# 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 Fe deral Register, including Appendix Y, the final guidance for Best Available Retrofit Tech nology (BART) determinations (70 FR 39104-39172). The BART rule requires the installati on of BART on emission sources that fit specific criteria and “may reasonably be anticipate d to cause or contribute” to visibility impairment in any Class I area. Air quality modelin g is a means for determining who causes or contributes to visibility impairment. Kansas’s p roposed protocol for conducting this modeling for BART is provided herein.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KD HE) foresees three purposes for this protocol. First, KDHE will use the protocol to dete rmine what BART-eligible units are subject to BART and must perform a BART analysis. S econd, 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 w ill use this protocol, with potential revisions that would incorporate meteorological obs ervations, to conduct modeling to show visibility impact on Class I areas, once KDHE appro ves the BART emission limits for facilities subject to BART. This final modeling wil l be submitted to the EPA as part of the BART section of the Kansas State Implementation Pla n (SIP) for regional haze.

New BART guidance, both informal and formal, contin ues to become available from EPA and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) that oversee v isibility in Class I areas. Kansas has developed a schedule for completing BART analyses a nd 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 a nalyses 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 ea rly April 2006. KDHE will use the draft version of the protocol, which will become final wh en approved by EPA and the FLMs. KDHE anticipates that it will notify sources subjec t to BART by the end of May 2006. In the BART determination guidance provided by KDHE, facil ities 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 wil derness 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 applicat ion of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is emit ted by a BART-eligible source. The

emission limitation must be established on a unit-b y-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 equipm ent in use or in existence at the source,

### Page 4 of 44

the remaining useful life of the source, and the de gree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the us e of such technology. BART requirements, in the form of an agreement to implem ent 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 inclu des reasonable progress goals in addition to the goals established by sources subject to BART. S IPs 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 yea r of any haze-forming pollutant (primarily NO

x 

### , SO 2 

### , or PM 10 

### ); 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 sourc e is considered to cause visibility impairment if it has a least a 1.0 deciview (dv) im pact on the visibility in a Class I area. A source is considered to contribute to visibility im pairment if it has at least a 0.5 dv impact.

The BART guidance allows a state to exempt individu al 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 modelin g. Although the BART guidance does not dictate how such an analysis must be done, it p rovides direction, which was used to develop this modeling protocol.

The BART analysis process includes several other st eps in addition to the modeling described in this protocol. These steps, none of wh ich are addressed in this document, include detailed analysis of:

• Costs of compliance among the various retrofit cont rol options;

• Energy and non-air quality impacts;

• Existing pollution control technologies in use at t he BART-eligible unit, particularly with respect to their affecting the choice of retro fit 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 suggeste d 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). Ka nsas has decided to conduct the subjectto-BART modeling, rather than have each BART-eligib le facility either conduct the modeling or hire a contractor. This plan will elimi nate 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 appr oach among the modeling analyses. Once the subject-to-BART modeling is complete, all the m odeling inputs will be available to facilities subject to BART for them or their consul tants to conduct modeling for making BART analyses.

The modeling approach discussed here is specificall y designed for conducting the subject-toBART screening analyses. There may be differences b etween 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) Model ing 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 Consor tium (LADCO), draft version September 6, 2005; 3. “CALPUFF Modeling Protocol in Support of Best Av ailable Retrofit Technology Determinations,” developed by the State of Iowa, dr aft version August 2005; and 4. “Protocol for BART-Related Visibility Impairment Modeling Analyses in North Dakota,” developed by the State of North Dakota, dr aft version September 2005.

This draft protocol is most similar to the Minnesot a draft protocol. Kansas is in EPA region VII, and they will be reviewing Kansas’s Regional H aze 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 criter ia 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 (complet ed 2005); 4. Choose an appropriate air quality model and deve lop inputs (completed 2006); 5. Conduct and post-process the subject-to-BART mod eling and evaluate the results 6. Notify facilities of the screening results;

### Page 6 of 44 7. Obtain emission limits and stack parameters resu lting from BART analyses made by facilities subject to BART; and 8. Conduct follow-up modeling showing the differenc e between pre- and post-BART analyses.



# IV. BART-Eligible Units

In September 2002, KDHE mailed surveys to facilitie s that met the Regional Haze Rule’s source category criteria under a request for inform ation (RFI) about the air emission units at their facilities. Subsequent analysis of the respon ses 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 bas ed 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 facili ties submit emission data for nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), particulate matter up to 10 μm in size (PM 10 

### ), volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), and ammonia (NH 3 

### ). Emissions were reported in tons per year, and reflected the potential to emit for each pollut ant, in accordance with the 1999 Regional Haze Rule’s definition of BART-eligible units. Subs equent 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-e ligible unit. This latter emissions data will be used to model peak 24-hour averages for eva luating visibility.

KDHE does not intend to use emissions of VOCs and a mmonia from facilities for subject-toBART analysis. Only specific VOC compounds form sec ondary organic aerosols that affect visibility. These compounds are a fraction of the t otal 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 pre scribed 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 concentrat ion—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 Re gional Haze SIP.



## B. Stack parameters Stack parameters for modeling were obtained from th e State’s emission inventory database. The parameters are: height of the stack opening fro m ground, inside stack diameter, exit gas flow rate, exit gas temperature, base elevation abo ve 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 pa rameters 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 locate d 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 source s. Impact to other surrounding Class I

areas will also be evaluated. The list of nine Clas s I areas which will be included in the modeling analysis are depicted in Table 2. Table 2 a lists the calculated distances, in kilometers, between the 19 BART-eligible sources an d nine Class I areas that will be evaluated. Figure 2 shows the location of each Cla ss 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 GRSA 1

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

AssessedPage 11 of 44Table 2a Calculated Distances from facilities to Class I areas being evaluatedCALCULATED DISTANCES TO CLASS I AREAS (km)Fac. IDFacility NameBADL1CACR1GRSA1HEGL1MING1ROMO1UPBU1WIMO1WICA10090002 Aquila – Arthur Mullergren 646 610 588 562786 616 5794086911750001 Aquila - Cimarron River 747 678 413 716 960545 7063277530570001 Aquila - Judson Large 687 635 494 633 869 568 6363527121730070 Basic Chemicals 783 456 714 414 649 770 4253378380150004 Frontier El Dorado Refining. 786 445 762374602 804 394 379 8492090008 Kansas City BPU - Nearman 790 524 957323468 939 393 607 8822090048 Kansas City BPU - Quindaro 795 523 962319463 945 390 610 8871070005 KCP&L - La Cygne 859 433 958244263 968 306 542 9430570003 Koch Nitrogen 688 636 493 634 424 568 6373517121130014 McPherson Mun. Power Plant #2 696 537 691 464 683 714 4884137550010009 Monarch Cement Co. 859 389 889258477 922 295 451 9341130003 National Coop. Refinery Assoc. 698 535 692462 681 716 4864127582090010 Owens Corning 797 522 964318461 947 389 611 8880550026 Sunflower Electric - Garden City 647 721408722 957 483 725 409 6581730012 Westar Energy - Gordon Evans 759 479 705 428 659 752 4433568151550033 Westar Energy - Hutchinson 715 524 673 468694 710 4863807701490001 Westar Energy - Jeffrey 694 564 838408582 818 462 556 7780450014 Westar Energy - Lawrence 766 515 905337504 894 398 564 8530350012 Winfield Mun. Power Plant #2 829 409 748 377 616 813 381317885

### Page 12 of 44



# VII. Air Quality Model and Inputs

According to the final Regional Haze Rule’s BART gu idance, a State “can use CALPUFF or other appropriate model to predict the visibility i mpacts from a single source at a Class I area.” For purposes of the BART analysis, KDHE inte nds to use CALPUFF. The KDHE recognizes that CALPUFF has limited ability to simu late 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 CALPU FF for the following reasons: 1. The increased level of effort required for condu cting 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 par ticulate apportionment technique currently available in CAMx;

3. The desire to be consistent with other CENRAP st ates, which all (except Texas and Iowa) appear to be using CALPUFF; 4. The limited scope of what this modeling is to de termine; and 5. The additional modeling of BART controls that wi ll 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 Interage ncy Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) guidance, Phase 2 recommendations for long-range transport. The IWAQM guidance was developed to address air qua lity 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 BA RT-eligible sources. KDHE intends to closely follow the CENRAP CALPUFF modeli ng protocol for most of the settings and inputs. It is important to note that the major ity 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 p rohibitive on the current domain; thus puff splitting will not be employed is this modelin g.



## A. Modeling domain The CALPUFF modeling will be conducted on the CENRA P 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 an nual simulations spanning the years 2001 through 2003. The IWAQM guidance allows the us e 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 model ing analysis. See the section on meteorology for more information.



## B. CALPUFF system implementation There are three main components to the CALPUFF mode l: 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 versio n of the CALPUFF system rather than the EPA approved regulatory version, we have perfor med 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 C ALPUFF 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 deve lop this dataset, refer to the CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines document in Appendix C.

Note that no observation data was used in the CALME T outputs developed by CENRAP. This means the prognostic meteorological data set f rom 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 dr aft CENRAP guidelines that

observations should be used in refined CALPUFF mode ling. KDHE is recommending that observations be incorporated into a refined modelin g analysis, but not in this screening analysis.

Appendix C contains the CENRAP BART Modeling Guidel ines, 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 m odel, 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 recomm ended default options in the CALPUFF model. There are some deviations, which are discussed below. CALPUFF is considered most applicable for sources located betw een 50 km and 250 km of the Class I area; in Kansas, the majority of BART-eligible unit s 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 analysi s:



## Table 4. Species Modeled in BART Analysis

Species Modeled Emitted Dry Deposited

SO 2 

### Yes Yes Computed-gas

SO 4 

### Yes No Computed-particle

NO

x 

### Yes Yes Computed-gas

HNO 3 

### Yes No Computed-gas

NO 3 

### 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 prof ile for sulfate (SO 4 

### ), elemental carbon (EC), and secondary organic aerosols (SOA) are know n, SO 4 

### will be modeled as a separate species in CALPUFF if that source is close to the v isibility contribution threshold. This will not be necessary in most cases, as many sources wil l 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” s pecies (i.e., SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , and PM 2.5 

### ). 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 PM 2.5 

### , the default values may be appropriate. However, many fa cilities may not be able to supply PM 2.5 

### emissions and will supply what is available, PM 10 

### emissions data. In this case, using the default values may underestimate deposition of part iculates and overestimate the particulate contribution to visibility. For sources that did no t report PM 2.5 

### emissions in the RFI, KDHE intends to speciate PM 10 

### emissions to PM 2.5 

### and PM course by using the PM 2.5 

### / PM 10 

### ratio reported to or calculated by KDHE for the 2002 emis sions inventory. The KDHE request for information described above did not request that so urces indicate how much of their particulate emissions might be elemental carbon or secondary organic aerosol. The light

extinction coefficient for PM 2.5 

### is 1, for EC is 10, and for SOA is 4. Thus, EC and SOA will have a comparatively higher impact on visiblity. Th e main sources of these particles are fuel combustion. A way to account for this, without incl uding 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 (O 3 

### ) and ammonia (NH 3 

### ) can be input to CALPUFF as hourly or monthly background values. Hou rly 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 a nd 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 NH 3 

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

time these NH 3 

### values are not available in a model ready form.

Receptors: Receptors are locations where model results are calculated an d provided in the CALPUFF output files. Receptor locations were deriv ed 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 i n 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 N PS 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/m 3 

### ). In order to determine visibility impacts, the CA LPUFF outputs must be post-processed.

Detailed information on all CALPUFF setting to be u sed in this screening can be found in Appendix D.



## E. Post-processing (CALPOST) Hourly concentration outputs from CALPUFF are proce ssed through POSTUTIL and CALPOST to determine visibility conditions. Specifi cally, POSTUTIL takes the concentration file output from CALPUFF and recalcul ates the nitric acid and nitrate partition

based on total available sulfate and ammonia. CALPO ST uses the concentration file processed through POSTUTIL, along with relative hum idity data, to perform visibility calculations. For the BART analysis, the only model ing results out of the CALPUFF modeling system of interest are the visibility impa cts. Please see Appendix E and F for detailed settings for POSTUTIL and CALPOST.

Light extinction: Light extinction must be computed in order to calcu late visibility. CALPOST has seven methods for computing light extin ction. This BART screening analysis will use Method 6, which computes extinction from s peciated particulate matter with monthly Class I area-specific relative humidity adj ustment factors, and is implied by the BART guidance. Relative humidity is an important fa ctor in determining light extinction (and therefore visibility) because sulfate and nitr ate aerosols, which absorb moisture from the air, have greater extinction efficiencies with grea ter 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 PM 2.5 

### concentrations are considered part of the dry light extinction equation and do not have a humidity adjustment factor. The light extinc tion equation is the sum of the wet sulfate and nitrate and dry components PM 2.5 

### plus Rayleigh scattering, which is 10 inverse megameters (Mm -1 

### ).

To account for sources modeled with a known PM spec iation profile for EC, SOA, and SO 4 

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

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

Guide.



# VIII. Visibility Impacts

Perceived visibility in deciviews is derived from t he light extinction coefficient. The visibility change related to background is calculat ed using the modeled and established natural visibility conditions. For this BART analys is, daily visibility will be expressed as a change in deciviews compared to natural visibility conditions.

The annual average natural levels of aerosol compon ents at each Class I area are shown in Table 6. Natural conditions by component in this T able 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 ( μ g/m 3 

## )

Class I Area Region SO 4 

### NO 3 

### 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 98 th 

### percentile impact. The CALMET datasets as described in this protocol were processed with t he “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 98 th 

### percentile value, should be used for screening ana lyses using the CENRAPdeveloped CALMET datasets. This approach will be us ed 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 ei ther 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 value s for haze-forming pollutants. The remaining sources must continue with the BART proce ss and perform a BART analysis. This analysis will likely include more refined CALPUFF m odeling, using observations coupled

with the 98 th 

### percent impact, finer grid resolution, puff splitt ing, focused domain, etc.



# IX. Change in Visibility Due to BART Controls

Once facilities perform their BART analysis and BAR T emission limits are established, KDHE will conduct additional CALPUFF modeling in or der to establish visibility improvement at Class I areas with BART applied. The post-control CALPUFF simulation will be compared to the pre-control CALPUFF simulat ion 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 CALPU FF input files used for determining sources subject to BART, which facilities may use w hen 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 availabl e 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 th at some sources will undertake and provide refined modeling that can be used for evaluating vi sibility improvement. These refinements would be utilized in this later modeling.

Sources performing refined modeling will be require d 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 mode ling 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 ana lysis process. This document is available upon request.



# References

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (October 10, 200 5). Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources Subje ct 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 f or Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R98-019.

U.S. EPA (2003, September). Regional Haze: Estimating Natural Visibility Condit ions Under the Regional Haze Rule . EPA-454/B-03-005.

U.S. EPA. (2005, July). Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best A vailable 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 areasPage 22 of 44BART-Eligible Unit DescriptionStack#StackHeightStackDiameterGasExitVelocityGasTemp.GasFlowRateHighest 24 hr ActualEmissions (ton/yr)ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2NOxPM10Aquila - Arthur MullergrenUnit 3 - 1041 MMBtu/hr (stack 1)1146.0 6.5 0.3 3256000.0 19.0 2.6Unit 3 (stack 2)2146.0 6.5 0.3 3502,0750.0 19.0 2.6Totals:0.0 38.0 5.2Aquila - Cimarron RiverUnit 1 - 703 MMBtu/hr1 93.0 8.0 54.5 955 164,502 0.0 28.1 3.8Aquila - Judson LargeUnit 4 - 1536 MMBtu/hr1 149.0 10.7 91.0 302 492,802 0.1 84.7 9.7Basic ChemicalsBoiler 11 34.0 6.0 28.5 280 48,400 0.4 193.7 5.3Boiler 22 34.0 6.0 28.5 280 48,400 0.4 193.7 5.3Boiler 33 18.0 4.0 36.8 270 27,700 0.2 113.1 3.1Chloromethanes (control not B-E)5 59.0 1.7 23.0 95 3,000 0.0 6.4 0.0Totals:1.0 506.9 13.7Frontier 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 9.5Boiler B-107 - 233 MMBtu/hr (part of FCCU)4 98.0 6.9 46.6 399 104,214 2.9 160.6 5.5Plant process heaters7118.0 5.9 21.6 44935,5865.5 360.0 9.5Refinery flare system B-130316300.0 3.0 65.5 1,83228,171485.5 341.6 0.2Elemental sulfur production units18 100.0 3.9 139.1 1,200 101,609 98.6 0.4 0.3Totals:597.6 1,209.4 25.0Kansas City BPU - NearmanUnit 1 - 2433 MMBtu/hr1 400.0 23.3 44.0 305 827,000 12,015.8 5,971.4 79.7



# Appendix B – Kansas BART-Eligible Unit DetailsPage 23 of 44BART-Eligible Unit DescriptionStack#StackHeightStackDiameterGasExitVelocityGasTemp.GasFlowRateHighest 24 hr ActualEmissions (ton/yr)ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2NOxPM10Kansas City BPU - QuindaroUnit 1 - 783 MMBtu/hr1 350.0 12.4 39.0 330 247,100 3,511.3 3,314.2 2.8Unit 2 - 1394 MMBtu/hr2 350.0 13.3 83.0 326 474,500 4,482.2 1,620.6 22.0Totals:7,993.5 4,934.8 24.8KCP&L - La CygneUnit 1 - 8720 MMBtu/hr1 700.0 23.0 92.7 127 2,310,507 20,305.0 44,533.7 171.6Unit 2 - 10,100 MMBtu/hr2 700.0 24.0 100.8 281 2,734,697 28,758.4 13,450.3251.9Totals:49,063.4 57,984.0 423.5Koch NitrogenAmmonia plant - primary reformer1 139.0 11.0 26.3 300 149,962 1.5 693.5 43.8Ammonia plant - other2 83.0 1.3 215.9 140 15,848 0.1 18.6 0.3Nitric acid plant - absorber tail gas3 50.0 2.4 158.0 420 43,506 0.0 65.7 0.0Ammonium nitrate plant - neutralizer5 33.0 1.0 81.0 198 3,818 0.0 0.0 25.8Totals:1.6 777.8 69.9McPherson Municipal Power Plant #2Unit 1 - 325 MMBtu/hr4 82.0 6.4 35.0 900 76,050 0.6 297.5 2.0Monarch CementNo. 4 kiln stack3190.0 7.0 52.8 311122,00021.0 1,346.2 25.3No. 4 kiln clinker cooler440.0 6.0 44.8 17276,0000.0 0.0 2.4No. 5 kiln stack5190.0 7.0 60.2 240139,00021.0 1,346.2 12.6No. 5 kiln clinker cooler640.0 6.0 46.0 24478,0000.0 0.0 11.7Raw material unloading725.0 5.0 30.6 13936,0000.0 0.0 9.3Clinker grinding and cement handling2490.0 1.6 26.9 1753,2500.0 0.0 22.1Stone quarry processingFug. 10.0 13.7 14.2 56 500,000 0.0 0.0 108.1Totals:42.0 2,692.4 191.5Page 24 of 44BART-Eligible Unit DescriptionStack#StackHeightStackDiameterGasExitVelocityGasTemp.GasFlowRateHighest 24 hr ActualEmissions (ton/yr)ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2NOxPM10National Cooperative Refinery Assoc.EU-ALK-3 alky heater HA-00225 65.0 4.6 14.6 700 14,564 5.7 29.7 1.6EU-BH-3 No. 9 boiler SB-00926 51.0 3.9 20.6 510 14,788 4.2 22.1 1.2EU-BH-4 No. 12 boiler SB-01227 89.3 3.9 38.0 500 27,262 7.7 40.0 2.2EU-FPU-11 coker IR Comp. CR-00314 19.0 0.8 41.3 750 1,353 0.5 73.8 0.2EU-PLT-8 plat stab boil htr. HP-00328 70.8 3.3 11.1 600 5,704 1.9 9.8 0.5EU-PLT-9 plat charge htr. HP-00621 77.0 4.3 30.2 520 26,307 15.3 79.8 4.3Totals:35.3 255.2 10.0Owens Corning70 furnace - N exhaust3 67.1 4.0 16.2 130 11,000 0.6 81.5 1.970 furnace - S exhaust4 67.1 4.0 16.2 130 11,000 0.6 81.5 1.970 riser/channel/forehearth27 60.4 16.8 9.3 110 115,000 0.1 5.5 20.470 A forming5 93.4 4.3 26.3 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 22.570 B forming28 100.8 4.6 23.5 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 22.570 C forming6 99.4 4.0 30.8 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 2.970 D forming7 93.4 4.3 26.3 100 22,000 5.6 2.5 2.970 curing oven charge end8 42.3 2.5 26.4 90 7,500 0.9 1.5 2.970 curing oven discharge end29 37.8 2.0 41.3 90 7,500 0.9 1.5 2.9J5 furnace10 101.2 3.0 54.6 450 13,500 0.9 1.2 2.0J5 riser/channel/forehearth11 54.6 30.3 8.7 110 350,000 0.0 6.1 11.7J6 A forming20 74.1 3.0 54.8 100 22,000 2.2 2.1 15.3J6 B forming21 100.8 4.6 23.5 100 22,000 2.2 2.1 3.1J6 C forming22 76.2 3.8 35.1 100 22,000 2.2 2.1 15.3J6 curing oven charge end23 37.8 1.8 49.1 90 7,500 0.6 1.2 1.0J6 curing oven discharge end24 35.6 1.8 49.1 90 7,500 0.6 1.2 1.0J6 smoke stripper30 42.5 1.7 39.5 90 5,000 0.0 0.0 0.1J6 north cooling (A)25 42.3 3.4 37.7 90 20,000 0.0 0.0 1.4J6 south cooling (B)26 39.0 3.4 37.7 90 20,000 0.0 0.0 1.4J6 asphalt coating19 38.0 2.8 17.1 80 6,000 0.0 0.0 0.1Totals:34.2 197.5 133.2Page 25 of 44BART-Eligible Unit DescriptionStack#StackHeightStackDiameterGasExitVelocityGasTemp.GasFlowRateHighest 24 hr ActualEmissions (ton/yr)ft ft ft/sec °F acfm SO2NOxPM10Sunflower Electric - Garden CityUnit S2 - 958 MMBtu/hr2 124.0 10.0 57.0 253 266,338 2.2 1,045.1 31.3Westar Energy - Gordon EvansUnit 2 - 4110 MMBtu/hr (stack 2)2 197.0 13.0 69.0 290 569,415 9,307.5 4,398.3 372.3Unit 2 (stack 3)3 197.0 13.0 69.0 290 569,415 9,307.5 4,398.3 372.3Totals:18,615.0 8,796.6 744.6Westar Energy - HutchinsonUnit 4 - 2165 MMBtu/hr (stack A)4 149.0 8.0 55.7 313 168,000 5,365.5 857.8 167.9Unit 4 (stack B)5 149.0 8.0 55.7 313 168,000 5,365.5 857.8 167.9Totals:10,731.0 1,715.6 335.8Westar Energy - JeffreyUnit 1 - 8110 MMBtu/hr1 600.0 26.0 91.3 300 2,800,000 28,543.0 15,038.0 781.1Unit 2 - 8110 MMBtu/hr2 600.0 26.0 91.3 300 2,800,000 29,747.5 15,074.5 784.8Totals:58,290.5 30,112.5 1,565.9Westar Energy - LawrenceUnit 5 - 4318 MMBtu/hr4 366.0 18.0 36.0 166 583,814 8,358.5 4,818.0 755.6Winfield Mun. Power Plant #2Unit 4 - 333 MMBtu/hr1 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=8760hr s, 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 unforma tted file AVET Averaging time (minutes) 60.0 Y PGTIME Averaging time (minutes) for

PG - σ

y 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 ra tes 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 para meters

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 depositi on 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 o f 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 paramet ers

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 c onc. 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 interfa ce 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 inf ormation

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 mode led 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=876 0 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 mode led 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=8760h rs, 2003=8748hrs only 12 hrs

on 12/31 NREP Process every hour of data? 1 Y Every hour pro cessed ASPEC Species to process VISIB n/a Visibility proce ssing ILAYER Layer/deposition code 1 Y CALPUFF concentrat ions 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. Pr oposed

The regulatory version of CALPUFF is Version: 5.7, Level: 030402. The KDHE is proposing to use Version: 5.753, Level: 051130. Th e regulatory version of CALPOST is CALPOST Version 5.4, Level 030402. The KDHE is pro posing 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 id entical.

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 Clas s 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 C aney Creek in 2003 using both the regulatory and proposed version of CALPUFF and CALP OST.

**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**