Appendix 9.2 

Modeling Protocol Used to Determine Subject-to-BART

Sources 
Page 1 of 44 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine 

Sources Subject to BART in the State of 

Kansas 

Final 

June 13, 2006 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Bureau of Air and Radiation 

1000 SE Jackson, Suite 310 

Topeka, Kansas 66612-1366 
Page 2 of 44 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 3 

II. Background 3 

III. BART Air Quality Modeling Approach 4 

IV. BART-Eligible Units 5 

V. Physical Characteristics of BART-Eligible Units 8 

 A. Emissions 8 

 B. Stack parameters 8 

VI. Class I Areas to Assess 9 

VII. Air Quality Model and Inputs 12 

 CALPUFF Modeling 12 

 A. Modeling domain 12 

 B. CALPUFF system implementation 13 

 C. Meteorological data modeling (CALMET) 14 

 D. Dispersion modeling (CALPUFF) 14 

 E. Post-processing (CALPOST) 16 

VIII. Visibility Impacts 17 

IX. Change in Visibility Due to BART Controls 18 

References 19 

Appendix A – Federal Class I Areas 

Appendix B – BART-Eligible Units Detail 

Appendix C – CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines 

Appendix D – CALPUFF Control File Inputs 

Appendix E – POSTUTIL Control File Inputs 

Appendix F – CALPOST Control File Inputs 
Page 3 of 44 

I. Introduction 

On July 6, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final 

amendments to its 1999 Regional Haze Rule in the Federal Register, including Appendix Y, 

the final guidance for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations (70 FR 

39104-39172). The BART rule requires the installation of BART on emission sources that fit 

specific criteria and “may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute” to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. Air quality modeling is a means for determining who causes 

or contributes to visibility impairment. Kansas’s proposed protocol for conducting this 

modeling for BART is provided herein. 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) foresees three purposes for this 

protocol. First, KDHE will use the protocol to determine what BART-eligible units are 

subject to BART and must perform a BART analysis. Second, facilities that KDHE notifies 

are subject to BART will have this protocol to use as a starting point to conduct modeling 

required when making a BART analyses. Third, KDHE will use this protocol, with potential 

revisions that would incorporate meteorological observations, to conduct modeling to show 

visibility impact on Class I areas, once KDHE approves the BART emission limits for 

facilities subject to BART. This final modeling will be submitted to the EPA as part of the 

BART section of the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for regional haze. 

New BART guidance, both informal and formal, continues to become available from EPA 

and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) that oversee visibility in Class I areas. Kansas has 

developed a schedule for completing BART analyses and implementing the BART strategy 

in order to meet SIP deadlines. If the state is to meet those deadlines, modeling to determine 

sources subject to BART and modeling to make BART analyses may need to be done before 

all new BART guidance from EPA and the FLMs becomes available. KDHE intends to start 

modeling to determine sources subject to BART in early April 2006. KDHE will use the draft 

version of the protocol, which will become final when approved by EPA and the FLMs. 

KDHE anticipates that it will notify sources subject to BART by the end of May 2006. In the 

BART determination guidance provided by KDHE, facilities subject to BART will be 

directed to the final modeling protocol for making BART analyses. 

II. Background 

Generally, Class I areas are national parks and wilderness areas in which visibility is more 

stringently protected under the Clean Air Act than any other areas in the United States. The 

Class I areas are shown in Appendix A. 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission limitation based on the 

degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous 

emission reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by a BART-eligible source. The 

emission limitation must be established on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the 

technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, 
Page 4 of 44 

the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which 

may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. BART 

requirements, in the form of an agreement to implement BART controls, are a part of the SIP 

that will be submitted to EPA in late 2007. The SIP is a comprehensive plan of action to 

increase visibility in the Class I areas, and includes reasonable progress goals in addition to 

the goals established by sources subject to BART. SIPs are subject to approval by the EPA. 

The BART provisions are a part of the overall plan that focuses on reducing emissions from 

large sources that, due to age, were exempted from other control requirements in the Clean 

Air Act. An emissions source is considered eligible for BART if it: 

• Falls into one of 26 listed categories (essentially the same source categories as those 

subject to prevention of significant deterioration or PSD, 40 CFR §§52.21 and 

51.166); 

• Has the potential to emit at least 250 tons per year of any haze-forming pollutant 

(primarily NOx, SO2, or PM10); and 

• Existed on August 7, 1977, yet was not in operation before August 7, 1962. 

Thus, the BART provisions do not cover all sources that may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. 

According to the BART guidance, an individual source is considered to cause visibility 

impairment if it has a least a 1.0 deciview (dv) impact on the visibility in a Class I area. A 

source is considered to contribute to visibility impairment if it has at least a 0.5 dv impact. 

The BART guidance allows a state to exempt individual sources from the BART 

requirements if they do not cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in a Class I 

area. Exemption is done through air quality modeling. Although the BART guidance does 

not dictate how such an analysis must be done, it provides direction, which was used to 

develop this modeling protocol. 

The BART analysis process includes several other steps in addition to the modeling 

described in this protocol. These steps, none of which are addressed in this document, 

include detailed analysis of: 

• Costs of compliance among the various retrofit control options; 

• Energy and non-air quality impacts; 

• Existing pollution control technologies in use at the BART-eligible unit, particularly 

with respect to their affecting the choice of retrofit options; 

• Remaining useful life of the units and/or facility; and 

• Improvements in visibility expected from the use of BART controls. 
Page 5 of 44 

III. BART Air Quality Modeling Approach

One of the air quality modeling approaches suggested by EPA in the BART guidance is an 

individual source attribution approach. This is the approach Kansas proposes to take. 

Specifically, this entails modeling source-specific units and comparing modeled impacts to a 

particular deciview threshold (described above). Kansas has decided to conduct the subjectto-BART modeling, rather than have each BART-eligible facility either conduct the 

modeling or hire a contractor. This plan will eliminate the need for the State to quickly 

review many air quality modeling analyses conducted using varying approaches. This plan 

will also satisfy the need to use a consistent approach among the modeling analyses. Once 

the subject-to-BART modeling is complete, all the modeling inputs will be available to 

facilities subject to BART for them or their consultants to conduct modeling for making 

BART analyses. 

The modeling approach discussed here is specifically designed for conducting the subject-toBART screening analyses. There may be differences between modeling for conducting 

BART analyses and that for conducting a visibility analysis for a New Source Review 

permit, which may involve similar emission sources and the same air dispersion model used 

here. 

In preparing this modeling protocol, KDHE consulted BART modeling protocols drafted by 

other organizations to attain consistency. The four available BART modeling protocols 

consulted were: 

1. “Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine 

Sources Subject to BART in the State of Minnesota,” draft version February 24, 

2006; 

2. “Single Source Modeling to Support Regional Haze BART,” version 3, protocol 

developed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), draft version 

September 6, 2005; 

3. “CALPUFF Modeling Protocol in Support of Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Determinations,” developed by the State of Iowa, draft version August 2005; and 

4. “Protocol for BART-Related Visibility Impairment Modeling Analyses in North 

Dakota,” developed by the State of North Dakota, draft version September 2005. 

This draft protocol is most similar to the Minnesota draft protocol. Kansas is in EPA region 

VII, and they will be reviewing Kansas’s Regional Haze SIP, of which BART will be a part. 

KDHE intends to take several steps to complete the BART air quality modeling: 

1. Send a survey request form to certain facilities in Kansas and, from the response, 

determine the sources in Kansas that fit the criteria for eligibility (completed 2003); 

2. Extract the physical characteristics of the BART-eligible units from the survey 

responses (completed 2005); 

3. Determine which Class I areas to assess (completed 2005); 

4. Choose an appropriate air quality model and develop inputs (completed 2006); 

5. Conduct and post-process the subject-to-BART modeling and evaluate the results 

6. Notify facilities of the screening results; 
Page 6 of 44 

7. Obtain emission limits and stack parameters resulting from BART analyses made 

by facilities subject to BART; and 

8. Conduct follow-up modeling showing the difference between pre- and post-BART 

analyses. 

IV. BART-Eligible Units

In September 2002, KDHE mailed surveys to facilities that met the Regional Haze Rule’s 

source category criteria under a request for information (RFI) about the air emission units at 

their facilities. Subsequent analysis of the responses to that request indicated there are 19 

facilities in Kansas with BART-eligible units. The results are summarized in Table 1; 

detailed information on the BART-eligible units based on their response to the RFI is 

provided in Appendix B. These are the sources that will undergo air quality modeling to 

determine whether they must undergo an engineering analysis and possibly install BART 

controls. Figure 1 shows the names and locations of facilities with BART-eligible units in 

Kansas. 

Figure 1. BART-Eligible Facilities in Kansas 
Page 7 of 44 

Table 1. Facilities with BART-Eligible Units 

Facility Source 

ID 

Location - 

City 

Nearest 

Class I 

Area 

(Distance)

BART-Eligible Unit(s) 

Aquila - 

Arthur 

Mullergren 

0090002 Great Bend 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(408 km) 

Unit 3 (stack 1) - 1041 MMBtu/hr; Unit 3 

(stack 2) - 1041 MMBtu/hr 

Aquila - 

Cimarron 

River 

1750001 Liberal 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(327 km) 

Unit 1 - 703 MMBtu/hr 

Aquila - 

Judson 

Large 

0570001 Dodge 

City 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(352 km) 

Unit 4 - 1536 MMBtu/hr 

Basic 

Chemicals 1730070 Wichita 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(337 km) 

Boiler 1; Boiler 2; Boiler 3; Chloromethanes 

Frontier El 

Dorado 

Refining 

Co. 

150004 El Dorado 

HerculesGlades 

(374 km) 

Boiler B-105 - 361 MMBtu/hr (part of FCCU); 

Boiler B-107 - 233 MMBtu/hr (part of FCCU); 

Plant process heaters; Refinery flare system B1303; Plant cooling towers; Storage tanks; Gas 

oil hydrotreater (Gofiner) unit fugitives; HF 

alkylation unit fugitives; Kerosene hydrotreater 

fugitives; Aromatics recovery unit fugitives; 

Reformate splitter unit fugitives; Cumene unit 

fugitives; Elemental sulfur production units; 

Gasoline in-line blender and field piping 

fugitives; Gas liquids unit fugitives 

Kansas City 

BPU - 

Nearman 

2090008 Kansas 

City 

HerculesGlades 

(323 km) 

Unit 1 - 2433 MMBtu/hr 

Kansas City 

BPU - 

Quindaro 

2090048 Kansas 

City 

HerculesGlades 

(319 km) 

Unit 1 - 783 MMBtu/hr; Unit 2 - 1394 

MMBtu/hr 

KCP&L - 

La Cygne 1070005 La Cygne 

HerculesGlades 

(244 km) 

Unit 1 - 8720 MMBtu/hr; Unit 2 - 10,100 

MMBtu/hr 

Koch 

Nitrogen 0570003 Dodge City 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(351 km) 

Ammonia plant - primary reformer; Ammonia 

plant - other; Nitric acid plant - absorber tail 

gas; Ammonium nitrate plant - neutralizer 

McPherson 

Municipal 

Power Plant 

#2 

1130014 McPherson

Wichita 

Mountains 

(413 km) 

Unit 1 - 325 MMBtu/hr 
Page 8 of 44 

Monarch 

Cement Co. 0010009 Humboldt 

HerculesGlades 

(258 km) 

No. 4 kiln stack; No. 4 kiln clinker cooler; No. 

5 kiln stack; No. 5 kiln clinker cooler; Raw 

material unloading; Clinker grinding and 

cement handling; Stone quarry processing 

National 

Cooperative 

Refinery 

Assoc. 

1130003 McPherson

Wichita 

Mountains 

(412 km) 

EU-ALK-3 alky heater HA-002; EU-BH-3 No. 

9 boiler SB-009; EU-BH-4 No. 12 boiler SB012; EU-FPU-11 coker IR Comp. CR-003; EUPLT-8 plat stab boil htr. HP-003; EU-PLT-9 

plat charge htr. HP-006; Fugitive emissions - 

all sources 

Owens 

Corning 2090010 Kansas City 

HerculesGlades 

(318 km) 

70 furnace - N exhaust; 70 furnace - S exhaust; 

70 riser/channel/forehearth; 70 A forming; 70 B 

forming; 70 C forming; 70 D forming; 70 

curing oven charge end; 70 curing oven 

discharge end; J5 furnace; J5 

riser/channel/forehearth; J6 A forming; J6 B 

forming; J6 C forming; J6 curing oven charge 

end; J6 curing oven discharge end; J6 smoke 

stripper; J6 north cooling (A); J6 south cooling 

(B); J6 asphalt coating; Raw material 

processing 

Sunflower 

Electric - 

Garden 

City 

0550026 Garden 

City 

Great 

Sand 

Dunes 

(408 km) 

Unit S2 - 958 MMBtu/hr 

Westar 

Energy - 

Gordon 

Evans 

1730012 Colwich 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(356 km) 

Unit 2 - 4110 MMBtu/hr (stack 2); Unit 2 - 

4110 MMBtu/hr (stack 3) 

Westar 

Energy - 

Hutchinson 

1550033 Hutchinson 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(380 km) 

Unit 4 - 2165 MMBtu/hr (stack A); Unit 4 - 

2165 MMBtu/hr (stack B) 

Westar 

Energy - 

Jeffrey 

1490001 St. Marys 

HerculesGlades 

(408 km) 

Unit 1 - 8110 MMBtu/hr; Unit 2 - 8110 

MMBtu/hr 

Westar 

Energy - 

Lawrence 

0450014 Lawrence 

HerculesGlades 

(337 km) 

Unit 5 - 4318 MMBtu/hr 

Winfield 

Municipal 

Power Plant 

#2 

0350012 Winfield 

Wichita 

Mountains 

(317 km) 

Unit 4 - 333 MMBtu/hr 

 
Page 9 of 44 

V. Physical Characteristics of BART-Eligible Units

A. Emissions

Air emissions data for determining BART eligibility was obtained from facilities through the 

RFI described above. KDHE requested that the facilities submit emission data for nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter up to 10 μm in size (PM10), volatile 

organic chemicals (VOCs), and ammonia (NH3). Emissions were reported in tons per year, 

and reflected the potential to emit for each pollutant, in accordance with the 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule’s definition of BART-eligible units. Subsequent to the 2005 Regional Haze Rule 

and the modeling guidance contained in it, further information regarding the maximum 24-

hour actual emissions was requested for each BART-eligible unit. This latter emissions data 

will be used to model peak 24-hour averages for evaluating visibility. 

KDHE does not intend to use emissions of VOCs and ammonia from facilities for subject-toBART analysis. Only specific VOC compounds form secondary organic aerosols that affect 

visibility. These compounds are a fraction of the total VOCs reported in the emissions 

inventory, and KDHE does not have the breakdown of VOC emissions necessary to model 

those that only impair visibility. Further, the prescribed screening model (CALPUFF) cannot 

simulate formation of particles from anthropogenic VOCs, nor their visibility impacts. 

Ammonia from specific sources will not be evaluated in this process, although ammonia is 

included in the modeling as a background concentration—this will be discussed later in this 

modeling protocol. The appropriate VOCs and ammonia emission data can, and will be, 

included in regional scale modeling used for the Regional Haze SIP. 

B. Stack parameters

Stack parameters for modeling were obtained from the State’s emission inventory database. 

The parameters are: height of the stack opening from ground, inside stack diameter, exit gas 

flow rate, exit gas temperature, base elevation above sea level, and location coordinates of 

the stack. Because the modeling conducted for BART is concerned with long-range transport, 

not localized impacts, the RFI did not include data about building heights and widths that are 

used to calculate downwash. Details on the stack parameters to be used as inputs in the 

modeling are provided in Appendix B. 

VI. Class I Areas to Assess. 

There are no Mandatory Federal Class I areas located in the state of Kansas. The closest 

Class I areas to potential Kansas BART sources are the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma and 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area in Missouri. These two Class I areas will be the focus of 

the BART visibility analysis for most Kansas sources. Impact to other surrounding Class I 

areas will also be evaluated. The list of nine Class I areas which will be included in the 

modeling analysis are depicted in Table 2. Table 2a lists the calculated distances, in 

kilometers, between the 19 BART-eligible sources and nine Class I areas that will be 

evaluated. Figure 2 shows the location of each Class I area to be evaluated. 
Page 10 of 44 

Table 2. Class I Areas Evaluated for BART 

Class I Area State Name 

Badlands National Park SD BADL1

Caney Creek Wilderness Area AR CACR1

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve CO GRSA1 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area MO HEGL1 

Mingo Wilderness Area MO MING1

Rocky Mountain National Park CO ROMO1

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area AR UPBU1 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area OK WIMO1

Wind Cave National Park SD WICA1

Figure 2. Location of Class I Areas 

Assessed
Page 11 of 44 

Table 2a Calculated Distances from facilities to Class I areas being evaluated 

CALCULATED DISTANCES TO CLASS I AREAS (km) 

Fac. ID Facility Name BADL1 CACR1 GRSA1 HEGL1 MING1 ROMO1 UPBU1 WIMO1 WICA10090002 Aquila – Arthur Mullergren 646 610 588 562 786 616 579 408 691 1750001 Aquila - Cimarron River 747 678 413 716 960 545 706 327 753 0570001 Aquila - Judson Large 687 635 494 633 869 568 636 352 712 1730070 Basic Chemicals 783 456 714 414 649 770 425 337 838 0150004 Frontier El Dorado Refining. 786 445 762 374 602 804 394 379 849 2090008 Kansas City BPU - Nearman 790 524 957 323 468 939 393 607 882 2090048 Kansas City BPU - Quindaro 795 523 962 319 463 945 390 610 887 1070005 KCP&L - La Cygne 859 433 958 244 263 968 306 542 943 0570003 Koch Nitrogen 688 636 493 634 424 568 637 351 712 1130014 McPherson Mun. Power Plant #2 696 537 691 464 683 714 488 413 755 0010009 Monarch Cement Co. 859 389 889 258 477 922 295 451 934 1130003 National Coop. Refinery Assoc. 698 535 692 462 681 716 486 412 758 2090010 Owens Corning 797 522 964 318 461 947 389 611 888 0550026 Sunflower Electric - Garden City 647 721 408 722 957 483 725 409 658 1730012 Westar Energy - Gordon Evans 759 479 705 428 659 752 443 356 815 1550033 Westar Energy - Hutchinson 715 524 673 468 694 710 486 380 770 1490001 Westar Energy - Jeffrey 694 564 838 408 582 818 462 556 778 0450014 Westar Energy - Lawrence 766 515 905 337 504 894 398 564 853 0350012 Winfield Mun. Power Plant #2 829 409 748 377 616 813 381 317 885 
Page 12 of 44 

VII. Air Quality Model and Inputs

According to the final Regional Haze Rule’s BART guidance, a State “can use CALPUFF or 

other appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts from a single source at a Class I 

area.” For purposes of the BART analysis, KDHE intends to use CALPUFF. The KDHE 

recognizes that CALPUFF has limited ability to simulate the complex atmospheric chemistry 

involved in the estimation of secondary particulate formation. However, for purposes of the 

subject-to-BART analysis, KDHE intends to use CALPUFF for the following reasons: 

1. The increased level of effort required for conducting particulate apportionment in 

the regional scale, full-chemistry Eulerian model (CAMx) to acquire individual 

source contributions to Class I areas, relative to the simplicity of the CALPUFF 

model; 

2. The lack of a plume-in-grid feature with the particulate apportionment technique 

currently available in CAMx; 

3. The desire to be consistent with other CENRAP states, which all (except Texas and 

Iowa) appear to be using CALPUFF; 

4. The limited scope of what this modeling is to determine; and 

5. The additional modeling of BART controls that will be conducted as part of the 

Regional Haze SIP with the CAMx or CMAQ model(s). EPA’s BART guidance 

states that States should follow the EPA’s Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 

Modeling (IWAQM) guidance, Phase 2 recommendations for long-range transport. 

The IWAQM guidance was developed to address air quality impacts as assessed 

through the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program at Class I areas, 

where the source generally is located beyond 50 km of the Class I area. The IWAQM 

guidance does not specifically address the type of assessment that will occur with the 

BART analysis. 

CALPUFF Modeling

CALPUFF modeling will be performed on all Kansas BART-eligible sources. KDHE 

intends to closely follow the CENRAP CALPUFF modeling protocol for most of the settings 

and inputs. It is important to note that the majority of potential Kansas BART sources are 

beyond 250 km to the nearest Class I area. The use of puff splitting in the initial screening 

modeling was attempted, but found computationally prohibitive on the current domain; thus 

puff splitting will not be employed is this modeling. 

A. Modeling domain

The CALPUFF modeling will be conducted on the CENRAP central 6 km grid. The extent of 

the proposed CALPUFF domain is shown in Figure 2. 
Page 13 of 44 

Figure 2. 6 km CENRAP Central CALPUFF Domain 

CALPUFF will be applied to each source for three annual simulations spanning the years 

2001 through 2003. The IWAQM guidance allows the use of fewer than 5 years of 

meteorological data if a meteorological model using four-dimensional data assimilation is 

used to supply data. This is the case in this modeling analysis. See the section on 

meteorology for more information. 

B. CALPUFF system implementation 

There are three main components to the CALPUFF model: 

1. Meteorological Data Modeling (CALMET); 

2. Dispersion Modeling (CALPUFF); and 

3. Postprocessing (CALPOST) 

Versions of the modeling components to use in this BART analysis are shown in Table 3, 

which follows. 
Page 14 of 44 

Table 3. CALPUFF Modeling Components 

Processor Version Level 

TERREL 3.311 030709 

CTGCOMP 2.42 030709 

CTGPROC 2.42 030709 

MAKEGEO 2.22 030709 

CALMM5 2.4 050413 

CALMET 5.53a 040716 

CALPUFF 5.753 051130 

POSTUTIL 1.4 040818 

CALPOST 5.6392 051130 

The specific use of each of these components in the BART analysis is described in more 

detail below. 

Because the KDHE is proposing to use a later version of the CALPUFF system rather than 

the EPA approved regulatory version, we have performed a test run with both systems to 

ensure identical results between the two systems. This analysis can be found in Appendix E. 

The results indicate that the proposed version of CALPUFF gives identical results as the 

regulatory version. 

C. Meteorological data modeling (CALMET)

KDHE will use the 2001-2003 CENRAP-developed CALMET dataset for its modeling. For 

additional information on the settings used to develop this dataset, refer to the CENRAP 

BART Modeling Guidelines document in Appendix C. 

Note that no observation data was used in the CALMET outputs developed by CENRAP. 

This means the prognostic meteorological data set from MM5 is not supplemented with 

surface or upper air observations during the CALMET processing. The use of observations is 

thought to counterbalance smoothing that may occur when using the coarse grid scale of the 

MM5 data. Both the EPA and FLMs commented on the draft CENRAP guidelines that 

observations should be used in refined CALPUFF modeling. KDHE is recommending that 

observations be incorporated into a refined modeling analysis, but not in this screening 

analysis. 

Appendix C contains the CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines, which discuss the full suite 

of settings used to generate the CALMET data. 

D. Dispersion modeling (CALPUFF) 

The CALMET output is used as input to the CALPUFF model, which simulates the effects of 

the meteorological conditions on the transport and dispersion of pollutants from an individual 

source. In general, KDHE proposes to use the recommended default options in the 

CALPUFF model. There are some deviations, which are discussed below. CALPUFF is 

considered most applicable for sources located between 50 km and 250 km of the Class I 

area; in Kansas, the majority of BART-eligible units are beyond 250 km. The CALPUFF 
Page 15 of 44 

model has a puff-splitting option that splits puffs that become large over greater transport 

distances. KDHE does not initially intend to invoke puff-splitting for these more distant 

sources, due to excessive computational run times. However, KDHE proposes to use puffsplitting when performing more refined modeling on a smaller grid. The following species 

will be modeled and/or emitted in this BART analysis: 

Table 4. Species Modeled in BART Analysis 

Species Modeled Emitted Dry Deposited 

SO2 Yes Yes Computed-gas

SO4 Yes No Computed-particle

NOx Yes Yes Computed-gas

HNO3 Yes No Computed-gas

NO3 Yes No Computed-particle

PM-fine Yes Yes Computed-particle

PM-coarse Yes Yes Computed-particle

Note that in the case of a source where the PM profile for sulfate (SO4), elemental carbon 

(EC), and secondary organic aerosols (SOA) are known, SO4 will be modeled as a separate 

species in CALPUFF if that source is close to the visibility contribution threshold. This will 

not be necessary in most cases, as many sources will be either clearly impacting or clearly 

not impacting a Class I area, and in many cases the PM profile will not be known. 

Particle size parameters are entered in the CALPUFF input file for dry deposition of 

particles. There are default values for “aerosol” species (i.e., SO4, NO3, and PM2.5). The 

default value for each of these species is 0.48 μm geometric mass mean diameter and 2.0 μm 

geometric standard deviation. Where the facility is able to supply emissions of PM2.5, the 

default values may be appropriate. However, many facilities may not be able to supply PM2.5

emissions and will supply what is available, PM10 emissions data. In this case, using the 

default values may underestimate deposition of particulates and overestimate the particulate 

contribution to visibility. For sources that did not report PM2.5 emissions in the RFI, KDHE 

intends to speciate PM10 emissions to PM2.5 and PM course by using the PM2.5/ PM10 ratio 

reported to or calculated by KDHE for the 2002 emissions inventory. The KDHE request for 

information described above did not request that sources indicate how much of their 

particulate emissions might be elemental carbon or secondary organic aerosol. The light 

extinction coefficient for PM2.5 is 1, for EC is 10, and for SOA is 4. Thus, EC and SOA will 

have a comparatively higher impact on visiblity. The main sources of these particles are fuel 

combustion. A way to account for this, without including EC and SOA in the modeling, is to 

use particle speciation in the post-processing step. This is discussed below in the CALPOST 

section. 

 

Ozone and ammonia concentrations: Ozone (O3) and ammonia (NH3) can be input to 

CALPUFF as hourly or monthly background values. Hourly values of ozone concentrations 

were obtained from three rural monitoring sites in Kansas, Peck, Mine Creek, and Cedar 

Bluff monitors. These hourly ozone values will be used in this modeling. Background 

ammonia concentration is assumed to be temporally and spatially invariant and will be fixed 
Page 16 of 44 

at 3 ppb across the entire domain for all months. It may be possible to derive NH3

concentrations from regional modeling outputs that CENRAP is currently developing. At this 

time these NH3 values are not available in a model ready form. 

Receptors: Receptors are locations where model results are calculated and provided in the 

CALPUFF output files. Receptor locations were derived from the National Park Service’s 

Class I area receptor database at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/receptors/index.cfm. 

Only these discrete NPS receptors will be modeled in CALPUFF. The discrete receptors are 

necessary for calculating visibility impacts in the nine selected Class I areas that will be 

evaluated by KDHE. All the discrete receptors will be placed with enough density that the 

highest visibility impacts should be evident. The NPS provides receptors in all the Class I 

areas on a 1 km basis. These receptors will be kept at the 1 km spacing for the BART 

modeling, and all receptors will be retained. 

Outputs: The CALPUFF modeling results will be displayed in units of micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3). In order to determine visibility impacts, the CALPUFF outputs must be 

post-processed. 

Detailed information on all CALPUFF setting to be used in this screening can be found in 

Appendix D. 

E. Post-processing (CALPOST)

Hourly concentration outputs from CALPUFF are processed through POSTUTIL and 

CALPOST to determine visibility conditions. Specifically, POSTUTIL takes the 

concentration file output from CALPUFF and recalculates the nitric acid and nitrate partition 

based on total available sulfate and ammonia. CALPOST uses the concentration file 

processed through POSTUTIL, along with relative humidity data, to perform visibility 

calculations. For the BART analysis, the only modeling results out of the CALPUFF 

modeling system of interest are the visibility impacts. Please see Appendix E and F for 

detailed settings for POSTUTIL and CALPOST. 

Light extinction: Light extinction must be computed in order to calculate visibility. 

CALPOST has seven methods for computing light extinction. This BART screening analysis 

will use Method 6, which computes extinction from speciated particulate matter with 

monthly Class I area-specific relative humidity adjustment factors, and is implied by the 

BART guidance. Relative humidity is an important factor in determining light extinction 

(and therefore visibility) because sulfate and nitrate aerosols, which absorb moisture from the 

air, have greater extinction efficiencies with greater relative humidity. This BART analysis 

will apply relative humidity correction factors (f(RH)s) to sulfate and nitrate concentrations 

outputs from CALPUFF, which were obtained from EPA’s “Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 2003). The f(RH) values for the 

Class I areas that will be assessed are provided in Table 5. 
Page 17 of 44 

Table 5. Monthly Averaged f(RH) Based on Centroid of the Class I Area 

Class I Area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Badlands 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.7 

Caney Creek 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 

Great Sand 

Dunes 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.4 

Hercules-Glades 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 

Mingo 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.3 

Rocky Mountain 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 

Upper Buffalo 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.3 

Wichita 

Mountains 

2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.8 

Wind Cave 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6 

 

The PM2.5 concentrations are considered part of the dry light extinction equation and do not 

have a humidity adjustment factor. The light extinction equation is the sum of the wet sulfate 

and nitrate and dry components PM2.5 plus Rayleigh scattering, which is 10 inverse 

megameters (Mm-1). 

To account for sources modeled with a known PM speciation profile for EC, SOA, and SO4, 

an adjustment to the extinction coefficient for the PM components will be made in 

CALPOST. KDHE intends to follow the method outlined in the FLM CALPUFF Reviewer’s 

Guide. 

VIII. Visibility Impacts 

Perceived visibility in deciviews is derived from the light extinction coefficient. The 

visibility change related to background is calculated using the modeled and established 

natural visibility conditions. For this BART analysis, daily visibility will be expressed as a 

change in deciviews compared to natural visibility conditions. 

The annual average natural levels of aerosol components at each Class I area are shown in 

Table 6. Natural conditions by component in this Table are based on whether the Class I area 

is in the eastern or the western part of the United States. In this BART analysis, some Class I 

areas are located in the East and some in the West. This data is in EPA’s “Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 2003). 
Page 18 of 44 

Table 6 - Average Annual Natural Levels of Aerosol Components (μg/m3) 

Class I Area Region SO4 NO3 OC EC Soil Coarse Mass 

Badlands WEST 0.12 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.50 3.00 

Caney Creek EAST 0.23 0.10 1.40 0.02 0.50 3.00

Great Sand Dunes WEST 0.12 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.50 3.00 

Hercules-Glades EAST 0.23 0.10 1.40 0.02 0.50 3.00

Mingo EAST 0.23 0.10 1.40 0.02 0.50 3.00

Rocky Mountain WEST 0.12 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.50 3.00 

Upper Buffalo EAST 0.23 0.10 1.40 0.02 0.50 3.00

Wichita Mountains WEST 0.12 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.50 3.00 

Wind Cave WEST 0.12 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.50 3.00 

In a cooperative agreement with EPA Regions VI and VII and federal land managers, 

CENRAP guidance deviates from use of the 98th percentile impact. The CALMET datasets 

as described in this protocol were processed with the “No-Obs” options (i.e., surface 

observations were not used in the CALMET wind field interpolation). Aware that exercising 

CALMET with No-Obs may lead in some applications to potentially less conservatism in the 

CALPUFF visibility results compared with the use of CALMET with observations, 

CENRAP has agreed to EPA’s recommendation that the maximum visibility impact, rather 

than the 98th percentile value, should be used for screening analyses using the CENRAPdeveloped CALMET datasets. This approach will be used in this screening analysis. 

Sources with modeled maximum impacts below the 0.5 dv threshold will be exempt from the 

remainder of the BART process. Sources with impacts at or above 0.5 dv will be allowed a 

reasonable window of time, during which they can either perform more refined CALPUFF 

modeling to show their visibility impact is in fact below the 0.5 dv threshold, or they can 

modify their Title V air operating permit to reduce the potential to emit (PTE) for their 

BART-eligible units to below BART eligibility values for haze-forming pollutants. The 

remaining sources must continue with the BART process and perform a BART analysis. This 

analysis will likely include more refined CALPUFF modeling, using observations coupled 

with the 98th percent impact, finer grid resolution, puff splitting, focused domain, etc. 

IX. Change in Visibility Due to BART Controls 

Once facilities perform their BART analysis and BART emission limits are established, 

KDHE will conduct additional CALPUFF modeling in order to establish visibility 

improvement at Class I areas with BART applied. The post-control CALPUFF simulation 

will be compared to the pre-control CALPUFF simulation by calculating the change in 

visibility over natural conditions between the pre-control and post-control simulations. As 

mentioned above, KDHE will make available the CALPUFF input files used for determining 

sources subject to BART, which facilities may use when making their own BART 

determination. 
Page 19 of 44 

Upon completion of the CALPUFF screening runs, the KDHE will determine if additional 

technical guidance or CALMET model data is available that includes surface and upper air 

observations. This refined modeling, if available, will be used along with an amended 

protocol for performing additional CALPUFF modeling in order to establish visibility 

improvement at Class I areas. It is also likely that some sources will undertake and provide 

refined modeling that can be used for evaluating visibility improvement. These refinements 

would be utilized in this later modeling. 

Sources performing refined modeling will be required to submit a modeling protocol to the 

department for approval. Protocols should also be made available concurrently to EPA and 

FLM’s for their review. The KDHE and EPA will also be requesting modeling inputs used 

in the modeling process. Sources using KDHE’s modeling protocol and modeling inputs will 

not be required to provide a full modeling protocol. The KDHE has a BART analysis 

guidance document to assist sources in the BART analysis process. This document is 

available upon request. 

References 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (October 10, 2005). Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources Subject to BART in the State of Minnesota. 

Gebhart, Howard (September 2005). CALPUFF REVIEWER’S GUIDE. Air Resource 

Specialists, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado.

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino. (2000, January). A User’s Guide for the 

CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. 

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino. (2000, January). A User’s Guide for the 

CALMET Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. 

U.S. EPA. (1998, December). Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase2—Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range 

Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R98-019. 

U.S. EPA (2003, September). Regional Haze: Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule. EPA-454/B-03-005. 

U.S. EPA. (2005, July). Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 128. 
Page 20 of 44 

Appendix A – Federal Class I Areas 

 —Map showing locations and names of areas 
Page 21 of 44 

Appendix A – Federal Class I Areas 

 —Map showing extent of areas
Page 22 of 44 

BART-Eligible Unit Description Stack # Stack Height Stack Diameter Gas Exit Velocity Gas Temp. Gas Flow Rate Highest 24 hr Actual Emissions (ton/yr) 

ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2 NOx PM10

Aquila - Arthur Mullergren 

 Unit 3 - 1041 MMBtu/hr (stack 1) 1 146.0 6.5 0.3 325 600 0.0 19.0 2.6 

 Unit 3 (stack 2) 2 146.0 6.5 0.3 350 2,075 0.0 19.0 2.6 

Totals: 0.0 38.0 5.2 

Aquila - Cimarron River 

 Unit 1 - 703 MMBtu/hr 1 93.0 8.0 54.5 955 164,502 0.0 28.1 3.8 

Aquila - Judson Large 

 Unit 4 - 1536 MMBtu/hr 1 149.0 10.7 91.0 302 492,802 0.1 84.7 9.7 

Basic Chemicals 

 Boiler 1 1 34.0 6.0 28.5 280 48,400 0.4 193.7 5.3  Boiler 2 2 34.0 6.0 28.5 280 48,400 0.4 193.7 5.3  Boiler 3 3 18.0 4.0 36.8 270 27,700 0.2 113.1 3.1  Chloromethanes (control not B-E) 5 59.0 1.7 23.0 95 3,000 0.0 6.4 0.0 

Totals: 1.0 506.9 13.7 

Frontier El Dorado Refining Co. 

 Boiler B-105 - 361 MMBtu/hr (part of FCCU) 3 131.0 6.9 68.9 601 154,120 5.1 346.8 9.5  Boiler B-107 - 233 MMBtu/hr (part of FCCU) 4 98.0 6.9 46.6 399 104,214 2.9 160.6 5.5  Plant process heaters 7 118.0 5.9 21.6 449 35,586 5.5 360.0 9.5 

 Refinery flare system B-1303 16 300.0 3.0 65.5 1,832 28,171 485.5 341.6 0.2 

 Elemental sulfur production units 18 100.0 3.9 139.1 1,200 101,609 98.6 0.4 0.3 

Totals: 597.6 1,209.4 25.0 

Kansas City BPU - Nearman 

 Unit 1 - 2433 MMBtu/hr 1 400.0 23.3 44.0 305 827,000 12,015.8 5,971.4 79.7

Appendix B – Kansas BART-Eligible Unit Details 
Page 23 of 44 

BART-Eligible Unit Description Stack # Stack Height Stack Diameter Gas Exit Velocity Gas Temp. Gas Flow Rate Highest 24 hr Actual Emissions (ton/yr) 

ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2 NOx PM10

Kansas City BPU - Quindaro 

 Unit 1 - 783 MMBtu/hr 1 350.0 12.4 39.0 330 247,100 3,511.3 3,314.2 2.8  Unit 2 - 1394 MMBtu/hr 2 350.0 13.3 83.0 326 474,500 4,482.2 1,620.6 22.0 

Totals: 7,993.5 4,934.8 24.8 

KCP&L - La Cygne 

 Unit 1 - 8720 MMBtu/hr 1 700.0 23.0 92.7 127 2,310,507 20,305.0 44,533.7 171.6  Unit 2 - 10,100 MMBtu/hr 2 700.0 24.0 100.8 281 2,734,697 28,758.4 13,450.3 251.9 

Totals: 49,063.4 57,984.0 423.5 

Koch Nitrogen 

 Ammonia plant - primary reformer 1 139.0 11.0 26.3 300 149,962 1.5 693.5 43.8 

 Ammonia plant - other 2 83.0 1.3 215.9 140 15,848 0.1 18.6 0.3  Nitric acid plant - absorber tail gas 3 50.0 2.4 158.0 420 43,506 0.0 65.7 0.0  Ammonium nitrate plant - neutralizer 5 33.0 1.0 81.0 198 3,818 0.0 0.0 25.8 

Totals: 1.6 777.8 69.9 

McPherson Municipal Power Plant #2 

 Unit 1 - 325 MMBtu/hr 4 82.0 6.4 35.0 900 76,050 0.6 297.5 2.0 

Monarch Cement 

 No. 4 kiln stack 3 190.0 7.0 52.8 311 122,000 21.0 1,346.2 25.3 

 No. 4 kiln clinker cooler 4 40.0 6.0 44.8 172 76,000 0.0 0.0 2.4 

 No. 5 kiln stack 5 190.0 7.0 60.2 240 139,000 21.0 1,346.2 12.6 

 No. 5 kiln clinker cooler 6 40.0 6.0 46.0 244 78,000 0.0 0.0 11.7 

 Raw material unloading 7 25.0 5.0 30.6 139 36,000 0.0 0.0 9.3 

 Clinker grinding and cement handling 24 90.0 1.6 26.9 175 3,250 0.0 0.0 22.1 

 Stone quarry processing Fug. 10.0 13.7 14.2 56 500,000 0.0 0.0 108.1 

Totals: 42.0 2,692.4 191.5 
Page 24 of 44 

BART-Eligible Unit Description Stack # Stack Height Stack Diameter Gas Exit Velocity Gas Temp. Gas Flow Rate Highest 24 hr Actual Emissions (ton/yr) 

ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2 NOx PM10

National Cooperative Refinery Assoc. 

 EU-ALK-3 alky heater HA-002 25 65.0 4.6 14.6 700 14,564 5.7 29.7 1.6  EU-BH-3 No. 9 boiler SB-009 26 51.0 3.9 20.6 510 14,788 4.2 22.1 1.2  EU-BH-4 No. 12 boiler SB-012 27 89.3 3.9 38.0 500 27,262 7.7 40.0 2.2  EU-FPU-11 coker IR Comp. CR-003 14 19.0 0.8 41.3 750 1,353 0.5 73.8 0.2  EU-PLT-8 plat stab boil htr. HP-003 28 70.8 3.3 11.1 600 5,704 1.9 9.8 0.5  EU-PLT-9 plat charge htr. HP-006 21 77.0 4.3 30.2 520 26,307 15.3 79.8 4.3 

Totals: 35.3 255.2 10.0 

Owens Corning 

 70 furnace - N exhaust 3 67.1 4.0 16.2 130 11,000 0.6 81.5 1.9  70 furnace - S exhaust 4 67.1 4.0 16.2 130 11,000 0.6 81.5 1.9  70 riser/channel/forehearth 27 60.4 16.8 9.3 110 115,000 0.1 5.5 20.4  70 A forming 5 93.4 4.3 26.3 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 22.5  70 B forming 28 100.8 4.6 23.5 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 22.5  70 C forming 6 99.4 4.0 30.8 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 2.9  70 D forming 7 93.4 4.3 26.3 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 2.9  70 curing oven charge end 8 42.3 2.5 26.4 90 7,500 0.9 1.5 2.9  70 curing oven discharge end 29 37.8 2.0 41.3 90 7,500 0.9 1.5 2.9  J5 furnace 10 101.2 3.0 54.6 450 13,500 0.9 1.2 2.0  J5 riser/channel/forehearth 11 54.6 30.3 8.7 110 350,000 0.0 6.1 11.7  J6 A forming 20 74.1 3.0 54.8 100 22,000 2.2 2.1 15.3  J6 B forming 21 100.8 4.6 23.5 100 22,000 2.2 2.1 3.1  J6 C forming 22 76.2 3.8 35.1 100 22,000 2.2 2.1 15.3  J6 curing oven charge end 23 37.8 1.8 49.1 90 7,500 0.6 1.2 1.0  J6 curing oven discharge end 24 35.6 1.8 49.1 90 7,500 0.6 1.2 1.0  J6 smoke stripper 30 42.5 1.7 39.5 90 5,000 0.0 0.0 0.1  J6 north cooling (A) 25 42.3 3.4 37.7 90 20,000 0.0 0.0 1.4  J6 south cooling (B) 26 39.0 3.4 37.7 90 20,000 0.0 0.0 1.4  J6 asphalt coating 19 38.0 2.8 17.1 80 6,000 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Totals: 34.2 197.5 133.2 
Page 25 of 44 

BART-Eligible Unit Description Stack # Stack Height Stack Diameter Gas Exit Velocity Gas Temp. Gas Flow Rate Highest 24 hr Actual Emissions (ton/yr) 

ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2 NOx PM10

Sunflower Electric - Garden City 

 Unit S2 - 958 MMBtu/hr 2 124.0 10.0 57.0 253 266,338 2.2 1,045.1 31.3 

Westar Energy - Gordon Evans 

 Unit 2 - 4110 MMBtu/hr (stack 2) 2 197.0 13.0 69.0 290 569,415 9,307.5 4,398.3 372.3

 Unit 2 (stack 3) 3 197.0 13.0 69.0 290 569,415 9,307.5 4,398.3 372.3

Totals: 18,615.0 8,796.6 744.6 

Westar Energy - Hutchinson 

 Unit 4 - 2165 MMBtu/hr (stack A) 4 149.0 8.0 55.7 313 168,000 5,365.5 857.8 167.9  Unit 4 (stack B) 5 149.0 8.0 55.7 313 168,000 5,365.5 857.8 167.9 

Totals: 10,731.0 1,715.6 335.8 

Westar Energy - Jeffrey 

 Unit 1 - 8110 MMBtu/hr 1 600.0 26.0 91.3 300 2,800,000 28,543.0 15,038.0 781.1  Unit 2 - 8110 MMBtu/hr 2 600.0 26.0 91.3 300 2,800,000 29,747.5 15,074.5 784.8 

Totals: 58,290.5 30,112.5 1,565.9 

Westar Energy - Lawrence 

 Unit 5 - 4318 MMBtu/hr 4 366.0 18.0 36.0 166 583,814 8,358.5 4,818.0 755.6

Winfield Mun. Power Plant #2 

 Unit 4 - 333 MMBtu/hr 1 160.0 5.0 195.0 545 63,800 0.7 290.5 2.3 
Page 26 of 44 

Appendix C – CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines 

See attached zip file. 
Page 27 of 44 

Appendix D – CALPUFF Control File Inputs 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 1: General run control parameters 

METRUN Control parameter for running 

all periods in met. File (0=no; 

1=yes) 

0 Y 

IBYR Starting year of the CALPUFF 

run 

2002 n/a 2001 and 2003 are the other years 

modeled 

IBMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IBDY Starting day 1 n/a 

IBHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

XBTZ Base time zone 6.0 n/a Central Standard Time 

IRLG Length of the run (hours) 8760 n/a 2001=8760hrs, 2003=8748hrs only 

12 hrs on 12/31 

NSPEC Total number of species 

modeled 

7 5 

NSE Number of species emitted 4 3 

METFM Meteorological data format 1 Y CALMET unformatted file 

AVET Averaging time (minutes) 60.0 Y 

PGTIME Averaging time (minutes) for 

PG - σy

60.0 Y 

INPUT GROUP 2: Technical options 

MGAUSS Control variable determining the 

vertical distribution used in the 

near field 

1 Y Gaussian 

MCTADJ Terrain adjustment method 3 Y Partial plume path adjustment 

MCTSG CALPUFF sub-grid scale 

complex terrain module (CTSG) 

flag 

0 Y CTSG not modeled 

MSLUG Near-field puffs are modeled as 

elongated “slugs”? 

0 Y No 

MTRANS Transitional plume rise 

modeled? 

1 Y Transitional plume rise computed 

MTIP Stack tip downwash modeled? 1 Y Yes 

MBDW Method used to simulate 

building downwash? 

1 Y ISC method 

MSHEAR Vertical wind shear above stack 

top modeled in plume rise? 

0 Y No 

MSPLIT Puff splitting allowed? 0 Y No 

MCHEM Chemical mechanism flag 1 Y Transformation rates computed 

internally (MESOPUFF II scheme) 

MAQCHEM Aqueous phase transformation 

flag 

0 Y Aqueous phase not modeled 

MWET Wet removal modeled? 1 Y Yes 

MDRY Dry deposition modeled? 1 Y Yes 

MDISP Method used to compute 

dispersion coefficients 

3 Y PG dispersion coefficients in RURAL 

& MP coefficients in urban areas 

MTURBVW Sigma-v/sigma-theta, sigma-w 

measurements used? 

3 Y Use both sigma-(v/theta) and sigma-w 

from PROFILE.DAT 

Note: not provided 
Page 28 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

MDISP2 Backup method used to compute 

dispersion when measured 

turbulence data are missing 

3 Y PG dispersion coefficients in RURAL 

& MP coefficients in urban areas 

MROUGH PG sigma-y,z adj. for 

roughness? 

0 Y No 

MPARTL Partial plume penetration of 

elevated inversion? 

1 Y Yes 

MTINV Strength of temperature 

inversion 

0 Y No 

MPDF PDF used for dispersion under 

convective conditions? 

0 Y No 

MSGTIBL Sub-Grid TIBL module used for 

shoreline? 

0 Y No 

MBCON Boundary conditions 

(concentration) modeled? 

0 Y No 

MFOG Configure for FOG model 

output 

0 Y No 

MREG TEST options specified to see if 

they conform to regulatory 

values? 

1 Y Checks made 

INPUT GROUP 3: Species list 

CSPEC Species modeled SO2 

SO4 

NOX 

HNO3 

NO3 

PM25 

PM10 

n/a Modeled: All 

Emitted: SO2, NOx, PM25, PM10 

Dry deposited: SO2(gas), 

SO4(particle), NOx(gas), HNO3(gas), 

NO3(particle), PM25(particle), 

PM10(particle) 

INPUT GROUP 4: Map projection and grid control parameters 

PMAP Map projection LCC N Lambert conformal conic 

FEAST False Easting 0.0 Y 

FNORT False Northing 0.0 Y 

RLATO Latitude 40N n/a 

RLONG Longitude 97W n/a 

XLAT1 

XLAT2 

Matching parallel(s) of latitude 

for projection 

33N 

45N 

n/a 

n/a 

DATUM Datum region for the 

coordinates 

WGSG N WGS-84 GRS 80 spheroid, global 

coverage (WGS84)

NX 

NY 

NZ 

Meteorological grid: 

No. X grid cells in 

meteorological grid 

No. Y grid cells in 

meteorological grid 

No. vertical layers in 

meteorological grid 

366 

234 

10 

n/a 

DGRIDKM Grid spacing (km) 6 n/a 

ZFACE Cell face heights (m) 0, 20, 

40,80, 

160, 

320, 

640, 

1200, 

n/a 
Page 29 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

2000, 

3000, 

4000 

XORIGKM 

YORIGKM 

Reference coordinates of SW 

corner of grid cell (1,1) (km) 

-1008 

-864 

n/a 

IBCOMP 

JBCOMP 

IECOMP 

JECOMP 

Computational grid:

X index of LL corner 

Y index of LL corner 

X index of UR corner 

Y index of UR corner 

1 

1 

366 

234 

n/a 

LSAMP 

IBSAMP 

JBSAMP 

IESAMP 

JESAMP 

MESHDN 

Logical flag indicating if 

gridded receptors are used 

X index of LL corner 

Y index of LL corner 

X index of UR corner 

Y index of UR corner 

Nesting factor of the sampling 

grid 

F 

1 

- 

Y 

Receptors are only in the Class I areas 

assessed 

INPUT GROUP 5: Output options 

SPECIES Species (or group) list for output 

options 

1 n/a Concentrations saved for SO2, SO4, 

NOx, HNO3, NO3, PM25, PM10 

INPUT GROUP 6: Subgrid scale complex terrain (CTSG) inputs 

NHILL Number of terrain features 0 Y 

NCTREC Number of special complex 

terrain receptors 

0 Y 

MHILL Terrain and CTSG receptor data 

for CTSG hills input in CTDM 

format? 

2 n/a Hill data created by OPTHILL & 

input below in subgroup (6b); receptor 

data in subgroup (6c) note: no data 

provided 

XHILL2M Factor to convert horizontal 

dimensions to meters 

1 Y 

ZHILL2M Factor to convert vertical 

dimensions to meters 

1 Y 

XCTDMKM X-origin of CTDM system 

relative to CALPUFF coordinate 

system, in Km 

0 n/a 

YCTDMKM Y-origin of CTDM system 

relative to CALPUFF coordinate 

system, in Km 

0 n/a 

INPUT GROUP 7: Chemical parameters for dry deposition of gases 

SPECIES 

DIFFUSVTY 

ALPHA STR 

REACTVTY 

MESO RES 

HENRYS C 

Chemical parameters for dry 

deposition of gases 

- Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

SO2; NOx; HNO3 

0.1509 0.1656 0.1628 

1000 1 1 

8 8 18 

0 5 0 

0.04 3.5 8.0*E-8 

INPUT GROUP 8: Size parameters for dry deposition of particles 

SPECIES 

GEO. MASS 

MEAN DIA. 

Single species: mean and 

standard deviation used to 

compute deposition velocity for 

- n/a SO4 NO3 PM25 PM10 

0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 
Page 30 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

GEO.STAND 

DEV. 

NINT size-ranges; averaged to 

obtain mean deposition velocity. 

Grouped species: size 

distribution specified, standard 

deviation as “0”. Model uses 

deposition velocity for stated 

mean diameter. 

2 2 2 2 

INPUT GROUP 9: Miscellaneous dry deposition parameters 

RCUTR Reference cuticle resistance 30 Y 

RGR Reference ground resistance 10 Y 

REACTR Reference pollutant reactivity 8 Y 

NINT Number of particle-size intervals 

to evaluate effective particle 

deposition velocity 

9 Y 

IVEG Vegetation state in unirrigated 

areas 

1 Y 

INPUT GROUP 10: Wet deposition parameters 

POLL 

LIQ PRECIP 

FRZ PRECIP 

Scavenging coefficients - Y 

Y 

Y 

SO2 SO4 NOx HNO3 NO3 

3E-5 1E-4 0 6E-5 1E-4 

0 3E-5 0 0 3E-5 

INPUT GROUP 11: Chemistry parameters 

MOZ Ozone data input option 1 N Read hourly ozone conc. From the 

OZONE.DAT data file 

BCKO3 Monthly ozone concentrations - N 12*40 

BCKNH3 Monthly ammonia 

concentrations 

- N 12*3 

RNITE1 Nighttime SO2 loss rate 0.2 Y 

RNITE2 Nighttime NOx loss rate 2.0 Y 

RNITE3 Nighttime HNO3 formation rate 2.0 Y 

MH2O2 H2O2 data input option 1 Y 

BCKH2O2 Monthly H2O2 concentrations - Y MQACHEM = 0; not used 

BCKPMF 

OFRAC 

VCNX 

Secondary Organic Aerosol 

options 

- - MCHEM = 1; thus, not used 

INPUT GROUP 12: Misc. Dispersion and computational parameters 

SYTDEP Horizontal size of puff beyond 

which time-dependent 

dispersion equations (Heffter) 

are used. 

550 Y 

MHFTSZ Switch for using Heffter 

equation for sigma z as above 

0 Y 

JSUP Stability class used to determine 

plume growth rates for puffs 

above boundary layer 

5 Y 

CONK1 Vertical dispersion constant for 

stable conditions 

0.01 Y 

CONK2 Vertical dispersion constant for 

neutral/unstable conditions 

0.1 Y 

TBD Factor determining transitionpoint from Schulman-Scire to 0.5 Y No building downwash used 
Page 31 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

Huber-Snyder building 

downwash scheme 

IURB1 

IURB2 

Range of land use categories for 

which urban dispersion is 

assumed 

10 

19 

Y 

Y 

METFM=1; not used 

ILANDUIN Land use category for modeling 

domain 

- - METFM=1; not used 

ZOIN Roughness length (m) for 

modeling domain 

- - METFM=1; not used 

XLAIIN Leaf area index for modeling 

domain 

- - METFM=1; not used 

ELEVIN Elevation above sea level - - METFM=1; not used 

XLATIN Latitude (degrees) for met 

location 

- - METFM=1; not used 

XLONIN Longitude (degrees) for met 

location 

- - METFM=1; not used 

ANEMHT Anemometer height (m) - - METFM=1; not used

ISIGMAV Form of lateral turbulence data 

in PROFILE.DAT 

1 Y Read sigma-v 

IMIXCTDM Choice of mixing heights - - METFM=1; not used 

XMXLEN Maximum length of a slug 1 Y 

XSAMLEN Maximum travel distance of a 

puff/slug during one sampling 

step 

1 Y 

MXNEW Maximum number of slugs/puffs 

released from one source during 

one time step 

99 Y 

MXSAM Maximum number of sampling 

steps for one puff/slug during 

one time step 

99 Y 

NCOUNT Number of iterations used when 

computing the transport wind 

for a sampling step that includes 

gradual rise 

2 Y 

SYMIN Minimum sigma y for a new 

puff/slug 

1 Y 

SZMIN Minimum sigma z for a new 

puff/slug 

1 Y 

SVMIN 

SWMIN 

Default minimum turbulence 

velocities sigma-v and sigma-w 

for each stability class 

- Y A B C D E F 

.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 

.2 .12 .08 .06 .03 .016 

CDIV Divergence criterion for dw/dz 

across puff used to initiate 

adjustment for horizontal 

convergence 

0, 0 Y 

WSCALM Minimum wind speed allowed 

for non-calm conditions. Used 

as minimum speed returned 

when using power-law 

extrapolation toward surface 

0.5 Y 

XMAXZI Maximum mixing height (m) 4000 N Top interface in CALMET simulation 

XMINZI Minimum mixing height (m) 20 N 

 Default wind speed classes - Y 1 2 3 4 5 
Page 32 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

WSCAT 1.54 3.09 5.14 8.23 10.80 

PLXO 

Default wind speed profile 

power-law exponents for 

stabilities 1-6 

- Y 

ISC 

RURAL 

A B C D E F 

.07 .07 .10 .15 .35 .55 

PTGO Default potential temperature 

gradient for stable classes E, F 

(deg K/m) 

- Y 0.020; 0.035 

PPC Default plume path coefficients 

for each stability class 

- Y A B C D E F 

.5 .5 .5 .5 .35 .35 

SL2PF Slug-to-puff transitions criterion 

factor equal to sigma-y/length of 

slug 

10 Y 

NSPLIT Number of puffs that result 

every time a puff is split 

3 Y 

IRESPLIT Time of day when split puffs are 

eligible to be split once again; 

this is typically set once per day, 

around sunset before nocturnal 

shear develops 

- N Hour 18 = 1 

ZISPLIT Split is allowed only if last 

hour’s mixing height (m) 

exceeds a minimum value 

100 Y 

ROLDMAX Split is allowed only if ratio of 

last hour’s mixing ht to the 

maximum mixing ht 

experienced by the puff is less 

than a maximum value 

0.25 Y 

NSPLITH Number of puffs that result 

every time a puff is split 

5 Y 

SYSPLITH Minimum sigma-y of puff 

before it may be split 

1 Y 

SHSPLITH Minimum puff elongation rate 

due to wind shear, before it may 

be split 

2 Y 

CNSPLITH Minimum concentration of each 

species in puff before it may be 

split 

1E-7 Y 

EPSSLUG Fractional convergence criterion 

for numerical SLUG sampling 

integration 

1E-4 Y 

EPSAREA Fractional convergence criterion 

for numerical AREA source 

integration 

1E-6 Y 

DSRISE Trajectory step-length (m) used 

for numerical rise integration 

1 Y 

HTMINBC Minimum height (m) to which 

BC puffs are mixed as they are 

emitted. Actual height is reset 

to the current mixing height at 

the release point if greater than 

this minimum 

500 Y 

RSAMPBC Search radius (in BC segment 

lengths) about a receptor for 

sampling nearest BC puff. BC 

10 N 
Page 33 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

puffs are emitted with a spacing 

of one segment length, so the 

search radius should be greater 

than 1 

MDEPBC Near-surface depletion 

adjustment to concentration 

profile used when sampling BC 

puffs? 

1 Y Adjust concentration for depletion 

INPUT GROUP 13: Point source parameters 

NPT1 Number of point sources with 

parameters 

- n/a See Appendix B 

IPTU Units used for point source 

emissions 

1 Y 

NSPT1 Number of source-species 

combinations with variable 

emissions scaling factors 

0 Y 

NPT2 Number of point sources with 

variable emission parameters 

provided in external file 

0 n/a 

INPUT GROUP 14: Area source parameters – Not used 

INPUT GROUP 15: Line source parameters – Not used 

INPUT GROUP 16: Volume source parameters – Not used

INPUT GROUP 17: Non-gridded (discrete) receptor information 

NREC Number of non-gridded 

receptors 

0 

1229 

n/a 100 Badlands 

80 Caney Creek 

195 Great Sand Dunes 

80 Hercules-Glades 

47 Mingo 

407 Rocky Mountain 

72 Upper Buffalo 

189 Wind Cave 

59 Wichita Mountains 
Page 34 of 44 

Appendix E – POSTUTIL Control File Inputs 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 1: General run control parameters 

ISYR Starting Year 2002 n/a 2001 and 2003 also modeled 

ISMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IDY Starting day 1 n/a 

ISHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

NPER Number of periods to process 8760 n/a 2001=8760 hrs, 

2003=8748hrs only 12 hrs 

on 12/31 

NSPECINP Number of species to process from 

CALPUFF runs 

7 n/a 

NSPECOUT Number of species to write to output file 7 n/a 

NSPECCMP Number of species to compute from those 

modeled 

0 n/a 

MDUPLCT Stop run if duplicate species names 

found? 

0 Y 

NSCALED Number of CALPUFF data files that will 

be scaled 

0 Y 

MNITRATE Re-compute the HNO3/NO3 partition for 

concentrations? 

1 N Yes, for all sources 

combined 

BCKNH3 Default ammonia concentrations used for 

HNO3/NO3 partition 

- N 12*3 

INPUT GROUP 2: Species processing information 

ASPECI NSPECINP species will be processed - n/a SO2, SO4, NOx, HNO3, 

NO3, PMC, PMF 

ASPECO NSPECOUT species will be written - n/a SO2, SO4, NOx, HNO3, 

NO3, PMC, PMF 
Page 35 of 44 

Appendix F – CALPOST Control File Inputs 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

INPUT GROUP 1: General run control parameters 

METRUN Option to run all periods found in met 

files 

0 Y Run period explicitly 

defined 

ISYR Starting Year 2002 n/a 2001 and 2003 also modeled 

ISMO Starting month 1 n/a 

IDY Starting day 1 n/a 

ISHR Starting hour 1 n/a 

NHRS Number of hours to process 8760 n/a 2001=8760hrs, 

2003=8748hrs only 12 hrs 

on 12/31 

NREP Process every hour of data? 1 Y Every hour processed 

ASPEC Species to process VISIB n/a Visibility processing 

ILAYER Layer/deposition code 1 Y CALPUFF concentrations 

A, B Scaling factors X(new) = X(old) *A + B 0, 0 Y 

LBACK Add hourly background 

concentrations/fluxes? 

F Y 

MSOURCE Option to process source contributions 0 Y 

LG 

LD 

Gridded receptors processed? 

Discrete receptors processed? 

F 

T 

N/Y Receptors located only in 

the Class I areas assessed 

LCT CTSG Complex terrain receptors 

processed? 

F Y 

LDRING Report results by DISCRETE receptor 

RING? 

F Y 

NDRECP Flag for all receptors after the last one 

assigned is set to “0” 

-1 Y 

IBGRID 

JBGRID 

IEGRID 

JEGRID 

Range of gridded receptors -1 

-1 

-1 

-1 

Y When LG = T 

Entire grid processed if all 

=-1 

NGONOFF Number of gridded receptor rows 

provided to identify specific gridded 

receptors to process 

0 Y 

BTZONE Base time zone for the CALPUFF 

simulation 

6 n/a 

MFRH Particle growth curve f(RH) for 

hygroscopic species 

2 Y FLAG (2000) f(RH) 

tabulation. Note: not used 

RHMAX Maximum relative humidity (%) used in 

particle growth curve 

- N Not used 

LVSO4 

LVNO3 

LVOC 

LVPMC 

LVPMF 

LVEC 

Modeled species to be included in 

computing light extinction 

T 

T 

F 

T 

T 

F 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

LVBK Include BACKGROUND when ranking 

for TOP-N, TOP-50, and exceedence 

tables? 

T Y 

SPECPMC Species name used for particulates in PMC Y 
Page 36 of 44 

Variable Description Value Default Comments 

SPECPMF MODEL.DAT file PMF Y 

EEPMC 

EEPMF 

Modeled particulate species 0.6 

1.0 

Y 

Y 

EEPMCBK Background particulate species 0.6 Y 

EESO4 

EENO3 

EEOC 

EESOIL 

EEEC 

Other species 3.0 

3.0 

4.0 

1.0 

10 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

LAVER Background extinction computation F Y 

MVISBK Method used for background light 

extinction 

6 N Compute extinction from 

speciated PM measurements. 

FLAG RH adjustment factor 

applied to observed and 

modeled sulfate and nitrate 

RHFAC Extinction coefficients for hygroscopic 

species (modeled and background). 

Monthly RH adjustment factors 

- n/a See Table 5 in main protocol 

document 

BKSO4 

BKNO3 

BKPMC 

BKOC 

BKSOIL 

BKEC 

Monthly concentrations of ammonium 

sulfate, ammonium nitrate, coarse 

particulates, organic carbon, soil and 

elemental carbon to compute background 

extinction coefficients 

- n/a See Table 6 in main protocol 

document 

BEXTRAY Extinction due to Rayleigh scattering 

(1/Mm) 

10 Y 

IPRTU Units for all output 1 Y grams/cubic meter 

L24HR Averaging time reported T n/a 

LTOPN Visibility: Top “N” table for each 

averaging time selected. 

F Y 

NTOP Number of ‘Top-N’ values at each 

receptor selected (NTOP must be <=4) 

4 Y 

MDVIS Output file with visibility change at each 

receptor? 

0 Y Create file of DAILY (24 

hour) delta-deciview. Grid 

model run. 
Page 37 of 44 

Appendix E – CALPUFF Comparison – Regulatory vs. Proposed 

The regulatory version of CALPUFF is Version: 5.7, Level: 030402. The KDHE is 

proposing to use Version: 5.753, Level: 051130. The regulatory version of CALPOST is 

CALPOST Version 5.4, Level 030402. The KDHE is proposing to use Version 5.6392, 

Level 051130. 

To ensure our proposed version of the models would not lead to differences in results we ran 

one source using both versions of the models for 1 year and evaluated deciview impacts in all 

9 Class I areas. The resulting number of deciview impacts > 0.5 was the same at all Class I 

areas. In addition, the daily impacts were also identical. 

The two tables below show the number of impacts > 0.5 dv and the daily comparison of 

visibility impacts, in delta dv for one of the Class I areas. 

Class I Area DV > 0.5 DV > 0.5 

 Regulatory Proposed

Badlands 1 1

Caney Creek 10 10

Great Sand Dunes 0 0

Hercules-Glades 8 8

Mingo 5 5

Rocky Mountain 0 0

Upper Buffalo 8 8

Wichita Mountains 2 2

Wind Cave 1 1

Comparison of the daily delta deciview impacts in Caney Creek in 2003 using both the 

regulatory and proposed version of CALPUFF and CALPOST. 

Year Day Regulatory Proposed

2003 1 0 0

2003 2 0.067 0.067

2003 3 0.002 0.002

2003 4 0 0

2003 5 0 0

2003 6 0.023 0.023

2003 7 0.058 0.058

2003 8 0.007 0.007

2003 9 0.002 0.002

2003 10 0.012 0.012

2003 11 0.005 0.005

2003 12 0.034 0.034

2003 13 0.044 0.044

2003 14 0.066 0.066

2003 15 0.828 0.828

2003 16 0.303 0.303

2003 17 0.047 0.047
Page 38 of 44 

2003 18 0 0

2003 19 0 0

2003 20 0 0

2003 21 0.084 0.084

2003 22 0.048 0.048

2003 23 0.134 0.134

2003 24 0.006 0.006

2003 25 0.008 0.008

2003 26 0.085 0.085

2003 27 0.388 0.388

2003 28 0.02 0.02

2003 29 0.163 0.163

2003 30 0.122 0.122

2003 31 0.067 0.067

2003 32 0 0

2003 33 0 0

2003 34 0.113 0.113

2003 35 0.019 0.019

2003 36 0.058 0.058

2003 37 0.053 0.053

2003 38 0.326 0.326

2003 39 0.037 0.037

2003 40 0.026 0.026

2003 41 0 0

2003 42 0 0

2003 43 0.001 0.001

2003 44 0 0

2003 45 0 0

2003 46 0.694 0.694

2003 47 0.044 0.044

2003 48 0.001 0.001

2003 49 0.032 0.032

2003 50 0.002 0.002

2003 51 0.007 0.007

2003 52 0.006 0.006

2003 53 0.296 0.296

2003 54 0.251 0.251

2003 55 0.349 0.349

2003 56 0.216 0.216

2003 57 0.003 0.003

2003 58 0.033 0.033

2003 59 0.117 0.117

2003 60 0.122 0.122

2003 61 0.239 0.239

2003 62 0.602 0.602

2003 63 0.756 0.756

2003 64 1.008 1.008

2003 65 0.405 0.405

2003 66 0.088 0.088

2003 67 0.016 0.016
Page 39 of 44 

2003 68 0.289 0.289

2003 69 0.38 0.38

2003 70 0.203 0.203

2003 71 0.013 0.013

2003 72 0.021 0.021

2003 73 0.606 0.606

2003 74 0.351 0.351

2003 75 0.083 0.083

2003 76 0.012 0.012

2003 77 0.002 0.002

2003 78 0 0

2003 79 0.142 0.142

2003 80 0.006 0.006

2003 81 0.055 0.055

2003 82 0.009 0.009

2003 83 0.003 0.003

2003 84 0.004 0.004

2003 85 0.057 0.057

2003 86 0.016 0.016

2003 87 0.062 0.062

2003 88 0 0

2003 89 0 0

2003 90 0 0

2003 91 0 0

2003 92 0 0

2003 93 0 0

2003 94 0.001 0.001

2003 95 0.108 0.108

2003 96 0.067 0.067

2003 97 0.084 0.084

2003 98 0.104 0.104

2003 99 0.175 0.175

2003 100 0.004 0.004

2003 101 0.022 0.022

2003 102 0.027 0.027

2003 103 0.016 0.016

2003 104 0.003 0.003

2003 105 0 0

2003 106 0 0

2003 107 0.016 0.016

2003 108 0.021 0.021

2003 109 0 0

2003 110 0.074 0.074

2003 111 0.023 0.023

2003 112 0.01 0.01

2003 113 0.039 0.039

2003 114 0 0

2003 115 0.153 0.153

2003 116 0.069 0.069

2003 117 0.036 0.036
Page 40 of 44 

2003 118 0.003 0.003

2003 119 0 0

2003 120 0 0

2003 121 0 0

2003 122 0.023 0.023

2003 123 0.167 0.167

2003 124 0.038 0.038

2003 125 0 0

2003 126 0 0

2003 127 0.002 0.002

2003 128 0.003 0.003

2003 129 0 0

2003 130 0 0

2003 131 0.004 0.004

2003 132 0 0

2003 133 0 0

2003 134 0 0

2003 135 0 0

2003 136 0 0

2003 137 0.002 0.002

2003 138 0.094 0.094

2003 139 0.024 0.024

2003 140 0.065 0.065

2003 141 0.14 0.14

2003 142 0.028 0.028

2003 143 0.014 0.014

2003 144 0.01 0.01

2003 145 0.36 0.36

2003 146 0.545 0.545

2003 147 0.09 0.09

2003 148 0.045 0.045

2003 149 0.176 0.176

2003 150 0.057 0.057

2003 151 0.09 0.09

2003 152 0.068 0.068

2003 153 0.042 0.042

2003 154 0.433 0.433

2003 155 0.372 0.372

2003 156 0.108 0.108

2003 157 0.063 0.063

2003 158 0.095 0.095

2003 159 0.033 0.033

2003 160 0.013 0.013

2003 161 0.004 0.004

2003 162 0.001 0.001

2003 163 0.001 0.001

2003 164 0.002 0.002

2003 165 0.016 0.016

2003 166 0.052 0.052

2003 167 0.077 0.077
Page 41 of 44 

2003 168 0.024 0.024

2003 169 0.009 0.009

2003 170 0.02 0.02

2003 171 0.017 0.017

2003 172 0 0

2003 173 0 0

2003 174 0 0

2003 175 0 0

2003 176 0 0

2003 177 0.024 0.024

2003 178 0.092 0.092

2003 179 0 0

2003 180 0.002 0.002

2003 181 0.004 0.004

2003 182 0.004 0.004

2003 183 0.004 0.004

2003 184 0.002 0.002

2003 185 0.001 0.001

2003 186 0 0

2003 187 0 0

2003 188 0 0

2003 189 0 0

2003 190 0 0

2003 191 0 0

2003 192 0.04 0.04

2003 193 0.03 0.03

2003 194 0.002 0.002

2003 195 0 0

2003 196 0 0

2003 197 0 0

2003 198 0.001 0.001

2003 199 0.001 0.001

2003 200 0 0

2003 201 0 0

2003 202 0.016 0.016

2003 203 0.04 0.04

2003 204 0.027 0.027

2003 205 0.001 0.001

2003 206 0 0

2003 207 0 0

2003 208 0 0

2003 209 0 0

2003 210 0 0

2003 211 0.017 0.017

2003 212 0.086 0.086

2003 213 0.098 0.098

2003 214 0.047 0.047

2003 215 0.006 0.006

2003 216 0 0

2003 217 0 0
Page 42 of 44 

2003 218 0.093 0.093

2003 219 0.46 0.46

2003 220 0.216 0.216

2003 221 0.036 0.036

2003 222 0.006 0.006

2003 223 0.051 0.051

2003 224 0.005 0.005

2003 225 0 0

2003 226 0 0

2003 227 0 0

2003 228 0 0

2003 229 0.001 0.001

2003 230 0.001 0.001

2003 231 0.01 0.01

2003 232 0.027 0.027

2003 233 0.034 0.034

2003 234 0.036 0.036

2003 235 0.064 0.064

2003 236 0.136 0.136

2003 237 0.161 0.161

2003 238 0.121 0.121

2003 239 0.039 0.039

2003 240 0.017 0.017

2003 241 0.002 0.002

2003 242 0 0

2003 243 0 0

2003 244 0.002 0.002

2003 245 0.031 0.031

2003 246 0.083 0.083

2003 247 0.052 0.052

2003 248 0.001 0.001

2003 249 0 0

2003 250 0 0

2003 251 0 0

2003 252 0 0

2003 253 0 0

2003 254 0 0

2003 255 0 0

2003 256 0 0

2003 257 0.636 0.636

2003 258 0.186 0.186

2003 259 0.021 0.021

2003 260 0 0

2003 261 0 0

2003 262 0.046 0.046

2003 263 0.016 0.016

2003 264 0.066 0.066

2003 265 0.041 0.041

2003 266 0.003 0.003

2003 267 0.012 0.012
Page 43 of 44 

2003 268 0.054 0.054

2003 269 0.057 0.057

2003 270 0.025 0.025

2003 271 0.018 0.018

2003 272 0.014 0.014

2003 273 0.001 0.001

2003 274 0.051 0.051

2003 275 0.154 0.154

2003 276 0.115 0.115

2003 277 0.07 0.07

2003 278 0.078 0.078

2003 279 0.078 0.078

2003 280 0.069 0.069

2003 281 0.046 0.046

2003 282 0.013 0.013

2003 283 0.004 0.004

2003 284 0 0

2003 285 0.066 0.066

2003 286 0.149 0.149

2003 287 0.071 0.071

2003 288 0.045 0.045

2003 289 0.015 0.015

2003 290 0.015 0.015

2003 291 0.01 0.01

2003 292 0.034 0.034

2003 293 0.01 0.01

2003 294 0 0

2003 295 0.128 0.128

2003 296 0.106 0.106

2003 297 0.011 0.011

2003 298 0.088 0.088

2003 299 0.125 0.125

2003 300 0.037 0.037

2003 301 0 0

2003 302 0 0

2003 303 0 0

2003 304 0 0

2003 305 0.001 0.001

2003 306 0 0

2003 307 0 0

2003 308 0.018 0.018

2003 309 0.888 0.888

2003 310 1.185 1.185

2003 311 0.295 0.295

2003 312 0.015 0.015

2003 313 0 0

2003 314 0 0

2003 315 0 0

2003 316 0 0

2003 317 0.005 0.005
Page 44 of 44 

2003 318 0 0

2003 319 0 0

2003 320 0 0

2003 321 0 0

2003 322 0.004 0.004

2003 323 0.157 0.157

2003 324 0 0

2003 325 0 0

2003 326 0 0

2003 327 0.001 0.001

2003 328 0 0

2003 329 0 0

2003 330 0 0

2003 331 0.162 0.162

2003 332 0.07 0.07

2003 333 0 0

2003 334 0 0

2003 335 0.044 0.044

2003 336 0 0

2003 337 0.006 0.006

2003 338 0.108 0.108

2003 339 0.362 0.362

2003 340 0.036 0.036

2003 341 0 0

2003 342 0 0

2003 343 0.002 0.002

2003 344 0.252 0.252

2003 345 0.004 0.004

2003 346 0.123 0.123

2003 347 0.005 0.005

2003 348 0.091 0.091

2003 349 0.013 0.013

2003 350 0.001 0.001

2003 351 0 0

2003 352 0 0

2003 353 0 0

2003 354 0 0

2003 355 0.002 0.002

2003 356 0 0

2003 357 0.063 0.063

2003 358 0.034 0.034

2003 359 0.119 0.119

2003 360 0.019 0.019

2003 361 0 0

2003 362 0 0

2003 363 0 0

2003 364 0 0