Potential of Secondary 

Organic Aerosols. Atmos. Environ., 23, 1733- 1747. 

Holtslag, A.A.M. and A.P. van Ulden, 1983: A simple scheme for daytime estimates of the surface 

fluxes from routine weather data. J. Clim. and Appl. Meteor., 22,s 17-529. 

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. Edited by S.E. 

Gryning and F.A. Schiermeir. Plenum Press, New York, NY. 

IWAQM, 1998: Interagency Workgroup 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 generators in complex terrain. J. Energy, 4, 

10:16. 

Mahrt, L., 1982: Momentum Balance of Gravity Flows. J. I.4tmos. Sci., 39,2701-271 1. 

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 of the 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 Speciation Data. 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. EPAl60018-89/04 1, 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 Building Downwash 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 CALMET Meteorological Model to a 

Complex Terrain Site. Paper 97-A13 13. Air & Waste Management Association 90th Annual Meeting 

22 Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8- 13 June 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 

CALPUFF hr Quality Modeling Study - Volume I. Prepared for the Wyoming Dept of 

Environmental Quality. Available from Earth Tech, Inc., 196 Baker 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 of the Tenth International Conference on 

Harmonisation within 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 CALPUFF Dispersion Model 

with Two Power Plant Data Sets. Tenth Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution 

Meteorology, Phoenix, Arizona. American Meteorologcal Society. 1 1 - 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- 1 1 February 2005. 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 41 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

Trinity Consultants 
MDEQ 2005 ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTING FoRM(AERF) 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

BART Applicability Modeling Protocol 

A- 1 Trinity Consultants 
PURSUE ENERGY CORPORATION 

P.O. BOX 730 

BRANDON, MS 39043 

601-845-2252 

Certified Mail No. 7004 1 160 0001 1962 0253 

Return Receipt 

Mr. Wayne Anderson, Chief 

Title V Operating Permit Program, AERF 

Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality 

Office,of Pollution Control, Air Division 

101 West 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~irecovery 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 DEPARTMEMT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

MAJOR AIR POLLUTION SOURCE ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTING FORM 

Air Division 

101 West Capitol Street 

Jackson, MS 39201 

In accordance with Section 49-17-30, Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated, all sources which choose to base 

their annual Title V Fee on actual emissions shall submit, by July 1 of each year, an inventory of emissions for 

the previous calendar year. 

MDEQ Facility ID #: 2380 -00036 

Facility Name: Pursue Energy Corporat~on -Thomasville Gas Plant 

Address: PO Box 730 Brandon MS 39043 

(Street or PO Box) (city) (State) (Zip Code) 

If actual emissions are reported, they must be the actual emissions that were emitted from the facility during 

calendar year 2005. The annual permit fee is due 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) 

Reported for 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 

* Reflects Total VOC from the facility including VOCs that are HAPs. 

ttach calculations, monitoring data, measurements, etc. from which actual emission rates were determined. 

ctual emission rates will not be accepted unless the method of calculation is attached. 

Certification statement (oriqinal sianature required for form to be accepted) 

Total HAPs (Non-Voc) I 0.00 

I, the undersigned, am the responsible official or (for cokporations only) the duly authorized representative of 

the facility described on this fee form. I certify that the information reported hereon and the supporting 

information attached hereto are complete and accurate t6 the 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) Emissions for 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) PM 
1 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 

Ged -- on Quarterly Sulfur - Plant Performance Tests conducted 

1.- -1 

by Sulfur Experts. 

i 

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 5Compressors were . - determined from - logged actual run times . - -- - . - - -- - .- ~ 

I I I l---~ - 

- 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= -1 IXlbs/hfi-8395 Short hrs / 20001b = 7.30 ~onlyr i 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 includd in 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 Gke HnoitGee 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 Modeling Protocol 

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 % COMPONI MOL % CARBON SULFUR 

co 

N2 

C02 

COS 

H2S 

CS2 

SO2 

C1 

C2 

CONVERSION EFFICIENCY = 100 X (1-((Ci/Si)i(Co/So)) = 97% 

 NET RECCVERY 97.54 4'c I 

NOTE: NEW CATALYST WAS INSTALLED IN ALL 3 CONVERTERS AND PLACED IN SERVICE 

JUNE 22,2001 DAYS IN SERVICE TO DATE, JULY 20,2005 = 17 
PURSUE 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 

I 

CS2 

LBSIHR 

H2S .-. -. - .. 

LBSIHi? 

COS 

LBSIHR 
I 

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 

3 1, 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 if the BART 

eligible emission sources contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. The 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality should decide on the 

appropriateness of the 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 of the 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 of the sources' 

impacts, and the location of the 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 of the 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 of the light extinction from the 

CALPUFF output. Therefore, a justification 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 of the 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, Gray Lit/O 10 Revised1 

'tlPROVFeqIRev isedl hlPROVEAlrrorith1113.ctoc ); and 

A detailed description of the procedures used in the modified-post processing 

methodology (e.g., spreadsheet or other post-processing calculations) 

Additional discussion regarding the use of parts of the new IMPROVE equations 

versus the entire new equation is presented in the "Specific Comments" section 

below. 

4. One of the 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 of the 

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 (2 13 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 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 5 1. 

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. Section 3.1, 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 
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 about the 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 {nation should include a detailed discussion of the 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 1 areas. For example, if the new IMPROVE equation is used to 

ca ilate the 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 sites the chloride ion concentration will be near 

zet tor even negative due to subtraction of blank values) because there isn't any 

sea 11t at 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 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 of the background sea salt 

concentration using both sodium (as provided in Table 3-4 of the protocol) and 

chloride ion concentration would need to be provided for comparison. 
Appendix L.7.5 

Mississippi Phosphates Corporation, Pascagoula Facility 

1. Section 3.1, 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 of the 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. Section 3.5, Page 34: The protocol indicates that Mississippi Phosphates will 

evaluate the results of the analysis using both the standard light extinction 

calculation as well as applying corrections to add Class 1 area-specific Rayleigh 

scattering coefficients and background sea salt concentrations. EPA Region 4 

does not recommend choosing parts of the 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~ Lit10 10 RevisedlMPRO 

VEccQRe\ 1sedIhlPROVEAlnoritl1i113.doc ). They did not recommend making 

piecemeal changes to 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. If Mississippi 

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 of the 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, if the 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 of blank values) because there isn't any 

sea salt at most sites. The problem 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 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: 

~1ttp:l:vista.~ira.coiostate.c~1~1, improx elPubiication~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 of the background sea salt 

concentration using both sodium (as provided in Table 3-4 of the 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 of the 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: 
Appendix L.7.6 

Prepared by: 

A1 Freiberg Plant Engineer 

PURSUE NERGY CORPORATION 

P.O. Box 730 

Brandon, MS 39043 

(601) 845-4206 

Prepared by: 

Stacy Can, P.E. Managing Consultant 

Ryan Gesser = Managing Consultant 

Melissa Hillman Consultant 

TRINITY CONSULTANTS 

2800 Veterans Blvd. 

Suite 2 14 

Metairie, LA 70002 

(504) 828-5845 

November 22,2006 

Project 061902.0032 
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 

OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL HAZE RULE AND BART REQUIREMENTS ......................... 2 

1.1.1 DETERMINATIONF BART.ELIGIBILITY .................................................. 2 

1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TOVISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AND BART 

APPLICABILITY ........................................................................................................... 2 

1.1.3 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED CLASS IAREAS ................................................... 4 

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

ORGAN~ZATION OF BART APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS REPORT ................................. 7 

BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE D ESCRIPTION ............................................................... 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 ANDCOMPUTATTONAL 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 OFCALMET ANALYSES ....................................... 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 CALPUFF MODELING DOMAINS AND CLASS 1 AREA RECEPTORS ............. 19 

3.4.5 BACKGROUND OZONE AND ~MONIA CONCENTRATIONS ......................... 23 

3.4.6 PUFF REPRESENTATION ........................................................................... 25 

3.4.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE OFCALPUFF ANALYSES ...................................... 25 

CALPOST POSTPROCESSING 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/CALPOST Input 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 Thomasville facility is a major source of air emissions and operates 

under a Part 70 (Title V) 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. 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 Register Volume 70, Number 128, 

July 6,2005. 

U.S. EPA, Guidunce.for Trucking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule 

(EPA-454lB-03-004), September 2003. 

U.S. EPA, Guictance jor Estimating Natural Visibilip Conditions under the Regionul Haze 

Rule (EPA-454B-03-005), October 2003. 

- U.S. EPA, Interagency Workgroup on Air Qtlality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 S~~mmury 

Report (EPA-454iR-98-019), December 1998. 

U.S. EPA, Guideline on Air Qztulip Models, 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix W (Revised, 

November 9,2005). 

VISTAS, Protoco1,for the Application of the CALPUFF Model.for Analyses of Best Available 

RetroJit Technolog?, (BART), Ratision 3.2, August 3 1, 2006. 

VISTAS and U.S. EPA, "Q&A for Source by Source BART Rule" (Draft), October 28,2005. 

- MDEQ, electronic communication to BART-eligible sources, September 20, 2006. 

The VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol as revised on August 3 1,2006 is incorporated by reference for 

Pursues's source-specific modeling analyses. The VETAS BART Modeling Protocol and related 

information (generally made 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 CALPUFF modeling system and common data resources. Pursue's 

analyses generally adhere to the recommendations made in the VISTAS BARTModeling Protocol 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 visibilit y 

impacts attributable to the Thomasville Plant. 

1.1 OWRWEW OF REGIONAL NAZE RULE AYD 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 

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 10 micrometers 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. 

The U.S. EPA BART guidelines define the following three steps for determining which 

sources at a facility are BARTeligible: 

1. 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. 

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, 

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 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 

BART APPLICABILITY 

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 BART Modeling Protocol was issued on December 22,2005, 

was revised most recently on August 3 1,2006, 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 1.0 deciviews (dv) or more and contribution is defined 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 2 

BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

Trinity Consultants 
as a single-source impact 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 CALPUFF modeling 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. The haze 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. The background 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 [Ocldenotes the concentraion of organic carbon 

b,,,, = ~[soil ] [soil] denotes the concentraion of fine soils 

b ,,,, ,, = 0.6[~oarse ass] [~oarse~ass]denotes theconcentraion of coarsedusts 

hiip = ~O[EC] [EC] denotes the concentraion of elemental carbon 

b,,, = Rayleigh Scattering Mm-~ by default) Rayleigh Scatteringis scattering due to air 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 are provided 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 of this report. 

' U.S. EPA, Gldunce for Estimating Noturd Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, Table 2- 1, 

.Attachment A, 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 SO2 and NOy. The extinction coefficient due to emissions of visibility-affecting 

pollutants from a single BART-eligible source b,,,,,,, is calculated using an air quality 

model. The extinction due to the BART-eligible source will be calculated as shown in the 

following equation. 

where, 

hs, = 3KNH 4 l2 SO, Ifiw [(NH ,): SO, ]denotesthe ammonium sulfate concentration 

h,,? = 3[q NO, If'w [NH ,NO, ]denotesthe ammonium nitrate concentration 

bm =4[soAl [~o~ldenotes the concentration of secondaryorganic aerosols 

b,~ = l[pMFl [PMF] denotesthe concentration of fine PM 

b,, = O.~[PMC] denotes the concentration of coarsePM 

15, = ~O[EC] [~cldenotesthe concentration of elemental carbon 

J'(RH) = Relative Humidity Function 

[ ]= Concentration in pg/ m' 

Pursue used refined modeling techtuques as described in the VISTAS BART Modeling 

Protocol to determine whether BART-eligible operations at the Thomasville Plant 

contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I areas. The VETAS BARTModeling 

Protocol specifies that 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 VISTAS BART 

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 1 AREAS 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 of the Thomasville Plant, and Figure 1-2 illustrates the 

location of the Thomasville Plant relative to the federally protected Class I area that is 

located within 300 km of Pursue's Thomasville Plant. Only one area was evaluated in the 

BART Applicability Analyses. 

, Breton National Wildlife Refuge (BNWR), approximately 257 km (1 60 miles) to 

the southwest of the 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 I AREAS WITHIN 300 KM 

As recommended by the U.S. EPA BART guidelines and FTSTRS BARTModeling 

Protocol, the CALPUFF modeling system was used to compute the 24-hour average 

visibility impairment 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 &om a single source and is therefore preferred for 

BART applicability and determination analyses. The CALPUFF modeling system is 

described in technical detail in the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol as revised and its use 

in refmed analyses for BART applicability assessment of Pursue's Thomasville Plant is 

described in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the source-specific modeling protocol. 

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF BART APPLICABILITY 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 of the refined modeling analyses. 

Section 5 presents a summary of the BART Applicability Analysis and the conclusion that - the Thomasville Plant is not subject to BART. 

Supplemental information is provided 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 of the BART Applicability Analysis Report describes the emission units that comprise 

the BARTeligble source at Pursue'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 BARTeligibility and determined that one emission unit 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-00 1 15 1972 50.309.17** 7760 

* Category 15 denotes Sulfur Recovery Plants 

i Allowable emissions from Annual Emissions Reporting Form dated June 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 50,309 tpy allowable emissions value $own is nothing more than the SO? emissions that 

would have resulted in 1972 if the plant were operated at themaximum throughput capacity of 1465 L-ton per day. The 

throughput of this facility is not a function of the design capacity of the plant but is a hnction of fhe production capability of the 

12 sotu. gas wells feding the plant. After 34+ years, the production koin these wells has significantly declined and is presently 

declining at about 10% per year. 'Therefore the actual emissions and the 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 Recovery Unit is considered the only 

BART-eligble emission unit at Pursue's Thomasville Plant for modeling purposes. 

As SO? is the only remaining pollutant 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 BART Modeling 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. EPA AP-42 source profiles 

The 24-hour average actual maximum emission rate of the visibility-affecting SOz pollutant from the 

Sulfur Recovery Unit shown below was determined from 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 BARTeligible emissions unit.j 

NOx SO2 Total PMo Total PM.s Hz S O4 

Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions 

Emission Unit (Iblhr) (I blh r) (Iblhr) (Iblhr) (I blh r) 

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 SO2 emission 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 stack is greater than the Good Engineering Practice (GEP) 

stack height of 65 meters (213.25 feet); therefore, the stack was 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 3 00 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 conduct retlned analyses to assess 

visibility impacts. Air quality modeling was conducted generally following the methods described in 

the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol as revised with exceptions as described in this section. 

CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady-state Lagrangian puff 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 

capabilities is provided in the User's Guides for the CALPUFF modeling system and the VISTAS 

BART Modeling Protocol. 

The CALPUFF modeling system has been adopted by the U.S. EPA as a recommended regulatory 

guideline model for source-receptor distances greater than 50 km, and for use on a case-by-case basis 

in complex flow situatwns for shorter distances. CALPUFF is recommended 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 of these recommendations, the FTSTAS BART Modeling Protocol was 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 5.63931060202 were 

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 BART Modeling Protocoldistinguishes between screening and refmed applications of 

the CALPUFF model for the purposes of BART Applicability Analyses. As the names of these 

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 analyses by 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 M ETRJC 

The U.S. EPA BART guidelines prescribe that the 981h percentile, 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.. .the predicted 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. (Note that 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-highest 24-hour average visibility 

impact over the three years modeled if this result is more conservative. 

Pursue utilized the default conservative 98lh percentile calculations to quantify visibility 

impacts in refmed modeling analyses to illustrate the distribution (i.e., frequency, duration, 

and magnitude) of peak 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 VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol prescribes that refined analyses be conducted on a 

4-km meteorological and computational grid. The resolution of the computational analysis 

dictates the extent to which geophysical (i.e., terrain and land use) and meteorological 

conditions are represented in the CALMET meteorological model, hence the advection, 

dispersion, and chemical transformation of 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 of this 

report describes the CALMET meteorological modeling in greater detail. 

3.2.3 MODEL PROCESSING AND POSTPROCESS~NG M ETHODS 

The IWAQM Phase 2 Report prescribes recommended default model processing options to 

be used in CALPUFF analyses, which are in most cases considered regulatory default 

options under U.S. EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models. IWAQM default model 

options as described in the following section of this 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 can be used to apply the ammonia 

limiting method (ALM) by re-partitioning the distribution of HN03 and NQ 

concentrations at the Class I area as a function of the temperature and relative humidity 

during each hour. ALM re-partitioning using the default ammonia background level of 0.5 

ppb was conducted in refined analyses as described by the VISTAS BARTModeling 

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's Guide and USTAS BARTModeling Protocol 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 ofmeteorological data (need not be 

consecutitre) may he used if mesoscale meteorological.fields are available, us 

discussed in paragraph 9.3(c). These rnesoscale meteorologica1,fields should be used 

in conjunction with availuble standard (National Weather Sendce] NWS or 

comparable rneteorologicaI obsewations within and near the modeling domain. 

The VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol prescribes 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 CALMET METEOROLOGICAL 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 4km refined analyses. The CALPUFF computational domains were 

selected as a subset of these 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 S CB-REGIONAL REFINED ANALYSIS CALMET DOMAINS 

Subregional Domain 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 MM5 SIMULATIONS 

MM data are used as "observed or "first-guess" fields in CALMET due to its highresolution 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), MMS data 

will be processed in CALMET using the same model control options as were used by the 

VISTAS technical contractor to prepare the 4km refmed grid. 

According to the VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol, higher resolution 3 arc-second DEM 

data were used to simulate terrain elevations in the 4km refined 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 coarse MMS 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 of NWS 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, 

and precipitation type. Surface data were selected from the available data inventory to 

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 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 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 Mean Time (GMT) and 

1200 GMT, which correspond to 6:OOpm and 6:00am, respectively in the Central Time 

Zone, including Mississippi In CALMET analyses, the VISTAS Technical Contractor 

used Eastern Standard Time 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 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 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 among the 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 VISTAS BARTModeling 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 Recommendations for Mocleling Long Range Trunsport Impacts, Appendix B which provides 

recommended default CALPUFF parameters. Appendix A of this BART Applicability Analysis 

report contains sample 4km refined 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 

emission unit 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 for primary 

emissions of SOz. In addition to species emitted directly from the Thomasville Plant, 

secondary formation of HNOI, NQ, and SO4 was simulated using the MESOPUFF-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 of this report. 

Pursue operates one BART-eligible emission unit at the Thomasville Plant evaluated in 

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) and unit 

emissions (e.g., 1 g/s) of each of six generic particle categories distinguished and 

designated by size: PM800, PM425, PM187, PM112, PM081, and PM056, to represent 

PMw, PM~.s~, PMI 25-2.5, 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 of the 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 14 PM 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 SO4 and 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. 

CALPUFF DISPERSION ALGORITHMS 

As specified in the March 16,2006 US. EPA memorandum7 and the most recent revision 

to the VISTAS BART Modeling 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 for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF" from Mr. 

Dennis Atkinson and Mr. Tyler Fox (Air Quality 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 Applicability Analyses. 

3.4.4 CALPUFF MODELING DOMAINS AND CLASS IAREA RECEPTORS 

CALPUFF modeling for 4km refined analyses was performed on computational domains 

that are subsets of the Subregonal Domain 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 50 km 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 same vertical 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 of visibility-affecting pollutants and 

visibility impacts were calculated at the one Class I area within 300 km were obtained from 

the National Park Service as 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 

Lamb at 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 

Lamb ert Conformal Coordinate East (km) 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 2 1 

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 Agidturd Land 

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 ATBRETON 

/II/I,I 

Lambat Conformal Coordinate Ea& (km) 

3.4.5 BACKGROUND OZONE AND 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 SO2 to 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 concentrations as 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 compiled by the VISTAS Techcal Contractor 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 BART APPLICAB~LITY ANALYSES 

Lambert Conformal Coordinate East (km) 

Monthly average ozone background 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 The initial VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol envisioned the use of 

modeled 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 (SOx, NOx, total NH3) 

be reviewed by EPA Modeling Clearinghouse before being used in a regulatory 

application." Accordingly, such background data were not utilized in 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 

NO1 equilibrium distributions using only a constant 0.5 ppb ammonia background level 

As recommended by the VISTAS BARTModeling F'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 of this 

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 b7STAS BART 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 

information presented 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 comparison to 

NPS maps. 

3.5 CALPOST POSTPROCESS~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 attributable to 

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. 

POSTUTIL PROCESSING 

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 and NO3 concentrations 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 of 0.5 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 its BART 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 determined that it "did not intend to limit States to the use of the 20% best 

visibility days.. .States may use 20% best visibility days or annual average" to assess 

BART applicability. The August 3 1,2006 revision to the VISTAS BART Modeling 

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% estimated best 

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 conducted by the VISTAS Technical Contractor for certain sources in the region 

used ths method exclusively. 

W.S. EPA Memorandum from Mr. Joseph Paisie to Ms. Kay Prince, as Attachment 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 Huze Rule that were used to calculate natural background 

conditions. 

TABLE 3-3. NATURAL BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS 

FOR CLASS IAREAS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE 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 Guidancefor Es~imat~ng ~Varurol Visibilihi Conditions under 

/he Reglono1 Haze Rule (2003). 

To represent 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 concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, and particulate species for areas in the 

EasternU.S. as tabulated in Table 2-1 of U.S. EPA's Guidance,for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions under the Regional Huze Rule was reviewed but 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 monthly average relative humidity adjustment particular to each Class I area 

applied to background and modeled sulfate and nitrate. Table 3-4 summarizes the monthly 

average humidity values that were applied for the Class I area considered in ths analysis, 

as tabulated in Table A-3 of U.S. EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions rmder the Rqionul Huze 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 Table A-3 of US. EPA's Guidance fbr Estnnat~ng Nattrral Visihrii~ Conditions under the Re,gionul Hu:e Rule (2003). 

Natural background conditions for the Class 1 area 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 the concentraton 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] denotes the concentraton of elemental carbon 

h,,, = Rayleigh scattering ~~-1 by default) Rayleigh Scatteringis scattering due to air 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 of Class I 

area-specific data for computing background extinction and monthly relative humidity 

factors for hygroscopic aerosols as described in Section 3.5.2. 

Refined analyses were analyzed by tabulating the 981h percentile 24-hour average visibility 

impact tor each year and Class I area. Option (1) was used to quantify visibility impacts 

relative to annual average natural background conditions. As described in Section 3.2.1, 

the default interpretation of the 98''' percentile (81h-highest day 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, followed by 

CALPOST) and that appropriate data files are referenced 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 calculated as 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 scattering term (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 of ths report, 

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 IMPACTS WITHOUT PUFF SPLITTING 

Table 4-1 summarizes the top eight modeled 24-hour average visibility impacts of each data analysis 

year at Breton attributable to 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 1.0 dv causation and 0.5 dv contribution thresholds are also summarized. 

Natural Background Ranked Ranked Ranked Maximum sth-~igh Adv 

Method 2001 Adv 2002 Adv 2003 Adv (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 quantify the 22"d-high impact 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 A dv 

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 

The results presented in Tables 4- 1 and 4-2 indicate that visibility impairment at Breton attributable to 

Pursue's Thomasville Plant is below the 0.5 dv contribution threshold. 

Refmed CALPUFF modeling analyses were conducted without puff splitting algorithms enabled to 

compute 24-hour average visibility impacts at Breton. Default methods for calculating the 98Lh 

percentile were used at receptors 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 3 1 

BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

Trinity Consultants 
When the results of refined 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 subject to 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. The results of this analysis indicate that Pursue is not subject to 

BART because the BARTeligible source does not contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I 

areas, as demonstrated by refmed modeling analyses and traditional postprocessing analyses that 

quantified the 98'"ercentile 24-hour average visibility impact as being less than the 0.5 dv 

contribution threshold relative to annual average natural background conditions. 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 3 3 

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 ANALYSIS YEAR 2002 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

Trinity Consultants 
Ctks 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>,;. LjAT 
T'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'P 
2 = 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 tl lt 8 

modeled ? !kffILT) >itauli: 0 

J = no 

l = jes 

(puff -enter rails at the qravltatlonal 

~cttilnq .~elsclt;i tor 1 partlcle specles) 

Postrlctlons: 

- :.IL,P.Y = I 

- :CEEC = ? (must be partlcle specles as tiell 

1 = riisperslon eoefficlents computed trsm measured values 

,,,i turbulence, 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 uslnj 
4 = ;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-rheta measurements 

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 format 
INPIIT 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-realon 
2trli.J. 1,lsnj mappllnq prali~~cts cur~ntl] ri~.illii31e 119% 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 1 
slmp1lr.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%:up 01 

: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, , I r 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 I 
INPIIT IGROIJP: 53, 6b, il 6c -- Suborid scale cnmplex t,errsln lnputs 

HILL 1r.formatlon 

I'IMFLEX TEPBAI tI PECEPTOR :PIFORIP.TICnN 
IIOTE: LAT.4 for tic11 h~ll ind CTX rtceptcr ire tre3ted as i separate 

~1:put s~uhr~r~~up ~ind tn~refore n~usr end ..rlth sn 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 GO loss 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,>r puffs 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~it rransltlon 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 

pr nay, 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 ! 
HORI ZONT.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;.. parameters 
Ilnlts 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-,&sh method) 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!ie temporal '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. 16 qroups 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 *?very pollutant 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 

~41th variable 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) 1 km) I lm) 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 xe speclfled 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~e source 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 

3 

Lita 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! X1 7 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' 

I EIID! 

! EIID! 

' ::!ID 1 

! EIJO ! 

IEND! 

, r!lD f 

' EIID! 

I EClD! 

!END! 

!Elm! 

! EC!D! 

1 r!m! 

!END! 

I EClC ! 

' END ! 

' tNt1 ! 

1 END! 

! Elm ! 

I FCID ! 

'UID! 

' EllD ' I END ' 

' Et!D' 

'EIILI! 

!END1 

'Ern! 

'FIID! 

'EIID! 

! FIID ! 

3 

r'lri for exh receptor are treated as s sepsrate irplt subqroup 

in3 therefore must end with in Input tgr.iup temlnator. 

b 

P-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 Consultants 
PURSUE 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.DAT 
METEN= 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 * *ENDt 
IIMET 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 step 
SOURCE 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 jDefault: -999 
Total 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, 

+ENDt 
PURSUE 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 (total NH3 = 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.DAT 
METFM= 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 (multiple CALMET 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 concentratlon is) 

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 step 

Total 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 

POCO5 6 

PIC081 

PIC056 

PMC800 

PMC425 

PMF187 

PMF112 

PMFO8 1 

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 (total NH3 = 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~tion optlon. 

Three types of meteorological data flles can be used: 

METFM= 0 - CALMET.DAT 
METEN= 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 (multiple CALMET 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 than 
one 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 ~ndivldual source 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 step 

Total 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,B where 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 ANALYSIS YEAR 2002 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

Trinity Consultants 
PURSUE 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.DAT 
METFM= 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 * *ENDf 
1 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~vnber of 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~e to use lt for repartitionmg NO3/HN03 

(in option 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 the 
MSPECINP 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 ANALYSIS YEAR 2002 

BRETON ANNUAL AVERAGE NATURAL BACKGROUND 

Pursue Energy's Thomasville Plant 

BART Applicability Modeling Analysis 

Trinity Consultants 
PURSUE 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 = * 

(actlvate with exclamatlon points only lf 

providing MON-BLANK character string) 

Pathname for Plot Files (blank) * PLPATH = * 

(activate wlth 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.GRD 
Exceedance 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; 

QR 
Select 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-ors after 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 ! 

1-1 OR 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,JEGRID and 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 Computation 
Method 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 ! 

-4 -I - 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 reported 
1) 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 (NTOP must 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 (x varies), 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 PURSUEMS root 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= 1st denotes CALPUFF output summary files 

.fff = con denotes CALPUFF output concentration files 

Ozone Data Files 

0ZONEXw.du t 

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 calculates the HN03iN03 re-partitioning, the second of which 

groups PM species for analysis in CALPOST. The first step (Sl) is run in three, 4month blocks (A, 

B, C) due to an ~nherent limitation in 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= 1st denotes POSTUTIL output summary tiles 

jfl= con denotes POSTUTIL output concentration files 

APPENDw.fff 

yy = 01,02, and 03 denotes data analysis years 2001,2002, and 2003, respectively 

,/fl= inp denotes input files 

&f= 1st denotes 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: Exemption from Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determination Requirements 

Thomasville, (2380) I2 1-00036 

Rankin, Mississippi 

Dear Mr. White: 

Due to 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 further determination requirements. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will include documentation of the 

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 

(60 1-96 1-5 176) or Deborah Boleware (60 1-96 1-5768) of my staff. 

Sincerely, 

Maya ad, P.E., BCEE 

* Chief, Air Division 

OFFICE OF POLLLJTION CONTROL 

Posr Omle BOX 10385 \ACKS~N, MISSISSIPPI 39289-0385 Tw (601) 961-5171 Fa (601) 354-6612 -.doq.natrnu.ur