### Appendix L.5: 

### International Paper 

# - Vicksburg
Appendix 

### L.5 contents:



### L. 5.1 Appendix summary



### L.5.2 BART information request letter



### L.5.3 BART eligibility letter



### L.5.4 BART exemption model report



### L.5.5 BART exemption letter

### Appendix 

### L.5.1

International Paper 

### - Vicksburg (2780-00015) BART Process Summary

As a kraft pulp mill, International Paper 

### - Vicksburg (IP) meets the initial BART eligibility requirement of source category code. IP 

### - Vicksburg is 328 

### km from Breton National Wildlife Refuge, a Class I area, and has a possible visibility impact. Therefore,

on February 28, 2002, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) sent them a letter requesting information to determine BART eligibility. Based on the information received from IP 

## - Vicksburg, several units were deemed BART eligible because they met the following criteria:
operating or under construction between Aug.7, 1962 to Aug.7, 1977 having potential emissions that exceed the limit of 250 tons per year for SO2, NO,, or PMIO.

The following are the BART-eligible point sources for IP 

## - Vicksburg.

ILime Slaker 

## I I nla 

## I nla 

## I 3 1 IScrubber Totals1 1798 1270 1634 

# I Emission Unit
Lime Kiln Recovery Boiler Bark Boiler Smelt Tank



### As a result, IP 

## - Vicksburg was required to perform CALPUFF modeling on these units. Using the old IMPROVE equation, the modeling analysis demonstrated a 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.32 dv for Breton. The threshold contribution for BART subjectivity is 0.5 dv; therefore, IP 

### - Vicksburg is not BART subject. Heat Duty (M M Btulhr)

990 870 Existing Control Equip. Scrubber nla nla nla Maximum Emission Rates (tons per year) 

### so2

6 1782

10 nla NO, 103 436 73 1 nla PMIO 359 225 742 277w 

### Appendix L.5.2

STATE 

### OF MJSSISSIPPl DAVID RON- MUSQROM, GOVERNOR 

### MISSI~SIPPI DEPARTMENT OF 

### ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WH.CHlSOLMmDlRECrOR



### Mr. F. 

### Biggar International 

### Paper Company 

## P.O. Box 950 Vicksburg, 

### MS 391 8 

### 1 

# COPY

Re: BART lnfonnation 

### Request

Dear 

### Mr. Biggar:



## In July 1999, The 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regional haze 

### regulations to improve visual 

### air 

### quality, or visibility, in specified 

### national parks 

## aad wilderness areas 

### amss the country. 

### These 

### regulations requirt states 

### to 

### establish goals 

### for improving 

### visibility 

### in these axas 

### and to submit state implementation plans (SIPS) that contain 

### dorceable measures and 

### control strategies 

### fir reducing visibility-impaixing pollution.



## One component of these regulations is to reduct missions 

## from artain, existing, large emission units 

### by installing 

### the best 

### available emission controls. This requiranent, known 

### as the Best 

### Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement, 

### applies to Cmission 

### units that:



### were 

### built between 

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

### potential to emit 250 

### tons per year 

### or 

### more of ammonia, 

### nitrogen oxides, particulate 

### matter less that 

### 10 microns 

### (PMlo), 

### sulb dioxide, or volatile organic compounds, 

### either individually or in combination with 

### other such units; and 

### fall into 

## one of 26 listed 

### source categories, including steam 

### electric plan& 

## and industrial boilers, and large industrial plants such 

### as pulp mills, rcfincries, 

### and srneltm. 

## Sa attached list.

The final implementation plm should be 

### submitted to 

## EPA by Dccembcr 31,2008, 

## and must contain, among other things, 

### the mission limits 

### and compliance scheduks for each 

### BART subject 

### source. The 

### iirst step 

### in 

### this process 

### is to identi@ all BARTsubject soufces. 

### Mississippi 

### and other southeastem states and 

### tribes have 

### formed a Regional Planning Organization, known 

### as VISTAS, to work on the regional 

### haze issue and the 

### required

### Appendix L.5.2



### implementation plans. It is our goal to bave all BART subject facilities and the 

## %pidh: emission units 

### at the 

### facilities identified by June 

### 2002.

An initial file review 

### indicates that your facility is potentially subject to the BART requirement 

### because it falls into one of the 26 source categories, was built 

### prior to August 

### 7,1977, and 

### has 

### potential emissions greater than 250 

### tons 

### per 

### year for at least 

### one of 

### tbe vimiility-impairing pollutants. However, the information listad below is 

### needed to 

## make a determinatlon.

The initial startup date 

### fw facility. The initial startup date for individual emission 

## units. The dates of any modification or reconstruction for individual units. Tbe BART 

### source category of the emission 

### units.

A 

### list of emission 

### units obtained 

### fkom our files is enclosed. Please 

### enter the 

### dates of initial start-up 

### and any modification or reconstruction, review 

### and make any wmcfions to 

## the listed source category, and 

### review and make any 

### corrections to the 

### potential emissions. 

## This information is also 

### available in 

### excel spreadsheet format which 

## can be 

### completed 

### and submitted electronically.


### Please respond by April 19,2002. 

## If this information 

### is not 

### received, the facility and 

### all

-- 

### emission units 

### at 

## tbe facility will be 

### considered subject to the 

### BART rqu' nemalts. However, the final determinations will not be 

### made until the 

## SIP development 

### process.


## Thank you for 

### your help with this project. If you have any questions, pkase 

### contact me at (601)961-5176 or Deborah 

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

### If you 

### would like the 

### electronic copy of the emission unit list, please 

### send an amail to 

### deborahrahbolewar~q.state.ms.us and 

### elliott-bick-q.state.ms.us.

Sincerely, 

# ww Elliott Bickerstaff, 

### P.E. Chief; 

### Air 

## Support Branch

### Appendix 

### L.5.3

STATE 

### OF MTSSISSlPPI DAWD RONAID MUSGROVE, GOVERNOR 

### MISSISSIPPI 

### DEPARTMENT OF 

### ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CJWUS H. CHISOU*I, U(eMIM DlRRXOR



### September 9, 2002



## Mr. Frank Ford International Paper 

### Company 

## P.O. Box 

### 950 

### Vicksburg, MS 39181

Re: BART Information 

### Response International Papa 

### Warren County, Mississippi



### Dear Mr. Ford:

This letter 

### is to acknowledge receipt of your March 19,2002 response to our 

### Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) idonnation request. After reviewing 

### the information you submitted, it appears your facility is 

### BART eligiile 

### for the 

### following
reasons:
1. 

### Tbe facility 

### meets the 

### category requirement for 

## kraft pulp mills 

### 2. All 

### units, other 

### than the 

### rental units, 

### began operation dm the 

### August 7, 1962 

### to August 7, 

### 1977 date 

### range. 3. 

### The emissions 

## from these units exceed 

## the 250 

## tons per 

## year limit.

On May 24, 2002, 

### the 

### D.C. circuit court vacated the 

### BART provisions of the 

### Regional 

## Haze Rule 

## (RHR). At issue is the method of determining the cost 

### ad bencfits 

## of installing 

### BART at a particular 

## source. Tbe RHR requh this 

### determination to be 

### made on a group or collective basis; however, it was argued 

### that 

### the Ckan Air Act 

### requires this determination to be 

## made on a source 

### by 

## source basis. 

### In 

## a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel agmA 

### with the 

### petitioners 

### ad vacated the 

### BART provisions, requiring EPA to revise the 

## BART requirements to irrcorporatc a 

### source by 

## mucc approach. EPA 

### has filed 

## a petition 

## seeking rebearing of the 

## case by the 

## full court.

### Appendix L.5.3



### additional controls will be 

### quired for the 

## source. Those determinations will be 

### made
over the 

### next 

## several years dwbg 

### the Regional 

## Haze planning and our State implementation 

### Plan development 

## process.
Attached 

### are 

### the 

## BART requirement text and 

### the applicable definitions from tbe 

### Code 

### of 

### Federal Regulations. 

## If you have 

### questions or comments regarding the 

## BART requirements or 

### this designation, please contact me at 

## (601) 961-5176 

### or 

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

### Sincerely,

### Appendix 

### L.5.4



# BART 

# Exemption Modeling 

# of Sources in Mississippi

January 

### 2007

Prepared For:

VISTAS 526 Forest Parkway, Suite F Forest Park, GA 30297

Submitted By;



### TRC Environmental Corporation Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk Street, Suite 200 Lowell, MA 0 18%

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SOURCE PARAMETERS

3. GEOPHYSICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3.1 Modeling Domain, Terrain, and Class 

### I Areas 3.2 Land Use 3.3 Meteorological Data Base 3.4 Air Quality Monitoring Data



### 4. RESULTS



### 5. REFERENCES



## LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2-la. International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-2

Table 2-1 b. International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill: Particle Speciation 2-2

Table 2-2a. Greenwood Utilities, Henderson: Source Parameters and Emissions 2-3

Table 2-2b. Greenwood Utilities, Henderson: Particle Speciation 2-3

Table 4-1. Summary of Visibility Results for International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill 4-2

Table 4-2. Summary of Visibility Results for Greenwood Utilities, Henderson 4-2

Table 4-3. Monthly f(RH) Values Based on the Centroid of the Area, for Visibility Method 6 Applications

## LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Terrain elevations for the CALMET 

### 12-krn regional domain. CALPUFF computational subdomain, the Class I areas and the locations of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.
Figure 3-2. Terrain elevations for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class 

### I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.
Figure 3-3. Land Use for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.
Figure 3-4. Plot of ozone stations used for the CALPUFF simulations. The Class I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown. Page

3-2

3-3

3-5

3-6

## 1 INTRODUCTION

TRC Environmental Corporation, on behalf of VISTAS has been retained to conduct Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) exemption modeling for a number of facilities in the southeastern United States. This report documents the results of the modeling simulations conducted in accordance with the VISTAS BART Protocol Revision 3.2 dated August 3 

### 1, 2006 (VISTAS, 2006) for emissions from two BART-eligible facilities in Mississippi.

The VISTAS BART protocol is based on the use of the CALMET and CALPUFF models (Scire
et al., 2000a. 2000b). The modeling approach uses 12-km VISTAS regional CALMET meteorological datasets for facilities located more than 50-km from the closest Class I area for screening simulations of predicted impacts. The highest impact during the three year simulation period is compared to a 0.5 deciview threshold. According to the VISTAS protocol, sources with impacts less than this threshold are not subject to BART control.

The modeling uses the VISTAS version of the CALPUFF modeling system (CALMET Version 5.723 and CALPUFF Version 5.754) available from the TRC Atmospheric Studies Group web site (http:ilwww.src.corn).

## 2. SOURCE PARAMETERS

VISTAS BART exemption modeling was performed for two facilities in Mississippi. These

sources are: (I) International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill and (2) Greenwood Utilities, Henderson. These two facilities were modeled using the screening 12-km regional VISTAS CALMET domain with CALPUFF computational subdomain as shown in Figure 3-1. Locations of the Mississippi sources are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3.

Source parameters and emissions rates as provided by the State of Mississippi for two facilities used in the CALPUFF simulations are shown in Tables 2-la through 2-2a. Tables 2-lb through 2-2b show the particle speciation used in the CALPUFF simulations. In the tables, the column heading PMlo includes all PM mass (condensable plus filterable) emitted as particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (pm) in diameter. The emissions labeled as PM2.5 are a subset of the PMlo composed of particles less than 2.5 pm in diameter. All condensable emissions are assumed to be in the PM2 size range. The PMlo and PM2.5 categories include HZSO4 emissions, which in the model are treated as primary sulfate (SO4). The emissions of H2S04 are adjusted by the ratio of molecular weights (96198) to obtain the emissions as SO4 which is entered into the model.

The PMlo size distribution was represented in the modeling as six explicit size ranges. The particle sizes modeled were as 8.0 pm diameter size particles (PM800) reflecting the size bin 6-10 pm, 4.25 pm diameter particles (PM425) for the size bin 2.5-6 pm, 1.875 pm particles (PM 187) for the size bin 1.25-2.5 pm, 1.125 pm particles (PM 1 12) for the size bin 1.00- 1.25 pm, 0.8125 pm particles (PMOS 1) for the size bin 0.625-1 .OO pm, and 0.5625 pm (PM056) for the size range 0.500-0.625 pm. PM056 was also used for all particles less than 0.5 pm diameter. Emissions of particulate matter in the 2.5-10 pm diameter size range define "coarse particulate matter". Fine particles (soil) were defined using the particle size categories of PM187, PM1 12, PM081, and PMOS6 which is particulate matter with a size of 2.5 pm diameters or less. For

sources with no speciation (emissions given as PMlo only) it was conservatively assumed that all the particulate emissions were condensable which have higher extinction efficiency than either soil or coarse particulate matter. Condensable emissions were assumed to be evenly distributed across the smallest two size categories modeled (i.e. 50 percent in PMOS1 and 50 percent in PM056).

Source Parameters 2- 1Table2-la.InternationalPa~erCo..VicksburzMill:SourceParametersand~missions'Table2-lb.InternationalPaperCo.,VicksburgMill: Particlespeciation1StackID#00010002000300040005'Emissionsobtainedthe"BART-IPVicksburg-completedtableformodeling.xlsndocument.ThePMspeciationwasnotprovidedbythe state.AllPM,,,-H~SO.,emissionswereequallydividedbetween the twosize categoriesofOC. Thisisaconservative approach since organic condensableshaveanextinctionefficiencyof4m2ig.HzSO,emissionsareenteredinCALPUFFasSO,i.e.,weightedbyratio of molecular weights(96198).PM,,,emission rate includes filterableandcondensable emissions. The condensable component includesHZS04emissions.MandSD stand for GeometricMassMeanDiameterandGeometric Standard Deviation. Thesearethe parametersusedtocalculatethe(SO,)particle size distributioninCALPUFF.SourceParameters2-2PMZZEn~issionsg/sLambert ConformalCoordinatesNH3Emissionsp/sStackHeightm29.2673.1573.15731516.15LCC Eastkm583.845583.845583.845583.845583.845LCC Northkm-807.938-807.938-807.938-807.938-807.938BaseElevationm40.2340.2340.2340.2340.23Diameterm1.981.884.111.530.69SOZEmissionsgls0. 167651 26940.2936-Gas ExitVelocitym/s6.3728.938.2910.062.16--HzSOJ~missions~g/s--StackGasExitTemp.K343.15411.48334.26344.82339.26-NOxEmissionsg/s2.961012.552121.0294PRI,o~missions~PIS10.31696.470121.35577.96320.8933Table2-2a.Greenwood Utilities, Henderson:SourceParameters and~missions'IILambertConformalIIIIIStackIIIIIIITable2-2b.Greenwood Utilities, Henderson: Particle~~eciation'StackID#002IStackIParticle speciation11CondensableFilterable1IEmissions obtainedthe"BART-template-GreenwoodUtilities-1-1enderson.xls"document.ThePMspeciation partially provided-only condensables were speciated. RemainingPMlOwassubsequently speciated into filterables forthemodeling purposes.'H~SOJemissionsareenteredinCALPUFFasSO4i.e.,weightedbyratioofmolecular weights(96198).PM,,,emission rate includes filterableandcondensable emissions.Thecondensable component includesH2S04emissions.'MandSDstand for Geometric Mass Mean Diameter and Geometric Standard Deviation. These aretheparametersused tocalculatethe(SO4)particle size distributioninCALPUFF.CoordinatesID#002SourceParameters2-3StackHeightm53.04LCCEastkm628.382LCCNorthkrn-694.365condensablePMIoYo55.5BaseElevationm51.51Diameterm2.74filterablePMlOCOARSEYo44.5GasExitVelocitym/s4.57SoilElementalCarbon(EC)0.625-1.0pmg/s1.0485GasExitTemp.K424.821.25-2.5pmgls0.02871.25-2.5pmg/s0.74680.625-1.0pmg/s0.37500.5-0.625pmds1.04851.0-1.25pmg/s0.2031sozEmissionsgls58.38971.0-1.25pmg/s0.0078---0.5-0.625pmgls0.47500.625-1.0pmg/s0.2621HISO,~missions~gls1.43070.625-1.0pmg/s0.01440.5-0.625pmg/s0.01820.5-0.625pmg/s0.2621NO,Emissionsg/s7.4831~~4.48SD'=~.Opmg/s1.4307PMloEmissions3g/s7.29676-10pmds0.5289pN5Emissionsgls5.92092.5-6i'mgls0.8469NH3Emissionsgls

### 3. 

## GEOPHYSICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA

3.1 Modeling Domain, Terrain, and Class 

### I Areas

Gridded terrain elevations for the 12-km regional VISTAS modeling domain are derived from GTOP030, a global digital elevation model (DEM) with a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 

### 1 kilometer). GTOP030 is a global data set covering the full extent of latitude from 90 degrees south to 90 degrees north, and the full extent of longitude from 180 degrees west to 180 degrees east, developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The horizontal grid spacing is 30-arc seconds, resulting in a DEM having dimensions of 2 1,600 rows and 43,200 columns. The horizontal coordinate system is decimal degrees of latitude and longitude referenced to WGS84. The vertical units represent elevation in meters above mean sea level. GTOP030 has been divided into 33 smaller pieces, or tiles. Two of these tiles cover regional VISTAS domain: 

### W 100N40 and 

### W 100N90.

The VISTAS CALMET 12-km regional domain was used in CALPUFF modeling and BART visibility analysis for two facilities in Mississippi. The CALPUFF computational subdomain was chosen to cover all Class I areas that are within 300 km from the 

### MS sources, as well as a 50 km buffer zone from these Class I areas and the Mississippi facilities. The subdomain extends at least 50 km from the Class I areas and all of the facilities in order to provide an adequate buffer zone at the boundaries, and to allow the effects of flow curvature and possible small-scale recirculation to be evaluated.
Figure 3- 1 shows contours of the terrain averaged to 12 km grid cells on the VISTAS 12-km regional domain. Blue rectangle depicts the area of the CALPUFF computational subdomain covering 468 km by 732 km or 39x61 grid cells. A Lambert Conformal Projection is used with an origin of 40.0N, 97.0W and standard parallels at 33N and 45N. The datum used is NWS-84. The Class I areas covered by the computational subdomain and that were included in the BART visibility analysis are Sipsey and Breton Island (Figure 3-2).



### 3.2 

### Land Use

The USGS Land Use data within the CALMET regional and subregional domains have been used
to produce a gridded field of dominant land use categories. The land use data were obtained in Composite Theme Grid format (CTG) from the USGS, with a resolution of 200 m. For the portions of the domains where CTG data were missing, North America USGS land uselland cover data have been used. The North America land cover data base is one portion of a global land

cover characteristics data base that was developed on a continent-by-continent basis with I-km nominal spatial resolution.

Land use data were processed to produce a 12 km resolution gridded field of fractional land use categories for the regional domain. The 37 USGS land use categories were then mapped into 14 CALMET land use categories. Surface properties such as albedo, Bowen ratio, roughness

Groplysrcal and Ilfeteorolog~cal Data 3- 1Elevat~on (meters) 

# 7 ;;;:



# 3;

-1 800 1 

## -1 700 600



### - l500 400 7 300 4

200

-7 150 

# - 100

1 CALPUFF 1 

### / computattonal domam

LCC Ongm 40 0 N. 97 0 W Standard Parallels 33 0 N 45 0 N Dam NWS-84

Figure 3-1. Terrain elevations for the CALMET 

### 12-km regional domain. CALPUFF computational subdomain, the Class I areas and the locations of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.

Groplg~s~cal and hkteorologrcal Data 3-2

# 'i; I Elevation (meters)

1300 1200

900 800



# -

I '500

I -4 400 i .-A 300 

# - 200 

# - 150 

# - I 100

-25

LCC Or~gtn. 40 0 N, 97 0 W Standard Parallels 33.0 N, 45 0 N Datum NWS-84

LCC East (km)

Figure 3-2. Terrain elevations for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.

C;eophv.srcal and h~eteorological Data 3-3length, and leaf area index were computed proportionally to the fractional land use. The USGS land use categories and their associated geophysical parameters are described in Scire et al. (2000a). Figure 3-3 shows the dominant land use categories for each CALMET grid cell in the modeling subdomain.



### 3.3 Meteorological Data Base

The meteorological data used include the three dimensional gridded model output from the Fifth Generation Penn State/NCAR MM5 (Grell 1995) provided by VISTAS. VISTAS has assembled three years of MM5 meteorological data for the regional CALPUFF modeling. These MM5 datasets have been developed by EPA for 2001, VISTAS for 2002 and Midwest Regional Planning Organization (RPO) for 2003. The MM5 gridded data set consists of hourly values of wind speed, wind direction, temperature and pressure on a grid covering the VISTAS regional 12-km CALMET domain. The MM5 data was run at a horizontal spatial resolution of 12-km for years 2001 and 2002 and 36-km for year 2003. For the VISTAS regional 12-km domain, CALMET runs have been made in the no-observational mode.



### 3.4 Air Quality Monitoring Data

CALPUFF uses hourly ozone concentration measurements in the chemical transformation rates (SO2 to SO4, NO, to HN03/N03). The ambient ozone measurements are used in determining SO2 loss rates due to chemical transformation to sulfate and in determining NO, loss rates to nitrate. Ambient ozone monitoring data from the U.S. EPA AIRS and CASTNET networks were used to develop the hourly ozone monitoring data file (0ZONE.DAT). Figure 3-4 provides a plot of available ozone monitoring stations that were used for the CALPUFF modeling.

For the base case simulations, a constant ammonia concentration of 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) was assumed as recommended by the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM, 1998) for forested Class I areas. In this application of the model, the Ammonia Limiting Method (ALM) was not used.

Grop@srcal and ~lfeteorologrcal Data 34Snow / Ice 

# !r

Tundra
t

Barren land 

# t 75

Wetland



# 1 i50

Forest land 

### 45

Rangeland 

# 1 135

'20 Urban/ 

# I

bulk-up land 

### 7 

### 15 

# i-- 10

LCC Origin: 40 0 N. 97 0 W Standard Parallels. 33.0 N, 45.0 N Datum. NWS-84
500 600 700 800 900 1-CC East (km)

Figure 3-3. Land Use for the CALPUFF computational subdomain. The Class I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.



## .

Grophwrcal and hfeteorologrcal Data 3-5Elevation (meters)

-1 CALPUFF



### i computat~onaf domam

t MS facility

* Ozone data

LCC Ongm: 40 0 N, 97 0 W Standard Parallels: 33 0 N, 35 0 N Datum. NWS-84

LCC East (km)

Figure 

### 3-4. Plot of ozone stations used for the CALPUFF simulations. The Class I areas and the sites of the Mississippi facilities are also shown.

Gropbsrcal and ,Lfeteoro/ogrcal Duta 3-6

### 4. 

## RESULTS

The results of the CALMET and CALPUFF modeling for two BART-eligible facilities in Mississippi are presented in this section. The simulations were conducted over the three year period of 2001-2003. Modeling was conducted using the VISTAS 12-km gridded CALMET meteorological data files. The POSTUTIL program was used to scale and sum the various CALPUFF concentration files to obtain total concentrations. Emission rates of SOz, SO4, and NO, were input directly to the CALPUFF model while the six particulate species defining specific size categories were modeled as a unit emission rate (1 gls) and then scaled source by

source using the POSTUTIL program. CALPOST Method 6 was used to compute the extinction change in deciviews (dv) consistent with the procedures outlined in the VlSTAS modeling protocol using the IMPROVE method (CSU, 1996) as recommended by FLAG (2000).

Table 4-3 provides the monthly f(RH) values based on the centroid of the Class I area 

### as required for the application of Method 6. The last column in Tables 4-1 through 4-2 provides the annual average background be,, values for each Class I area included in the analysis. For each Class I
area, the Rayleigh scattering coefficient of 10 ~m-' was subtracted from the annual average background be,, and resulting values were entered in CALPOST as BKSOIL.

Tables 4-1 through 4-2 summarize the maximum predicted extinction changes for 2001, 2002, and 2003 for the Class I Areas situated within a 300 km radius of the two modeled sources. The highest values of the extinction change along with number of exceedances of the 0.5 dv threshold value are presented in these tables. For screening simulations using the 12-km CALMET meteorological grid, the highest predicted change in extinction is compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. According to the VISTAS protocol, screening simulation results below 0.5 dv for all three years indicates that facility is not subject to BART controls. For facilities failing the screen,

or those located relatively close to one or more Class I areas (usually within 50 km) the state has recommended immediately using the more refined 4-km CALMET meteorological grid. In the refined simulations, the 98th percentile value of prediction change in extinction (i.e., the 8th highest day) is compared to the 0.5 dv threshold. If the highest 98th percentile value during the three year simulation period is below the 0.5 dv threshold, the source is considered not subject to BART controls.
Visibility results in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show that the maximum predicted extinction change for each of the Class I areas are all below the 0.5 dv threshold value for both modeled facilities. Breton Island is within 300 km from the International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill. Maximum predicted extinction change due to the BART emissions from this facility is 0.3 15 dv in 2001. The Class I area that is less than 300 km away from the Greenwood Utilities, Henderson is Sipsey. Maximum predicted extinction change due to the BART emissions from this facility is 0.2 16 dv, also in 200 1.Table 

### 4-1. Summary of Visibility Results for International Paper Co., Vicksburg Mill 

# I I I I Annual Class I Area

Table 

### 4-2. Summaw of Visibilitv Results for Greenwood Utilities. Henderson Breton

Annual
Class 1 Area 

# 1

2001 

# 1

2002 

# 1

'Oo3 

# 1

brG;End 2001

0.315 (0, 0) 

## 1 0.205 (0,O) 

## 1 0.222 (0,O) 

## I 21.57

Table 4-3. Monthly f(RH) Values Based on the Centroid of the Area, for Visibility Method 6 Asalications 2002

Sipsey

Class 1 area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Maximum delta-deciview, (# daye0.5 dv. # days >I dv)

Breton 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 Sipsey 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.4 (~m-') 2003

Maximum delta-deciview, (# daye0.5 dv, # days >I dv)

0.216(00) 

## 1 0.198(00) 

## 1 0.122(00)

Source: Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (2003), Appendix A, Table A-3 average background be,,

be, (~m-') 21.28

Results -1-2

### 5. 

## REFERENCES

CSU, 1996: IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments). Spatial and Seasonal patterns and Long Term Variability of the Composition of the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network. ISSN: 0737-5352-32.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998: Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM), Phase 2 Report: Summary Report and Recommendation for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility. US. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454lR-98-019.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003: Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Program. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-03-005.

FLAG, 2000: Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). Phase I report.
Grell, G.A., J.Dudhia, and D.R. Stauffer, 1995: "A Description of the Fifth Generation Penn StateNCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5)", NCAR TN-398-STR, NCAR Technical Note.

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 2000a: A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 

### 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA. Available from 1ittp:i~w~~w.src.com.

Scire, J.S., F.R. Robe, M.E. Fernau, and R.J. Yamartino, 2000b: A User's Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA. Available from http:il'www.src.co~n.

VISTAS, 2006: Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Revision 3.2, August 2006. Available from http:ilwwtv.vistas-sesar111.org.

References 5- 1

### Appendix 

### L.5.5



### STATE OF MISSISSIPPI HAurkmmun

Govsmor 

### MISSISSIPPI 

### DEPARTMENT 

### OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TmJarD.Pl~~l~ExlamnDmcma



### October 2,2007

John Adams International Paper Company 3737 Highway 3 North Redwood, 

### MS 39 156
Subject: Exemption fkom Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determination 

### Requirements Vicksburg, (2780)149-00015 Warren County, Mississippi


### Dear Mr. Adams:

Due to the International Paper 

# - Vicksburg facility being BART eligible, you were required to perform and submit exemption modeling analysis for your eligible units. We have received the exemption modeling performed by TRC Environmental Corporation. The modeling finds a visibility impact of 0.32 deciviews (dv) 

### which is below the 0.5 dv subjectivity threshold. Based
on these results, we are proposing that the 

### BART eligible units 

### be exempt from further determination requirements. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

### (MDEQ) will include documentation of the proposed exemptions in our Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal. The SIP is reviewed and commented on by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other parties with International Paper 

## - Vicksburg's exemption contingent on EPA's approval.



### If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Elliott Bickerstaff (60 1-96 1 -5 1 76) or Deborah Boleware (60 

### 1-96 1-5768) of my staff.
Sincerely, A



### Maya 

# &, P.E., BCEE Chief, Air Division

OFFICE OF POUUTION CONTROL Posr OPYKm Box 10385 JACKSON, Mm 39289-0385 -TEL (601) %I4171 Fa (601) 3546612 -.dap-mrw